Anarchy in the Pure Land: Reinventing the Cult of Maitreya in Modern Chinese Buddhism 978-0190491161, 0190491167

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Anarchy in
the Pure Land......Page 4
Copyright......Page 5
Dedication......Page 6
Contents......Page 8
Acknowledgments......Page 10
Abbreviations and Conventions......Page 12
Contrasting Impressions......Page 14
The Push to Modernization: A Historiographic Survey......Page 15
Taixu and the Reform Movement in Republican China......Page 17
The Pull of Modernity: An Alternative Approach......Page 20
Buddhism, Radicalism, and the Framework of Revolutionary Utopianism......Page 24
The Many Faces of Maitreya......Page 25
Sources, Structure, and Significance......Page 28
Part I: Taixu’s Buddhist Radicalism......Page 38
Introduction......Page 40
A World Breaking Open......Page 42
Taixu’s Years of Living Dangerously......Page 52
Conclusion......Page 74
Introduction......Page 85
Anarcho-​socialist and Buddhist Values in Taixu’s Radical Thought......Page 87
Conclusion......Page 108
Part II: The Cult of Maitreya......Page 116
Introduction......Page 118
Maitreya’s (Ivory) Tower: Laying the Foundation in the May
4th Era......Page 120
Budai in the Marketplace: Expansion and Articulation in
the Nanjing Decade......Page 131
Conclusion......Page 158
Introduction......Page 184
The Three Essentials......Page 186
Conclusion......Page 212
Part III: Worlds Closing and Opening......Page 224
Introduction......Page 226
War and Its Aftermath......Page 227
Maitreya in Exile......Page 232
Conclusion......Page 247
Introduction......Page 257
Openings: The Cult of Maitreya in the PRC......Page 259
Openness: The Cult of Maitreya in Taiwan......Page 265
Heterodox Legacies: Yiguan Dao and Maitreya Great Way......Page 273
Conclusion......Page 282
Conclusion: Remembrances of Futures Past......Page 295
Appendix A. Taixu’s Lectures on Maitreyan Texts and Topics to 1937......Page 302
Appendix B. Articles on the Maitreya School, 1922–​1937......Page 304
Appendix C. Timeline of the Maitreya School and Related Events......Page 308
Bibliography......Page 312
Index......Page 336

Citation preview

i

Anarchy in the Pure Land

ii

iii

Anarchy in the Pure Land Reinventing the Cult of Maitreya in Modern Chinese Buddhism JUSTIN R. RITZINGER

1

iv

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–​0–​19–​049116–​1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

v

For my daughters, Anne 林慈安 and Maggie 林慈恩, who bookended this project.

vi

vi

Contents

Acknowledgments 

ix

Abbreviations and Conventions 

xi

Introduction: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maitreya? 

1

Contrasting Impressions  1 The Push to Modernization: A Historiographic Survey  2 Taixu and the Reform Movement in Republican China  4 The Pull of Modernity: An Alternative Approach  7 Buddhism, Radicalism, and the Framework of Revolutionary Utopianism  11 The Many Faces of Maitreya  12 Sources, Structure, and Significance  15

PART I:   Taixu’s Buddhist Radicalism 1. Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist 

27

Introduction  27 A World Breaking Open  29 Taixu’s Years of Living Dangerously  39 Conclusion  61 2. Disorienting Frameworks 

72

Introduction  72 Anarcho-​socialist and Buddhist Values in Taixu’s Radical Thought  74 Conclusion  95

vi

Contents

viii

PART II:   The Cult of Maitreya 3. A New Cult for New Buddhists 

105

Introduction  105 Maitreya’s (Ivory) Tower: Laying the Foundation in the May 4th Era  107 Budai in the Marketplace: Expansion and Articulation in the Nanjing Decade  118 Conclusion  145 4. Bodhisattva of Progress 

171

Introduction  171 The Three Essentials  173 Conclusion  199

PART III:   Worlds Closing and Opening 5. Future Interrupted 

213

Introduction  213 War and Its Aftermath  214 Maitreya in Exile  219 Conclusion  234 6. Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox 

244

Introduction  244 Openings: The Cult of Maitreya in the PRC  246 Openness: The Cult of Maitreya in Taiwan  252 Heterodox Legacies: Yiguan Dao and Maitreya Great Way  260 Conclusion  269 Conclusion: Remembrances of Futures Past 

282

Appendix A.  Taixu’s Lectures on Maitreyan Texts and Topics to 1937 

289

Appendix B.  Articles on the Maitreya School, 1922–​1937 

291

Appendix C.  Timeline of the Maitreya School and Related Events 

295

Bibliography 

299

Index 

323

ix

Acknowledgments

due to causes and condition, including books. This is especially true for one such as this that has been long in development. I owe a great debt to my teachers: Robert Gimello, Michael Puett, Michael Szonyi, and especially Anne Monius. I would not be the scholar I am without them. I am grateful to all of the colleagues who have offered feedback, inspiration, and support at various stages of the process: Jason Clower, Eyal, Aviv, Brooks Jessup, Erik Hammerstrom, Rongdao Lai, and Gregory Adam Scott, who have made the study of modern Chinese Buddhism such an exciting field and taught me so many things; Zhiru Ng, Raoul Birnbaum, Pierce Salgeuro, Jonathan Pettit, Ryan Adams, and the anonymous reviewers from Oxford University Press, who offered feedback at various points along the way; Paul Katz, Gong Jun 龔隽, Jiang Canteng 江燦藤, Chao Tung-​ming 趙東明, and especially Xuan Fang 宣方 for their assistance pursuing research in Taiwan and China; Philip Clart and Wang Jianchuan 王見川, who helped me to navigate the largely uncharted waters of Yiguan dao; my colleagues at the University of Miami, particularly David Kling, Dexter Callender, and Robyn Walsh for their support and encouragement; and Bev McGuire for support, encouragement, and counsel in all matters great and small. A number of institutions have also contributed invaluable aid as I  pursued my research and writing. I received crucial early financial support from a Fulbright-​Hayes, Academia Sinica, and the Whiting Foundation. I  also enjoyed the hospitality and resources of Dharma Drum Buddhist College, Academia Sinica, and National Cheng-​Chih University as a visiting scholar. Additional research was made possible by a Provost’s Research Award from the University of Miami and writing time secured by fellowships from the UM Center for the Humanities and the Sheng Yen Education Foundation. Many of the materials relied upon were secured only through the assistance of dedicated librarians and archivists. I am grateful to the staff of the Harvard Yenching Library, the University of Miami Library, the Beijing Library, the Shanghai Library, and the Shanghai Municipal Archives. Finally, I  deeply ALL THINGS ARISE

x

x

Acknowledgments

appreciate all of the monastics and laity who shared with me their practice of and devotion to the cult of Maitreya: the monks of Xuedou shan 雪竇山, especially Yizang 怡藏 and Jiuyuan 究源; Rukun 如崑 of Daci shan 大慈山; Zhong Mengzheng 鐘孟正 and the members of the Bade Maitreya Lodge 八德慈氏居士林; and especially Lin Yide 林義德 and Chanjing 禪敬 of the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association (Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會) and Faming Monastery 法明寺. Last, I would like to thank my family: my parents, Mark and Jean; my sister, Bridget; my wife, Amei; and my daughters, Anne and Maggie.

xi

Abbreviations and Conventions

Abbreviations MFQ Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng 民國佛教期刊文獻集成 MFQB Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng bubian 民國佛教期刊文獻集成 補編 MFQ3 Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng sanbian 民國佛教期刊文獻集成 三編 T Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經 TDN Taixu dashi nianpu 太虛大師年譜 (Y 13) TDQ Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書 TZZ Taixu zizhuan 太虛自傳 (TDQ 19, 29: 163-​311) X Xuzangjing 續藏經 XFRC Xiandai fojiao renwu cidian 現代佛教人辭典 Y Yinshun fashi foxue zhuzuo ji 印順法師佛學著作集

Bibliographic Conventions MFQ, MFQB, and MFQ3: Citations from periodicals contained in these two collections provide the original bibliographic information in Chicago format up to the date. Thereafter the abbreviation MFQ, MFQB, or MFQ3 is appended followed by volume and page number, separated by a colon. T and X:  Citations from both the Taishō and Xuzangjing refer to the CBETA edition of the canon. TDQ: In order to avoid redundancy, no author is cited except in instances where works by individuals other than Taixu have been included in the collection. Titles are included, followed by bian 編, volume, and page number, separated by commas and colons, respectively. All citations refer to the electronic edition published by the Yinshun Cultural and Educational Foundation (Yinshun wenjiao jijinhui 印順文教基金會), which is based on the 1998 print edition.

xi

xii

Abbreviations and Conventions

Y: References to Yinshun’s works likewise refer to the Foundation’s electronic edition. Because these works were originally published separately and are still in print and widely available, full bibliographic information is provided in Chicago format, followed by the abbreviation Y and the “volume number” of the electronic edition, before the page numbers, offset by a colon.

Capitalization In cases where a broad intellectual or religious current and a specific movement are commonly known by the same term, the latter will be capitalized. Thus Amitābha Pure Land will be referred to as “Pure Land,” while the broader field of Buddhist thought and practice oriented toward ideal realms will be referred to as “pure land.” Likewise, Marxist forms of communism are referred to as “Communism,” while the larger trend of thought about a world without property or class is termed “communism.”

Romanization In dealing with Chinese terms and proper names, I have tried to err on the side of accessibility. Thus I have in most cases opted for English translations, except in cases where the Romanized Chinese is most commonly used in scholarship. Thus, for example, I render the name of Taixu’s first lay association as the Awakening Society (jue she 覺社), but his journal as Haichaoyin 海 潮音 (Sound of the Tide). When Romanizing names, I employ the hanyu pinyin system, except where individuals, organizations, or localities have established their own spellings (e.g., Master Sheng Yen, Tzu Chi, or Taipei) or long-​standing convention dictates another system (e.g., Chiang Kai-​shek or “KMT”).

1

Introduction How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maitreya?

Contrasting Impressions In the summer of 1936, a Taiwanese monk named Binzong 斌宗 visiting China decided to make a trip to Xuedou shan 雪竇山 in the hopes of meeting its abbot, the great Master Taixu 太虛 (1890–​1947). His hopes were disappointed—​the Master was away—​but he was nonetheless much impressed by what he found. He learned that Xuedou was “a sanctuary devoted to Maitreya (Cishi daochang 慈氏道場) and [that] Taixu propagated the Maitreya School (Cizong 慈宗).”1 He found that monks there used a revised liturgy that focused heavily on Maitreya in the evening service. They chanted verses of praise for the bodhisattva and recited his name rather than that of Amitābha Buddha, vowing that they should be reborn in his heavenly palace and one day return with him to this world.2 He may also have learned of a regular lecture series being held at Xuedou on Maitreyan texts and that Taixu had given public talks on Maitreyan texts and themes eight times in the last year all over the country.3 To Binzong, such things were evidence of “the purity of the great Master’s devotion” (dashi chongbai zhi chuncui 大師崇拜之純粹). Binzong left the monastery with three impressions (ganxiang 感想): (1) Taixu is a leader of Buddhism, a modern eminent monk who teaches and spreads the Maitreya School residing on this famous mountain. [(2)] Xuedou is a famous site of eastern Zhejiang . . . which received the manifestation of Maitreya . . . [(3)] Maitreya is [the Buddha] to come, the bodhisattva-​in-​waiting.4 To say that these are not the impressions of Taixu and his movement that one would receive by reading the scholarly literature on the topic is an

2

2

I ntr o d ucti o n

understatement. Since Holmes Welch’s groundbreaking monograph, The Buddhist Revival in China, the prevailing view of Taixu has been that he was a radical activist committed to a vision of Buddhism that was demythologized if not outright secularized. According to this reading, he had “little use for the ways of faith and worship.”5 Instead he sought to deemphasize “dependence on celestial Buddhas and bodhisattvas”6 or even “to get rid of [them]” altogether. Devotion to such figures and the desire to be reborn in their pure lands after death were superstitions and impediments to social improvement in the here and now.7 While Chinese-​language scholarship is rather less unequivocal on the issue of Taixu’s rejection of devotion, it too focuses almost entirely on his emphasis on this-​worldly engagement.8 How does the monk Binzong described as a “great Master of pure devotion” come to be seen in contemporary scholarship as one who would get rid of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas?

The Push to Modernization: A Historiographic Survey There is, of course, more than one answer to this question. Postwar developments in Chinese Buddhism, which we take up in c­ hapter 5, are a factor, as is the tremendous size of Taixu’s collected works, which take up thirty-​two thick volumes and are organized in a manner that disperses his Maitreyan writings.9 The crux of the problem, however, is neither historical nor bibliographic but methodological. While the Maitreya School faded in the second half of the twentieth century and is not terribly well understood in the Sinophone world today, Taixu’s devotion to Maitreya is common knowledge. How, then, have Western scholars not only missed the devotional life of Taixu and his associates but asserted an antipathy to such religiosity? The answer, I believe, lies in theoretical approaches to the study of modern Buddhism and Chinese religion that have led to a misrecognition of Taixu and his movement. Here I briefly sketch out these approaches with a few prominent examples from the study of modern Buddhism and Chinese religions before turning to their construal of the case at hand and finally offering an alternative approach. Much important scholarship in this area has employed theories based on what I  term “push” models of modernity. These models foreground the problematic status of religion in modernity. Earlier studies often presumed some soft version of classical secularization theory, in which modernity by its nature condemns religion to a shrinking sphere of social and cultural life. More recent work has tended to see secularism as an ideological project rather than a law of social development. Either way, the advent of modernity is a

3

Introduction

3

“challenge” to which religion must “respond.” Its force compels modernization of some form as the price of survival in the new age. Not infrequently this is presented in terms of an implicit, and occasionally explicit, biological metaphor in which Buddhism assumes the role of a species thrust into a foreign environment to which it must swiftly “adapt” or presumably face extinction. Although scholars may stress that this is “creative adaption,” religion is nonetheless portrayed as fundamentally reactive and defensive in modernity. Two types of push model dominate in the study of modern Buddhism. The first type is rooted in Weberian theories of modernity. According to Weber, modernity is most fundamentally the triumph of rationality over tradition.10 Tradition for Weber is the repetition of past actions and ideas based on the authority of the past and reinforced by magic. Rationalization breaks up this inertia through the systematic reorganization of intellectual and social practice, ultimately yielding modern capitalism, science, and bureaucratic government. Protestantism plays a key role in the emergence of modernity by definitively rejecting magic in favor of an inner-​worldly asceticism, leading both to a systematic rationalization of lifeways, especially in the economic sphere, and to disenchantment. Modernity, however, is ultimately a patricidal child. Once established, the forces of the modern world no longer require religious validation and corrode worldviews that posit a transcendent source of meaning, leaving few if any possibilities for religion.11 As such, Weberian frameworks lend themselves to strong, and now rather discredited, versions of secularization theory.12 Despite this, scholars have often taken Weber’s Protestantism as the archetype of the “modern religion” and attempted to understand modern forms of Buddhism’s “accommodation” to modernity in terms of a “Protestantization.” This is most explicit in Obeyesekere’s formulation of “Protestant Buddhism,”13 until recently the most influential concept in the field. He uses the term to describe the modernist movement championed by Anagarika Dharmapala and his spiritual descendants in nineteenth-​and twentieth-​century Sinhalese Buddhism. Taking missionary Protestantism as both competitor and model, this new form of Buddhism was characterized by rationality, inner-​worldly asceticism, spiritual egalitarianism, and scripturalism. Although colonial contact plays an important historical role here for Obeyesekere,14 we shall see presently that studies of Chinese Buddhism have also attempted to read developments in uncolonized China through a Protestant lens. More recent studies have adopted a different framework, which is rooted in postmodernism and postcolonialism rather than Weber’s theories but whose core narrative—​Buddhism adapts to meet the challenge of the

4

4

I ntr o d ucti o n

modern era—​and conclusion—​demythologization, rationalization, and social engagement—​remain the same. Such works have tended to see the formulation of a modern Buddhism in terms of tactics employed to define a place for religion in the discursive space dominated by the modernizing nation-​state. In such readings, Buddhism is spurred by pressure from the secularized state to reconstitute itself as asset to the project of modernization. Important studies of Japanese Buddhism in the wake of the Meiji persecution have taken this approach.15 Perhaps the most influential recent attempt to understand modern Buddhism through a discursive lens has been David McMahan’s The Making of Buddhist Modernism. In this work, he attempts to rein in the potential nebulousness of the category of modernity by drawing on Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self in order to identify three key discourses of Western modernity: Protestantism, scientific rationalism, and Romantic expressivism. His argument, in brief, is that the formulation of international (Anglophone) Buddhist modernism has involved reinterpreting Buddhism to address these discourses and position it in the tensions between them. This too can be classed as a species of a push model insofar as he maintains that this positioning is essential for Buddhism to “find a home” in “Western nations or nations Western modernity has transformed.” Again, demythologization and Protestantism are central to this account. While this approach allows us to discuss Buddhist modernism in new ways, it does rather less to challenge our view of what this category contains.16 Push models have been deployed with much success and often with great sophistication. Yet the very success with which these approaches have been pursued can create its own problems insofar as it leads us to focus on only those aspects of modern Buddhist movements these frameworks predispose us to see, which is actually quite similar: The broad consensus is that Buddhism is compelled to reformulate itself as rational, socially beneficial, demythologized, and deritualized. This can lead us to neglect both the premodern roots of apparently modern phenomena, such as scripturalism,17 and areas of Buddhist thought and practice that appear nonmodern, such as devotionalism.

Taixu and the Reform Movement in Republican China Unsurprisingly, previous accounts of Taixu and the reform movement he led have stressed those aspects that appear to conform to this consensus. Indeed, at first glance, there is much to recommend such an approach. Taixu and

5

Introduction

5

the so-​called reform faction18 advocated an early form of socially engaged Buddhism, termed “Human Life Buddhism” (rensheng fojiao 人生佛教) or “Human Realm Buddhism” (renjian fojiao 人間佛教),19 which stressed ethical action as the basis of Buddhist practice. This was implemented through many charitable activities, including establishing hospitals, orphanages, and prison ministries. They proclaimed their rejection of idolatry and superstition and their embrace of science. Taixu drafted ambitious plans for the reform of the sangha that involved a high degree of rationalization and specialization and envisioned an international Buddhist movement that would unite Asia and spread the Dharma to the West. To advance this agenda he, and later his students, founded a series of seminaries that used modern educational techniques to train monks in secular disciplines and foreign languages as well as in technical Buddhist philosophy. It is hardly surprising, then, that these aspects of the movement have attracted scholarly attention and been placed at the center of analyses that drew from push models of modernity. Thus the only English-​ language monograph on Taixu, Donald Pittman’s Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu’s Reforms, focuses on the general features of Taixu’s movement discussed previously and concludes that it shares with other forms of modern Buddhism inner-​ worldly asceticism and rationalism as well as a restorationist self-​presentation and a global mission reminiscent of Protestantism, seeing it as an Asian analogue to the Social Gospel.20 Eric Goodell’s recent dissertation offers a more thorough and detailed account of Taixu’s reformist thought but likewise sees it primarily in terms of an adaptation to new social and cultural developments.21 The work of Holmes Welch also assumes a push model of modernity. However, writing during the Cultural Revolution, Welch saw modernity in China less as pushing Buddhism to adapt than as pushing it off a cliff. The forces of modernity in China were, in Welch’s reading, fundamentally threatening to Buddhism. Insofar as reformers accommodated these forces, they were complicit in Buddhism’s destruction. In Welch’s almost unrelentingly negative portrayal of Taixu, therefore, the reformer comes across as a deeply misguided monk bent on riding the trends of the day and so infatuated with innovation for its own sake that, had he been able to carry out his reforms, Buddhism “would no longer have been Buddhism.”22 Rather than a reformer engaging science, society, and politics, Welch would appear to have preferred a Buddhist Buckley to “stand astride history and yell ‘stop!’ ” A more nuanced view is adopted by Vincent Goossaert and David Palmer in The Religious Question in Modern China. Although they devote only a little space to Taixu and his movement, they are noteworthy for the sophistication

6

6

I ntr o d ucti o n

with which they develop the themes we have been tracing here. Goossaert and Palmer make the ecological metaphor explicit, casting modernity as a set of interrelated developments that disrupted the dynamic equilibrium that had characterized late imperial China. Central to their account are the secularizing projects pursued by the state and certain elites that attempted to “define an autonomous field of religion, in order to precisely delimit its boundaries and restrict its influence within clearly defined areas of social activity.” Because the model of secularism being pursued had its origins in the West, the model of religion it entailed was based on Christianity. As they describe it, this “attack . . . triggered three types of responses” among Chinese religious traditions: emulation of what they term the “Christian normative model;” incorporation within secular fields, such as medicine; or attempts to claim “positions in several [fields] at once.”23 According to Goossaert and Palmer’s account, Buddhists opted for the first response. Theirs was “the most sustained engagement with the Christian normative model” of any Chinese tradition. Buddhism was therefore the most “religion-​ized” and thus most “Christian-​ized.” Although they rightly note that this adaptation was not unique to Taixu and his movement, he is nevertheless taken as emblematic of it. They highlight the “many parallels with liberal Protestant thinking” to be found in Taixu’s reformist vision, noting its “text-​based, ethical, socially engaged, and ‘humanist’ ” character.24 As such, in this respect at least, Goossaert and Palmer’s work represents the latest, most refined iteration of the push models that have informed prior scholarship rather than a departure from them. Chinese-​language scholarship has also been dominated by push models and particularly Weberian categories. Many are quite explicit in this. Deng Zimei 鄧子美, for instance, argues in his Traditional Buddhism and Chinese Modernization (Chuantong fojiao yu zhongguo jindaihua 傳統佛教與中 國近代化) that not only was Buddhism capable of responding to the needs of modern society but it could function as the analogue of Protestantism in the transition to modernity, inculcating an inner-​worldly asceticism and providing moral uplift.25 Luo Tongbing 羅同兵 has attempted to analyze Taixu’s thought entirely through the Weberian lens of rationalization.26 More generally, Chinese-​language scholarship is dominated by the same topics seen in English-​language studies: Human Life Buddhism, the pure land on earth, the embrace of science, and the rejection of superstition. Yet Taixu and his circle’s devotion to Maitreya and the great amount of time and energy they expended on the cult and its propagation suggests that there is something missing from these accounts.

7

Introduction

7

The Pull of Modernity: An Alternative Approach The cult of Maitreya, I argue, requires a different, indeed opposite, approach. To counterbalance, the predominant push model outlined previously, I propose a pull model, one that approaches modernity as a source of attraction rather than compulsion. It is not my intent to dismiss push models entirely. Clearly there are ways in which modernity compels religious change. The rise of the nation-​state, bureaucratic governance, modern science, and industrial capitalism are massive changes that leave no area of culture untouched. Moreover, the harnessing of these forces to imperialism and colonialism ensured that no nation could simply opt out. Nations that failed to achieve some degree of modern military power were generally colonized and had these aspects of modernity imposed on them. There is thus a real sense in which the transition to modernity was compulsory for non-​Western nations.27 Yet it would be a mistake to think that the power of Western modernity lies only in the force of Western nations’ arms. There is much that people have found good and attractive. Such an understanding is all the more important in the distinctive case of China. Though China in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries felt threatened by Western and Japanese imperialism and humiliated by the loss of sovereignty in the treaty ports (special extraterritorial zones extorted by foreign powers), it was never colonized. Leo Ou-​fan Lee has argued in his study Shanghai Modern that Chinese living in treat ports, such as Shanghai, enjoyed an experience that was not colonial but cosmopolitan. Secure in their Chinese identity, they felt free to appropriate elements of Western modernity as building blocks in their imaginings of a distinctive Chinese modernity.28 Frank Dikötter has argued that such embrace of certain aspects of Western modernity was far from limited to treaty ports, claiming that the late Qing and Republic should in fact be seen overall as an “Age of Openness.”29 Francesca Tarocco has taken a similar approach in her study of the lively cultural production of Chinese Buddhism in the 1930s.30 While Lee was concerned primarily with literary figures’ attraction to modernist aesthetics and Western material culture, Dikötter with Chinese exposure to and adoption of a wide range of phenomena from consumer products to prison reform, and Tarocco with Chinese Buddhists adoption of print and song culture, our focus here is rather different. We adopt and adapt the perspective of Charles Taylor, who has argued that modernity must be seen as encompassing a moral dimension. It is not merely negative, “a dropping away of the

8

8

I ntr o d ucti o n

scales” after which we see things as they are in the cold light of day. Rather it is a cultural constellation “powered by its own positive vision of the good.”31 In his work, Sources of the Self, Taylor attempts to define the particular constellation that constitutes Western modernity and to unearth its genealogy. I do not attempt to do full justice to his arguments. Rather, I single out two aspects:  his accounts of moral frameworks and of the moral tensions internal to modernity. In my reading, Taylor argues that moral orientation is a precondition of coherent human existence. In order to live, people must have some conception of what is good and worthwhile (though this does not entail that they always act in accordance with it). This is provided by what he terms “moral frameworks.” Such frameworks entail a sense that a certain mode of life is “incomparably higher” than the alternatives and provide the understandings based on which our moral judgments and intuitions make sense. They define the terms within which we attempt to live a life worth the living.32 The polestars of these frameworks are “hypergoods,” defined as “goods which are not only incomparably more important than others but provide the standpoint from which these must be weighed, judged, and decided about.”33 While these understandings of value are critical, even “inescapable,” they are often unarticulated, acting as background understanding rather than explicit doctrine. Thus even an individual who claims exclusive allegiance to one hypergood may nevertheless live oriented by several. For instance, a scientist who, if asked, claims that reason is her sole maxim may also in her actual life place great importance on domestic fulfillment and self-​expression.34 Taylor argues that Western modernity is characterized by a set of moral frameworks derived from three conflicting sources: Judeo-​Christian theism, Enlightenment rationalism, and Romantic expressivism, as well as their descendants. While modernity represents a distinct cultural orientation for Taylor, it is not the complete rupture posited by many theories. Rather, this constellation of values grew organically through a complex historical process. Even when one strain of modernity has rejected another, it nevertheless presupposes many of the rejected strain’s key assumptions. This can be most usefully illustrated for our purposes through the integral, if fraught, position held by religion in Taylor’s vision of modernity. Theism, in his view, continues to serve as moral source, even for visions that have thoroughly rejected it. For instance, Taylor argues that the universal benevolence of the utilitarian ethic cannot be supported by its hedonist psychology. The force of that demand comes instead from the continuing cultural power of Christian ideals of brotherly love.35 The failure of such one-​sided philosophies to account for all the moral intuitions of modern individuals in

9

Introduction

9

the West helps to explain the continuing power of theistic construals of those intuitions. Even though the existence and widespread acceptance of nontheistic construals of the good makes naïve faith largely impossible—​that is, statements of faith are always formulated in the awareness of other possible construals of the world—​many still feel that theistic maps provide the fullest guide to moral space.36 Western modernity for Taylor is thus internally heterogenous. Whereas for Weber the great rupture is between tradition and modernity, for Taylor the fissures are within modernity itself. Indeed, within such an additive theory of modernity, “tradition” cannot be taken as a category opposing “modernity” at all, for modernity is not an escape from the past but a particular configuration of values and concerns derived from it. In a sense, I would argue that we can describe Western modernity not as opposed to “tradition” but as being composed of a particular set of traditions in MacIntyre’s sense of a tradition as a “historically extended, socially embodied argument, an argument precisely in part about the goods that constitute that tradition”37 Thus we might speak of Western modernity as the ongoing interaction of theistic, Enlightenment, and Romantic traditions. This, then, is a vision of Western modernity that is historically contingent and culturally grounded, rather than universal and transcendent. Drawing on this conceptualization of Western modernity, I propose that part of what occurs in the formulation of alternative modernities—​new non-​ Western cultural constellations formed through contact with Western modernity (in some instances mediated in whole or in part by other cultures)—​is the coming together of novel and indigenous moral frameworks to form new constellations of hypergoods. Encountering a certain strain of modernity, individuals may come to be moved by a given hypergood and adopt that framework, ultimately forming a new constellation. If an individual attempts to articulate a moral vision based on this new constellation, it may in turn come to provide moral orientation for others, even becoming a new norm for that culture or subculture. These visions may be transmitted directly or through complex chains of mediation and take hold due to the resonance of the hypergoods with the society or its historical situation, the eloquence of their articulation, or their encoding in powerful symbols or the habitus of key institutions.38 It may also be the case, of course, that a given constellation may be overdetermined, springing from several, even many individuals being moved by the same hypergood and attempting to articulate new visions that incorporate it. Even if the visions conflict in their particulars, the underlying resonances between them may nevertheless serve to encourage acceptance of the new constellation.

01

10

I ntr o d ucti o n

The formation of new constellations would not take place overnight through simple addition but through a complex and gradual process. In this process, Taylor’s theory would predict a mutual transvaluation. The tradition in which the novel modern framework is embedded would be seen through the indigenous framework while the indigenous tradition would be seen through the novel framework.39 In this process, elements—​ideas or practices—​of either tradition that had previously held a positive valuation might come to be seen as ambiguous or even negative. Elements that had been only of peripheral importance might take on a new significance. The process would also likely be gradual because it would operate only partly at the level of explicit articulation. This is part of what is at stake in characterizing this process in terms of values rather than “ideas,” though ideas certainly play a key role (the communication of a hypergood and thus its spread requires at least some degree of articulation). Most people, even those we sometimes characterize for want of a better word as “thinkers,” are not builders of philosophical systems. This is not of course to say that they have no ideas or thoughts but rather to say with Taylor that only some of their background understandings and moral intuitions are articulated at any given time. They are not primarily cartographers of moral space but navigators. In many cases if we look at the intellectual artifacts of this process as “attempts to reconcile traditional and modern concepts,” we might find them ad hoc, superficial, and intellectually unsatisfying.40 By attempting to unearth the underlying architecture of such individuals’ moral frameworks, on the other hand, we may discover deeper significances. Assertions of commonality between Buddhism and science, for instance, often appear facile, yet in at least some cases we might find them to be rooted not simply in sloppy thinking but in an attraction to scientific values such as systematicity and verifiability that have real parallels in the tradition. Taylor’s theory would also lead us to expect the process to be fitful and filled with tension. Initial attempts to articulate visions of what is good and important may fail to do justice to all of the individuals’ moral intuitions. They may have to try on a series of accounts before finding one that fits. Even if they should eventually settle on one that gives due regard to their commitments, the hypergoods would likely remain in a degree of tension. Alternative modernities would, like Western modernity, be characterized by internal moral conflict. Insofar as this tension between goods may be irremediable, we might further predict that this tension would prove to be an engine of cultural production as individuals, likely for generations, attempted to better reconcile or account for this tension.

11

Introduction

11

This theorization of the formulation of alternative modernities, I  argue, provides a different perspective on Taixu’s reinvention of the cult of Maitreya. Rather than an anomaly, throwback, or concession, it was an important part of the formulation of a Buddhist modernity in China. I  argue that, in the early days of the Republic’s age of openness, Taixu became deeply involved in traditions of Western radicalism as a young man, more deeply than has been appreciated, and was moved by a hypergood I  term “revolutionary utopia” (outlined later). Writings he published in radical journals show shifting articulations of this moral framework and its relation to the moral framework of Buddhism oriented by the hypergood of Buddhahood. Although Taixu ultimately abandoned radical ideologies and shifted rightward politically, the moral framework of revolutionary utopianism remained a source of orientation. Viewing Buddhism through this framework cast the Maitreyan tradition (outlined later) in new light, revealing important resonances with radicalism. Taixu’s reinvention of the cult of the bodhisattva thus represents an attempt to articulate a vision that arrays these two polestars in a meaningful constellation. This project was cut short by unfortunate historical happenstance, reinterpretations of Maitreya by Taixu’s major successor, and the end of the age of openness as strong central states in China and Taiwan claimed a monopoly on the project of remaking society that is central to revolutionary utopianism. As both societies have opened up in recent decades, however, it has begun to spring back, more strongly in democratic Taiwan than in authoritarian China.

Buddhism, Radicalism, and the Framework of Revolutionary Utopianism Taixu, of course, was not the only modern Buddhist to be attracted to radical ideologies. Indeed, this was quite common in Taixu’s day, though he appears not to have been aware of it. In Burma, combinations of Buddhism and socialism were important in the anticolonial movement and under U Nu would actually come to serve as a governing ideology after independence.41 Combinations of Buddhism and socialism were also common in East Asia. Figures such as Uchiyama Gudō 内山愚童 (1874–​1911)42 and Seno’o Girō 妹 尾義郎 (1889–​1961) in Japan,43 Zhengfeng 證峰 (1903–​1934) in Taiwan,44 and Han Yongun (1879–​1944) in Korea45 all advocated forms of Buddhist socialism. My interest here is not limited, however, to Taixu’s involvement in radicalism, though that is the focus of Part I. Rather, my primary concern lies in the way certain values that animate radical traditions continued to orient his thought long after he rejected radical ideologies. Earlier I termed this set of values “revolutionary utopianism.” I use this term to refer to a moral framework

21

12

I ntr o d ucti o n

embedded in the traditions of radical thought and practice (primarily socialism and anarchism) that took shape in the nineteenth century but had roots that stretched back to the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.46 The orienting hypergood of this framework is utopia, a vision of a world remade, a perfected society in which the ills of the present have been eliminated and human fulfillment and material comfort is available to all. This is articulated in different ways in different forms of radicalism, depending on their understanding of human fulfillment and their diagnosis of the ills of the modern world. Revolutionary utopianism is dependent on two background understandings that differentiate it from premodern forms of utopianism. First, it is based upon an understanding of social contingency. The social order is not ordained by Heaven or God rather it is a creation of human activity. As such, it may be transformed through human activity. This is the sense in which I term it “revolutionary.” Transformation may be achieved quickly by a literal revolution (which may or may not entail conflict) or by slow incremental evolution, but the means are within the scope of human agency. Second, it is founded upon a confidence in human knowledge. There are principles undergirding human nature and society that may be understood and used as the basis for action in service of the utopian project. Science, in the broader nineteenth-​century usage of the term, has provided the objective understanding of human society and its ills as well as human beings as individuals and members of society that will allow the world to be remade.47 These background understandings have elsewhere been designated the “threshold of modernity.”48 In the present work, however, I am concerned with them less as a conceptual shift that opens possibilities than as elements of a moral framework that motivates and orients action. The basic contours of this framework will be familiar to scholars of modern China, for many in this period pursued such visions of a perfected society. Typically, however, religion is seen as only reacting defensively against such developments. Here, however, I argue that many Buddhists were moved by the same hypergood as their compatriots and were not merely reactive but full and enthusiastic participants in this current of Chinese modernity.

The Many Faces of Maitreya The attractive power of this strain of modernity, I argue, drew Taixu’s attention to Maitreya and the texts associated with him. First, however, we may briefly pause to sketch out the differing facets of the Maitreyan traditions that had come down to him. Initially one of the most popular members of the

13

Introduction

13

Chinese Buddhist pantheon, Maitreya came to be overshadowed by other figures and relegated to a comparatively minor place in orthodox49 Buddhism after the Tang dynasty (618–​907 ce). Nevertheless, the general features of the Maitreyan tradition were well known and passed down to the Republican era. Though not exhaustive of Maitreya’s presence in Chinese Buddhism,50 we can identify four main aspects of this tradition:51

Buddha of the Future First and foremost, Maitreya is the future Buddha. According to both Mahayana and non-​Mahayana scriptures, Maitreya will be the next to attain Buddhahood in this world system at some point many eons into the future. At that time, the world will be a paradise free of most of the sufferings that beset people of the present and overseen by a benevolent ruler, the Wheel-​turning King (lun wang 輪王), who governs not through force of arms but virtue. In that future age, Maitreya will attain enlightenment under the Dragon Flower Tree and preach the Dharma there in three assemblies (longhua san hui 龍華 三會), bringing innumerable beings to salvation. According to the Sutra on Maitreya’s Descent and Attainment of Buddhahood (Mile xiasheng cheng fo jing 彌 勒下生成佛經) (T14, 453), these are all beings who had cultivated the Dharma under Śākyamuni and now have been inherited by his successor.

Lord of Tuṣita The time of the Dragon Flower is far away, however. In the meantime, Maitreya, like all bodhisattvas-​in-​waiting (yi sheng buchu 一生補處), resides in Tuṣita Heaven (Doushuaituo tian 兜率陀天). There, according to the Sutra on Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tuṣita Heaven (Mile pusa shangsheng doushuai tian jing 彌勒菩薩上生兜率天) (T14, 452), he resides in a palace called the Inner Court (Neiyuan 內院) constantly preaching the Dharma. Devotees of the bodhisattva can aspire to be reborn there with him, enjoying his salvific presence before descending with him at the time of his advent. This was the aspiration of many Buddhists in China prior to the Tang dynasty. Later, however, Maitreya and his paradise were eclipsed by Amitābha Buddha (Amituo fo 阿彌陀佛) and his pure land of Sukhāvatī (Jile shijie 極樂世界). This was due in part to positive factors, such as Amitābha’s association with the popular bodhisattva Guanyin, but also important was a polemical campaign on the part of influential advocates of Amitābha Pure Land, which portrayed rebirth Maitreya’s Inner Court as at once more difficult than and inferior to rebirth in Sukhāvatī. Rebirth in Sukhāvatī thus came to be the heartfelt and almost

41

14

I ntr o d ucti o n

universal goal of pious Buddhists in succeeding centuries, while rebirth in the Inner Court ceased to be aspired to by all but the idiosyncratic few.

Master of Yogācāra Maitreya the Lord of Tuṣita also has a special association with Yogācāra. Yogācāra is an important and highly technical school of Mahayana thought originating in India that focuses on the analysis of consciousness. In some readings, in fact, this school holds that nothing exists outside of consciousness.52 Hence, it was sometimes referred to in China as Weishi 唯識, “Consciousness-​only.” According to tradition, Maitreya is held to be one of the founders of that school of thought, having dictated to Asaṅga (Wuzhu 無著) five of its major treatises, most importantly for present purposes the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra (Yuqie shidi lun 瑜伽師地論) (T30, 1579).53 For this reason, devotion to Maitreya was important to a number of key figures in Chinese Yogācāra (also called Faxiang 法 相), including Xuanzang 玄奘 (c. 602/​603–​664) and Kuiji 窺基 (632–​682), who aspired to be reborn in Tuṣita and hear the teachings of their school directly from the bodhisattva. The disappearance of this school and a number of its texts following the persecutions of the mid-​Tang dynasty also helped to marginalize Maitreya.

Messiah of the Masses The final key thread of the Maitreyan tradition lies largely beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. As Nattier has noted, the Maitreya of the canonical scriptures has a distinctly intransitive character. That is to say, though he arrives in a future golden age, he does not bring it about.54 By the seventh century, however, some Chinese Buddhists had developed a different view. Maitreya came to be seen as both more active and more imminent. He was no longer consigned to wait for a perfect world in the distant future; he was to bring it about himself in the turbulent present. This understandably became a powerful idea for the rest of Chinese history as leaders of rebellions and uprisings claimed that they were preparing the way for Maitreya to inaugurate the new age or even that they themselves were Maitreya. The first recorded Maitreyan rebellion occurred in 610 and succeeded in attacking the capital at Chang’an. Such uprisings continued to occur sporadically through the succeeding centuries. The most successful actually helped to sweep Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Ming dynasty (1368–​1644), into power. This demonstrated capacity for subversion naturally concerned the authorities, and Maitreyan societies operating outside

15

Introduction

15

of the imperially sanctioned monastic tradition were banned by successive dynasties, including the Ming. In the late dynastic period, this messianic vision of Maitreya was largely absorbed into the complex of beliefs surrounding a supreme deity called the Eternal Mother (wusheng laomu 無生老母) adhered to by a number of salvationist movements. In this theology Maitreya becomes a messenger of the Mother, sent to save her lost children before they are enveloped by the final cataclysm at the end of the current cosmological cycle.55 In the Republic, this tradition was taken up by some of the salvationist groups known in scholarship as “redemptive societies,” the most important of which was the Way of Unity, or Yiguan dao 一貫道. This association with rebellion and heterodoxy was also certainly a cause for the relative marginalization of Maitreya within the elite monastic tradition. We shall see in Parts Two and Three that each of these aspects of Maitreya played roles in the cult’s modern reinvention, sometimes being significantly reimagined in the process.

Sources, Structure, and Significance In this book I substantiate my thesis—​briefly, that Taixu and his associates’ reinvention of the cult of Maitreya represents the convergence of the hypergoods of Buddhahood and utopia and their alignment in a new constellation made possible by the openness of the Republican period and subsequently by the liberalization of recent decades—​through a consideration of a wide variety of materials. The Complete Writings of Master Taixu (Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大 師全書, referred to in the notes as TDQ) and the Annalistic Biography of Master Taixu (Taixu dashi nianpu 太虛大師年譜, TDN) are of central importance, of course, as they have been for generations of scholars. I am fortunate, however, to reap the benefit of recently assembled collections of photo-​reproductions of Republican-​era Buddhist periodicals, The Grand Compendium of Republican-​ Era Buddhist Periodical Literature (Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng 民國佛 教期刊文獻集成, MFQ) and its supplements. Comprising over two hundred periodicals in more than three hundred volumes, these collections allow us to peek behind later representations of the period as never before. They also allow us to weave a broader range of figures into the narrative. Although Taixu remains central to our account as the primary architect and proponent of the cult during the Republic, we are able to trace its development through the religious lives and activities of a variety of individuals and organizations. The monograph also looks beyond Buddhist works. To flesh out our understanding

61

16

I ntr o d ucti o n

of Taixu’s radical period, it draws on essays he published in anarcho-​socialist journals that were not included in the Complete Writings and effectively lost. To trace the influence of his ideas outside of Buddhism, it examines a variety of works from Yiguan dao and Maitreya Great Way (Mile dadao 彌勒大道). The materials considered include a wide variety of genres—​philosophical treatises, precept texts, scriptures, commentaries, essays, autobiographies, news articles, advertisements and announcements, ritual manuals, travel memoirs, poetry, images, archival documents, spirit-​writing, and social media—​which have been supplemented with field visits to important sites associated with the cult, past and present. The discussion proceeds in three parts. Part I focuses on Taixu’s youthful involvement with radicalism. Chapter 1 opens with a prologue that provides a sketch of reformist, revolutionary, and radical thought on the eve of the revolution, drawing out those ideas and themes that will figure in Taixu’s radical thought and subsequently the cult of Maitreya. It then looks at Taixu’s activities from his ordination in 1908 to his seclusion in 1914. It argues that his involvement with radical politics was actually much deeper than the mere flirtation it is usually portrayed as. It shows that Taixu was in fact a prominent figure in the socialist and anarchist movements of the day even as he worked to promote the interests of the Buddhist community. Chapter 2 examines his radical writings from this period and argues that we find in them a succession of shifting attempts to articulate a vision that includes the moral frameworks of both radicalism and Buddhism and in which these traditions are each seen through the framework provided by the other. Part II turns to the reinvention of the cult of Maitreya. Chapter 3 traces the development of the Maitreya School, as the reimagined cult was formally known, from its inception in the early 1920s to its peak in 1936–​1937, contextualizing it in relation to other developments within Buddhism, Chinese religion, and Chinese history. The chapter argues that the cult was a much more important part of the reform movement than has been realized, that it refutes the common portrayal of that movement as demythologized and deritualized, and that it shows a high degree of engagement with the received tradition. Chapter 4 delves into Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, examining it through the lens of his commentaries on what he identifies as the core texts of his Maitreya School. It shows that these texts contain indigenous analogues to key values derived from the revolutionary utopian framework and that Taixu’s interpretations of these texts reveal another, more stable attempt to articulate a moral vision that has a place for both Buddhahood and utopia. Part III moves beyond Taixu’s era. It brings our account up to the present, tracing the reinvented cult’s decline after 1937 and its recent revival. In

17

Introduction

17

c­ hapter 5, we discuss the reasons for the Maitreya School falling into relative obscurity in the mid-​twentieth century. We find that it was disrupted at its peak of activity by the Japanese invasion of China, Taixu’s untimely death, and the Nationalist defeat in the civil war against the Chinese Communist Party. Continued activity, let  alone development, became impossible under Communist rule. Even in Nationalist-​held Taiwan, which was spared the extreme measures of the Communists, space for development was constrained as monastic politics swept a key proponent up in the White Terror. Finally, in ­chapter 6, we examine its revival in the wake of Reform and Openness in the People’s Republic and the lifting of martial law in Taiwan. We shall see that heavy regulation of religion and interventionist state agencies in the People’s Republic of China create distortions that favor certain types of initiatives and impede others, while full liberalization in Taiwan has allowed for a more robust revival in which new Buddhist organizations have the opportunity to establish themselves and experiment with novel forms of propagation. We shall also see that the legacy of the Maitreya School in Taiwan lives on not only in orthodoxy but also in heterodox groups such as Yiguan dao and its offshoot Maitreya Great Way. It is my hope that the account sketched here will make contributions not only to the study of modern Buddhism and Chinese religion but also to the study of Republican-​era China and modern Asian religions. A focus on the reinvention of the cult of Maitreya and its roots in radicalism allows us to revise and broaden our perspective on Taixu and the reform movement. It provides a way to recover a fuller picture of their religious lives beyond narrowly conceived “responses to modernity” while at the same time demonstrating the powerful role that seemingly “traditional” phenomena played in the imagining of a Buddhist modernity. It contributes ongoing efforts from scholars such as Brooks Jessup, Rongdao Lai, Erik Hammerstrom, and Gregory Adam Scott as well as Raoul Birnbaum, allowing us to root Buddhist developments more firmly in the particulars of Republican history. In place of vague categories such as “progress,” we can identify a particular vision of progress found in anarchism and identify ways in which it reinforced certain aspects of the Maitreyan tradition and altered others. In addition, insofar as my research demonstrates that the Maitreya School, about which later sources are largely silent, was actually an important part of the reform movement, it calls for a reassessment of those sources and the ways in which they have shaped our understanding of Republican-​era Buddhism. Finally, recovering reformist Maitreyan thought allows us to uncover ongoing Buddhist influence on salvationist religion as well as salvationist influence on Buddhism.

81

18

I ntr o d ucti o n

An understanding of the Maitreya cult will also contribute to a revision of our understanding of the Republic more generally. On the one hand, it contributes to the project of Dikötter and others who seek to decenter the narrative of revolution and radicalization that culminates in the Communist revolution and balance it with a vision of an age of openness and vitality in which contact with modernity spurred a dizzying array of cultural production. On the other hand, it shows that revolutionary utopianism was not the exclusive preserve of a few secular intellectuals but was actually diffused more broadly throughout Chinese society in a period where many dared to imagine remaking the world and to make that mission their own. Finally, I hope that insofar as the Taylorian framework sketched here is successful in shedding light on the underlying architecture of the Maitreya School that it will recommend this approach for the study of other modern religious movements. It seems unlikely that the dynamic that I show operated in the case of the reinvention of Maitreya was unique. No doubt many individuals were moved by certain hypergoods of Western modernity, leading them to see certain strains of their received traditions in a new light that revealed previously unseen significances. I  hope in particular that it may provide and angle from which to consider devotion, ritual, and other phenomena that are not self-​apparently modern but that may nevertheless have played important roles in the articulation of new visions of modern moral space.

Notes 1. Binzong 斌宗, “Xuedou youji” 雪竇遊記 [Notes on a journey to Xuedou], Haichaoyin 海潮音 17, 11 (November 1936) MFQ 195: 234. 2. By late imperial times, the recitation of Amitābha Buddha’s name was the central cultic practice of Chinese Buddhism for everyone from the illiterate villager to the most eminent monk. To substitute texts and recitations focused on another figure into the familiar liturgy would have been a powerful statement. To seek rebirth anywhere but Amitābha’s pure land in the West was virtually unheard of. 3. To a degree this is conjecture indulged for rhetorical effect. However, given how impressed Binzong is with Taixu’s devotion, it seems likely that he saw or heard something more than just a revised liturgy. For evidence in support of my conjectures, see “Fenghua xuedou si zhi jianshe” 奉化雪竇寺之建設 [Building up Xuedou monastery in Fenghua], Haichaoyin 海潮音 17, no. 3 (March 1936) MFQ 193:117; and Appendix I to ­chapter 3 of this book. 4. Binzong, “Xuedou youji,” 234. 5. Holmes Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1968), 68.

91

Introduction

19

6. Don Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu’s Reforms (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001), 205. 7. Raoul Birnbaum, “Buddhist China at the Century’s Turn,” Religion in China Today, ed. Daniel L. Overmyer (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 129–​130; and Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism, 222. 8. Jiang Canteng, for example, recognizes the role Maitreya played in the liturgies of Taixu’s Wuchang seminary but attributes it simply to an urge to differentiate himself vis-​à-​vis conservative Buddhism. Ma Tianxiang, on the other hand, takes the same position as Euro-​American scholars, asserting that Taixu was interested only in the pure land on earth and not other-​worldly pure lands. See Jiang Canteng 江燦藤, Taixu dashi qianzhuan (1890–​1927) 太虛大師前傳 (1890–​1927) [The early life of Master Taixu (1890–​1927)] (Taipei:  Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 1993), 182; and Ma Tianxiang 麻天祥, 20 Shiji Zhongguo Foxue Wenti 20 世紀中國佛學問題 [The problems of twentieth-​century Chinese Buddhism], rev. ed. (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue chubanshe 武漢大學出版社, 2007), 71. 9. I do not think that this was the intent of the editor, Taixu’s student Yinshun, whose own Maitreyan thought we discuss in ­chapter 5. Any organization of such a large and variegated corpus would necessarily occlude some threads of Taixu’s thought even as it revealed others. Nevertheless, we shall see in c­ hapter 5 that Yinshun had some ambivalence regarding Maitreya that may have contributed to its low priority. 10. Though at work in earlier eras, until the emergence of modernity, rationalization does not enjoy the upper hand. 11. See Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Routledge Classics 2001); and Max Weber, Economy and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press 1978), chapter IV (published separately as The Sociology of Religion) sections 1, 2, 10–​12, and 15. 12. On the role of Weber’s instrumental rationality in balder versions of secularization theory, see Charles Taylor, “Two Theories of Modernity,” in Alternative Modernities, ed. Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar (Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2001), 191 n12. 13. First coined in Gananath Obeyesekere, “Religious Symbolism and Political Change in Ceylon,” Modern Ceylon Studies 1, no. 1 (1970): 43–​63. 14. Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press 1988), 13–​ 15 and ­chapter  6. Obeyesekere’s concept has been critiqued for its reliance on Weber’s construal of Protestantism rather than historical Protestantism. Stephen Prothero, The White Buddhist: The Asian Odyssey of Henry Steel Olcott (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996). 15. For example:  James Edward Ketelaar, Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and its Persecution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990); and Judith Snodgrass, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West:  Orientalism,

02

20

I ntr o d ucti o n

Occidentalism, & the Columbian Exposition (Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina Press, 2003). 16. David L. McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2008). McMahan does leave open the possibility that more traditional forms could serve to critique modernity rather than being caught up in it. 17. Anne Blackburn has argued precisely this point regarding the scripturalism that Gombrich and Obeyesekere see as “modern” and “Protestant,” tracing its origins to the precolonial period. Anne Blackburn, Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth-​Century Lankan Monastic Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001). 18. The topic of factionalism in twentieth-​century Chinese Buddhism would require a monograph of its own, but suffice to say that the typical division of (elite) monastic circles into “reformers” and “conservatives” is woefully inadequate. Monastic politics are precisely that: politics. These factions are much more fluid and porous than is sometimes acknowledged and often had less to do with doctrinal positions than power, prestige, and personality conflicts. Yuanying 圓瑛 (1878–​1953), for instance, was at one point Taixu’s sworn brother, and some of his ideas for Buddhist reform could just as easily have been Taixu’s. Yet they fell out in the power struggles over control of the Chinese Buddhist Association. Whatever substantive issues were at stake between them, “reformer versus conservative” surely obscures more than it illuminates. Throughout this book, “the reform faction,” “reformers,” or “the reform movement” are used simply as convenient shorthand to refer to Taixu and his associates, and I do not attempt to deal with the controversies that attended Taixu’s later career for the simple reason that the cult of Maitreya played no role in them that I have been able to discern. 19. On the usage of these terms, see Marcus Bingenheimer, “Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian Fojiao and the Contribution of Venerable Yinshun to Chinese Buddhist Modernism,” in Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen, and Lori Meeks (Hualien, Taiwan:  Tzu Chi University Press, 2007). While he perhaps minimizes the distinction too much, he correctly points out that they do not represent the simple linear progression they are often said to. 20. Pittman, Toward a Modern Buddhism. 21. Eric Goodell, “Taixu’s (1890–​1947) Creation of Humanistic Buddhism” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2012). Scott Pacey’s dissertation apparently also covers some of these issues, but I have not been able to procure a copy. Scott Pacey, “From Taixu to Shengyan: Legitimising Modern Buddhism in China and Taiwan” (PhD diss., Australian National University, 2011). 22. Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China.

21

Introduction

21

23. Vincent Goossaert and David Palmer, The Religious Question in Modern China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 10. 24. Ibid., 79–​83. 25. Deng Zimei 鄧子美, Chuantong fojiao yu zhongguo jindaihua: bainian wenhua chongzhuang yu jiaoliu 傳統佛教與中國近代化—​百年文化衝撞與交流 [Traditional Buddhism and Chinese modernization: a century of cultural conflict and interchange] (Shanghai: Donghua shifan daxue chubanshe 東華師範 大學出版社, 1996). 26. Luo Tongbing 羅同兵, Taixu dui zhongguo fojiao xinadaihua daolu de jueze 太 虛對中國佛教現代化道路的抉擇 [Taixu’s choices on the road toward Chinese Buddhist modernization] (Chengdu: Bashu Shushe 巴蜀書社, 2003). 27. Taylor, “Two Theories of Modernity,” 182. 28. Leo Ou-​fan Lee, Shanghai Modern:  The Flowering of a New Urban Culture in China 1930–​1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). 29. Frank Dikötter, The Age of Openness: China Before Mao (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). Dikötter’s argument is addressed primarily to the received historiographic wisdom that the Republic was an age of disastrous decline that led to radicalization and the Communist revolution rather than the issue of modernity per se, but I would argue that in depicting Republican China as an active participant in international currents and a largely functional polity despite the frequent weakness of the central government allies implies a pull model. 30. Francesca Tarocco, The Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism: Attuning the Dharma (London: Routledge, 2005). 31. Taylor, “Two Theories of Modernity,” 176. 32. Taylor would argue that this is inescapable. Even a nihilist in his view sees the life of the lonely individual bravely embracing the meaninglessness of life as the meaningful life. 33. Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1989), 63. 34. Ibid., 62. 35. Ibid., 321–​340. 36. On this point, see especially the introduction to A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). 37. Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 222. 38. On the connection between the individual who is first moved by a value and others who may come to be oriented by it, see Taylor, Sources of the Self, 73–​74. 39. Though the singular is used here for analytical and grammatical convenience, this process would, of course, most likely involve multiple frameworks on both sides.

2

22

I ntr o d ucti o n

40. Shields and Ladwig have spoken of this problem in connection with Buddhist radicalisms. Patrice Ladwig and James Mark Shields, “Introduction,” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 198, 201–​202. 41. E. Sarkisyanz, Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), ­chapters 13–​18. 42. Fabio Rambelli, Zen Anarchism:  The Egalitarian Dharma of Uchiyama Gudō (Berkeley, CA: Institute of Buddhist Studies and BDK America, 2013); Ishikawa Rikizan, “The Social Response of Buddhists to the Modernization of Japan: The Contrasting Lives of Two Soto Zen Monks,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 25, no. 1–​2 (1998): 87–​115; and James Mark Shields, “Zen and the Art of Treason:  Radical Buddhism in the Meiji Era (1868–​1912) Japan,” Politics, Religion, & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 205–​223. 43. Stephen S. Large “Buddhism, Socialism, and Protest in Prewar Japan:  The Career of Seno’o Giro,” Modern Asian Studies 21, no. 1 (1987): 153–​171; James Mark Shields, “A Blueprint for Buddhist Revolution: The Radical Buddhism of Seno’o Girō (1889–​1961) and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 39, no. 2 (2012): 333–​351; and James Mark Shields, “Liberation as Revolutionary Praxis: Rethinking Buddhist Materialism,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 20 (2013): 461–​499. 44. Charles Jones, “Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan:  Lin Qiuwu’s Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times,” Journal of Global Buddhism, no. 1 (2000) 82–​111. 45. Vladimir Tikhonov and Owen Miller, “Introduction,” in Selected Writings of Han Yongun: From Social Darwinism to “Socialism with a Buddhist Face” (Kent, UK: Global Oriental, 2008), 1–​29. 46. Edward S. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, (New  York:  Rowan & Littlefield, 1998), 16. For an emic genealogy, see ­ chapter  1 of Frederick Engels, Socialism:  Utopian and Scientific, translated by Edward Aveling (New York: International Publishers, 1994). 47. On the Marxist view see c­ hapter 9 of Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). On the anarchism of Kropotkin and his predecessors, see Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 16–​23. 48. Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, “Multiple Modernities,” Daedalus 129, no. 1 (2000): 2–​3. Eisenstad follows Faubion’s reading of Weber on this point. See James D. Faubion, Modern Greek Lessons: A Primer in Historical Constructivism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 113–​117. 49. By “orthodox” I mean the tradition centered on the monastic community and the textual corpus defined by various editions of the canon that received patronage and official toleration from the state. 50. This sketch excludes, for instance, the role he plays in certain repentance rituals and in ordination as well as his role as a popular god of wealth.

23

Introduction

23

51. These owe something, of course, to Jan Nattier’s typological analysis, though I  have dispensed with her terminology and focused more specifically on the Chinese case. Jan Nattier, “The Meanings of the Maitreya Myth: A Typological Analysis,” in Maitreya, the Future Buddha, ed. Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 52. For an excellent brief overview of classical Yogācāra thought, see John Powers, “Yogācāra:  Indian Buddhist Origins,” in Transforming Consciousness:  Yogācāra Thought in Modern China, ed. John Makeham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 41–​63. 53. Some scholars believe that Maitreya was simply the name of Asanga’s teacher and was later conflated with the bodhisattva. Others, however, have cast doubt upon this attempt to strip away myth to recover history. Powers, “Yogācāra:  Indian Buddhist Origins,” 54–​55. 54. Nattier, “Meanings of the Maitreya Myth,” 36. 55. Developments in the Republic and afterward are discussed in the chapters to follow. For additional information on premodern movements, see Joseph M. Kitagawa, “The Career of Maitreya, with Special Reference to Japan,” History of Religions, 21, no. 2 (1981):  especially 116–​117; Richard Shek, “Ethics and Polity:  The Heterodoxy of Buddhism, Maitreyanism, and the Early White Lotus,” in Heterodoxy in Late Imperial China, ed. Liu Kwang-​Ching and Richard Shek (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2004); and Daniel L. Overmyer, “Folk-​Buddhist Religion: Creation and Eschatology in Medieval China,” History of Religions 12, no. 1 (1972).

42

25

PART I

Taixu’s Buddhist Radicalism

62

2 7

1

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

Introduction If one is to argue, as I do, that Taixu’s youthful exposure to radical ideologies played a critical role in inculcating certain conceptions of value, conceptions that served to orient and animate his ideas long after he abandoned radicalism itself, one must first show that his exposure to radical currents of thought was significant. This is not self-​apparent. Until recently,1 the importance of this phase of Taixu’s life had been consistently overlooked in Buddhist scholarship, primarily due to the sources that have been examined. All scholarship in Buddhist Studies on Taixu’s life had been based almost exclusively on Taixu’s Autobiography (Taixu zizhuan 太虛自傳, referred to in the notes as TZZ) and Yinshun’s Annalistic Biography of Master Taixu (Taixu dashi nianpu 太虛大師年譜, TDN). Though these are clearly essential sources for the study of Taixu’s life, they are not sufficient. For the most part the Autobiography may be relied upon for factual information2 but it is shaped by a certain narrative agenda as well as the environment in which it was produced. The story of Taixu’s life as he tells it is primarily the story of his Buddhist reform movement in his mature years. Things that do not fit into this narrative tend to be minimized or glossed over.3 Taixu was also writing about his early life in a political environment that had changed greatly. Written in 1939 and revised in 1945, the text was produced in circumstances potentially sensitive to radicalism: The anarchists had been purged from the Nationalist Party in the late 1920s and the radical movement had been funneled into the new Chinese Communist Party, which was at war with the Nationalist government. By this time, Taixu had become an established figure with strong ties to the Nationalists. Thus it is not surprising that

82

28

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

he dwells on his association with the Revolutionary Alliance (Tongmeng hui 同盟會), from which the Nationalists traced their descent, while downplaying his youthful involvement with socialists and anarchists, which may have been an embarrassment in the new context in which the heady, fluid state of political thought in the postrevolutionary period had calcified into opposing ideologies and been largely forgotten. The Annalistic Biography is a slight improvement in its treatment of Taixu’s early years but likewise fails to fully account for his political activities. It is an improvement insofar as the chronological format puts Taixu’s political activities in the context of his Buddhist work, yet it remains incomplete. One might again suspect that there were political factors at play. One might think that a monk writing just after the fall of the Mainland to the Communists would be sensitive to appearing sympathetic to radicalism. Yet as we shall see in­ chapter 5, Yinshun, to his misfortune, had no such sensitivities. I suspect rather that the primary reason for the minimal treatment of Taixu’s radical involvements relates to the circumstances of the text’s production. Written as part of Yinshun’s larger project of editing Taixu’s Complete Writings (Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書),4 it draws on a range of sources, including Taixu’s writings, remembrances by others, and materials collected by his students. Nevertheless, writing in Hong Kong just after the fall of the Mainland to the Communists, Yinshun was limited in the materials available to him, especially for Taixu’s early life, as he himself states.5 Among the materials to which Yinshun did not have access were almost certainly the socialist and anarchist periodicals where Taixu’s radical essays had been published.6 What little scholarship in Buddhist studies there is that touches on Taixu’s early years is overwhelmingly reliant on these two sources for its information.7 Thus it is not surprising that it suffers from the same limitations.8 To find fuller scholarly recognition of the importance of radicalism to Taixu or Taixu’s importance to radicalism, we must look to anarchist scholarship, where his role is common knowledge, if not well studied. Each of the three major English-​language works on Chinese anarchism—​Arif Dirliks’s Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, Peter Zarrow’s Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, and Edward S. Krebs’s Shifu, The Soul of Chinese Anarchism—​spend at least a few pages on Taixu, and all treat him as a leader of one anarchist-​oriented group and a significant figure in the broader radical movement of the early Republic. They too are limited, however, by the materials available to them. They work primarily from a few short excerpts of Taixu’s radical writings reprinted in Selected Materials on Anarchist Thought (Wuzhengfuzhuyi sixiang ziliao xuan 無政府主義思想資料選),9 which are not sufficient to develop a full picture of his ideas in the period.

92

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

29

In Part I, I  attempt to provide a fuller picture of Taixu’s youthful activities and demonstrate the great importance that political activity and events (­chapter 1) and radical ideas (­chapter 2) held for him, drawing on both strands of historiography as well as the radical essays heretofore unexamined by scholars of either Buddhism or anarchism. In the present chapter, I  seek to offer a better understanding of Taixu’s early career in part through thick description. By focusing on Taixu simply as a Buddhist figure, scholars in Buddhist studies often unintentionally decontextualize him. The years from 1908 to 1914 were some of the most tumultuous of Chinese history, witnessing a much anticipated but unplanned revolution, the birth of a democratic republic, and the return of autocracy all within a few short years. Taixu, as we shall see, was intimately involved in these political developments as well as events in the Buddhist world. In order to understand the impact that radicalism had on him in this period, we must construct a narrative of his activities that goes beyond that seen in the Autobiography or Annalistic Biography, weaving that thread into the broader tapestry of the time. This narrative will show that Taixu was deeply involved in currents of political thought characterized by revolutionary utopianism focused on the moral transformations of individuals and frequently founded on metaphysical monisms (­chapter 2 examines his reception). His involvement in these currents of thought and activity is comprised of three phases: initial exposure, ascension to leadership, and defeats and disillusionment.

A World Breaking Open Let us begin by setting the stage. The world in which Taixu came of age and entered political awareness was a world that was breaking apart, or breaking open, depending on one’s perspective. Starting in the nineteenth century, China had suffered imperialist predation, domestic unrest, and lackluster political leadership.10 Starting with the Opium War of 1839, foreign powers had been using their superior military power to force upon the Qing government a series of unequal treaties. This was death by a thousand paper cuts to Qing sovereignty as each required it to sign away its prerogatives in its own territory as well as grant foreign concessions, often known as treaty ports, in which the powers would enjoy extraterritoriality. At the same time domestic uprisings disrupted the internal functioning of the empire. The most catastrophic of these was the Taiping Rebellion of 1850, which wreaked havoc over large swaths of southern China and required fourteen years to put down. This was accomplished only by empowering the provinces to take their defense into their own hands, a move that, while successful, greatly strengthened

03

30

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

the provinces at the expense of the center. The unsuccessful and frequently inept responses of the Qing to these crises led many to blame the foreign nature of the dynasty for the country’s woes, which gave rise to a new nationalism defined in opposition to the Manchus. From the mid-​1800s into the first decade of the new century, the once mighty dynasty became increasingly fragile.

Reform The Qing did not simply acquiesce to obsolescence, however. Over the period from 1861 to 1895 it undertook a series of reforms known as the Self-​ Strengthening Movement (ziqiang yundong 自強運動). New government bureaucracies were created to deal with foreign powers, Western military technology was adopted, and light industry was developed. Nevertheless, the effects were ultimately limited. In part this was by design. The reforms were undertaken in order to maintain the status quo, not to change it. The essentials of the culture and imperial order were the core and to be maintained, while Western learning and technology were to be grafted on. The movement coincided, however, with a period of intensified imperialism, which diverted resources from self-​strengthening and highlighted its failures.11 The Sino-​Japanese War of 1895 was especially important in this regard. Defeat by an Asian power was proof positive to many of the inadequacies of the limited modernization of the Self-​Strengthening approach. This, in concert with the mad scramble for concessions that threatened to dismember China at the end of the nineteenth century, gave rise to the reform movement of 1898. This movement came to be dominated by Kang Youwei 康有 為 (1858–​1927), who envisioned a constitutional monarchy complete with a parliament and threefold division of powers. This led to the Hundred-​Day Reform in which a series of decrees mandating sweeping reforms were issued over 103 days. These reforms met with boycotts from relevant sections of the bureaucracy and led to a coup by the nominally retired but still powerful empress dowager. Kang and some of his followers fled while six others were executed without trial.12 Two figures involved in the Hundred-​Day Reform were to have a deep influence on Taixu, serving to introduce to him some of the key values and utopian orientations that would animate his radicalism and ultimately his reinvention of the cult of Maitreya. The first was Kang. His vision included not only a remade China but also a remade world. The most famous utopian of the period, Kang saw himself as a bodhisattva-​like figure forgoing the pure land in order to save the world of defilement.13 He laid out his vision in the

31

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

31

Book of the Grand Unity (Datong shu 大同書). In that work, he reinterpreted the doctrine of the “three ages” from the Confucian classics as a progressive evolution toward the utopian age of Datong 大同, or Grand Unity. In this future utopia, there would be no distinctions based on property, class, race, or sex and the nation-​state would be abandoned in favor of a world government. The moral basis for this society would be the Mencian doctrine of extending benevolence but without hierarchical distinctions.14 There are a few points to note here. First, as Hao Chang has observed,15 in contrast to previous visions of the good society in China,16 Kang’s Datong was to be found not in the past or in other worlds but in the future. It is moreover linked to a progressive vision of history in which human society steadily advances through a metahistorical process. Second, Kang’s good society is nonhierarchical. Hierarchical distinctions, which he terms “boundaries” (jie 界), lie at the root of all evil, for they obscure the essential unity of reality,17 a stance grounded in Huayan thought.18 Thus social equality is founded upon metaphysical unity. Another important figure from the reforms was Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1864–​ 1898), one of the six “martyrs.” Like Kang, Tan is famous for authoring an influential book as well as for his role in government. Though very different in its tone and particulars from Kang’s Book of the Grand Unity, Tan’s On Benevolence (Renxue 仁學) likewise offers a progressive utopianism19 coupled with a metaphysically grounded egalitarianism. Tan advocated a dynamic, Buddhist-​inflected monism based on “benevolence” (ren 仁), a term with metaphysical as well as moral meaning in his thought. “Benevolence” was pervasive and indestructible, circulating constantly. As such, it abhorred any boundaries or borders that would impede its flow.20 This metaphysic underwrote an activist morality opposed to the current order. True morality must be based on the free affection of benevolence that springs from recognition of interconnectivity, rather than division of reality into artificial, reified structures, a process he labels “naming” (ming 名). Thus Tan too was opposed to all divisions and hierarchies. He saw the world, not the nation, as the ultimate community and opposed the hierarchical relations of Chinese tradition and the Confucian morality that supported them.21 There is also progressive and utopian side to his thought. Tan saw history on a cosmic scale progressing from the formation of the solar system and the beginnings of life through an upward evolutionary process. For humanity’s future he saw a world in which science and medicine had eliminated hunger and illness.22 That future world would “be governed in such a way that there is only one world but no states. . . . If there were no states, there would not be any boundaries, wars, suspicion, jealousy, power-​struggles,

23

32

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

distinction between the self and others; and equality would emerge.” This world would be characterized by perfect equality, in which the universal virtue of benevolence had superseded all the partial, limited virtues rooted in the Confucian family structure.23 This perfect world also had an explicitly Buddhist cast: “The ultimate stage reached will be the descent of [Maitreya] Buddha to earth and the recovery of Vimalakīrti from his illness to preach the [Dharma] to the people. . . . All the people will have attained Buddhahood.”24 The pairing of a progressive utopia with Maitreya’s descent is especially striking here. Yet Tan does not develop the idea and the pairing with Vimalakirti indicates that it should be seen as an evocative metaphor. While reading this may have played some role in seeding Taixu’s mind with visions of the Maitreya’s paradise, we shall see in ­chapter  2 that it is the progressive utopianism and egalitarianism rooted in metaphysical unity as well as the language of “boundaries” and “naming” found in Kang and Tan’s works that bear more immediate fruit in Taixu’s radical thought.

Revolution and Radicalism Although the reformers continued to exert influence in the decade that followed, they were soon eclipsed by a revolutionary movement that argued for the total overthrow of the Qing court and the entire imperial system. In 1905 the various groups that formed that movement coalesced around the figure of Sun Yatsen (1870–​1925) and formed the Revolutionary Alliance. It was nominally guided by Sun’s philosophy of the Three People’s Principles—​ nationalism (minzu 民族), democracy (minzhu 民主), and socialism (minquan 民權)—​which sought a threefold revolution to overthrow the alien Qing regime, establish a republic, and institute a more equitable society.25 Although most members of the coalition were more interested in nationalist and democratic revolution, the Alliance played an important role in bringing the idea of social revolution into the mainstream and with it the notion that not merely the state but the entire social order was contingent and could be remade through intentional action. The most important segment of the revolutionary movement for our purposes is the anarchists, who were small in number but great in influence. European anarchism had emerged from the broader socialist movement, when Pierre-​Joseph Proudhon (1809–​1865) claimed the previously derogatory label for his own political philosophy. Chinese anarchism originated with small elite groups of Chinese intellectuals living in Paris, where they were directly exposed to European radicalism, and Tokyo, where they encountered

3

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

33

radicalism refracted through a Japanese prism and mixed with the revolutionaries of the Alliance. The Tokyo group was founded in 1907 by Liu Shipei 劉 師培 (1884–​1919) and He Zhen 何震 (d.u.). It published two journals, Natural Justice (Tianyi bao 天義報) and Equality (Heng bao 衡報) in which it promulgated an anarchism characterized by an antimodernist nostalgia for the virtues of agrarianism and the laissez-​faire governance of the imperial era and a reverence for Tolstoy. Founded slightly earlier in 1906 by Li Shizeng 李石 曾 (1881–​1973) and Wu Zhihui 吳稚暉 (1865–​1953), the Paris group took a very different approach. Theirs was a future-​oriented revolutionary anarchism. Modernist in orientation, it laid special emphasis on the thought of Peter Kropotkin (1842–​1921), the third of the great anarchist theorists. They too published a journal, The New Century (Xin shiji 新世紀), in which they published serialized translations of major anarchist works.26 These journals and especially the translations they carried would lay the foundation for the anarchist movement in China. Although many would-​be radicals had trouble grasping the finer points of the ideology and the relationship between anarchism and socialism was a matter of confusion and debate until the mid-​1910s, these publications ensured that most major anarchist works were readily available in the years leading up to the revolution, while only fragments of Marxist works (most also published by the anarchists) were available until the 1920s. Anarchism was thus the dominant radical ideology in China into the 1920s. Arif Dirlik has argued that as the revolutionary movement was taking shape anarchism played a key role in injecting it with certain concerns. These concerns were frequently diffused, such that its ideals penetrated across ideological boundaries and their anarchist origins were often forgotten.27 I argue later that this dynamic occurred to a degree in the cult of Maitreya as well. What then were the concerns of anarchism? Although best known in turn-​ of-​the-​century China as today for political assassinations, anarchism offered a comprehensive worldview, a moral universe. One scholar of anarchism, John P. Clark has offered the following definition of the ideology: In order for a political theory to be called “anarchism” in a complete sense it must contain: (1) a view of an ideal, noncoercive, nonauthoritarian society; (2)  a criticism of existing society and its institutions based on this antiauthoritarian ideal; (3) a view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal; and (4) a strategy for change, involving immediate institution of noncoercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralist alternatives.28

43

34

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

Although the proper character of anarchism was much contested in China, we may use these four characteristics to frame a discussion of core ideas and values of that were common to most iterations of Chinese anarchism. A View of an Ideal, Noncoercive, Nonauthoritarian Society

Although many anarchists denied it, anarchism had a strong utopian cast. In China, anarchists adopted the language of Datong bequeathed to them by their tradition and given new currency by Kang Youwei. Anarchist conceptions of Datong were similar to Kang’s in some respects, such as their absolute egalitarianism and their vision of a unified world. They differed, of course, in seeing no role for the state, imagining instead some form of local self-​organization. Another key respect in which they differed was in time frame. Whereas Kang saw Datong as the end of a long historical process, anarchists saw it as an immanent possibility attainable through a revolution that would erase not only authoritarian social structures but also hierarchical cultural forms, though some would eventually become disillusioned with the immediate prospects of implementing anarchism.29 Chinese anarchists’ musings about the future Datong sometimes took the form of full-​blown utopian visions. Wu Zhihui’s essay in this vein will prove significant for us. Writing for the New Century, he envisioned a society of ease and pleasure supported by technological and spiritual progress. Wu’s world of the future was a stateless one, obviously, in which people lived in small, highly organized communities made up of little houses with flowers in front and trees behind. Each had rooms for sleeping, eating, leisure, study, and work. These communities were part of a world united by a common language30 as well as zeppelins and motorized walkways somewhat similar to those seen in airports today but larger in scale. The material basis of this world would be a recognition of the necessity for all to work “according to their ability” so that each may enjoy the fruits “according to their need.” The world’s surface would be surveyed so that industries could be developed in suitable locations and the products would be distributed through local supply depots. The spiritual basis would be education. This would consist of practical fields such as science and engineering but more importantly of “anarchist morality” (wuzhengfu zhi daode 無政府之道德).31 We must note here, too, that just as the utopianism of Kang and especially Tan had a metaphysical side, there were also metaphysical conceptions of Datong to be found in Chinese anarchist circles, though they were a distinct minority. We examine the most important of these, that of Zhang Taiyan, in

35

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

35

a moment, but let us look briefly here at another, that of Ma Xulun 馬叙倫 (1884–​1970). In his 1903 article, “The New Ideology of the Twentieth Century” (Ershi shiji zhi xin zhuyi 二十世紀之新主義), Ma asserts that anarchism seeks a negation (wu 無) not just of government but of differentiation entirely. The problem is not merely political but cognitive, a matter not merely of the structure of government but the structure of reality. Any attempt to force names upon an unnameable reality ultimately falsifies it, but “anarchism offers a precious raft to find the correct ford to cross the stream” to reach utopia. As Dirlik points out, this conception of an existential utopia and the idiom in which it is expressed owe much to Buddhism.32 We shall find echoes of this in Taixu’s radical thought in ­chapter 2. A Criticism of Existing Society and Its Institutions Based on This Antiauthoritarian Ideal

Chinese anarchists saw their world as one of partiality and inequality. They rejected the division of society into competing nations, races, classes, and families in favor of a universalism that sought the good of all in common.33 “Related to this was the problem of exploitative hierarchies among competing groups which led to widespread inequality. Liu Shipei, for instance, saw inequality in three spheres. In politics there were inevitable inequalities of status, in economics the inequalities of wealth, and in race the inequalities of nationalism and imperialism.34 A key contribution of the anarchists to the revolutionary movement according to Dirlik was the recognition of the importance of culture in undergirding this unjust society. The system may have been initiated through force, according to some anarchists, but it was perpetuated by false morality (wei daode 偽道德),35 a term we shall see Taixu making much use of in the following chapter. For the Paris group and later anarchists this led to an indictment of the Confucian moral tradition. The Three Bonds (san gang 三綱) of ruler and minister, father and son, and husband and wife were rejected as an apologetic that dressed coercive authority as morality. Such values served only to make a virtue of oppression and submission.36 Religion was often subjected to a similar critique. A View of Human Nature that Justifies the Hope for Significant Progress toward the Ideal

Although the Tokyo group was marked by a degree of pessimism in this regard, the Paris group and later Chinese anarchists embraced an optimistic view of human nature. Their position owed something to their Confucian

63

36

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

heritage but took its mandate from the science of Peter Kropotkin, whose special appeal to Chinese adherents lay in his views of human nature and the scientific prestige they held. Though he initially made his reputation as a geologist, Kropotkin had studied the tribal peoples of Siberia during his military service. Based on his observations of their communal lifestyle, he developed a non-​Darwinian theory of evolution that posited that not only competition but also cooperation was the basis for the survival of species. In his view, humanity was characterized by a natural sociability and tendency to mutual aid. This was distorted by authoritarian structures but not erased.37 For Chinese anarchists, then, the goal was simply to restore the natural state of affairs. This optimism was further supported by a broader faith in scientific and technological progress ameliorating any practical obstacles. A Strategy for Change, Involving Immediate Institution of Noncoercive, Nonauthoritarian, and Decentralist Alternatives

This final characteristic was present in Chinese anarchism in several different ways. First, as will be discussed later, there was a strong concern with the continuity of means and ends. As Clark’s definition implies, anarchist theory insisted that the means employed be of a piece with the ends sought. Any attempt to employ authoritarian means as an expediency would ultimately lead to the replication of authoritarian structures. Anarchist revolution therefore could not be directed by a central party apparatus but must be a spontaneous uprising. This sharply limited the methods that were open to anarchists. They could only pave the way through propaganda, agitation, and dramatic actions such as strikes or assassinations.38 Another method open to them was their personal example. In China, this led to a strong emphasis on personal morality and an ethic of self-​sacrifice, often framed in terms of the bodhisattva ideal.39 Also key to any revolutionary strategy in Chinese anarchism was education. Education was central to revolution—​ indeed it was equivalent. Without it the revolution would be a mindless revolt. More than simple book learning, this education is the cognitive and moral transformation of the individual. Cognitively, the people must come to understand society as it truly is. As Li Shizeng put it, “the way to reach Datong is for the masses to know the truth and believe the truth” (zhong ren zhi dao xin dao 眾人知 道信道).” Morally, particular interest (si 私) must be eradicated by public interest (gong 公).40 One Chinese anarchist deserves special mention for he seems to have had a particularly strong influence on Taixu in important respects: Zhang

37

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

37

Taiyan 章太炎 (1869–​1936).41 Most important, it is he whom Taixu credits with convincing him that anarchism and Buddhism were kindred systems of thought.42 One of the greatest thinkers of his generation, Zhang was originally trained in the classical scholarship of the Han Learning (Hanxue 漢學). He initially was involved in the Reform movement but became radicalized in the famous Jiangsu Tribune (Su bao 蘇報) case, in which he and others were convicted for their anti-​Manchu writings. In prison, Zhang devoted himself to intensive reading of the Yogācāra treatises of Maitreya and Vasubandhu.43 Interestingly, he devoted the last two years to the Yogācārabhūmi, a text that would figure prominently in the new cult of Maitreya.44 When he was released in 1906, Zhang went to Japan where he joined the Revolutionary Alliance and became the editor of its journal the People’s Tribune as well as a major contributor. During this period he also had some association with the Tokyo group of anarchists, though this seems to have been relatively brief.45 While Zhang Taiyan’s activities in the revolutionary period may thus be summarized without controversy, his ideas are another matter. Zhang is a notoriously difficult writer46 and a wide-​ranging thinker. As such, he is something of a scholarly Rorschach.47 One major source of confusion is his essay “On the Five Negations” (Wu wu lun 五無論). This piece, which progressively negates government (wu zhengfu 無政府), fixed abodes (wu juluo 無聚落), humanity (wu renlei 無人類), sentient beings (wu zhongsheng 無眾生), and the world itself (wu shijie 無世界)—​has been variously read by scholars as sarcasm, pessimism, criticism of bourgeois democracy, and anarchism.48 Here we follow the interpretation of Wang Hui 汪暉, which takes the essay seriously as both an anarchist and a Buddhist text, as Taixu did. To summarize a complex argument, in Wang’s reading, the text is an anarchist critique of coercive social arrangements based on a metaphysic derived from Yogācāra and secondarily the Zhuangzi. According to Wang’s interpretation, all composite groupings are false; the individual (geti 個體) is ontologically prior and absolute. It does not come into existence due to society and is not beholden to it. Thus any coercive claims against the individual are illegitimate, as are all boundaries and hierarchies. The individual does not itself possess self-​nature (zixing 自性), however; it is merely proximate to it. Self-​ nature properly belongs only to the ālayavijñāna, the underlying storehouse consciousness of Yogācāra thought. From the ālaya evolves both awareness and the objects of awareness, making all things “consciousness only.” Thus, in effect, Wang argues, Zhang is making a twofold negation. He uses the individual to negate coercive groupings and the ālaya to negate the individual.

83

38

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

Negating the individual he returns to the true grouping, all things in their ontological equality.49 While we cannot be sure that this was exactly how Taixu understood this essay, we shall see in c­ hapter 2 that there are some similarities between Zhang Taiyan’s position as construed here and some of Taixu’s own radical writings. As well as using it as a theoretical resource, Zhang Taiyan also thought that Buddhism could be of important practical use in transforming the populace in preparation for political advancement. Religion was necessary to band the people together and promote morality. Among religions, Buddhism was best-​suited to China because it appealed to all—​its doctrine to the educated, its discipline to the masses. Moreover, it was originally free of the superstition of theism.50 Most important, Buddhism could foster a spirit suitable to the current revolutionary moment. In “On Establishing Religion,” he writes, The present age is not the age of Zhou, Qin, Han, and Wei. In those times things were far simpler, and even the commonplace sayings of Confucius and Laozi were adequate for teaching the people and perfecting customs. Today, however, conditions are different. Even theories of rebirth are inadequate. If we do not explain birthlessness, we shall be unable to eliminate the fear of death. If we do not eradicate the idea of “mine,” we shall be unable to eliminate the worship of wealth. If we do not speak in terms of equality, we shall be unable to eliminate the slave mentality. If we do not make it clear that all sentient beings are Buddhas, we shall be unable to eliminate the sense of inferiority that leads men to yield in the face of adversity. If we do not exalt the purity of the three wheels, [the emptiness of giver, gift, and recipient,] we shall be unable to eliminate the belief that one deserves credit for good deeds.51 He thus saw Buddhism as itself revolutionary in character, capable of washing away the evil customs of the past. Zhang viewed Yogācāra as one of the forms of Buddhism most suitable to revolution. The Yogācārabhūmi śāstra seems to have been a key text in this regard, and we find Zhang interpreting it in ways that clearly influenced the formulation of the Maitreya School. First, in his famous essay “An Interpretation of ‘On the Equalization of Things’ ” (Qiqu lun shi 齊物論釋) Zhang adopts the four investigations found in the treatise’s “Chapter on Knowing Reality” (Zhengshi yi pin 真實義品) as the means of equalization. In Viren Murthy’s interpretation, this is a liberatory epistemological practice that allows the bodhisattva to recover things in their equality without subsuming

93

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

39

them within hegemonic universals.52 While Taixu’s reading of this difficult text was in all likelihood different than Murthy’s, we shall see in ­chapter 4 that he too highlights the four investigations. He also shared Zhang’s view of Yogācāra as a kind of super-​scientific mode of knowledge.53 Finally, he seems to have followed Zhang’s reading of the Yogācārabhūmi’s chapter on precepts as underwriting a revolutionary ethic.54 We may conclude this sketch of the historical context in the years leading up to the 1911 revolution by highlighting a few key commonalities of reform and radical thought. First, we must note the strong utopian character of both strains. Although Datong was deferred to the end of a metahistorical process by the reformers and affirmed as an immanent possibility attainable through human effort by the radicals, both looked to the future to imagine the perfect human society. In both cases the society envisioned was one of radical equality, an equality frequently founded not only in anthropology but in metaphysics. In this vision, the lynchpin of progress was morality, whether the extension of benevolence or the reform of individuals. Finally, elements of Buddhist derivation could be found in both reformism and radicalism.

Taixu’s Years of Living Dangerously These were the currents of thought that Taixu encountered as a young monk in 1908. Prior to that point there would have been little to indicate the degree that he would be swept up in them or the prominence of the role he would play. Taixu was born Lü Gansen 呂淦森55 on January 8, 189056 in Haining county in northern Zhejiang. His father, a bricklayer, died when he was two years old and Taixu was raised by his maternal grandmother following his mother’s remarriage. His grandmother was a devout woman who exposed the young boy to religion through frequent pilgrimages and temple visits. She also ensured that her grandson received an education. He went on to become a shop apprentice but soon began to entertain thoughts of the monastic life. In the spring of 1904 he decided to leave home and after some misadventure ended up at Lesser Jiuhua Temple (Xiao jiuhua si 小九華寺) near Suzhou.57 He received tonsure from the prior, Master Shida 士達, and was soon ordained at Tiantong Monastery 天童寺 in Ningbo.58 At his ordination, Taixu was singled out for his talent and given the best education that the Jiangnan public monastery system had to offer,59 studying with two of the eminent monks of his day. Under Jichan 寄禪 (1852–​1912) he practiced Chan while under Daojie 道階 (1866–​1934) he learned the scriptures. He listened to lectures on central texts of late Qing Chinese Buddhism such as the Lotus Sutra (Fahua jing 法華經) and the Śūraṃgama Sutra (Lengyan

04

40

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

jing 楞嚴經) as well as the Essential Outline of the Teachings and Contemplations (Jiaoguan gang zong 教觀綱宗), the Outline of the Five Teachings (Wu jiao yi 五教儀) and the Eight Essential Texts of the School of [Dharma] Characteristics (Xiangzong ba yao 相宗八要), standard texts on Tiantai, Huayan, and Yogācāra, respectively.60 Nevertheless, he was unsatisfied. He states in his autobiography that although many thought that he had attained insight in meditation and deep learning of the teachings, he was really just blessed with an exceptional memory. He performed Chan-​like actions and spoke profound doctrines, but real understanding, he felt, eluded him.61 In 1908, he went to the Scripture Hall of Xifang Monastery (Xifang si 西方寺) for individual study. There he had his first enlightenment experience while reading the Greater Perfection of Wisdom (Da bore jing 大般若經). He would later recount: One day after reading the sutra, body, mind and world suddenly disappeared. In the midst of empty quiescence, there was brilliant tranquility and numberless worlds (chensha 塵剎) gloriously manifest like mirages in the sky, illuminating endlessly. In the days that followed, he completed the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures and turned to the Huayan Sutra (Huayan jing 華嚴經), discovering that direct understanding (xianliang 現量) was at last available to him.62 Of that time, he wrote, “the joy of Chan was [my] daily bread” and “the bliss of the Dharma overflowed within.”63

Risky Business: 1908–​1910 It was at this point that Taixu, deeply immersed in the values and traditions of the Jiangnan monastic system, experienced a second initiation and conversion to reformist thought and revolutionary ideology. In early spring of 1908 a monk from Wenzhou called Huashan 華山 (1870–​1918) came to Xifang Monastery and became fast friends with Taixu. An early adopter of the “new learning” (xin xue 新學), he tried to explain the new trends in China and the world to his friend and to impress upon him the imperative to reform Buddhism. Taixu was resistant, but his curiosity was aroused. He borrowed several books, including Kang Youwei’s Book of the Grand Unity, Tan Sitong’s On Benevolence, and Zhang Taiyan’s “Letter to the Sons of the Buddha” (Gao fo zi shu 告佛子書) and “Letter to the White-​ robed [Laity]” (Gao baiyi shu 告白衣書) as well as Liang Qichao’s On New People (Xin min shuo 新民說) and Yan Fu’s On Natural Evolution (Tianyan

41

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

41

lun 天演論). Despite himself, Taixu found himself admiring what he read and would later say that it was here that his desire to use Buddhism to save the world began.64 Not long after, Taixu would meet a figure who would be even more consequential in drawing him into the political currents of the day, the revolutionary monk Qiyun 棲雲 (d.u.). Like Taixu, Qiyun had left home under Jichan, but he abandoned monastic life to study in Japan where he became involved in the Revolutionary Alliance. Later he returned to China with Xu Xilin 徐錫麟 and Qiu Jin 秋瑾 to plot revolution. At times he would dress as a layman and at times retreat to the safety of the monastery. The summer of 1908 would seem to be one of the latter. He met Taixu at Lesser Jiuhua and introduced him to revolutionary literature such as The People’s Tribune (Min bao 民報) and Revolutionary Army (Geming jun 革命軍) by Zou Rong 鄒容.65 In return, when Qiyun was arrested as short time later, Taixu prevailed upon Jichan to intervene with the authorities to secure his release.66 In his autobiography Taixu presents this introduction to reformist and revolutionary thought as a sort of fall from grace. He titles this chapter “The Invasion of New Learning and Revolutionary Thought” (Xinxue he geming sixiang de qinru 新學和革命思想的侵入). He opens by waxing lyrical about the spiritual attainments he enjoyed following his first enlightenment experience. “The joy of Chan [had been his] daily bread” but after meeting Huashan he “turned from the true back to the worldly” (hui zhen xiang su 迴真向俗). Then, meeting Qiyun, he fell “deeper into the dust of the world” (shenru yi ceng suchen 深入一層的俗塵).67 This, however, is part of the self-​construction of the autobiography. Taixu is marginalizing episodes from his earlier career that do not fit with his current self-​presentation as the leader of a reform movement, which was actually quite conservative in many respects. Rather than a fall from grace, Taixu’s introduction to reformist, revolutionary, and eventually radical thought should be seen as an awakening. The young monk saw in these new streams of thought exciting possibilities and new values. The nature of these possibilities and values is the focus of ­chapter 2, but we shall see throughout our account here that Taixu was consistently motivated by a positive vision of the possibilities of his historical moment and the goods that it revealed and made attainable. That autumn Jichan formed the Ningbo Monastic Education Society (Seng jiaoyu hui 僧教育會) assisted by Taixu, Huashan and Qiyun. Though not ultimately very successful, the Ningbo association did provide Taixu with an entrée to the Buddhist reform movement, including an opportunity to speak at the provincial meeting.68 Taixu’s involvement with revolution and Buddhist reform thus begin at essentially the same time.

24

42

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

In the spring of 1909, Taixu sought some modern education for himself at Yang Wenhui’s new school, the Jetavana Hermitage (Zhihuan jingshe 祇洹精 舍).69 Connected to the emerging global Buddhist movement through ties to Nanjō Bunyū 南条文雄 and Dharmapala, Yang founded the school to provide a modern education in the service of a global Buddhist mission. In theory, the school was to have provided eight years of education at three academic levels and to have included studies in Buddhist texts, Chinese literature, and English. Yang’s resources, however, failed to match his ambitions. Taixu was able to study there for only a term before it closed.70 In March or April of 1910 Taixu and Qiyun were invited to go to Guangzhou and assist the abbot of Shuangxi Temple (Shuangxi si 雙溪寺) in organizing a new Sangha Education Society there.71 They traveled south together and, despite the fact that the educational venture was unsuccessful, remained for over a year in Guangzhou,72 which was becoming a hotbed of revolutionary activity. During his time in the south, Taixu grew in prominence as a Buddhist figure and became more deeply involved in revolution. At the invitation of the monk Zhiguang 誌光 and a group of local laity, Taixu organized the Buddhist Study Vihara (Foxue jingshe 佛學精舍). There he delivered a series of lectures on Buddhist history and doctrine, titled “Essential Annotations on the Teachings and Contemplations” (Jiaoguan quanyao 教觀 詮要) and “A Sketch of Buddhist History” (Fojiao shilue 佛教史略). Though largely unremarkable, they suggest at points the influence of the revolutionary milieu on the young monk’s thinking. “The Essential Annotations” calls on its listeners to “elucidate truth and benefit sentient beings based on the learning of natural science as well as the arts” while the “Sketch of Buddhist History” frames its narrative as one of great Buddhist heroes “riding the passing currents of world civilization” and argues for the equality of monastics and laity.73 At that time, his skill at verse and association with Jichan, also a well-​ regarded monk-​poet, allowed him to make the acquaintance of the poet Yi Ku’an 易哭庵 and through him a number of local officials. These connections would serve Taixu well during his stay. In the fall of 1910 when Yuebin decided to retire as abbot of Shuangxi Temple, Taixu’s literati supporters successfully pushed for the young monk to succeed him.74 All the while, Taixu was becoming radicalized. As he put it in the Autobiography, in this period, his “political and social ideas went from constitutional monarchy to republican revolution, to socialism, to anarchism.” He began to read the works of foreign radicals, including the three great anarchist theorists—​Bakunin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin—​as well as Marx (though little more than excerpts from the Communist Manifesto was available

43

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

43

in Chinese at this point).75 Of particular importance was Zhang Taiyan, whose “On Establishing Religion” (Jianli zongjiao lun 建立宗教論), “On the Five Negations” (Wu wu lun 五無論), and “On the Simultaneous Evolution [of Good and Evil]” (Jufen jinhua lun 俱分進化論) convinced him that “anarchism was close to Buddhism and could be gradually approached through social democracy.”76 He began to socialize more and more with revolutionaries, adopting their “romantic and unrestrained ways” and attending secret meetings. Associates at this time included figures such as Zhu Zhixin 朱執信, a protégé of Sun Yatsen, a propagandist and organizer for the Revolutionary Alliance in Guangdong, and the translator of portions of the Communist Manifesto; and Mo Jipeng 莫紀彭, who established the southern branch of the Alliance with Hu Hanmin 胡漢民 to raise funds and foment revolution, as well as lesser known alliance members such as Zou Lu 鄒魯, Pan Dawei 潘達微 and Liang Shangtong 梁尚同. The extent of these contacts is downplayed in the Autobiography: it makes no mention of Zhu and refers to Mo, Pan, and Liang only as “journalists.”77 During this period he may have also met Liu Sifu 劉思 復, a bomb-​maker who would later become China’s most famous anarchist.78 These associations eventually brought Taixu’s southern sojourn to a close. On April 25, 1911, the Revolutionary Alliance launched an offensive in Guangzhou that came to be known as the Huanghuagang 黃花崗 Uprising. The action was a botch but was nevertheless a key event in setting the stage for the revolution later that year. Many of the revolutionaries, including their leader Huang Xing 黃興 (1874–​1916) escaped, but seventy-​two were “martyred.”79 Among those involved in the incident were several of Taixu’s friends and associates. Zhu Zhixin was the chief assistant to Huang Xing80 and Mo Jipeng81 and Zou Lu82 also participated as, no doubt, did many other friends and acquaintances unknown to us. Following the suppression, the authorities were investigating individuals with revolutionary leanings and Taixu took the better part of valor, resigning as abbot and fleeing to the neighboring province of Jiangxi until things cooled down. Before he left he wrote a poem commemorating the fallen. The poem is lost, but one associate from those days reported his recollection of the opening stanza to Yinshun: In the cities of south Yue83 war breaks out and the cannon’s roar shakes the heavens. To die to restore the people’s rights is to live. I write one word, large and bold, “martyr.”84

4

44

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

On May 7 Qiyun was arrested for trying to bring guns in from Vietnam by the authorities,85 who subsequently discovered a copy of Taixu’s verse while searching his residence. Suspicious that Taixu may have been involved in the upraising, the authorities dispatched troops to Shuangxi, but they were unable to find him. When Taixu got wind of what was happening he hid at the presses of Pan Dawei’s journal The Common Man (Pingmin bao 平民報). Taixu wanted to return to Jiangnan but was unable to do so due to concerns for his safety and lack of funds. Yet the predicament wrought by the brush was solved by the brush. The friends Taixu had made in official circles with his poetic talent intervened on his behalf, securing funds and safe passage out of Guangdong.86 Such protection from officials of the very state he wished to overthrow was in fact typical of the revolutionary atmosphere of the time, in which elite, radicalized young men were shielded by the older relative and patrons, whose faith in the status quo had begun to waver.87 Previously, this has generally been taken to be the end of Taixu’s involvement with revolution and politics. Taixu’s autobiography simply trails off at this point with a few vague references to subsequent contacts with radicals.88 This leads even Jiang Canteng in his account of Taixu’s early life to conclude that his run-​in with the law led him to refocus his energies solely on Buddhism.89 In fact, this was just the beginning. In the years that followed, Taixu continued to be very active in radicalism as well as in Buddhist reform and was to progress in both from follower to leader.

New Possibilities: 1911–​1912 Taixu returned to Jiangnan and reconnected with his teachers and Buddhist associates, but it was not long before the world was transformed around him. Of the eve of revolution he wrote: Everyone spoke of revolution, but few were willing to follow up with action. Although revolutionary thought was ubiquitous, revolution was not inevitable. Only after the success of the . . . uprising did provinces that previously did not dare to speak of revolution revolt. Is this not a case of “if one does not fear difficulty it will be easy?”90 The turning point came on October 9, 1911, at which time Taixu staying with the revolutionary monk Zongyang 宗仰 (1865–​1921) in the foreign concession of Shanghai91 likely because its extraterritoriality placed it beyond the reach of the Qing. On that day, authorities in Wuchang discovered the revolutionary headquarters there and found, along with explosives and weapons, a list

45

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

45

of members. Rather than await certain arrest, the revolutionaries seized the moment to strike the following day and met with unexpected success when the local authorities fled under the attack. Finding themselves in control of the city, the revolutionaries issued a call to revolution to the other provinces and, after a week in which the central government failed to take decisive action, the country responded. One after another, the provinces declared independence. Within a month and a half, two-​thirds of China had slipped from the Qing’s grasp. In December, a provisional government was established in Nanjing and Sun Yatsen was elected as provisional president.92 The Qing court turned to Yuan Shikai, a powerful and ambitious general it had earlier forced into retirement. Yuan, however, used the crisis as an opportunity to secure his own advancement. He cut a deal with the revolutionaries in which he would receive the presidency in return for forcing the abdication of the Qing. This was accomplished on February 12, 1912. The following day Sun resigned as provisional president and recommended Yuan to succeed him. Yuan was inaugurated in Beijing on March 10 and a constitution was promulgated the next day. The new republic was taking shape, but the compromises made with Yuan would ultimately spell its doom.93 In the meantime there was a brief spell of political openness and optimism. Radical groups seized the opportunity to organize openly and sprouted up in many cities. Rather than advocate for further revolutionary upheaval, many of the first generation of Chinese anarchists turned their attention to what Peter Zarrow terms “applied anarchism,” founding societies dedicated to the moral elevation of their members. One such group was the Society to Advance Morality (Jinde hui 進德會) founded by Wu Zhihui and Li Shizeng of the Paris group along with Zhang Ji of the Tokyo group. They felt that social vices had been the undoing of the Qing and that as politics came to be transcended in the transition from republic to anarchy, personal morality would become ever more important. Members of the society were to be a moral vanguard, whose example would inspire a new society. The project of advancing morality was assumed by undertaking a series of graded prohibitions. At a minimum, no member was to hire prostitutes, gamble, or take concubines. Members might go on to observe further prohibitions against becoming an official (Class A), joining the legislature or smoking (Class B), and drinking and eating meat (Class C).94 There are a few points to note about these societies. First, they show the beginnings of the ideological flexibility that would ultimately lead many of the first generation away from anarchism. Content with the republic for the present they looked on anarchism primarily as a mode of ethical transformation.95 Second, we must note the at least superficial similarities with Buddhist

64

46

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

lay piety. Though they did not use the same word, the prohibitions of these societies offer points of similarity with Buddhist prohibitions or precepts (jie 戒). They overlap in content as with refraining from alcohol and meat and also in form as with the progressive abstentions of the Society to Advance Morality, which resemble the successively more strict prohibitions undertaken by lay devotees. Most important, however, there seems to be a shared moral psychology and sociology, a common notion that refraining from certain behaviors can have a broader transformative effect on the individual and, through the individual, the world. Such prohibitions were also to be found in Taixu’s own radical group, and a similar focus will be seen in his cult of Maitreya in Part II. As the first generation began to turn their focus to anarchism as a means of ethical transformation rather than a revolutionary ideology, a new figure emerged who would keep the flame of revolutionary purism alive. Liu Sifu 劉思復 (1884–​1915) would become the paradigmatic anarchist for decades of Chinese radicals. Originally involved in assassination squads for the Revolutionary Alliance, Liu experienced a sort of conversion to anarchism while traveling with friends in the aftermath of the 1911 revolution. At a temple on West Lake, they formed the Conscience Society (Xin she 心社), whose twelve-​point covenant reveals a vision of social transformation rooted in the moral transformation of the individual. Members would forego meat, alcohol, tobacco, servants, rickshaws, marriage, family names, official positions, elected positions, membership in political parties, service in the armed forces, and religion. Again, there are strong similarities to Buddhism here, extending even to the renunciation of one’s former name. Thus Liu Sifu came to be called Shifu 師復. In the years following the revolution, the group was active primarily in Guangzhou where they published a journal—​the Cock-​crow Record (Huiming lu 晦鳴陸), later the People’s Voice (Min sheng 民聲)—​and taught Esperanto among other activities.96 Another of the many radical groups sprouting up in the sudden spring of 1911 and 1912, one with which Taixu was to be personally involved, was the Chinese Socialist Party (Zhongguo shehui dang 中國社會黨). Originally founded by Jiang Kanghu 江亢虎 (1883–​1954) as the Society for the Study of Socialism in July 1911, it was reorganized as the Chinese Socialist Party on November 5. The movement took off quickly. By January there were branches throughout the Jiangnan region,97 and at its peak it claimed 200 branches and 400,000 members. While this may be exaggerated, a large membership has been confirmed in east China at least. By Jiang’s own admission, however, many members likely had little understanding of socialism. The diffuse organization remained more of a study group than a proper party and included people of varying ideological positions, which ultimately lead to schism.98

4 7

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

47

Taixu became involved in this organization sometime shortly after its founding. In his autobiography, Taixu simply says that when Jiang published the party charter, he “responded to the call” (ji yu xiangying 即與響 應).99 Yinshun is a bit more direct, stating that Taixu “joined Jiang’s Chinese Socialist Party because he found affinities with his ideas and positions and found it a like-​minded community.”100 Neither source has much more to say in this connection, giving the impression that this was a short-​lived or superficial affiliation. In fact, as we shall see, Taixu was an active participant in the Chinese Socialist Party and swiftly became a leader of one of its factions. For the moment, however, Buddhist projects occupied his attention. On New Year’s Day 1912, Sun Yatsen provisionally assumed the presidency. With the inauguration of the provisional government, many lined up seeking recognition for their newly formed organizations and societies. Taixu, just twenty-​ three years old, was among them. In January of 1912 he traveled to the new capital of Nanjing, where he stayed at Pilu Temple (Pilu si 毗盧寺), a monastery that also served as the headquarters for the local branch of the Chinese Socialist Party. There Taixu established the Society for the Advancement of Buddhism (Fojiao xiejin hui 佛教協進會), designating the monastery as its headquarters. Through the offices of a fellow party member, Taixu was able to arrange a meeting with the president, who approved the new organization.101 The core of the society’s membership were monks who, like Taixu himself, had received some of the new education,102 and its aim was nothing less than a threefold revolution—​in doctrine (jiaoli 教理), monastic rule (sengzhi 僧制), and temple property (sichan 寺產).103 According to a later essay by Taixu, the revolution in doctrine meant that Buddhism should focus more on the present life and not devote itself exclusively to the afterlife. Whereas in the past Buddhism had been used as a tool of the ruling class to deceive the people, he argued, in the future it should be used to investigate the truth of the universe in order secure development and progress for the world’s people. The revolution in rule is somewhat vague but refers to organization, especially of the sangha. Finally, the revolution in temple property meant that all such property should be held in common by the sangha as a whole. The society opposed the “evil customs” of tonsure lineage and Dharma lineage, which led property to be held privately.104 Thus we can see that the Society’s ideology reflected socialist concerns.105 To Taixu’s regret, however, it was short-​lived, in large part because it soon became embroiled in one of the most (in)famous incidents of Taixu’s career, the “Uproar at Jinshan” (Jinshan da nao 金山大鬧).106 Renshan 仁山 (1887–​1951), one of Taixu’s classmates from Yang Wenhui’s school, came to Taixu with a proposal to turn Jinshan, one of the most revered Chan

84

48

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

monasteries of the day, into a school for monks. Finding the plan consonant with the aims of his new society, Taixu agreed to participate. A meeting was arranged at Jinshan to which they invited monks and laypeople from all over the area. Attendees ultimately included two hundred to three hundred monks and three hundred to four hundred laymen, the majority of them local members of the Chinese Socialist Party.107 Taixu was elected chair of the meeting, and matters reportedly proceeded smoothly until Renshan spoke. Renshan had taken tonsure at the Guanyin Hall 觀音閣 on Jinshan and had a stake in old resentments against the main monastery. When attacked by a monk from Yangzhou, Renshan gave a furious indictment of the “authoritarianism” (zhuanzhi 專制) of Jinshan and its administration and called for the monastery to be turned into a school and all property used for its support. The audience, stacked with supporters of Taixu and Renshan from outside Jinshan, overwhelmingly supported the proposal and physically intimidated those who opposed.108 It was a coup with a thin veneer of democracy. After the meeting dispersed, Taixu returned to Nanjing to secure the foundations of his Society, leaving Renshan in charge of Jinshan, while the deposed abbot and his supporters left the monastery to plot a countercoup. Though they attempted to secure official support to retake the monastery, it was not long before they took matters into the own hands. Backed by dozens of thugs armed with knives and clubs, they broke back into the monastery to disrupt the school, injuring Renshan and many others. When the matter was taken to court, the abbot and his supporters were given sentences from five years to six months, but the Society was ordered to cease operation and terminate the school.109 Taixu sometimes tried to minimize his own responsibility for the affair, interpreting it as a failure of implementation. Thus in his “The Failure of My Buddhist Revolution,” he says, Although I was the theoretical inspiration, it was another group that implemented [our program] at Jinshan and elsewhere. Because the concrete action was too cavalier and careless, we barely got off a shot before being hit with a tremendous counterstrike and cut off in our prime. Thus word of my Buddhist revolution was spread, meeting with admiration, fear, revulsion, or sympathy.110 As Rongdao Lai notes, one factor in the fear and revulsion some felt was certainly the uncomfortable resemblance between Taixu and company’s actions and those of secular reformers bent on appropriating temple property for use

94

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

49

in education.111 Be that as it may, we can clearly see that Taixu was intent on bringing revolutionary values and methods to bear on Buddhism. The Society’s platform called for a socioeconomic revolution that would institute common ownership of property and purge the monastic community of its quasi-​familial forms of organization (the family was a bête noir of Chinese anarchists). The takeover of Jinshan, though no doubt intended to be bloodless, followed a revolutionary model. This model can be seen even in Taixu’s account years later, which employs martial tropes to describe the events at Jinshan. These events made Taixu’s reputation on the Buddhist stage. Sometimes they are viewed as having so discredited him as to drive him into seclusion,112 yet he would remain active in Buddhist reform (though with little success) for another year and a half. In April Taixu’s master Jichan called him to Shanghai to participate in the formation of the new Chinese Buddhist Federation (Zhonghua fojiao zonghui 中華佛教總會), which would unite the several existing Buddhist societies into a national organization to more effectively oppose government plans to confiscate temple property.113 Angry at the rashness of the Jinshan incident, Jichan urged Taixu to fold his Society for the Advancement of Buddhism114 and support the Federation instead. Though slow to be approved and short-​lived, the Federation was the first truly national Buddhist organization,115 but for our purposes, its significance lies in the platform it provided for Taixu’s ideas. He took advantage of this right away at the inaugural meeting, objecting to plans to secure protection of monastic property by making a donation to the new government. He reasoned that it was the duty of citizens to provide for the government and the responsibility of the government to protect the property of its citizens.116 Soon Taixu would be made editor of the Federation’s journal and gain a much broader platform from which to present such new ideas to a Buddhist audience. At precisely the same time, Taixu was becoming more deeply involved with the Chinese Socialist Party. He met important figures within the party, such as Yin Ren 殷仁, Xu Anzhen 徐安鎮, Chen Yilong 陳翼龍, Sha Gan 沙淦, and Lü Daren 呂大任. These last two would become close associates of Taixu in this period. Lü would later recall his first encounter with the young Taixu at a socialist study meeting: In the spring of 1912 there was a socialist study group at the Renqi Hall (Renqi tang 仁濟堂) on Yunnan Road in Shanghai. There was a young monk there who spoke an unusual amount and whose views were peculiarly close to my own. He held forth on his opinions and said, ‘If we wish to truly relieve the suffering of the people, we must

05

50

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

have not only racial and political revolution, but also social revolution.’ Thereafter, we became exceptionally close.117 In particular Taixu was becoming involved with the “pure” socialist faction of party, of which Lü and Sha Gan were a part.118 As we have noted the Chinese Socialist Party was a heterogeneous group that in many respects was scarcely socialist at all. The “pure” (chuncui 純粹) or “narrow” (xiayi 狹義) socialists were the wing of the party that opposed this eclecticism and took a more strict, even extreme, ideological stance. One contributor to their journal actually said “if a theory is not extreme, it is not good.” He then went on to define the theory that formed the ideological core of “pure socialism,” the “Three No’s” (sanwu zhuyi 三無主義). These were “no religion” (wu zongjiao 無宗教) “no family” (wu jiating 無家庭) and “no government” (wu zhengfu 無政府). These three institutions created false divisions among people, oppressive hierarchies, and a culture of submission. When eliminated an ideal society founded on the virtues of freedom, equality, and universal brotherhood (bo’ai 博愛)119 would ensue.120 This, of course, sounds very much like anarchism. This ideological affinity was recognized by other anarchists such as Shifu121 and has led to some attention from scholars of anarchism such as Dirlik, Krebs, and Zarrow. The pure socialists themselves sometimes admitted that their ideology was a species of anarchism but at other times insisted that anarchism, which in Chinese is literally “no-​government-​ism,” was only one of the “Three No’s” and thus pure socialism included anarchism but transcended it. As such, I refer to their position as “anarcho-​socialism” when the accent is on their self-​perception but occasionally simply as “anarchism” when the focus is on the content of their ideology. This wing of the party published its own journal, Social World (Shehui shijie 社會世界), which enjoyed a run of five issues between April and November of 1912. The journal was edited by Sha Gan under the name Fenfen 憤憤 and by possibly Taixu as well.122 Taixu was at any rate a regular contributor, indeed one of the most prolific, publishing five articles over four issues. We examine those writings in depth in c­ hapter 2. Articles by others reveal the range of concerns that motivated the pure socialists. They wrote about social revolution, the equality of the sexes, and the ideology of their faction. Most interesting for our purposes is the extent to which Buddhist concepts and images are found throughout the journal. One example is “Land of Bliss” (Jile shijie 極樂世界) by “Unending Causation” (Xuyin 絮因),123 an unfinished socialist “knight errant” (wuxia 武俠) tale about a grandfather raising his grandchildren, whose parents were martyred assassins, in an autarchic

51

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

51

agrarian utopia. The title, of course, is an allusion to the pure land of the West, and an accompanying poem, “Inscription on the Land of Bliss,” foreshadowing the themes of the novel contains further Buddhist elements. It is filled with imagery such as Trāyastriṃśa Heaven and twirling flowers and ends with a vision that we shall see Taixu echo in his own writings, a vision of a utopia in which social and metaphysical equality blend: “No boundaries whatsoever separate self and other. How could there be names by which to call [another] servant or slave?”124 Another article opens the second issue by extolling Social World in strikingly Buddhist terms: In this expansive sea of evil sin is rampant. Is Social World not the precious raft which will universally deliver sentient beings (pudu zhongsheng zhi baofa 普渡眾生之寶筏)? In this long slow night, the darkness is deep and thick. Is Social World not a mirror of wisdom greatly casting its radiance (da fang guangming zhi huijian 大放光明之慧鑑)?125 Another article even addressed Buddhist affairs directly. The piece criticizes the monastic establishment for rejecting the calls of “a certain monk” to common property, an oblique reference to Taixu and his three revolutions,126 one battle of which Chinese Socialist Party members were involved in at Jinshan. Finally, one is struck by the Buddhist pseudonyms used, such as “Iron Buddha” Zhang (Zhang Tiefo 張鐵佛) and “Kindly Buddha” Lu (Lu Cifo 盧慈 佛), or the aforementioned “Unending Causation” Zhu (Zhu Xuyin 禇絮因). There had been tensions between the pure socialist and state socialist wings of the Chinese Socialist Party almost from its inception. The original platform contained elements of both:  anarchism was praised and anarchy stated to be the ultimate goal. In the meantime, however, a strong state was a necessary means and stage of development. Yet, in another nod to the anarcho-​socialists, the Chinese Socialist Party was not to be an actual party; that is, it would not participate in elections or government. This uneasy balance did not last long.127 In October 1912, less than a year after the party’s founding, a convention was held in Shanghai to deal with the disputes between the two factions. Members advocating state socialism wanted to turn it into a political party. Members advocating pure socialism wanted to change the charter to bring it fully in line with anarcho-​socialism. Fierce argument ensued. Leaders tried to restore harmony by adding two provisions to the charter “advocating pure socialism without threatening with the existence of the state” and allowing individuals or groups to pursue politics. Such an ungainly compromise

25

52

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

satisfied no one and simply compounded the contradictions of the party charter. At some point probably shortly after the meeting, the pure socialists decided to split from the Chinese Socialist Party and took the majority of the membership with them. They would call their new group simply the Socialist Party (Shehui dang 社會黨), dropping the “Chinese” to signal their more international concerns.128 Taixu was emerging at this point as a leader and spokesman for the Socialist Party.129 I do not argue that he had become a theorist of radical ideology or even that he necessarily understood socialist or anarchist thought completely. He did not, though I  suspect his understanding was better than average. Rather, I argue that he had become deeply involved in internal debates in radical circles and was inspired by radical values and ideas. He had spoken out at the meeting, arguing that if pure socialism does not threaten the existence of the state, then part of it has already been sacrificed.130 Taixu continued the debate in the pages of Social World in a long piece titled “A Comprehensive View of the Socialist Party and Chinese Socialist Party” (Shehui dang yu zhongguo shehui dang zhi bamian guan 社會黨與中國社會黨之八面觀). In that piece he engaged four different figures from the state socialist wing of the Chinese Socialist Party, quoting long passages from their writings and debating them point by point. Although many issues are discussed including the true nature of socialism and anarchism and the historical origins of state socialism and anarchism, the crux of the debate is the classic anarchist issue of means and ends. Jiang and company saw state socialism as a necessary means to eventual anarchy. Taixu saw an irremediable contradiction in trying to reach anarchy by strengthening the state.131 Yin Ren accuses Taixu and the pure socialists of being unwilling to get their hands dirty and “go to the hell of state socialism.” Taixu responds that a bodhisattva must end, not extend suffering.132 Only those who embrace anarchism really see government as hell; state socialists see it as the Land of Bliss. Only the anarchist embodies the [bodhisattva] spirit of “If I do not go to hell, who will?” (Wo bu ru diyu shei ru diyu 我不入地獄誰入地獄). They see the world as evil but do not retreat from it. Rather they move people with the gospel of extreme socialism and fill their minds with its truth and assist them in escaping the hell of false morality and evil systems in hopes of human happiness, that they may join hands in a paradise of equality, freedom, and happiness. For this goal, he is happy to sacrifice his life, his reputation, his happiness, and his light.133

53

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

53

The new party was officially announced and its platform published in December of 1912. According to this document, the Socialist Party took as basic principle “the fundamental importance of the transformation of social organization to the pursuit of human happiness.” It thus sought to (a) abolish class divisions created by difference in wealth (communism), high and low (respect for the individual), and intelligence (educational equality) and (b) eliminate all divisions on basis of state, family, and religion. The party set for itself three tasks: (a) propaganda—​the new party would spread its message through magazines, books, and lectures; (b) “destruction”—​it would work for the eradication of authority and prepare for the great world revolution; and (c)  “construction”—​it would build nurseries, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, homes for elderly, farms and factories, and parks. Like many other anarchist groups, members were required to abstain from certain social customs deemed contrary to the party’s goals. These included serving in government or as soldier or police officer, joining a political party, using a family name, and marriage.134 Edward Krebs has ventured a characterization about the membership of the new party. He infers that the membership was likely young and “impatient for radical change” and included “many educated Buddhist laymen and others in new or transitional professions.” He also suggests that they had probably made up a majority of the Chinese Socialist Party,135 which, if accurate, would indicate a substantial membership. For Taixu, it must have seemed a moment of dramatic possibility in which heroic anarcho-​socialists would spread the truth and set the people free. The tide of history, however, was beginning to turn.

Chill Winds: 1913 From the moment he was inaugurated in March 1912, Yuan Shikai manipulated political developments in ways that increased his own power at the expense of the new Republican system of government. Nevertheless, throughout that year, the revolutionaries continued to consider Yuan indispensable to the task of holding the country together and treated him with at least outward respect. Legislative elections were held in December and the revolutionaries of the Alliance, united now with several smaller groups in the Nationalist Party (Guomindang 國民黨) under the leadership of Song Jiaoren 宋教仁, won a resounding victory. But conflict with Yuan soon broke into the open. Song was a strong advocate of constitutionalism and institutional checks on the power of the president. This stance led to his assassination on March

45

54

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

20, 1913, an act widely seen as orchestrated by Yuan. A  month later when Nationalist legislators objected to Yuan’s negotiation of a loan from foreign powers, his premier informed them it was a fait accompli and surrounded the legislature with troops to ensure they took the point. Undeterred, the legislators voted to impeach Yuan’s government. In response, he sacked Nationalist military governors in three provinces and readied his troops for an attack on the Nationalist bases of support in the south.136 In such a political climate it took less than a month for the new Socialist Party to be investigated by the authorities, who banned it in January 1913. Shifu considers this to be unremarkable given the anarchist orientation of the party. Indeed, given that they explicitly refused to tolerate the existence of the state, it is not surprising that the state refused to tolerate them, though it is impossible to determine whether the party was banned simply because of its ideology or because it was making plans to implement it. (As we shall see, Sha Gan did eventually take up arms against the government in the Second Revolution.) Being banned did not mean the end of the party, however. Like many radicals before and after, the Socialist Party simply retreated to the extraterritorial safety of the French Concession in Shanghai. There they maintained an office for several more months.137 Taixu’s fortunes in Buddhist circles were also faltering. The first blow was the death of his master and patron Jichan. The old monk had gone to Beijing to seek official recognition for the Buddhist Federation from the new government. Jichan met with an official at the Ministry of the Interior on January 8, 1913, but he was intent on appropriating temple property, not protecting it. After arguing with him in vain, Jichan died that very night. But he succeeded in death where he failed in life. His dramatic passing inspired a well-​placed friend to intervene with Yuan Shikai himself, and soon the Federation charter was approved. Although the Jinshan incident had strained their relationship, Jichan nevertheless had held high hopes for Taixu;138 the loss of the support of such a prominent figure doubtlessly made Taixu’s Buddhist endeavors that much more difficult.139 Not that Taixu helped matters. On the second of the following month, a memorial was held at Jing’an Temple (Jing’an si 靜安寺) in Shanghai. Taixu took this opportunity to set forth again his Three Revolutions “to release his grief and anger.”140 The address was not well received. Pu Yicheng, editor of Buddhist Miscellany (Fojiao congbao 佛教叢報), penned a scathing attack on Taixu, denouncing the notion of Buddhist revolution as heresy (xieshuo 邪 說). Though Pu thought there was room for discussion about temple property, the other two were out of the question. The notion of a revolution in doctrine was particularly odious, causing Pu to throw Buddhist moderation

5

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

55

to the winds and denounce Taixu as “none other than Devadatta . . . risen from hell.”141 The next in this string of setbacks and reversals was not long in coming. Taixu became involved with the Great Vow Society (Hong shi hui 弘誓會) and its attempt to restore the Yanqing Contemplation Hall (Yanqing Guantang 延 慶觀堂) in Ningbo as a base for their organization. The Society was founded by Shihai 式海 (1870–​1932) who had had been proctor (xuejian 學監) at Yang Wenhui’s school. Conceived of as an institute of Buddhist study (foxue yanjiusuo 佛學研究所), it was originally located at Benbao Monastery (Benbao si 本報寺), but in early 1913 Shihai saw an opportunity.142 Around the time of the Revolution, the Hall was one of the most dissolute monasteries in China, and in the winter of 1912 it was closed by the authorities who asked the local chapter of the Federation to select a new abbot. Initially no one wanted the job, but Shihai prevailed upon Dixian 諦閒 (1858–​1932), who had also been a proctor at Jetavana,143 to accept in the hopes that it could be a base for the Society. If Dixian would just accept the abbotship, the Society would take full responsibility for the restoration and operation of the temple. Shihai asked Taixu to come and take charge of planning. The arrangement reached by Shihai and Dixian was short-​lived however. In Taixu’s telling, not long after the foundations for the temple were secured and the name changed to Guanzong Teaching Temple (Guanzong jiang si 觀宗講寺), Dixian’s disciples became unhappy with the distribution of power and the members of the Society were forced out.144 Thereafter, the monastery was designated as a hereditary temple devoted to the propagation of Tiantai. Yinshun states that this was the beginning of the conflicts between Taixu and Dixian,145 and it is easy to see how turning a monastery into private property devoted to the teaching of one school would be galling to a monk dedicated to the abolition of private property and the teaching of all schools. On the other hand, Taixu and his compatriots may not have been blameless either. In addition to the lack of diplomacy and tact demonstrated at Jichan’s memorial service, Taixu personal appearance may have caused tension. At the time of his residence at Guanzong, Taixu had let his hair grow and was wearing lay clothing. Although he could point out that up to an inch of hair was approved by the Vinaya and the vestments of today were simply the lay clothing of a previous era,146 he likely cut a rather un-​monk-​like figure.147 And although the group’s charter was innocuous,148 if the rest of the society was undiplomatic and unkempt as Taixu, one might imagine that Dixian and his disciples saw their expulsion as simply an extension of their mission to clean up the monastery.149

65

56

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

Undeterred by the failure of the Great Vow Society, Taixu attempted to form yet another organization. It was to be called the Alliance for the Preservation of Buddhism (Weichi Fojiao Tongmenghui 維持佛教同盟會), a name with revolutionary overtones given its similarity to that of Sun Yatsen’s organization, the Revolutionary Alliance (Tongmenghui 同盟會). Taixu imagined an association with a clearly anarchist cast. According to the announcement, it was to have five characteristics indispensable for the preservation of Buddhism. First, it was to be a free association, held together by bonds of affection derived from common aspiration. Second, it was to be founded on the spirit of bravery and self-​sacrifice. Third, it was to foster the aspiration to education, defined not merely as learning but as the total moral and intellectual transformation of the individual. Fourth, it would implement fraternal love through schools and charitable work. As we have seen, bravery and self-​sacrifice, education as a means of holistic transformation of the individual, and universal brotherhood were all important anarchist themes. The first point, the need for a group founded on free association, can only be incomprehensible without the anarchist background. Only the fifth characteristic, cultivation, was specifically Buddhist.150 The response was underwhelming. One after another, old comrades declined Taixu’s invitation to join. Wenxi 文希, a prominent monk in the Jiangnan region, discouraged him from even forming such a group, saying, “It would be better to blend in and change things from within.” Even Renshan, his partner at Jinshan, said “I don’t dare to go along. . . . I don’t want to put forward some meaningless new terms and provoke the conservatives’ wrath again.”151 Discouragement had clearly set in among those interested in radical reform of Buddhism and Taixu did not again try to form a society to foment Buddhist revolution. Around the same time, in March of 1913, the Buddhist Federation was formally established in Shanghai. Zhikai 治開, Xiong Xiling 熊希齡, and Jingbo 靜波 were elected to leadership positions, but Zhikai and Xiong would prove uninterested in running the Federation, leaving Jingbo effectively in charge. At the meeting, Taixu was selected to be the editor of the Federation’s new journal the Buddhist Monthly (Fojiao yuebao 佛教月報).152 This suggests that, despite the disgrace of Jinshan, the failures of his Buddhist endeavors, and the death of his main patron, Taixu remained a figure of some importance in the Buddhist world. Either his following among younger monks was significant enough to necessitate his inclusion in Federation affairs or perhaps some still saw potential in the fiery young monk and sought to coopt him. Whatever the reasons for his selection, Taixu’s position at the Buddhist Monthly gave him a platform for his ideas, one that likely allowed him to reach

57

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

57

a broader Buddhist audience than he had heretofore.153 Over its four-​issue run from May to August, he published a number of pieces. Some were lectures from his Guangzhou days, some were the charters of his organizations, and some were essays written especially for the journal. Writing under his own name, Taixu advocated reformist ideas but steered clear of overt mention of anarcho-​socialism. This is clearest in his essay “On Atheism,” which exists in two versions, one published in the Buddhist Monthly and one published slightly later in an anarcho-​socialist journal. Although otherwise essentially identical, the Buddhist Monthly version is free of the references to socialism that fill the other version, often replacing them with terms such as Datong or freedom and equality,154 which were more politically safe. At the same time, Taixu was active in the publication of a new journal, Conscience (Liangxin 良心). Taixu downplays this in his autobiography, saying only that he was asked to edit the publication.155 Yinshun specifies that it was devoted to the propagation of anarchism but nothing more.156 In fact, it was the new journal of the banned, but still active, Socialist Party. Published from the safety of Shanghai’s foreign concessions, Conscience enjoyed a brief run of only two issues. It shows a much stronger anarchist tilt than its predecessor Social World. The front matter of its inaugural issue declared its allegiance to four goals: remedying the delusions of the human mind, eliminating the evil systems of society, uniting the people’s parties of the world, and establishing a world of Datong. It also carried a picture of Kropotkin, and its table of contents included articles on anarchist ideas and assassination.157 Taixu contributed two articles over its run, the contents of which are discussed in the next chapter. For now we may note that he did so under a pen name, Lewu 樂無, a name with both Buddhist and anarchist overtones. It could be understood as “delighting (le) in nothingness (wu),” but also as “delighting in a[narchism] (wu[zhengfuzhuyi]).” Beyond this wordplay, however, it seems likely that Taixu feared that under Yuan Shikai’s increasingly autocratic regime open affiliation with radicalism could be dangerous.

The End of the Affair: 1913–​1914 Such fears were soon dramatically realized. On July 12, 1913, the military governor of Jiangxi declared independence followed swiftly by six other provinces. Yuan, however, did not melt away like the Qing in the face of this Second Revolution. Yuan’s powerful forces made short work of the southern armies, and by the end of August the fighting was largely over. With the opposition effectively crushed, Yuan’s ambitions were now unchecked. By 1914 he had triumphed over the remaining legislative opposition and had effectively become

85

58

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

a dictator. Ultimately, he would be undone by his overreach and misjudgment. Not content to rule a nominal republic, Yuan attempted to restore the monarchy and install himself as emperor on December 13, 1915. It may be that what Yuan was really seeking was a legitimation for the state that the novel idea of republicanism was not providing. If so, however, he badly misread the situation. The move ignited another round of provincial declarations of independence. This time even Yuan’s supporters deserted him. He died of uremia on June 6, 1916, having inaugurated an age of warlords in which there would be little effective central government at all.158 Though downplayed in Taixu’s autobiography and Yinshun’s biography, the effect of the failure of the Second Revolution and its aftermath on Taixu cannot be overemphasized. His world was effectively transformed. Whereas in 1911 he had declared that “revolution is easy” and looked forward to progress beyond a republic to a utopian future free of authority and coercion, 1913 saw a return to authoritarianism. Many of the actors and institutions he had been involved with were swept away. There was a general exodus of revolutionaries and radicals. Sun Yatsen fled to Japan and Huang Xing to America. The anarchists Wu Zhihui, Cai Yuanpei, Li Shizeng, and Wang Jingwei all left for Europe.159 Taixu’s Guangzhou associate Zhu Zhixin also fled to Japan,160 while his fellow anarchist Shifu took refuge first in Macau then in the foreign concessions of Shanghai.161 Many who remained lost their lives or their freedom. Chen Yilong, whom Taixu knew from the Chinese Socialist Party, was taken into custody and executed.162 Renshan and two other monks were arrested.163 Perhaps most devastatingly, Sha Gan, who had been Taixu’s partner in the Socialist Party and had been organizing a “dare-​to-​die corps” (gan si dui 敢死隊) to fight Yuan, was arrested and put to death.164 The party organ, Conscience, was forced to close, as was the Buddhist Monthly. Eventually, even the Federation ceased to operate.165 Taixu’s subsequent activities must be understood in this context. As with his political activities of the early Republic generally, Taixu glosses over the impact of the Second Revolution. Indeed, he virtually ignores it in his autobiography. Yinshun offers a bit more. He states that at the time of the second revolution Taixu, joined by Lü Daren, once again moved to the safety of Zongyang’s printing house due to the death of Sha Gan.166 Beyond this we have no information regarding Taixu’s activities for roughly half a year following the rout of the revolutionaries. Certainly he would have had reason to fear given his political activities and associates, and as we have just seen many figures in similar positions fled the country entirely. Moreover, Zongyang’s printing house, located in the foreign concessions on the estate of a wealthy

95

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

59

foreign businessman and his devout Chinese wife, would have provided an excellent sanctuary. In 1914, he seems to have felt secure enough to venture out of the concessions and begin to write again. Wang Ziyu 王子餘, whom he had met a few years prior and Yang Yifang 楊一放, a socialist, invited him to come to Shaoxing and write for Yang’s Yuyu News (Yuyu xinwen 禹域新聞). There he says he spent four to five months “messing around” (hun 混), living a basically lay life and visiting local sites of interest.167 During that time he does not seem to have entirely forgotten the anarchist cause though, for he wrote a series of letters to Shifu. In the letters he tried to rebut criticism Shifu had leveled at the Socialist Party. The debate focused on the terminological issues that had preoccupied socialists and anarchists since the beginning of the Republic and need not be discussed at length here.168 The letters show, however, that anarcho-​socialism—​what it is, what it should be called—​was an issue of continuing concern for Taixu in the first half of 1914. He seems still attached to the Socialist Party and may have had hopes that it would rise again at some point. That summer, however, Taixu would turn finally away from political involvement. At that time he determined to enter seclusion (biguan 閉關). Over the next few months he made his preparations: He arranged a cell on the holy island of Putuo shan 普陀山, engaged a servant, and bought books. (These included a copy of the Buddhist canon as well as many secular works, such as those Zhang Taiyan, which would prove favorites of these years). In October, he was sealed in the cell where he would spend his days in devotions, meditation, and study. Though he would retain some connection with the world outside through magazines and his own writing, he would remain there for almost three years until February of 1917. When he entered, he wrote a poem of farewell to his worldly life: Lotuses, swords, and wine, all but the traces of forgotten dreams! The dragons and snakes of the mainland fly and writhe recklessly, while hermits collect cold grievance in my former mountain haunts, Three years, a jade disc conjured from freshly painted blood, A thousand li [in the distance] a rainbow appears, the soul of a hero.169 Reaching Putuo’s shores, my memory shrouds, Censer’s scent and sutra’s sound are mine from dawn to dusk.170 Taixu did not, of course, fade into the mist of Putuo like a Buddho-​anarchist King Arthur. He eventually decided to return to active life and became one of

06

60

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

the most prominent figures of his day. Any active involvement in anarcho-​ socialism, however, ended in October 1914.171 Why? Taixu gives several reasons in his writings. In his autobiography, he portrays it as simple weariness with the semi-​lay life he had been living since the revolution.172 In an undated letter to followers, quoted in Yinshun’s biography, he said, “I had seen the countercurrents in politics and I had determined that I was unsystematic with regard to the Dharma. Thus I practiced meditation on Putuo.” Finally, in his essay “My Religious Experiences,” he said, “The European War broke out and I began to have doubts regarding Western theories and my own abilities to save the world with Buddhism. I realized that it was not worthwhile to continue wasting time in this way.”173 Taken together these statements allow us to piece together a plausible picture of Taixu’s turn away from political activism. He refers to “countercurrents” in politics, which as we have seen was in fact a catastrophic tidal wave that swept away everything he had been working on for the last few years.174 At the same time, his many failures may have finally led him to “doubt . . . [his] abilities.” This combination seems to have left him feeling a bit directionless and dissatisfied with his life, that he was just “messing around.” I  would suggest that the onset of World War I  was perhaps the decisive factor, however. The Great War was a shock to many Chinese. The spectacle of the nations of Europe, which seemed the masters of the era and whose emulation in one way or another seemed to offer the prospect of national salvation, descending into fratricidal slaughter disillusioned many. It was particularly hard on anarchists. The well-​spring of their faith, Europe was home to many of the workers’ syndicates and people’s parties that Chinese anarchists thought would soon lead the way to cosmopolitan world without borders. Worse still, the Great War, sparked by an anarchist’s bomb, saw many anarchists, including even the great Kropotkin, taking sides among the combatant nations. Many Chinese anarchists saw this as a betrayal of everything they believed in. Krebs has even argued that this was what broke Shifu’s fragile health and drove him to his grave.175 Thus Taixu’s “disillusion[ment] with Western theories” was part of a broader crisis of confidence among anarchists. The tumult of 1913 followed by the war in Europe led the generation from whom Taixu first read of anarchism away as well. Peter Zarrow has argued that the older generation learned the value of order following 1913: Precisely because of their interest in cultural and social change .  .  . the early anarchists no longer wanted political revolution after 1911. . . . The reason was that they no longer truly wanted a social revolution.

61

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

61

They wanted the kind of change they had despised as anarchists—​real change, but safe and gradual.176 Over the decades that followed the Paris group moved right and allied with Nationalists. Wu Zhihui, for instance, pushed anarchy, the utopia whose immanence was the essence of revolution, back into the distant future. He came to focus more on technological than moral advance as the solution to humanity’s problems and also came to see a more positive role for nationalism.177 Yet, all the same, Zarrow has argued that although Wu left anarchism, anarchism never quite left him: “A set of mutually reinforcing notions whirled around Wu’s essays. Most of these notions continued to attract him long after he conceded that the world was not ready for anarchism.”178

Conclusion In closing, then, we can see that Taixu’s engagement with radicalism was more significant than the youthful indiscretion he tries to make it appear in his autobiography. It was, in fact, several years of sustained involvement during which he was a significant figure, even a leader, in the movement. Moreover, this occurred alongside his Buddhist activities and informed them. In the end, he became discouraged by events and disillusioned with anarchism, turning his back on political activism and choosing instead to spend years in solitary retreat. He would never again pursue an anarchist agenda and would, much like older anarchists, drift rightward and defer utopia into the future in favor of more concrete projects in the present. However, as we shall see in Part II, just like Wu Zhihui, Taixu left anarchism but anarchism did not quite leave him; “a set of mutually reinforcing notions,” the revolutionary utopian framework, derived from anarchism but now unmoored from their original ideological context continued to animate his thought, most vividly in his reimagining of the cult of Maitreya. But let us first turn to an examination of Taixu’s radical writings, so that we may identify those orientating values at their genesis.

Notes 1. I have given a briefer account of Taixu’s anarchist career in Justin Ritzinger, “The Awakening of Faith in Anarchism: A Forgotten Chapter in the Chinese Buddhist Encounter with Modernity,” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 224–​243. 2. Taixu’s great fame and great knack for making enemies lends a degree of confidence in this regard. He moved in the most elite circles from the very beginning

26

62

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

of his monastic career and was soon a (in)famous figure in his own right. Had he written outright falsehoods, his many critics, who at times called him “Mara” and “Devadatta,” would surely have raised the alarm. Yet, as far as I have been able to determine, nothing in his autobiography was ever questioned or contested. 3. Thus, Taixu’s political involvement in the period 1908 to 1914 is relegated to two brief chapters early on in the text. Although Taixu seems to be being upfront about the issue, the rhetorical effect is one of containment. Paired with his omission of dates (common throughout the text), one is given the impression that his political activities were isolated incidents, bumps on the road to Buddhist greatness as it were. 4. Jiang Canteng, a well-​ regarded Taiwanese scholar, has even accused the Biography of being a mere “side effect” of the Complete Writings. Jiang Canteng 江燦藤, Zhongguo jindai fojiao sixiang de zhengbian yu fazhan 中國近代佛教思想 的諍辯與發展 [Controversies and developments in modern Buddhist thought] (Taipei: Nantian 南天 1998), 430. 5. Yinshun 印順, “Geming shidai de Taixu dashi” 革命時代的太虛大師 [Master Taixu in the age of revolution], in Huayu xiangyun 華雨香雲 [Showers of petals, clouds of inscence] (Taipei: Zhengwen 正聞, 2000) Y 23: 286. 6. Very likely there were already few copies still extant. The initial print runs may not have been very large and intervening events—​the banning of radical groups in the early Republic, the warlord era, World War II, and the Communist revolution—​would surely have reduced that number considerably. Today only a small handful of copies are available in People’s Republic of China libraries. Yinshun’s essay “Master Taixu in the Age of Revolution” (Geming shidai de Taixu dashi) offers the clearest evidence that Yinshun simply did not have these writings. In this essay, written around the same time as the Biography, Yinshun attempted to analyze Taixu’s revolutionary thought, but rather than discuss his writings from radical journals, Yinshun attempts to construct a picture drawing only on essays from Buddhist periodicals of the period and Taixu’s later work “Tang Dynasty Chan and the Modern Thought Tide” (Tang dai chan zong yu xiandai sichao 唐代禪宗與現代思潮). This strongly suggests that Yinshun was not avoiding the issue in the Biography but rather was hampered by a lack of sources. 7. This is, in part, due to a general tendency in Buddhist studies to examine almost exclusively Buddhist sources, at least until recently. 8. Jiang Canteng’s account of Taixu’s life up to 1928, The Early Life of Master Taixu (Taixu dashi qianzhuan 太虛大師前傳), which naturally devotes more attention to these years than other studies, nevertheless states that Taixu’s involvement with revolution ended with the arrest of his associate Qiyun in 1911, when in fact it only intensified. Jiang Canteng 江燦騰, Taixu dashi qianzhuan (1890–​ 1927) 太虛大師前傳 (1890–​1927) [The early life of Master Taixu (1890–​1927)]

6 3

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

63

(Taipei:  Xinwenfeng 新聞豐, 1993), 96. The three significant English works to touch on the issue are similarly misled. In his Buddhist Revival in China, Holmes Welch covers Taixu’s activities up to 1911 in his section on “revolutionary monks” (geming seng 革命僧), but, although he consistently characterizes Taixu as a radical, he seems to think that his only real involvement with radicalism thereafter was the Jinshan 金山 incident (again, discussed at length later). Holmes Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1968), 15–​16. Welch, we can be certain, would have pursued Taixu’s involvement in radical politics had he been aware of it. Writing at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, his general distaste for Taixu seems to derive, in part, from the effects such radicalism ultimately had on the sangha. Second, Donald Pittman in Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism touches briefly on the period from 1908 to 1914 but accords almost no significance to Taixu’s political activity. Most recently, Eric Goodell’s detailed reconstruction of Taixu’s early life accords pays slightly more attention to Taixu’s involvement in radicalism, pointing out rough similarities between some of Taixu’s early ideas and those of the Chinese Socialist Party, but he does not pursue the issue or consider new sources. Eric Goodell, “Taixu’s Youth and Years of Romantic Idealism, 1890–​1914,” Chung-​Hwa Buddhist Journal no. 21 (2008): 77–​121. 9. Ge Maochun 葛懋春, Jiang Jun 蔣俊, Li Xingzhi 李興芝, Wuzhengfuzhuyi sixiang ziliao xuan 無政府主義思想資料選 [Selected materials on anarchist thought] (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe 北京大學出版社, 1984). 10. Although, as Dikötter notes, some recent work has qualified some of the more “doom and gloom” characterizations of the period, conditions were nevertheless clearly less than ideal. Frank Dikötter, The Age of Openness:  China before Mao (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). 11. See Immanuel C.  Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 6th ed. (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000), 282–​291 for a summary of the accomplishments and failures of the movement. 12. Ibid., 373–​380. See also Peter Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 1895–​1949 (London: Routledge, 2005), 15–​19. 13. Chan Sin-​wai, Buddhism in Late Ch’ing Political Thought (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1985), 38. 14. Charlotte Furth, “Intellectual Change: From the Reform Movement to the May Fourth Movement, 1895–​1920,” in The Cambridge History of China, vol. 12, ed. John K. Fairbank and Denis Twitchett (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 329–​330. 15. Hao Chang, Chinese Intellectuals in Crisis: Search for Order and Meaning (1890–​ 1911) (Taipei: Southern Materials, 1987), 56. 16. On which see Wolfgang Bauer, China and the Search for Happiness:  Recurring Themes in Four Thousand Years of Chinese Cultural History (New York: Seabury Press, 1976).

46

64

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

1 7. Furth, “Intellectual Change,” 331. 18. Chan Sin-​wai, Buddhism in Late Ch’ing Political Thought, 39. 19. That is, a utopianism that seeks to move forward toward a posited ideal future society, rather than back to an ideal model from past. 20. Luke S.K. Kwong, T’an Ssu-​T’ung, 1865–​1898:  Life and Thought of a Reformer (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1996), 155–​156. 21. Hong-​ yuk Ip, “The Power of Interconnectivity:  Tan Sitong’s Invention of Historical Agency in Late Qing China,” Journal of Global Buddhism 10 (2009): 323–​374. See also Chang, Chinese Intellectuals in Crisis, 97–​102. 22. Furth, “Intellectual Change,” 333. 23. Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1991), 56. 24. Chan Sin-​wai, trans. An Exposition of Benevolence: The Jen-​hsűeh of T’an Ssu-​t’ung (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 1984), 214. I have made some emendations to the translation. Most critically, Chan misread “Mile” 彌勒 (Maitreya) as “Mituo” 彌陀 (Amitābha). I was alerted to this by Ip, “The Power of Interconnectivity,” 350. 25. See Hsu, Rise of Modern China, 454–​465. 26. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 13–​14 and 82. 27. Ibid., 2–​3. 28. Quoted in Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 238–​239. Zarrow argues in his work that all of these characteristics had antecedents in traditional Chinese thought, especially Neo-​Confucianism, that lent them additional appeal. 29. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 114. 30. Anarchists were great Esperanto enthusiasts. 31. Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 97–​98. 32. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 69–​70. 33. Ibid., 96. 34. Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 92–​96. 35. Ibid., 118. 36. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 99. 37. For a brief summary of Kropotkin’s life and thought see Edward S. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism (New York: Rowan & Littlefield, 1998), 20–​23. 38. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 89. 39. Ibid., 74–​75. 40. Ibid., 96. 41. Though his given name was Zhang Binglin 章炳麟, I follow the Chinese custom of using his style name (zi 字). 42. TZZ 194. 43. Michael Gaaster, Chinese Intellectuals and the Revolution of 1911:  The Birth of Modern Chinese Radicalism (Seattle: University of Washington Press 1969), 112.

6 5

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

65

Some scholars, whom one suspects have never tried to read the works in question, refer to this as a search for “spiritual comfort.” 44. On the sources of Zhang’s interest in Yogācāra and the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra, in particular, see John Jorgenson, “Indra’s Network: Zhang Taiyan’s Sino-​Japanese Personal Networks and the Rise of Yogācāra in Modern China,” in Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China, ed. John Makeham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 64–​99. 45. For a full account of Zhang Taiyan’s career see Wong Young-​tsu Wong, Search for Modern Nationalism:  Zhang Binglin and Revolutionary China 1869–​ 1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989). 46. Mention Zhang to almost any Chinese-​speaking academic and invariably one of the first comments is “He’s really hard to read” (ta hao nan du 他好難讀). Amongst other things he refused to use any character that postdated the Tang dynasty (618–​907). 47. Some scholars (Wong, Zarrow, and Chang) see him as an anarchist, at least briefly or to a degree, while others (Furth, Wong, Lee, and Li) see him as actively opposed to anarchism. Likewise some see his interest in Buddhism as merely instrumental (Wong), others as intrinsic (Wang, Chan, and Chang), and still others (Gaaster) as both. Although to adjudicate this would clearly require another book, I would suggest that Zhang—​a classical scholar of tremendous erudition, an anti-​Manchu nationalist, an anarchist revolutionary, a Buddhist idealist—​was a thinker of greater breadth and complexity than many of the interpretations that have been applied to him, interpretations that always seem to require dismissing some significant portion of his writings as not serious. 48. Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 273 n50. 49. Wang Hui, “Zhang Taiyan’s Concept of the Individual and Modern Chinese Identity,” in Becoming Chinese: Passages to Modernity and Beyond, ed. Wen-​hsin Yeh (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2000). For another very interesting reading of Zhang’s thought that takes his Buddhism seriously, see Viren Murthy, “Equality as Reification: Zhang Taiyan’s Yogācāra Reading of Zhuangzi in the Context of Global Modernity,” in Transforming Consciousness, 123–​145. 50. Gaaster, Chinese Intellectuals and the Revolution of 1911 198–​200. 51. Ibid., 208, with some emendations to the translation. 52. Viren Murthy, “Equality as Reification:  Zhang Taiyan’s Yogācāra Reading of Zhuangzi in the Context of Global Modernity,” in Transforming Consciousness, 132–​137. 53. John Jorgenson, “Indra’s Network:  Zhang Taiyan’s Sino-​ Japanese Personal Networks and the Rise of Yogācāra in Modern China,” in Transforming Consciousness, 94. 54. Ibid., 87–​89. 55. Goodell gives his surname as Zhang 張, perhaps concluding that since Taixu’s father married into his mother’s family, he would have taken her surname of

66

66

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

Zhang (TDN 19). This is plausible, but there is no attestation for this name. When he began his studies as a boy, he was given the name Peilin 沛林 at which time he used his father’s surname Lü. 56. For a discussion of issues surrounding this date, see: Goodell, “Taixu’s Youth and Years of Romantic Idealism,” 79 n2. 57. TDN 19–​24. 58. Ibid., 24. 59. Jiang Canteng, Taixu dashi qianzhuan, 51. 60. TDN 27–​33. 61. TZZ 184–​186. 62. TZZ 186–​187. 63. TZZ 190. For a much more detailed treatment of this phase of Taixu’s life see Goodell, “Taixu’s Youth,” 83–​96. 64. TDN 33–​34. 65. TDN 35–​36. 66. TDN 36. 67. TZZ 190–​192. Goodell, following Pittman, reads the first statement more positively as a reference to the bodhisattva’s return to the world following realization. While this reading is plausible, it seems to me the phrase should be read in consonance with the general tenor of his treatment of this development. See Goodell, “Taixu’s Youth,” 97. See also:  Pittman, Toward a Modern Buddhism, 67. 68. TDN 37 and TZZ 192–​193. For more information and background, see Welch, Buddhist Revival in China, 10–​13; and Goodell, “Taixu’s Youth,” 99–​103. 69. TDN 37. 70. Don A. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism:  Taixu’s Reforms (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001), 70. On Jetavana, see Lei Kuan Rongdao Lai, “Praying for the Republic: Buddhist Education, Student-​Monks, and Citizenship in Modern China (1911-​1949)” (PhD diss., McGill University, 2013), 93–​105. 71. On this organization, see Lai, “Praying for the Republic,” 83–​93. 72. TDN 39-​40. 73. TDN 40-​42. 74. TDN 42-​43. Jiang Canteng has argued that Taixu’s skill at verse played an important role in advancing his career at several junctures. Jiang, Taixu dashi qianzhuan, 97. 75. TDN 44. 76. TZZ 194. Note that Yinshun quotes this out of context in the Annalistic Biography (TDN 64), which leads Pittman to interpret this as Taixu’s opinion in the fallout of the Second Revolution. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism, 81. 77. TZZ 194.

6 7

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

67

78. Dirlik claims that he met Liu during this period (Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 125), while Krebs says no meeting occurred until 1914 (Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 87). Since Liu was active in Guangzhou in this period and he and Taixu would have run in similar circles it is certainly possible they met. 79. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 65–​66. 80. Howard L. Boorman, ed. Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, vol. 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967–​1979), 441. 81. Xu Youchun 徐友春, ed. Minguo renwu da cidian 民國人物大辭典 [Great dictionary of Republican-​era figures], rev. ed. (Shijiazhuang 石家莊: Hebei renmin chubanshe 河北人民出版社, 2007), 1119. 82. Boorman, ed. Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, vol. 3, 317. 83. Guangdong. 84. TDN 45–​46. 85. TZZ 194. 86. TDN 46–​47. 87. Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 49 88. TZZ 195. 89. Jiang Canteng. Taixu dashi qianzhuan, 96. 90. Taixu 太虛, “Jun pin fu qianshuo: yi pingdeng jiaoyu wei shouxu, yi gongchan zhuyi wei mudi” 均貪富淺言: 以平等教育為手續, 以共產主義為目的 [A cursory discussion of the equalization of wealth: equal education as method; communism as goal], Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 2 (May 1912): 5. 91. Welch, Buddhist Revival in China, 17. 92. Hsu, Rise of Modern China, 468–​472. For an account focusing on underlying dynamics, see Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 30–​52. 93. Hsu, Rise of Modern China, 470–​475. 94. Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 189–​191. 95. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 121. 96. For a brief account of Shifu’s career see the first chapter of Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism. 97. Ibid., 79–​80. 98. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 123. 99. TZZ 195. 100. TDN 50. 101. TDN 50–​51. 102. “Wo de fojiao geming shibai shi” 我的佛教革命失敗史 [The failure of my Buddhist revolution],” TDQ 19, 29: 61. 103. “Sanshi nian lai zhi zhongguo fojiao” 三十年來之中國佛教 [Thirty years of Chinese Buddhism], TDQ 19, 29: 47. 104. “Wo de fojiao gaijin yundong lüeshi” 我的佛教改進運動略史 [A brief history of my Buddhist reform movement], TDQ 19, 29: 77–​78.

86

68

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

105. Goodell makes roughly the same point, noting the rough correspondence between the three revolutions and the three areas of reform stressed by Jiang Kanghu. 106. Welch translates this rather freely as the “Invasion of Jinshan.” This translation, while not unjustifiable, reflects Welch’s partisanship. It accents the perspective of the resident clergy. The Chinese highlights the ugliness of the entire event, including the resident clergy’s response. 107. Jiang Canteng believes that part of the reason for the “uproar” was that Taixu sought assistance from socialists rather than Buddhists. Jiang, Taixu dashi qianzhuan, 102. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive labels, however. As we shall see, Krebs believes that the pure socialists included many Buddhists. 108. TZZ 201-​202. 109. TZZ 202. 110. “Wo de fojiao geming shibai shi” 61. Welch, ever the snappy writer, characterizes the fallout thus:”[It was] as much of a scandal as if, let us say, the editors of Commonweal occupied the office of the Roman Curia and announced that they were turning it into a school for worker-​priests.” Welch, Buddhist Revival in China, 33. 111. Lai, “Praying for the Republic,” 61. 112. Ibid., 51–​52. Partially seconded by Pittman. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism, 81. 113. For a discussion of the formation of the Federation and other national religious associations and their historical significance, see Vincent Goossaert, “Republican Church Engineering: The National Relgious Associations in 1912 China,” in Chinese Religiosities:  Afflictions of Modernity and State Formation, ed. Mayfair Mei-​hua Yang (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008) or Vincent Goossaert and David Palmer, The Religious Question in Modern China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), ­chapter 3, especially 79–​83. 114. TDN 54. 115. Welch, Buddhist Revival in China, 35. 116. TDN 54. 117. TDN 55. 118. Dirlik states that it was the journal of the Socialist Party. Since the pure socialists had not yet split when publication began, this description is slightly anachronistic. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 124. 119. These, of course, are the three ideals of the French revolution, liberté, egalité, and fraternité. In Chinese radicalism the last was rendered as “universal love” to stress the egalitarian and uncoerced natural of this affective bond. Herafter, it is rendered as either “fraternal love,” “universal fraternity,” or “universal brotherhood” as best suits the context. 120. Shehui dang ren 社會黨人, “San wu zhuyi zhi yanjiu” 三無主義之研究 [Research on the three no’s], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 5 (November 1912): 7–​12.

96

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

69

121. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 142. 122. Taixu is also said have edited the journal (Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 304 n 28), but only Fenfen is listed in the back matter. 123. Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 1 (April 1912): 70–​74; no. 2 (May 1912): 76–​78; no. 3 (June 1912): 64–​67; and no. 4 (July 1912): 67–​70. 124. Xuyin絮因, “Jile shijie tici” 極樂世界題詞 [Inscription on the Land of Bliss], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 1 (April 1912): 77. 125. Zhang Zhenxi 張震西, “Zhu shehui shijie” 祝社會世界 [A celebration of Social World], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 2 (May 1912): 1–​2. 126. Buping 不平, “Jinri zhi senglü chujia bu chujia pingdeng bu pingdeng xu jinqian zhi zuie” 今日之僧侶出家不出家平等不平等胥金錢之罪惡 [Whether the monks of today leave home or not, are equal or not, is all the evil of money], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 1 (April 1912): 23–​24. It is likely that Buping is none other than Taixu, who also used the name Baiping 白平 in revolutionary circles. 127. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 90. 128. Liu Shifu 劉師復, “Zhengfu yu shehui dang” 政府與社會黨 [The government and the socialist parties], Huiming lu 晦鳴錄 no. 2 (August 27, 1913): 3; Bianzhe 編者, “Duiyu zhongguo shehui dang di er ci lianhehui ganyan” 對於中國社會 黨第二次聯合會感言 [Ruminations on the Second General Assembly of the Chinese Socialist Party], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 5 (November 1912): 57–​62. See also Krebs. Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 90–​92. 129. Gong Jun and Lai Yueshan have recently uncovered evidence of a possible connection with another party, the United Nationalist Party (Tongyi guomin dang 統一國民黨), around this time. The evidence in question is a membership medallion (zhengzhang 證章) inscribed with a pseudonym Taixu had used with his revolutionary associates, Baiping 白平. Although Gong and Lai make a strong case that the medallion belonged to Taixu, they conclude that it likely indicates not that he had joined the party but rather that certain members of the party hoped he would join. They base this conclusion on the fact that Taixu makes no mention of either the party or its founder Wang Yihan 王一寒 in his writings. Given that Taixu was ascending to leadership in the Socialist Party at this time, a fact Gong and Lai seem unaware of, I would say that it is not merely likely but a near certainty. Gong Jun 龔雋 and Lai Yueshan 賴岳山, “ ‘Taixu dangan’ yi: Taixu fashi yu minchu (1912–​1913) zhengdang” “太虛檔案”一:太虛法師與民初 (1912-​1913) 政 黨 [Taixu archival materials one: Master Taixu and early Republican (1912-​1913) political parties] Hanyu foxue pinglun 漢語佛學評論 4 (2014): 5–​34. 130. Bianzhe 編者, “Duiyu zhongguo shehui dang di er ci lianhehui ganyan,” 59. 131. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 91. 132. Ibid., 92. 133. Taixu 太虛, “Shehui dang yu zhongguo shehui dang zhi bamian guan” 社會黨 與中國社會黨之八面觀 [A comprehensive view of the Socialist Party and Chinese Socialist Party], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 5 (November 1912): 41–​42.

07

70

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

134. Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, 123–​124. See also Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 90. 135. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 90–​91. 136. Hsu, Rise of Modern China, 475–​478; Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 75–​79. 137. Liu Shifu, “Zhengfu yu shehui dang,” 1–​4. 138. TDN 56–​57. 139. Jiang, Taixu dashi qianzhuan, 105. 140. TZZ 204. 141. TDN 58. 142. Yu Lingbo 于凌波, Zhongguo jin xiandai fojiao renwu zhi 中國進現代佛教人物 志 [Buddhist figures of modern and contemporary China] (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 1995), 44. 143. Welch seems to be incorrect in stating that Dixian was the only monk on staff. Welch, Buddhist Revival in China, 9. 144. TZZ 204–​205. 145. TDN 59. 146. “Jue wei pi zhen” 抉偽披真 [Identifying the false and making clear the true], TDQ 18, 27: 1–​5. 147. Indeed, by monastic standards he was no doubt the proverbial “long-​haired hippy.” 148. “Fojiao hong shi hui jianzhang” 佛教宏誓會簡章 [Charter for the Buddhist Great Vow Society], TDQ 9, 17: 451–​454. 149. Unfortunately, the recently published gazetteer of Guanzong Temple effaces the incident. 150. “Weichi fojiao tongmenghui xuanyan” 維持佛教同盟會宣言 [Announcement of the Alliance for the Protection of Buddhism], TDQ 19, 31: 1005–​1009. 151. TDN 61, translation Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 89. 152. TZZ 206–​207. 153. On the Buddhist Monthly and its connection to Taixu, see Gregory Adam Scott, “A Revolution of Ink:  Chinese Buddhist Periodicals in the Early Republic,” in Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, ed. Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 123–​127. 154. See “Wushen lun” 無神論 [On atheism], TDQ 13, 21: 284–​295. 155. TZZ 208. 156. TDN 64–​66. 157. Liangxin 良心, no. 1 (August 1913): front matter. 158. Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 75–​83; and Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 478–​482. Dikötter offers some exceptions and qualifications to the idea that there was no functioning central government in this period in ­chapter 1 of The Age of Openness:  China before Mao (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2008).

71

Portrait of the Master as a Young Anarchist

71

159. Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 189. 160. Boorman, ed. Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, vol. 1, 441. 161. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 99. 162. Ibid., 83–​84. 163. TZZ 207. 164. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 94. 165. TZZ 208. 166. TDN 65–​66. 167. TZZ 208 168. Shifu’s replies, which quote heavily from Taixu’s letter, are reprinted in Liu Shifu 劉師復, Shifu wencun 師復文存 [The collected writings of Shifu] (Shanghai:  Shanghai shudian 上海書店, 1989), 147–​ 151; 207–​ 220; and 293–​295. 169. A reference to Sha Gan? 170. TDN 73–​74. 171. Jiang Jun reports that he was told by Shifu’s brother, Liu Shixin 劉石心, who had once been on close terms with Taixu, that when he met the master on the eve of May Fourth and asked about spreading socialism, the monk simply responded “Amituofo” and refused to pursue the discussion any further. Jiang Jun 蔣俊, “Taixu fashi yu ‘foshehuizhuyi’ ” 太虛與“佛教社會主義” [Master Taixu and “Buddhist Socialism”], Shandong daxue xuebao 山東大學學報, no. 2 (1991): 84. 172. TZZ 208. 173. TDN 71. 174. Krebs attributes his decision to leave political activism specifically to the death of Sha Gan. Krebs, Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism, 94. 175. Ibid., 146–​147. 176. Zarrow, Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture, 207. 177. Ibid., 197–​202. 178. Ibid., 249.

27

2

Disorienting Frameworks

Introduction We now turn from an examination of Taixu’s radical activities to a closer examination of his thought from the early Republic. As we have seen, Taixu was quite deeply involved in the socialist and anarchist movements of that time. Nevertheless, it cannot simply be presumed that he signed on to the socialist or anarchist worldview. As we have noted, the doctrines and even the labels of these ideologies were varyingly interpreted and vigorously contested. Taixu numbered himself at the time among the “pure” or “extreme” socialists, whose position was actually closer to what is typically referred to as anarchism. In this chapter we look behind these ideological labels to examine the moral frameworks at work in Taixu’s writings from this period. Our focus is on those published in the anarcho-​socialist journals Social World and Conscience, lightly supplemented by a few that appeared in the Buddhist Monthly. Both sets of writings have been largely ignored in the scholarly literature. The former was until recently very hard to procure, available only at a couple of libraries in the People’s Republic of China. Yinshun seems to have been unable to obtain these writings and thus did not include them in his edition of Taixu’s complete works. As a result, few Buddhist scholars have even been aware of their existence. Anarchist scholars were well aware that they existed but worked from more readily available excerpts reprinted in an anthology. Taixu’s writings from the Buddhist Monthly have been ignored for a different reason. The early Republican period is often treated as something of a “phase” in his career in large part no doubt due to his self-​presentation in his autobiography. Taixu’s 1915 seclusion is generally treated as marking the beginning of his maturation as a thinker and his writings prior to that time as less significant. Seclusion certainly did mark a key turning point in Taixu’s career, but this should not prevent an examination of his early writings, which

73

Disorienting Frameworks

73

I  contend provide a view of a key moment in the formation of his moral horizons. Only two little-​read articles have attempted to analyze Taixu’s thought from this period. One, “Master Taixu and ‘Buddhist Socialism’ ” (Taixu fashi yu fojiao shehuizhuyi 太虛法師與“佛教社會主義”) by Jiang Jun 蔣俊, focuses on Taixu’s radical writings; the other, “Master Taixu in the Age of Revolution” (Geming shidai de Taixu dashi 革命時代的太虛大師) by Yinshun, on his Buddhist works. Both pieces see Buddhism as fundamental to Taixu’s thought at the time. Jiang Jun employs a doctrinaire Marxist framework in his analysis. He sees in Taixu’s writings an initial materialist bent that could not be followed up on with any concrete means because Taixu was a Buddhist. Thus he is driven back into idealism. In his view, Taixu’s socialism was merely fashionable clothing for his true Buddhist views. He thus takes Taixu’s abandonment of anarcho-​socialism following the summer of 1913 and his postseclusion emphasis on Buddhist affairs as a return to form. Although Jiang is correct to identify the idealistic strains of Taixu’s thought as a key source of tension, his reading of the texts is cursory at best. Working with a Marxist teleology, he sees only the binaries of idealism and materialism and the “failure” to embrace “scientific socialism.”1 As we shall soon see, Taixu’s ideas are considerably more complex than this. Yinshun’s analysis offers more insight but is hampered by the limited materials available to him. Yinshun sees Taixu as a true revolutionary but is unable to pursue the details of his radical thought in much depth. Rather he seeks to root Taixu’s revolutionary orientation and activities in a revolutionary experience, awakening. He sees in Taixu’s romantic idealism and unconventionality the echoes of the unrestrained behavior of classical Chan masters. More important, he saw the awakened mind of Chan as a transcendent source of truth that for Taixu rendered all things relative, open to adjustment and even destruction if necessary.2 This is an important insight but not sufficient as a characterization of Taixu’s thought in this period. In fact, Taixu’s radical writings of 1912 and 1913 defy any easy characterization at all. Taixu was, I argue, drawn by two different visions of the Good, oriented by two different moral frameworks: one drawn from radical traditions and centered on the ideal of a perfected society, the hypergood of utopia, and the other drawn from Buddhist traditions and centered on the ideal of a perfected self, the hypergood of Buddhahood. Or perhaps I  should say he was “disoriented” by them. Although he is concerned throughout with utopia, the means to achieve it, and the knowledge that makes that possible, Taixu’s writings are a welter of ideas, pursued with varying levels of consistency. They are occasionally contradictory and the

47

74

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

implications not fully drawn out. Ideas from the two traditions of anarchism and Buddhism are mixed together freely and occasionally equated but never truly integrated. Such, however, is not unexpected based on the approach we have taken here. Taixu was a young man in a tumultuous time, being pulled by differing conceptions of what was most important, who had neither the time nor yet sufficiently deep knowledge of either tradition to integrate the values he was motivated by. Taixu’s ideas are not simply Buddhism in anarchist clothing or vice versa; they are a far more complex and shifting constellation than that. We next turn to Taixu’s radical writings so that we can see in detail the values and concerns that animated them.

Anarcho-​socialist and Buddhist Values in Taixu’s Radical Thought If there is one theme that stretches through all of the works Taixu published in Social World and Conscience, it is Datong, the great utopian goal of Chinese anarchists as well as the reformers and other idealists of the time. He is consistently concerned with articulating its right ends—​the character of Datong; right means—​how it is to be achieved; and right understanding—​the knowledge that makes it possible. While this central concern and problematic are quite constant across Taixu’s writings in this period, there are nevertheless several different models or construals at work in them. In his 1912 article written for Social World, “A Cursory Discussion of the Equalization of Wealth: Equal Education as Method; Communism as Goal” (Jun pin fu qian yan: yi pingdeng jiaoyu wei shuoxu, yi gongchanzhuyi wei mudi 均貪富淺 言: 以平等教育為手續, 以共產主義為目的) he takes a primarily economic-​ materialist approach, while in a 1913 piece written for Conscience, “The Three Great Evils of the World” (Shijie san da zui’e 世界三大罪惡), he employs a sociocultural analysis. These two are separated by roughly a year and likely represent an evolution in his thought as he moved from a generically socialist to particularly anarchist point of view. A third approach, which may be termed metaphysical, cuts across the period and is the focus of two writings from 1912 and 1913, specifically “A Broad Discourse on the Hun and Po [Souls]” (Guang hun po shuo 廣魂魄說) in Social World and “On Atheism” (Wu shen lun 無神論) in Conscience. In order to preserve some measure of coherence in Taixu’s thought, we frame our discussion around these three approaches. In each we examine the three aspects of the theme of Datong in order to reveal Taixu’s values and concerns.

75

Disorienting Frameworks

75

The Economic-​Materialist Approach In the “Equalization of Wealth,” Taixu appears to be experimenting with a straight socialist articulation. He pursues an economic-​materialist analysis with virtually no explicit mention of Buddhist categories. Nevertheless, we can see in his discussion ideas that have resonance with Buddhist concepts and suggestions that his understanding of socialism is shaped by the framework provided by the Buddhist tradition. He offers a clear description of the shortcomings of the present world and the ideal society to replace it, but, like many anarchists of his day, he is hazy in his discussion of the means by which it is to be achieved. Much of the text is preoccupied with the problem of understanding, the knowledge that is a prerequisite to achieving utopia. In order to bring his readers to a correct understanding, Taixu lays out a socialist diagnosis of the ills of this world. According to this piece, the world’s problems are rooted in economic inequality. Economic inequality obviously leads to suffering for the poor. They lead lives of hardship and worry, “counting grains of rice before they cook them,”3 “driven by considerations of livelihood and troubled by [procuring] the necessities of life, anxiously toiling to feed their families without a moment’s rest.”4 They envy the leisure of the rich, yet Taixu maintains that their envy is ultimately misplaced for the rich too are enslaved. The rich are driven to increase or at least maintain their wealth and pass it on to their children. Thus they have as little leisure as the poor or even less. Like opium addicts, they are accustomed to a certain amount of goods and can no longer be satisfied with less. Moreover, their lifestyle has deleterious effects. Sensual indulgence and dissolution wastes their faculties and energies.5 This inequality also leads to class antagonism. In ways seen and unseen, the rich use the “demonic power of wealth” to oppress the poor. In return, the poor terrorize the rich. Poverty and lack of education drives them to rely on crime in order to support themselves. Moreover, in the face of oppression they are filled with impotent rage that can be expressed only through violence. Taixu fears that if the situation is not remedied soon it may lead to a bloody revolution in which half the world is killed.6 Beyond these direct effects, economic inequality also undergirds other forms of invidious differentiation. The “evil karma” of gender inequality, for instance, is rooted in wealth disparity. The capitalist family systems treats women as mere adornments to men and allows their talents to waste away, while at the same time the dependence thus fostered burdens men.7 The separation of humanity into competing nations and races is also rooted in economic inequality. People band together in order to protect what they have and

67

76

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

in this way fraternal love, which by nature does not discriminate, comes to be limited to one’s own in-​group.8 Finally, with economic inequality there can be no true freedom. Liberty and capitalism are incompatible. Though people talk about “freedom within the bounds of the law,” this is no freedom at all because law within a capitalist society serves simply to protect the interests of the rich. What sort of freedom is “freedom within the bounds of the law” if it means that one cannot eat when one is hungry or clothe oneself when one is cold? Laws are but the “shackles of the poor.”9 They are the primary means by which the government takes from the many to protect the interests of the few.10 It is critical for Taixu to thus establish right understanding, because misapprehension of the world is the first and perhaps most fundamental obstruction to its reformation. Although inequality seems to be the root of all human misery, people do not recognize that this state of affairs is the source of suffering; rather, they take it as the source of happiness. Like an addict, humanity must first recognize that it has a problem. Taixu asserts that when people see this, they will be “like one who flees poisonous snakes and wild beasts for happy lands and heavenly halls (letu tiantang 樂土天堂).”11 Taixu’s approach here reflects both anarchist and Buddhist traditions. We have mentioned in the previous chapter the importance of educating the masses and revealing to them the evils of the current order to bringing about true revolution. Though Taixu does not explicitly make the connection here (as he does elsewhere), bringing people to see the suffering inherent in their current condition also lies at the root of the Buddhist tradition, according to which people suffer from inverted views (diandao 顛倒), among them taking suffering as joy (yi ku wei le 以苦為樂). Only by recognizing suffering and understanding its origins can suffering cease. And suffering can cease, according to Taixu. The evils of the current order are not irremediable. A better world is possible and is the end proper to humanity. Taixu’s vision of the good society is first and foremost a world of equality, which for Taixu means communism. This and other similar references should not be mistaken for Marxist influence. As mentioned in ­chapter 1, in this period prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, Marx was relatively unknown. The word “communism” refers not to Marxism but to anarcho-​communism.12 For Taixu, the term simply denotes a mode of living in which “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (ge jin qi neng, ge qu qi suo 各盡其能, 各取所需)13 is the rule. A shift to this way of living would roll back all the unjust social arrangements he describes. There would be no rich or poor to antagonize one another and thus no government to protect the former from the latter. With no private property to pass down as inheritance,

7

Disorienting Frameworks

77

the capitalist family system would lose its reason for being, freeing women and men to develop their potential. With no private property to protect, there would be no need to band together into competing groups, thus nations and races would disappear. Moreover, it would be a world of greater leisure because unproductive work, from finance to carrying sedan chairs, could be eliminated and new technology would relieve humanity of drudgery.14 The future world then is one without social divisions or distinctions, one in which all live in productive harmony, free of coercion. As Taixu puts it, If wealth is equalized, the world will be one family. If the masses hold property in common, there will be none who are noble or base, none with special privileges, none with special fame. There will even be no heroes or sages. The happiness of the human way, freedom, and equality will be maintained by the morality of universal fraternity alone, so there will be no need for an army or navy or [weapons manufacturers]. If wealth is equalized, only the necessities of life such and food and clothing and uplifting and beautiful works of art are required. Under these circumstances all the various unwholesome enterprises and humanity’s extravagant customs can be eliminated without exception.15 Equalizing wealth is thus sufficient to cure all ills. All that is evil or unnecessary disappears and only fraternal love (bo’ai 博愛) is necessary to maintain this better world. Taixu was well aware of how unrealistic this sounded. He closes the piece by saying, Although this is pie-​in-​the-​sky thinking spurned and dismissed by present society, I believe that the golden age of humanity with which I am infatuated—​the northern continent [of Uttarakuru], the land of Huaxu (Huaxhushi guo 華胥氏國)—​must one day, a century or two from now, be realized. Until then I  simply remain in wait of its future arrival (xuan ci gu liu yi dai zhi jiang lai 懸此姑留以待之將來).16 There are several points to note here. The first thing to strike the reader is the invocation of classical utopias. The golden age to come is referred to as Uttarakuru, the northern continent of Buddhist cosmology where people live long, comfortable lives without disease or hardship and also as the land of Huaxu, a classical Chinese utopia dreamed of by Huaxu in the Liezi. Yet whereas Uttarakuru is to be found on another continent and Huaxu in dreams, Taixu like the reformers and the radicals places his utopia in a very

87

78

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

different unvisited country: the future. It is at once distant—​it waits one or two centuries from now—​and immanent—​it is this very world transfigured. Taixu is using these images as poetic flourish. There is nothing here to suggest substantive connections between Uttarakuru or Huaxu and the golden age to come. Nevertheless, there is a sense of almost millennial expectation. This millennial flavor corresponds to a rather vague treatment of the means by which Datong is to be achieved. In his title, Taixu designates “equal education as the means.” Education, that perennial anarchist concern, is essential to ensure that people are in fact equal in three respects: intelligence, ability, and morality. With equality in intelligence, every individual will have his share of learning. With equality of ability, all will be able to secure their livelihood. And with equality in morality, “there will be no need for comparison, competition, or longing. Rather, each will naturally act without exhortation, desist without punishment, and progress rapidly without special effort (wu suo wei er qinqin jinhua 無所為而駸駸進化).”17 For Taixu as for other anarchists before him, the key to the transformation of the world, then, is the transformation of individuals. They must be made equal not only in learning and ability but, more important, in morality. A world without coercion requires that people do the right thing of their own. Yet while it is easy to see how such education would be necessary to Taixu’s utopia, it is less clear how it would actually be brought about. “Progressing rapidly without special effort” suggests that Datong would arise naturally from such education. But who would institute such equal education in this world of inequality? Although only education is mentioned explicitly, the opening of Taixu’s essay suggests other factors that might bring Datong to pass. Much of the opening of the essay is devoted to an account of the 1911 revolution. Taixu begins his account of the revolution by stating, “Nothing under heaven is difficult or easy. If only one does not fear difficulty, [the task] will be easy. If only one longs for ease, it will be difficult.”18 As we saw in the previous chapter, in Taixu’s telling, in the years leading up to 1911, revolution was on everyone’s lips. Yet only a few revolutionaries did not fear suffering or hardship but risked their lives to “beat the drums” for revolution. It seemed as though revolution might never be realized; “to bide one’s time” was the watchword. But once the Wuchang uprising began, provinces that would not have dared revolt before fell over themselves to declare independence from the Qing court. Then, according to Taixu, all saw that revolution was easy.19 The equalization of wealth, he states, is similar. As in the case of the revolution, “what is essential is party members who are deeply aware of the difficulty and deeply unafraid of it. . . . With diligence, determination, bravery, and vigor” they must “recognize the goal and based on the implementation

97

Disorienting Frameworks

79

that follows from it enact flexible means to practically and forcefully go and do it.”20 Obviously, this is less than informative. Taixu paints the means to be employed in washed-​out colors: they are to be flexible, practical, and derived from the ends. This stands in marked contrast to the language he uses in discussing the would-​be equalizers of wealth and their vanguard, the revolutionary agitators of the pre-​1911 period. These he describes in dramatic, heroic terms: They must have “diligence, determination, bravery, and vigor” and “forcefully go and do it.” Heroic socialists will have to spread the word about the virtues of equalization of wealth and the evils of the current system and agitate for it in the face of great apparent difficulties. Yet in the end, as in 1911, the masses will be moved, realize that the current system is unjust and unnecessary, and rise up. At this point the old system will crumble. This vision shows similarities to both anarchism and Chinese Buddhism. Anarchism, of course, also stressed the idea that the means must derive from the ends to be attained and the role of the heroic revolutionary who would inspire a spontaneous uprising by his example. Yet these very characteristics also resonate with Buddhist notions. Though Taixu does not make the analogy explicit here, as others did and he himself would in later pieces, the revolutionary has much in common with the bodhisattva. Persevering in the face of difficultly, he, like the bodhisattva, does what is difficult to do and bears what is difficult to bear (nan xing neng xing, nan ren neng ren 難行能行, 難忍能忍) in the service of awakening the people. The revolution thus engendered, likewise, bears implicit similarities to the awakening of Buddhism, specifically the tathāgatagarbha-​oriented Chan tradition. Like afflictions in that tradition, oppressive institutions, whether the Qing dynasty or capitalism, are adventitious. They are no more substantial to Taixu than the proverbial “flowers in the sky” (kong zhong hua 空中華). Recognized for what they are, they simply dissolve. While quite consistent with both anarchism and Buddhism, this sits uneasily with the economic-​materialist orientation Taixu lays out in his discussion of the ills of the present society. One would expect from such an approach a great recognition of the persistent power of institutions. In summary, Taixu seeks to help his readers understand that the current social order is the source of much, perhaps all, suffering, due to its economic inequality. This inequality imposes hardship on the poor and enslaves the rich, while fostering antagonism between them, giving rise to invidious social differentiation and crushing true freedom. There is another possibility, however; another end humanity may seek. A perfect society of equality is possible. If only the equality of communism is secured all social evil can be eliminated and harmony secured by fraternal love alone. People will live in true freedom enjoying beautiful and uplifting things. This world is compared to the

08

80

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

Buddhist utopia of Uttarakuru and the classical utopia of Huaxu, but it lies neither in other worlds nor in dreams but in the future. Taixu clearly believes that human agency can bring this world about, but the precise means are a bit fuzzy. Equal education that will morally transform individuals as well as equip them with the skills to be equal members of society is key. How to institute it in an unequal world, however, is not addressed. There are suggestions that a revolution is necessary in which bodhisattva-​like revolutionaries will spread the truth of socialism and inspire the masses to rise up and cast off the old order, but the essay resembles the idealism of tathāgatagarbha in its assumption that the material inequalities and the social evils based on them will simply dissolve.

The Sociocultural Approach A year after “The Equalization of Wealth,” Taixu published “The Three Great Evils of the World,” which revisits many of the same issues but shows a more specifically anarchist perspective as well as a more substantive Buddhist contribution. Taixu’s analysis of the obstacles of the present world here is more complex and can be broadly described as sociocultural in focus but also contains metaphysical elements. When these problems are overcome humanity will enjoy an ideal society similar to that described in “The Equalization of Wealth,” but this time Taixu adds a soteriological aspect. The means by which this is to be achieved are even less concrete and practicable than in his earlier piece. Here means and ends converge and nearly collapse into one another. The present world, according to “The Three Great Evils of the World,” is one of filth and evil. Yet, again, the people of the world fail to know it for what it is. Taixu compares it to a wayside pavilion, littered with refuse and excrement from innumerable passers-​by. If they saw the filth for what it was, they would clean it. Yet they seem to take it as resplendent (zhuangyan 莊嚴). Just so, “the humanity of this world today, due to its deluded and distorted psyche, daily engages in evil acts out of delusion and inverted views (miwang diandao zui’e 迷罔顛倒罪惡) and moreover calls it the glory of the world, the happiness of humanity.”21 As in the prior essay, then, one aspect of the problem is cognitive: humanity’s fundamental misunderstanding must be corrected. The masses suffer from “inverted views,” and see suffering as joy. Whereas the earlier piece only suggests this notion, here Taixu uses the term explicitly as well as the similarly Buddhist-​inflected “delusion.” Such a state of affairs is not a recent development: “Long has humanity lived in this filth, this hell of sin, and thought it the pure land.”22 It is the fruit of a long process, which Taixu glosses in terms drawn from Buddhism

81

Disorienting Frameworks

81

analyses of causality. The causes and conditions of evil lead to evil activity and present evil activity serves as causes and conditions for future evil so that we have cycle of evil without cease. The ultimate source of this cycle, its root cause (yin 因), lies in the accumulation of selfish thoughts within. Although such thoughts accumulate, the mind of selfish desire (siyu xin 私慾心) itself is inherent. Human beings are born selfish. Yet they are also born with the mind of fraternal love (bo’ai xin 博愛心). This mind is also referred to as “conscience” (liangxin 良心).23 In anarchism, this term referred to the inherent sociability of the human animal, and in a Buddhist work of the period Taixu glosses it as the wellspring of authentic spontaneous morality in contrast with all the false reified moralities of society.24 In fact these two aspects of mind differ not in essence (ti 體) but only in function (yong 用) according to the orientation of the mind.25 This is where the conditions (yuan 緣) have a role to play. The conditions of the evil of the present world are the three great evils: name (ming 名), profit (li 利), and sex (se 色). These are the external objects that draw the mind in the direction of selfish desire and muffle fraternal love.26 As I have argued at length elsewhere, this shows the clear imprint of the Mahayana Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qi xin lun 大乘起信論), a text that exerted tremendous influence over the development of Chinese Buddhism and Chan in particular.27 There too there is a fundamental mind that is one in essence but possessed of both pure and impure, enlightened and deluded aspects. The text offers a kind of cosmogony explaining how the deluded aspect comes to dominate in ordinary beings and how that process is to be reversed in order to uncover the intrinsic awakening, which is obscured but never extinguished. The three objects that draw the mind toward selfish desire were intended to be the organizing principle and conceptual focus of the piece. Unfortunately, the article was published in installments and the only the first two made into Conscience before it was shut down following the failure of the Second Revolution. As such, we have only the discussion of “name.” According to Taixu there are five types of names: political (zhengzhi 政治), hierarchy (jieji 階級), moral (daode 道德), boundary (jiexian 界限), and ability (nengli 能力). Taixu’s treatment of these categories is a rather jumbled,28 but they may be subsumed into two groups—​evil systems and false morality (e zhidu yu wei daode 惡制度與偽道德)—​encompassing the social and cultural aspects of his analysis. The names of boundaries and hierarchy (which subsumes political names) constitute evil systems. Taixu’s concern here is with the issues of social division and stratification. Like most anarchists, Taixu sees the individual and humanity as basic units.29 The groups established by boundary names are

28

82

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

fundamentally false in that they present themselves as having ontological priority over the individual. Such names include nations, families, sexes, religions, parties, and businesses. They are the basis (suoyifu 所依附) of coercive authority and the source (suocongchu 所從出) of illiberty and inequality. The division of humanity into groups leads members to see themselves as bound together by common interest. This in turn leads to strife as they engage in bloody competition to secure their own interests at the expense of others.30 Internally, such boundaries create the opportunity for hierarchy. The primary forms of hierarchy for Taixu, as for other anarchists, are political and familial. Political hierarchy is the source of coercive authority in its most naked form, and thus it is the linchpin (da zonghui 大總匯) of the evil of names. Those above use their power to oppress those below. That power, moreover, is not a function of their person but only of their position. “Courtly titles,” Taixu reminds his readers, “do not reveal people (shi ren 示人), but falsify them (jia ren 假人).” Though a king claims to enjoy authority through his virtue, the only difference between him and a bandit (kou 寇) is that he succeeded in his ambitions while the bandit failed.31 The family, for Taixu, is likewise a nest of oppressive hierarchies. Where Confucianism saw the cradle of the moral being, he sees a den of inequity. Family relationships in the Chinese patriarchal system (zongfa 宗法) are characterized by mutual repression, mutual bondage, mutual coercion, and mutual dependence. But most pernicious is the fact that the hierarchies created by the family appear to be natural and inescapable. Should anyone attempt to break free of these relations, they are subject to the most extreme social sanctions.32 This suggests the intimate relationship between evil systems and false morality. Thus in morality, too, there are names. Taixu divides it into three spheres with their associated virtues:  political—​loyalty and rectitude (zhong lian 忠廉); familial—​filial piety and wifely fidelity (xiao jie 孝節); and social—​ nobility and good faith (gao xin 高信). Such virtues appear unobjectionable. After all, as Taixu states, “morality is moral and not evil.” Nevertheless, “it seems it cannot avoid becoming evil.” Such virtues are the product and protector of an evil society. In the family, for instance, “filial piety” and “wifely fidelity” simply legitimize the tyranny of patriarchal fathers and husbands. If children or wives rebel, they are called “perverse and unnatural”33; “names” alone suffice to bind them.34 In a truly moral society, what is called morality would have no place. But that is not the limit of the perfidy of morality. Names of morality corrupt morality not only because they support hierarchy but by their very nature as names. The social virtues, for instance, are not as clearly tied to social hierarchies, yet they inevitably become corrupted. “Nobility” often brings rank

83

Disorienting Frameworks

83

and with it riches and falsity. “Good faith,” likewise, inevitably gives rise to its opposite.35 In one of his Buddhist writings of this period, Taixu provides some indication of why he thinks this is so. He states that reputation is at best a guest of merit. Moreover, once one accepts some form of reward based on that reputation, then reputation comes to replace and ultimately erase one’s merit. In order to maintain it one becomes a slave of social mores and taboos. In such a situation “one dares not do what one ought and does what one ought not,” abandoning merit and compounding falsity with falsity (yi wei xun wei 以偽薰偽).36 Selfish attachment binds individuals to the web of false morality. Thus we can see that Taixu has moved from a more economic materialist position to a sociocultural one. The problem with present society is not simply the distribution of goods but the way in which it is organized and the way in which it thinks about itself. This was the signal contribution of anarchist discourse to Chinese radicalism. Hierarchy might have its ultimate roots in force, but in day-​to-​day existence it is sustained by cultural mores. It also has resonances with the Buddhist concern to cut through self-​centered attachments to false distinctions. The key role played by the way people think is also demonstrated by the concepts of kinship and self-​interest (qinshu yu lihai 親疏與利害), which seem to mediate between evil systems and false morality and the mind of selfish desire. Like the three evils and evil systems and false morality, these too obscure fraternal love, but they seem to lie a bit deeper. Taixu states that the two concepts arise in the acculturation to the naturalness of competition and lie deep in evil systems and false morality. Kinship serves to limit love to family, while self-​interest limits it to nation and race.37 Thus they lie at the root of evil systems and false morality.38 In situations wherein competition appears to be natural, fraternal love is directed only at in-​groups, becoming selfish desire that expresses itself as kinship and self-​interest. These then may be inferred to serve as the basis for invidious social groupings and the false moral virtues, which in turn “reinforce kinship and self-​interest ever more” while consigning universal fraternity to a mere potential existence.39 Kinship and self-​interest thus seem to be the terms that connect the existential aspect (selfish desire) of Taixu’s analysis with the sociocultural (three evils, evil systems, and false morality) and allows for a vicious cycle of feedback, which begins to resemble samsara. More specifically it resembles the vision of samsara found in the Awakening of Faith in which the entirety of the differentiated world of delusion emerges from the unenlightened aspect of mind. By what means then is the cycle to be broken and Datong established? There is some suggestion that Buddhism can play a concrete role, though Taixu does not really pursue the idea. As we have seen, the state and the family

48

84

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

were the main organs of oppression for Taixu in his radical years. Taixu takes advantage of this anarchist inversion of mainstream Chinese values to reappraise Buddhism. He refers to an ancient polemic against Buddhism, which argues that Buddhism “enters the state and destroys state; enters the family and destroys the family.” This of course was a standard line of attack in anti-​ Buddhist literature. In a moral framework derived from anarchism, however, this becomes not a vice but a virtue and Taixu embraces it accordingly. Buddhism, Taixu states, really does destroy the state and the family and that is why sovereigns and worldly clans opposed it.40 Buddhism’s claim to represent a transtemporal order and the sangha’s status as an elective community at least ideally outside the state and the Chinese family system were always perceived as threatening to the established order, though over the course of history these elements were deemphasized.41 The anarchist vision of an ideal society, which rejects the state and family, draws this aspect of Buddhism to the fore and revalorizes it. Taixu’s main focus, however, lies elsewhere. The central means to breaking the vicious cycle of the present and inaugurating an ideal future is to implement anarchism and call forth fraternal love (huanqi bo’ai 喚起博愛). Anarchism aims to overturn all evil systems and false morality and establish communism. With the implementation of anarchism all names based on politics, boundaries, and classes will be wiped away, along with the false morality based on them and the evil that arises from it.42 But how is anarchism to be implemented? The answer is by calling forth fraternal love. Fraternal love can eliminate the concepts of kinship and self-​interest. If rulers and capitalists had the mind of fraternal love they would naturally cease to oppress and exploit the people.43 At this point, “even if no one overturns evil systems and false morality, they will be overturned of themselves and anarchism will be spontaneously implemented.”44 But how is fraternal love to be aroused? As we have seen, although fraternal love is intrinsic, it is obscured by kinship and self-​interest. From kinship and self-​interest evolve evil systems, and from evil systems evolves false morality. Each step emerges from the one before and feeds back into it. Thus to uncover fraternal love, one must roll back the chain, beginning with false morality and its superstitions. As Taixu puts it, “if one does not remove false morality, evil systems cannot be eliminated. If evil systems are not eliminated, humanity’s concepts of kinship and self-​interest cannot be dissolved and original fraternal love restored.”45 In essence, Taixu is arguing that in order to reveal inherent fraternal love one must roll back the cosmogony of social evil by eliminating evil systems and false morality (again, much like the Awakening of Faith).

85

Disorienting Frameworks

85

This is possible today due to the progress of civilization (wenming jinbu 文明進步). Taixu maintains that the concepts of kinship and self-​interest evolve in contexts in which human knowledge is limited and thus competition is regarded as natural and individuals must rely on their mothers to raise them. Today, however, progress has been achieved and knowledge has been greatly developed. People now know that they can care for their young and old in common and hold property in common. If this is done, then kinship and self-​interest naturally disappear and universal fraternity is made manifest.46 What Taixu is alluding to here is the advent of Kropotkinite science.47 With this new view of human nature and society, the notion that the current order is good and necessary can be eliminated, making way for a rearrangement of the social order such that the intrinsic good of human nature will be unleashed. At this point, however, the reader might have noticed a problem. In order to implement anarchism, the mind of fraternal love has to be aroused. But it seems that in order to arouse fraternal love, anarchism must be implemented. Taixu himself acknowledges that he would seem to have taken the cause for the fruit.48 He explains this by drawing a connection with the way that social evil comes about. From the concepts of kinship and self-​interest evolve evil systems and false morality, and evil systems and false morality cause the concepts of kinship and self-​interest to become entrenched and to proliferate. The remedy operates similarly:  “Only by arousing altruism can anarchism be implemented and only by implementing anarchism can altruism be perfected”49 This suggests that Taixu may have had in mind a dialectical relationship in which each side feeds the other. Such a dialectic is a difficult balance to maintain, however, and it does not take long for the distinction between means and ends to veer toward collapse. Taixu goes on to gloss the relationship in Buddhist terms. He quotes the sutras, saying, “The cause comprehends the sea of the fruit; the fruit penetrates the spring of the cause (yin gai guohai guo che yinyuan 因該果海,果徹 因源)”50 and “The nature is the nature due to Buddhahood. When nature is fulfilled, it is fulfilled due to it. Fulfillment is fulfilled due to Buddha nature. Nature is nature due to [ fulfillment]. (xing yin fo xing, xing liao yin zhi liao, liao yin foxing liao, xing yin zhi xing 性因佛性, 性了因之了, 了因佛性了, 性 因之性).”51 This is something different than the dialectical move made earlier. Taixu is tapping Buddhist conceptions of causality and specifically of the path to Buddhahood that assert a strong—​in fact intrinsic—​metaphysical relationship between cause and effect. Cause does not merely lead necessarily to effect. According to the Huayan interpretations from which the first quotation originates, cause and effect interpenetrate such that the effect is present in the

68

86

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

cause and vice versa. The journey does not merely begin with a single step; it is completed with it as well. The second quotation applies this more explicitly to the path. The intrinsic Buddha nature that makes Buddhahood possible, here, is fulfilled by Buddhahood, while the fulfillment is fulfilled by Buddha nature. The effect is in fact itself the cause. Surprisingly, despite the abstruse packaging, this dynamic is not entirely without analogue with the anarchist tradition. We have seen that anarchists place great stress on the continuity of means and ends. Since the goal of anarchist revolution was not just to replace new institutions for the old but to fundamentally change the entire sociocultural system, employing means derived from the current system would not yield the desired result. The utopian goal had to determine the means. Arif Dirlik has characterized this as a “utopianization of the revolutionary process.” He sees it as a drawing of the goals into the means, in which the ideal ends become the determinant of the means at the cost of ignoring more immediate contingencies. This approach led many Chinese anarchists to believe that the revolutionary process would spontaneously yield revolutionary institutions.52 The resemblance to Chan “sudden awakening,” while imperfect, is striking. Awakening to nondual reality cannot be achieved through any intentional means, which would be inevitably tainted by dualism; the anarchist revolution cannot be achieved by any centrally directed means, which would be inevitably tainted by authoritarianism. The great transformation—​whether awakening or revolution—​must be sudden and spontaneous. Certainly, neither anarchists nor Chan practitioners actually eschewed all means, but both were ideologically limited in the types of means they could choose and how they could portray them. Many scholars of anarchism have pointed out that the anarchist aversion to most species of organization greatly limited the movement’s practical effectiveness. Likewise, scholars of Buddhism have shown that the injunctions against speaking of means caused problems for Chan.53 If anything, the problems caused by the “rhetoric of immediacy” were worse insofar as they entailed a repression of all means.54 Thus in moving from a dialectical relationship between ends and means to one modeled on Chan understandings of the path, Taixu has taken the anarchist concern for consistency of ends and means and compounded the problems inherent therein with those of Chan immediacy. Despite the far more complicated discussion of proper understanding and means, the utopian end portrayed in “The Three Great Evils” initially look much like that of “The Equalization of Wealth.” In the future, society will be one of “Datong, universal brotherhood, freedom, equality, harmonious joy, and justice.” In this society there will be no evil systems and thus no basis for

8 7

Disorienting Frameworks

87

false morality. It will be a free and equal society of perfect communism. All will be brave and enjoy what they need. In a world of such perfect equality, even though some may have special talents, there will be nowhere to employ it, so there will be no more competition.55 That is not all though. Taixu concludes his essay by equating several of the key elements of his analysis with Buddhist doctrinal categories: To arouse the mind of fraternal love is the virtue of nature (xing de 性德). To implement anarchism is the virtue of insight (zhi de 智德). To escape the evil of names is the virtue of severing afflictions (duan de 斷德). When the three virtues are perfect, [the land of ] bliss appears (san de yuan jile chu 三德圓,極樂出). Then all sentient beings together accomplish the five unexcelled, correct awakenings (wushang zhengdeng jue 無上正等五覺).56 We need not concern ourselves overmuch with the doctrinal niceties of the terms used here—​the three virtues and the five awakenings, which derive from the Tiantai tradition57 and the Awakening of Faith, respectively. Suffice it to say that Taixu is again equating the path to a future utopia with the path to Buddhahood. The anarchist notion of fraternal love, which for him is an inherent feature of the human mind that makes utopia possible, is equated with the Buddha nature; anarchism, whose realization constitutes utopia, with the Buddha’s insight into the true nature of things; and the evil of names, the extrinsic obstruction to utopia’s realization, with the afflictions of samsara. Moreover, in the first intimation of the idea of the pure land on earth, he states that at the end of the path lie not simply Datong but the Land of Bliss and perfect awakening for all. We thus find in “The Three Great Evils” a far more complex vision of how the world is to be understood and the means by which to transform it. As in “The Equalization of Wealth,” human beings suffer from inverted views that lead them to see a world of misery as a land of bliss. They must recognize that this miserable state of affairs is the product of a complex interaction between the intrinsically selfish aspect of the human mind and the three great evils, which constitute evil systems and false morality, an interaction that is mediated by the concepts of kinship and self-​interest. The problem that must be understood is thus sociocultural—​the issue is how human beings are organized and how they think about that organization—​but also existential in that the ultimate root of the problem lies in an essential feature of the human mind. The means to achieve Datong must thus address both aspects. To address the sociocultural aspect—​the three evils/​evil systems

8

88

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

and false morality—​anarchism must be implemented. To address the existential aspect—​the mind of selfish desire and the concepts of kinship and self-​interest—​the other intrinsic aspect of the mind, fraternal love, must be aroused. Each of these, however, depends upon the other. Taixu initially presents this as a dialectic that mirrors the feedback mechanism that produces and entrenches social evil, but he then gives it a second gloss in which the means/​ends relationship between the two turns from dialectic toward immediacy. The end to be achieved through these means is a social utopia of freedom, equality and universal fraternity much like that in “Equalizing Wealth,” but it also has a soteriological side. Since not only society but also the mind has been transformed, this Datong is not only a world of fulfilled social beings but also of Buddhas. This vision draws explicitly from both the anarchist and the Buddhist traditions. Much of the terminology—​selfishness, universal fraternity, kinship and self-​interest, and so on—​was important for Chinese anarchism, and Taixu shows an anarchist concern for issues of social differentiation, hierarchy, and authoritarian moralities. Moreover, his vision of Datong reflects, in part, classically anarchist values; it is a future utopia of equality, freedom, and universal fraternity. At the same time, there is a powerful Buddhist current running through the piece, sometimes explicitly and sometimes just below the surface. We have seen that his analysis of the origins of social evil in an intrinsic aspect of the mind owe something to the Awakening of Faith as does his vision of rolling back this invidious cosmogony through activating a second intrinsic aspect of the mind. This dynamic leads him to further gloss the means to Datong in terms derived from Chan (a tradition strongly influenced by the Awakening of Faith) turning the anarchist concern with consistency of means and ends toward immediacy. Finally, we have seen that enacting the means to Datong thus leads not only to a social utopia, which Taixu terms a land of bliss, but in fact to Buddhahood for all. This vision, in which anarchism and Buddhism are so thoroughly intermixed, would have appalled many anarchists such as Wu Zhihui and Shifu. Yet there is another approach in Taixu’s radical writings in which Buddhist elements plays an even more pronounced role.

The Existential-​Metaphysical Approach Where the existential-​metaphysical approach was only part of Taixu’s analysis in “The Three Evils,” it is the central focus in “On the Hun and Po Souls” and “On Atheism.” The former is concerned with the nature of the soul and the latter with the existence of a creator god and the soul. Unsurprisingly, the

98

Disorienting Frameworks

89

issue of understanding occupies a central place in these essays. Ultimately, however, both reflect Taixu’s preoccupation with the issue of Datong, though now cast in terms more metaphysical that social. The first piece, “On the Hun and Po [Souls],” is a somewhat rambling essay that was published in three installments in 1912 in Social World. Taixu takes as the occasion for his meditations a passage in which the Ming dynasty master Zibo Zhenke 紫柏真可 (1543–​1604) elaborates a theory of the hun 魂 and po 魄 (the two types of souls generally said to be possessed by human beings in Chinese thought) and their relation to gods and ghosts based on a passage from the Analects. In the first two installments, Taixu rejects any conflation of the two sets of categories and turns his attention to the issue of whether both the hun and po have awareness or only the hun.58 In the end, he decides that both hun and po and in fact all things have awareness, because all arises from the storehouse consciousness.59 One might well wonder why this would be published in an anarcho-​ socialist journal. At the very end, however, he does bring his discussion around to anarcho-​socialist themes: Our party upholds60 socialism, the final goal of which is the grand unity of Datong. But what is necessary for us to call [something] Datong? Therein there can be no difference in affair (shi 事), principle (li 理), or object (wu 物). But how can we grandly unify them (datong zhi 大同之)? The philosophies of the knowable and the unknowable must be completely taken up and unified.61 This passage is a bit obscure and impossible to unpack entirely. Although Taixu prefaces this passage with a rumination about the limits of human knowledge and follows it with lines from the Zhuangzi to the same effect, he never makes clear what he means by the philosophies of the knowable and the unknowable. Despite the confused presentation, this clearly represents a vision of Datong different from those we have thus far seen. Datong here is an all-​encompassing Grand Unity, not simply social but metaphysical. Socialism is the means not only to a society of freedom, equality, and universal fraternity but to a recognition of the ultimate oneness of all things. Proper understanding becomes an end in itself. Though the connection between socialism and metaphysical Datong is not made explicitly, this would seem to be the reason for Taixu’s concern with the soul, or at least for publishing this piece in Social World. Ultimately both hun and po have awareness, he concludes, because ultimately all is consciousness. The physical world, including but not limited to the bodily po souls, is

09

90

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

simply the phenomenal aspect (xiang fen 相分) of the storehouse consciousness, while the sentience that regards it is the cognizing aspect (jian fen 見分). All distinctions are ultimately illusory. This recalls the metaphysical Datong of some anarchists discussed in c­ hapter 1 and of Zhang Taiyan in particular. As we saw earlier, Zhang (at least in one possible reading) also connected anarchism to a monistic vision rooted in Yogācāra thought and the Zhuangzi. It is thus not entirely foreign to Chinese anarchism, but nevertheless it sits uneasily within the tradition. Such a position is a far cry from those of other seminal figures, such as the technological utopia of Wu Zhihui. Rather Taixu is developing a minor strain of the tradition. He presents a similar, but more elaborated, vision in “On Atheism.” The Chinese neologism for atheism literally means “the doctrine of no shen 神.” The term “shen” had been used a variety of ways in Chinese thought over the centuries, including to refer to deities as well as the soul or animating intelligence of persons. Taixu uses this essay as an opportunity to discuss both ideas, again with a special focus on their relationship to Datong and anarcho-​ socialism. Taixu initially states that both can be useful to anarcho-​socialism, but neither is valid ultimately. In fact, Taixu does not really think that theism is valid at all, but initially he is more conciliatory and grants that there is a religious faction of socialism in the West62 that uses theism as a basis for socialist values. According to such socialists, all people are the beloved children of God and endowed by him with freedom, equality, and fraternal love. All are equal in his sight without regard to any of the classes or boundaries that divide humanity. These individuals argue that God alone is lord and creator, thus he alone enjoys sovereignty over the earth and that all human beings, from the most noble to the most base, are properly his servants. Taixu acknowledges that such a doctrine facilitates understanding of socialism and aids in its implementation.63 These are the last kind words Taixu has for theism, however. Although theism can be used as a means to spread anarcho-​socialism, atheism is ultimate. Religion is an expedient at best. To have religion at all is a great misfortune, as it is to have sages and Buddhas. It is only because people are not sages that sages are born. It is only because sentient beings are not Buddhas that Buddhas are born. Thus true sages take a world in which sages are superfluous as their aim and true religion takes a world where religion is unnecessary as its goal. Even socialism and the Socialist Party are ultimately to be overcome in this way. How much more then, Taixu asks, theism, which is merely an expedient means (fangbian famen 方便法門) for the propagation of socialism?64 Taixu thereafter spends much of the remainder of the article refuting theism in no uncertain terms. Many of the arguments advanced are

91

Disorienting Frameworks

91

simply standard theological objections, largely revolving around the issue of theodicy,65 which we need not examine at length here. A few, however, bear more directly on our concerns and merit a closer look. First, he argues that a creator and lord of the universe is incompatible with the “extreme egalitarianism” (jiduan pingdengzhuyi 極端平等主義) of socialism. Though God’s lordship may make all men equal, the God imagined by theism is, in Taixu’s view, nothing more than a tyrant. He exercises total authority over his creation and may reward and punish as he chooses. Any who do not worship him are traitors to be simply cast into hell. To ask people to kneel down and worship such a deity is incompatible with human freedom and equality. Socialism can do without this and, despite talk of expediency, cannot tolerate it.66 Just as theism is unnecessary for the propagation of socialism, it is likewise unnecessary as an explanation of the existence of the universe. In fact the world is the product of the “inexhaustible conditioned arising of true nature,” the endless causation of all things by all things that is the corollary of emptiness. There are many worlds, light and dark, blissful and painful, beautiful and ugly, pure and tainted. Light, blissful, beautiful, pure worlds arise from awakening. Dark, painful, ugly, tainted worlds arise from delusion. Out of delusion arise three distinctions, which recall “The Great Evils”: self and other, desire and aversion, and man and woman; and out of these arise murderousness, covetousness, and licentiousness, respectively. From these stems the entire causal matrix that propels the world we live in. The answer to this problem is to eliminate distinctions. Thereupon, delusion will be turned to awakening and this tainted world become pure.67 This, of course, sounds very much like the mind-​only position of Chinese pure land thought. The means by which this is to be accomplished, however, is socialism. With socialism fraternal love is universal and knows no boundaries, thus the distinction between self and other is eliminated and thereby murderousness. Property is held in common and produced “by each according to his ability” and enjoyed “by each according to his need,” thus the distinction between desire and aversion is eliminated and thereby covetousness. Love is free,68 and thus the distinction between man and woman is eliminated and thereby licentiousness. Thus through a revolution in social arrangements, socialism is capable of addressing the fundamental distinctions that lead to the evil world we find ourselves in, turning delusion to awakening and this world into one of light, bliss, beauty, and purity.69 As in “The Three Evils,” then, Taixu is arguing that socialism is the means that will allow humanity to roll back delusion and inaugurate a pure land on earth, though he never uses exactly that term. We have already noted the

29

92

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

similarity between this notion of rolling back a cosmogony like this and the Awakening of Faith. Here, however, Taixu places at the center of his discussion not the mind but the inexhaustible conditioned arising of true nature. It is common in Mahayana thought to stress the importance of emptiness to the soteriological process. If delusion and affliction were not empty, if they were essential natures rather than part of the all-​encompassing causal matrix, then they would be irremediable. There is a parallel here to radical thought. Social structures, at least those of the current order, are not ordained or natural. They are simply human constructs, contingent and malleable, and thus open to revolution, to remaking through purposive human effort. Taixu has thus found his way to an underlying resonance between the two traditions, even though his conflation of the two is superficial. Whereas in the end Taixu turns out not to be in favor of theism at all, he has a much more lenient vision of the soul (linghun 靈魂). In his discussion, he focuses only on Chinese notions of the soul as the part of the individual that is reborn. As we will see, rebirth is precisely what Taixu appreciates about the doctrine of the soul. This is why the soul receives lighter treatment, because although there is no soul to be reborn, rebirth does in fact exist. It is simply the force of grasping and habit across lives.70 For those who cannot understand this “ultimate” doctrine, the notion of a soul will suffice. In Taixu’s view, belief in a soul has two key advantages. First, it can provide an important guard against world-​weariness (yanshi 厭世). In Taixu’s view, people succumb to world-​weariness because over the course of a lifetime they inevitably encounter difficult circumstances more often than not, leading them to reject and abandon the world. If they believe there is an immortal soul, however, they will know that all good and evil karma accrues to that soul and that the world is a result of that karma along with that of other sentient beings. Based on this understanding individuals will realize that the world cannot be escaped even by death and need not be. By simply improving oneself and society, all can progress together (jujin 俱進) toward goodness and beauty.71 Taixu also argues that firm faith in a soul will yield a shift in perspective that will eliminate the distinction between self and other. If one believes that there is a soul, but lacks firm faith, he may think thusly: Even if there is a soul that will be reborn, I won’t remember that I am me. I’ll be like another person. It is enough to devote myself to attaining a few decades of happiness in this life. What good is it to work with great compassion for the great peace and order of Datong for the benefit of the world?72

9 3

Disorienting Frameworks

93

Beneath the issue of reincarnation and the soul, this is a pointed statement of an issue that plagued many radical utopian movements. Why should one make incredible sacrifices in the present for the sake of an ideal future that one will almost certainly never see? Even if one’s soul is still around, without knowing who one once was and what one once did, it would seem the sacrifice is never validated. With firm faith, Taixu holds, one has a different perspective. A person with such faith will see not only his future self from the perspective of the present but the present self from the perspective of the future. From that point of view, one’s present self is in fact like another person. The same is true should one adopt the perspective of a past self. Selves past, present, and future—​all are one’s self; all are like another person. With this perspective, “I” can work on behalf of “others” and “others” on behalf of “me.” Each works on behalf of the others and the distinction of self and other is destroyed without any special effort (bu po er zi po 不破而自破).73 Thus firm belief in a soul that provides continuity between lives allows for a decentering of the self, a discovery of oneself as an other. This understanding allows the individual to embrace the trademark virtue of the anarchist, selfless mutual aid, and also dissolves a key obstruction to awakening, the distinction of self and other, leaving in its place an ontologically grounded solidarity. There is no creator god but only the causal matrix of true nature. There is no soul but only the force of grasping and habit. This is a species of atheism both peculiar and familiar. It will come as no surprise that Taixu begins to draw his discussion to a close by revealing that true atheism is in fact the ultimate vehicle (zuishang sheng 最上乘) of Buddhism. Although theism arises from and is generally associated with religion, and ordinary Buddhism is polytheistic, the ultimate vehicle is not limited by “ordinary religious character.”74 Taixu supports this assertion by citing a series of stock phrases, such as “this mind is the Buddha (ji xin shi fo 即心是佛),” “all beings have the Buddha nature (yiqie zhong sheng jie ju foxing 一切眾生皆具佛性),” and “mind, Buddha, and sentient beings are without distinction (xin fo zhongsheng san wu chabie 心佛眾生三無差別).”75 This set of phrases speaks more to the equality of all beings, rather than directly to the issue of atheism, but it does suggest another objection to theism, only partially articulated before. Earlier, we mentioned that Taixu found the notion of a Lord God an intolerable affront to equality. The phrases cited suggest that part of what was at issue for him was metaphysical inequality, setting up one being as qualitatively different and superior to all others. The Buddha of the ultimate vehicle, in contrast, is in fact immanent in and not to be distinguished from all sentient beings. Again, the concern for social equality and the concern for metaphysical equality have converged.

49

94

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

In Taixu’s view, such concerns are connected not just in his own thought but in the sweep of world history. In his closing remarks, he presents as a sort of addendum a metahistorical theory of progress in which sociopolitical systems and religion advance together through a series of evolutionary stages. According to this vision, polities progress from chieftains to monarchs, from monarchs to republics, and finally from republics to anarchy. Likewise, religion evolves from polytheism to monotheism, from monotheism to “reverence of the sagely” (shang sheng 尚聖), and from the reverence of the sagely to atheism. Taixu looked out over the world of his day and saw revolutions establishing republics everywhere and thought the religious sphere too would require a great revolution in which the new will struggle with the old, overturning the monotheisms and polytheisms of the past. A new religion would then be elected to be enshrined in their place. That religion would be the most profound and sagely (zui zhe zui sheng 最哲最聖) teaching, which is united with moral philosophy (yu daode xueli he wei yi 與道德學理和為一), namely Buddhism. From this things would progress until socialism is implemented and worldwide Datong established. At that time, anarchy will replace government and atheism, religion.76 Thus it seems that Taixu was entertaining notions that the world would be remade over the course of a metahistorical process comparable to that of Kang Youwei. Clearly, however, he sees a greater role for human agency than Kang did. This is illustrated by the foregoing discussion of rebirth, which highlights the importance of individual commitment to the cause. The role of human effort is also alluded to in the version of the essay published in the Buddhist Monthly, in which he twice speaks of “aiding the evolution of the Human Way and hastening the world toward Datong” (zhu rendao zhi jinhua cu shijie yi datong 助人道之進化, 促世界以大同),77 an idea that also occurs in another work.78 We shall see that Taixu strikes a similar balance between human agency and metahistorical evolution in his Maitreyan theology. In conclusion, in these two pieces we find a metaphysical orientation in which understanding plays a prominent role, even becoming an end in itself. In “On the Hun and Po [Souls]” Datong becomes not merely a social but a metaphysical grand unity and socialism a means to the recognition of this unity. In “On Atheism,” Taixu rejects theism in part as a metaphysical misapprehension, which fails to see the ultimate egalitarian unity of all things. At the same time, the soul is provisionally accepted as an understanding of rebirth that decenters the self, eliminates world-​weariness, and encourages mutual aid and fraternal solidarity. Finally, he presents two portrayals of the means to Datong, or rather the process by which it is realized. In the first, we again see a rollback of the cosmogony of distinction through socialism though

9 5

Disorienting Frameworks

95

this time based on the conditioned arising of true nature. In the second, Taixu sketches a metahistorical process of evolution that conjoins the ends of social utopia and atheism. This process is substantially determined but may be hastened by purposive human effort. This approach brings together anarchism and Buddhism first through equating or conjoining the end of Datong and the recognition of the oneness of all things, blending social and metaphysical egalitarianism. This oneness was based on Yogācāra idealism in “On the Hun and Po [Souls]” and the more Huayan-​inflected inexhaustible conditioned arising of the true nature in “On Atheism.” This construal of emptiness also serves as the analogue of the radical recognition of the contingent nature of society, which makes revolution possible. The latter essay further relies on Buddhist understandings of the self to avoid one of the risks of radical endeavor, weariness brought on by labor in the service of a world one will never see, and to support an anarchist means of social progress, mutual aid.

Conclusion From our discussion we have seen that Taixu’s radical writings can be framed around three common themes: utopia, the understanding required to bring it about, and the means by which to do so. It is important that people understand the nature of society, that the current order, whether the focus is on economic inequality or on evil systems and false morality, is not an irremediable fact of nature but an artifact of history, not a source of joy but of suffering. Moreover, they must understand the metaphysical nature of the universe and themselves. The world is an endless causal matrix and the self a causal stream of habit and grasping that is born again and again, or, alternatively, both are simply aspects of the storehouse consciousness. Moreover, people are possessed of an intrinsically pure mind of universal fraternity that has been misdirected but is the source of all authentic morality. Taixu is also concerned with right means. His treatment of this theme varies. One common thread is individual transformation and character. This is expressed in his more mundane concern for individual morality, heroic bravery, and self-​sacrifice in the service of the cause. It is also expressed in his concern for education that will raise all people to equal heights of ability, learning, and morality. Most deeply, we find it in his concern for the recovery of conscience or the mind of universal fraternity. Another common thread is social transformation. This is manifest as equalizing wealth and implementing anarchism. It is also reflected in his interest in social revolution and evolution. Yet the issue of means is always vague for Taixu at best. They are to be

69

96

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

flexible, practical, and derived from the ends, but their exact nature is often unspecified or of questionable practicality. Moreover, he reads the anarchist concern with means and ends through a Chan frame that leads toward immediacy, a rejection of any means at all. Finally, he is most concerned with right result. The aim of all of this is Datong. Datong is first a utopia, an ideal society that lies in the future. It is a world of material well-​being and leisure, one free of social divisions and hierarchies of all kinds. Religion and the state are unnecessary and have disappeared. It is a world characterized by freedom, equality, and universal fraternity. It is Utarakuru. It is the Land of Bliss. And there all are Buddhas. But Datong also has a metaphysical aspect. It is the grand unity not just of all people but of all phenomena. It is a state in which the unity of all things, whether based on the ālaya or on true nature, is recognized and the division of self and other overcome. Taixu’s thought in this period is oriented around two poles of attraction, two hypergoods around which other values and ideas constellate and which coexist in a degree of tension. These are utopia and Buddhahood—​the realization of a perfect society and of a perfect self—​values Taixu derives from the anarcho-​socialist and Buddhist traditions. Around the ideal of utopia cluster values such as right understanding of the social order, revolution and evolution, and such characteristics of social Datong as freedom, equality, and universal fraternity. Around the ideal of Buddhahood cluster values such as right understanding of self and universe, recovery of an originally pure mind, immediacy, and metaphysical Datong, essentially a stand-​in for awakening. Many of the apparent idiosyncrasies, confusions, and superficial identifications in Taixu’s writings are due to reading values and ideas from one tradition through the framework provided by the other. Thus we see the concern for the suffering of the rich, enslaved by their desires, in “The Equalization of Wealth.” In “The Three Great Evils” the anarchist belief in the fundamentally sociable nature of humanity is transformed into a tathāgatagarbha-​like pure mind and the freeing of that nature from the distorting coercion of hierarchy recast as a rolling back of a cosmogony of social evil. We are presented with a utopia in which people are not merely fulfilled social animals but Buddhas and sages. Discussions of remaking the world proceed in the language of mind-​only pure land in which the world is seen differently rather than made different. Last, Taixu’s construes means and ends in terms derived from Chan and tathāgatagarbha that tends toward not just consistency but immediacy. But we also find mutually reinforcing resonances. The bodhisattva provides an image for the selflessness and bravery of the revolutionary, and both anarchist revolution and Buddhahood require moral purity of their aspirants.

9 7

Disorienting Frameworks

97

Both radical and Buddhist traditions attempt to bring this moral transformation about through forms of education, broadly conceived. In both, such transformation seems possible due to an optimistic view of human nature, rooted in Kroponkinite science in the first instance and tathāgatagarbha in the second. Moreover, the metaphysical contingency of emptiness reinforces the social contingency of radicalism and the iconoclasm of Chan blends with that of revolution. Similarly, the metaphysical absolutism of the intrinsic mind provides a transcendent point of critique of the current order, just as the ahistorical ideologies of radicalism with their claims to scientific status did. At the broadest level, we can see that Taixu’s radical thought blends the liberation narratives of the traditions, both of which begin with right understanding of the suffering inherent in the current state of affairs that serves as the precondition for the implementation of proper means to achieve either a social or soteriological revolution.79 Most interestingly we see the attraction of each pole drawing out minor strains of the tradition associated with the other. This is most prominent in the case of metaphysical Datong. This was a minor strain of the Chinese anarchist tradition, which in Taixu’s thought is elevated to a position of prominence where it serves as a stand-​in for awakening. Another example is the supposedly socially corrosive character of Buddhism. Guided by a conception of a perfect society without state or family, Taixu seems to reappropriate as a badge of honor criticism of the religion as anti-​state and anti-​family that his forebears had been anxious to refute. Anarchism also leads Taixu to an at least partial revaluation of rebirth in this world. Though it is still rooted in attachment, it becomes not merely a problem but a solution to the difficulty radical ideologies, the fatigue that can result from dedication to a paradise deferred. Rebirth is valorized for bridging that gap between the evil present and the ideal future. The notion of seeking rebirth again in this world to continue working for its betterment was not unknown in Chinese Buddhism, but again it was a relatively minor strain, attested to in biographies of some eminent monks but a far less widespread goal than escaping this world all together through rebirth in the Western Paradise of Amitābha. This rather messy constellation of values and ideas around these two poles of attraction was only an initial formulation. As we have seen, Taixu eventually rejected anarcho-​socialism and many of the trappings of that tradition due to a combination of factors including disillusionment with the anarchists of Europe and disappointment with his own setbacks and failures. But, as we shall see, even though Taixu abandoned anarcho-​socialism as an articulated ideology, the revolutionary utopian framework he absorbed in the years around the founding of the Republic continued to provide orientation long

89

98

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

after. Whereas in his early years Taixu’s thought was largely confined to the Chan-​dominated strains of late imperial Chinese Buddhism in which he was trained, following his years of study in self-​imposed isolation he had a greater range of the Buddhist tradition to work with. One result of this was the reinvention of the cult of Maitreya, to which we now turn our attention.

Notes 1. Jiang Jun 蔣俊, “Taixu fashi yu ‘fojiao shehuizhuyi’ ” 太虛法師與“佛教社會主 義” [Master Taixu and ‘Buddhist socialism’], Shandong daxue xuebao 山東大學 學報, no. 2 (1991): 79–​85. 2. Yinshun 印順, “Geming shidai de taixu dashi” 革命時代的太虛大師 [Master Taixu in the age of revolution], Y23: 283–​298. 3. Taixu 太虛, “Jun pin fu qianshuo: yi pingdeng jiaoyu wei shouxu, yi gongchan zhuyi wei mudi 均貪富淺言: 以平等教育為手續, 以共產主義為目的 [A cursory discussion of the equalization of wealth: equal education as method; communism as goal],” Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 2 (1912): 14. 4. Ibid., 6. 5. Ibid., 7–​8. 6. Ibid., 10–​11. Taixu here identifies this bloody revolution here with anarchism. This represents an earlier phase in which he sees it simply as violent extremism. Within a few months, however, he seems to have realized that his own positions may be described as anarchist. 7. Ibid., 12. 8. Ibid., 13. 9. Ibid., 14–​15. 10. Ibid., 11. 11. Ibid., 10. See also 13. 12. Marxist communism and anarcho-​communism had relatively similar visions of the ideal society toward which they strived but differed in their conception of the proper means, particularly the role of a party or the State. According to anarchism, any revolution that involves centralized coercive power will only replicate those structures following the revolution, a point Bakunin himself made to Marx at the First International. Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 5. 13. Like the word “communism,” this phrase, which does not originate with Marx, was not yet the exclusive property of Marxists. Taixu likely gets the phrasing from Jiang Kanghu, who referred to it as “the two eaches” (er ge 二各). 14. Taixu, “Jun pin fu qianshuo,” 10. 15. Ibid., 9. 16. Ibid., 16.

99

Disorienting Frameworks 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

99

Ibid., 16. Ibid., 4. Ibid., 4–​7. Ibid., 6. Taixu 太虛 [Lewu 樂無, pseud.], “Shijie zhi san da zui’e” 世界之三大罪惡 [The three great evils of the world], pt. 1, Liangxin 良心, no. 1 (1913): 7. 22. Ibid., 9. 23. Ibid., 8. 24. Taixu 太虛, “Jue wei pi zhen” 抉偽披真 [Identifying the false and making clear the true], TDQ 18, 27: 2. 25. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san da zui’e,” pt. 1, 8. 26. Ibid., 7–​8. 27. Justin R. Ritzinger, “The Awakening of Faith in Anarchism:  A  Forgotten Chapter in the Chinese Buddhist Encounter with Modernity,” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 224–​243. Many of the ideas in this section are also developed there. 28. For instance, “hierarchy” refers to both political as well as familial rank and thus is partially redundant; “boundaries,” as we shall see momentarily, is of a different conceptual order than the others, and “ability” is never actually discussed as promised. 29. Taixu 太虛, “Shehui dang yu zhongguo shehui dang zhi bamian guan” 社會 黨與中國社會黨之八面觀 [A comprehensive view of the Socialist Party and Chinese Socialist Party], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 5 (November 1912): 45. 30. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san da zui’e,” pt. 1, 13–​15. 31. Ibid., 11. 32. Taixu 太虛, “Shijie zhi san za zui’e” 世界之三大罪惡 [The three great evils of the world], pt. 2, Liangxin 良心,. 2 (1913): 1. 33. More literally contrary to natural morality (wei jing fan chang 違經反常). 34. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san za zui’e,” pt. 2, 3. 35. Ibid., 4. 36. Taixu, “Jue wei pi zhen,” 2. 37. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san za zui’e,” pt. 2, 6. 38. Ibid., 7. 39. Ibid., 6. 40. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san da zui’e,” pt. 1, 14–​15. Compare Tolstoy, who states in The Kingdom of God Is within You, “Christianity in its true meaning destroys the state.” Quoted in Robert Goehlert, “Tolstoy and Anarchism,” Journal of Religious Thought 38, no. 1 (1981): 54. 41. See: Whalen W. Lai, “The Origins of Ming Buddhist Schism,” in Heterodoxy in Late Imperial China, ed. Kwang-​Ching Liu and Richard Shek (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2004). 42. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san za zui’e,” pt. 1, 4–​5.

001

100

Tai x u ’ s B u d d hist R a d icalism

43. Jiang Jun makes rather too much of this, scoffing, “Slaves, wait patiently! When your masters’ ‘universal fraternal love’ is aroused, the day of liberation will be at hand!” Jiang, “Taixu fashi yu ‘fojiao shehuizhuyi,’ ” 83. 44. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san za zui’e,” pt. 2, 7. 45. Ibid., 7. 46. Ibid., 7. 47. Although Taixu refers to science in his radical writings less than one might expect, there is some indication that he was interested in science in this period. He wrote an announcement in issue 4 of the Buddhist monthly in which he states that he plans to write an article on the similarities between science and Buddhism in a later issue. The journal folded, however, shortly thereafter. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. This phrase is found in several texts throughout the canon but seems to originate with the Huayan patriarch Chengguan’s commentary on the Huayan Sutra (T36, 1736: 3b16-​23). 51. Ibid., 8. Neither this quotation nor any significant portion thereof can be found in the CBETA edition of the canon. 52. Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution (Berkeley:  University of California Press 1991), 29. 53. For example, Bernard Faure, The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/​Zen Buddhism (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1991); and Carl Bielefeldt, “Chang-​Lu Tsung-​Tse’s Tso-​Ch’an I  and the ‘Secret’ of Zen Meditation,” in Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, ed. Peter N. Gregory (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986). 54. Though, of course, the repressed inevitably and regularly returned, as Faure has shown. 55. Taixu, “Shijie zhi san za zui’e,” pt. 2,  5. 56. Ibid., 8. 57. Although the three virtues are a common term in Tiantai thought, this is an unusual version, unattested to as such in the canon. It may be based on Zhiyi’s commentary on the Universal Gate chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Guanyin xuan yi觀音玄義 [Profound import of the Guanyin Chapter] (T34, 1726: 880c28-​a3) or perhaps on this passage’s reiteration in Ouyi Zhixu’s Miaofa lianhua jing taizong huiyi 妙法蓮華經台宗會義 [Tiantai compendium of interpretations of the Sutra of the Lotus of the Wondrous Dharma] (X32, 616: 202b20-​c1) as a search of the CBETA edition of the canon shows these to be the only significant texts to use these three particular virtues. If this was his inspiration, it is interesting to note the fourth virtue, which is ignored: the virtue of cultivation (修德 xiu de). 58. Taixu 太虛, “ Guang hun po shuo” 廣魂魄說 [Broad discourse on the hun and po (souls)], pt. 1, Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 3 (June 1912); and “Guang hun po

0 11

Disorienting Frameworks

101

shuo” 廣魂魄說 [Broad discourse on the hun and po (souls)], pt. 2, Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 4 (July 1912). 59. Taixu 太虛, “Guang hun po shuo” 廣魂魄說 [Broad discourse on the hun and po (souls)], pt. 3, Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 5 (November 1912). 60. Reading chi 持 for te 特. 61. Ibid., 17. 62. Here Taixu is likely thinking especially of Tolstoy, whom he had read in Guangzhou. TDN 44. 63. Taixu 太虛, “Wu shen lun” 無神論 [On atheism], Liangxin 良心, no. 2 (August 1913): 9. 64. Ibid., 11. 65. Ibid., 13–​14. 66. Ibid., 10. 67. Ibid., 15. 68. “Free love” for Chinese anarchists meant romantic love freed from the distorting confines of patriarchal marriage, not sexual liberation. 69. Ibid., 15–​16. 70. Ibid., 16. 71. Ibid., 9. There are similarities here with Tan Sitong’s views. See Chan Sin-​wai, Buddhism in Late Ch’ing Political Thought (Hong Kong:  Chinese University Press, 1985), 111. 72. Taixu, “Wu shen lun,” 10. 73. Ibid., 10. 74. Note the similarities to Zhang Taiyan’s characterization of Buddhism in ­chapter 1. 75. Taixu. “Wu shen lun,” 16. 76. Ibid., 19. 77. Taixu 太虛, “Wu shen lun” 無神論 [On atheism], TDQ 13, 21: 284 and 287. 78. In Taixu’s address to the Great Vow Society, which was later published in the Buddhist Monthly, he spoke of “hastening the realization of humanity’s golden age” (cu renlei huangjin shidai zhi shixian 促人類黃金時代之實現). “Jue wei pi zhen,” 1. 79. I develop this idea at length with respect to “The Three Great Evils” in Ritzinger, “The Awakening of Faith in Anarchism,” 238–​240.

021

013

PART II

The Cult of Maitreya

041

015

3

A New Cult for New Buddhists

Introduction Like Taixu’s involvement with radicalism, the reformist cult of Maitreya in modern China has not been a topic of extended scholarly consideration. In English-​language scholarship, it has been entirely absent. There are several reasons for this. The first, of course, is simply the underdeveloped state of the study of modern Chinese Buddhism. Only a few topics have been treated in any depth thus far. Also, for reasons we discuss in ­chapter 5, the attempt to promote the cult did not succeed in becoming mainstream practice within the orthodox tradition. Thus it does not loom large in the self-​conception of the contemporary Humanistic Buddhist groups whose recent flourishing has played a large role in reigniting interest in the modern period. Yet theoretical considerations have also certainly played a role. If what is important about Taixu and the reform movement is the emergence of a new Buddhism, demythologized and characterized by inner worldly asceticism, then such things as commentaries on the Maitreyan sutras are unlikely to seem like significant sources. Chinese-​language scholarship shows more awareness of the importance Maitreya had for Taixu but fails to examine it at much length. As one of Taixu’s students, Yinshun, of course, was very familiar with the Taixu’s devotion.1 We discuss his own writings on Maitreya and the extent to which they carry on his teacher’s ideas in ­chapter 5. Here we may simply note that while he acknowledges the importance it had in the Biography, the annalistic structure he employs obscures it. On the one hand, Yinshun quotes the cult’s brief founding document at length,2 a sign that he regarded it is as a significant moment in Taixu’s life. On the other hand, although he duly notes almost every instance in which Taixu spoke on a Maitreyan text, they are necessarily spread throughout his account. Only if the reader goes through and counts

061

106

T he C ult o f M aitreya

them does she realize how frequent such lectures actually were. The fact that it is a biography also understandably means that the contributions of Taixu’s students and associates in the cult is relatively neglected. The towering importance of Yinshun’s work is probably another reason that many scholars in China and Taiwan have been aware of the cult of Maitreya but disinclined to investigate it. The school is occasionally mentioned in Chinese-​language works but dealt with only in a cursory fashion.3 The most extended treatments are to be found in the work of Luo Tongbing 羅 同兵 and He Jianming 何建明. Luo argues that Taixu’s Maitreyan thought was closely related to his ideas on Human Life Buddhism and pure land on earth.4 Working within a Weberian framework, he further argues that the Maitreya School represents a “modern religion” due to its rationality.5 We shall see in ­chapter 4 that these insights are not without merit. However, Luo considers only Taixu’s ideas and not the social context or the historical development of the cult. He Jianming’s essay does more to place Taixu’s devotion to Maitreya in relation to other expressions of devotion to the bodhisattva but occasionally overstates its case with regard to other figures and movements.6 That context and development is our focus here. Our first task will be to attempt to reconstruct the history of the Maitreya School from its inauguration in 1924 to its peak in 1936 and early 1937. This occurred in two phases, corresponding roughly to what Taixu described as the second and third periods of his career7 and to the May Fourth Era and the Nanjing decade of Chinese history. The first phase saw the creation of the school and the laying of the movement’s foundations in Taixu’s seminary at Wuchang. In the second phase there was an intellectual reorientation and expansion of the cult that coincided with a push to actively propagate it and a growing role for Taixu’s students and associates. In the following chapter I argue that this was motivated by the analogues to radical values that Taixu found implicit in Maitreyan texts. In the course of the present chapter, I hope to make a number of points: First, just as in c­ hapter 1 I attempted to demonstrate that radicalism was more important for Taixu than has been fully appreciated, here I establish that the cult of Maitreya was the object of sustained attention and significant investment of time and resources that had some impact upon the wider world of Chinese Buddhism. Second, I show that the reform movement was much involved with Maitreyan ritual and devotion. Third, I  demonstrate that the modernizing reformers were in fact deeply engaged with the past, constructing the new cult from received cultural products. It may be termed a “reinvented tradition” in that in doing so they assert substantive continuity with the past without effacing the cult’s novelty.8 Last, I attempt to tie developments in the cult to the broader historical context.

017

A New Cult for New Buddhists

107

Maitreya’s (Ivory) Tower: Laying the Foundation in the May 4th Era Background China in the 1920s was a country in the grip of political instability and intellectual ferment. From Yuan Shikai’s death in 1916 until the Northern Expedition led by the Nationalists, or KMT, China endured a period of warlordism in which the central government in Beijing exercised largely nominal control while an ever-​shifting assortment of military strongmen held real power in what were effectively autonomous fiefs throughout the country. These strongmen engaged in a constant struggle for power that ensured that there was war being waged somewhere in the country through most of the period. The resulting instability made the pursuit of nationwide reforms difficult and left many yearning for order and stability.9 At the same time the absence of a powerful central state with a strong guiding ideology allowed a great deal of intellectual freedom. Returning from studies abroad, intellectuals such as Chen Duxiu 陳獨秀, Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培, and Hu Shi 胡適 helped to create waves of excitement about new ideas that came to be known as the New Culture and May Fourth Movements. Whereas the previous generation had sought to transform China by remaking its political structures, these primarily student-​based movements sought to do so by remaking its culture. They are best known for their advocacy of science and democracy and their rejection of the Confucian heritage they believed inculcated servility and the superstition they thought held back progress. They also had a powerful, if diffused, anarchist component, seen most vividly in the New Villages, which sought to bring about a better world by implementing values such as egalitarianism and mutual aid in experimental utopian communities. By the late 1920s, though, this came to be overshadowed by Marxist communism.10

Taixu’s Activities in the 1920s At the outset of this period, Taixu remained in solitary retreat on Putuo, secluded from the world if not quite removed from it. During this time, Taixu maintained a daily regimen of devotion, meditation, reading, and writing. He read broadly in both Buddhist and secular literature yet devoted particular attention to Yogācāra works. Taixu also wrote on a variety of subjects, including Chinese philosophy and Western thought as well as Buddhism. These writings included two of the most important of his career:  “On the Reorganization of the Sangha System” (Zhengli sengqie zhidu lun 整理僧伽制

081

108

T he C ult o f M aitreya

度論) and “On the Right Dharma of the Human Vehicle of Buddhism” (Fojiao rensheng zhengfa lun 佛教人乘正法論). These two texts represent the beginnings of Taixu’s mature thought on the constitution of a modern Buddhist clergy and laity. Although the details would shift over time, Taixu envisioned an educated and professionalized clergy that would serve as the leadership of the Buddhist community. Laity would have an active, but subordinate, role in Right Faith Societies through which they would engage in social service as well as Buddhist study and practice. Together he hoped they would exert a positive influence over not only China but the whole world. The Human Vehicle, and its intellectual successors, would provide the doctrinal foundations for this approach of engaged activism.11 Taixu left seclusion on February 4, 1917, several months short of the planned three-​year period, a rather striking breach of protocol that may have raised eyebrows in certain quarters. The reasons are unclear. He himself attributes it simply to impulse,12 but one suspects that the death of Yuan Shikai and the inauguration of the New Culture Movement made it seem an propitious time to return to active life. This marks the beginning of a period of intense, at times even frenetic, activity that would end only with his death thirty years later.13 Three areas of endeavor are worth noting here. One of Taixu’s earliest projects following his seclusion was to organize a lay association, the Awakening Society (Jue she 覺社) in Shanghai, among whose members was none other than Zhang Taiyan.14 This was to be the first of several lay groups with which Taixu was associated. These associations were urban and drew their membership from among educated Buddhists, many in education, commerce, or the new professions. The most important association was the Hankou Buddhist Society (Hankou fojiao hui 漢口佛教會), later the Hankou Right Faith Society (Hankou zhengxin hui 漢口正信會).15 During this period, Taixu again tried his hand at publishing, founding Haichaoyin 海潮音 (Sound of the Sea Tide), a monthly journal that was to prove the longest-​lived Buddhist publication of the Republic and one of the most important. Haichaoyin provided Taixu with a key forum for his views. Virtually all of his writings and lectures were published there along with regular accounts of his activities. Yet the journal was more than a mere mouthpiece for one man. It published news from around China and beyond and featured essays and correspondence from like-​ minded individuals but also figures often seen as rivals, including Yinguang and Ouyang Jingwu,16 As Rongdao Lai has shown, it was especially important to an emerging generation of “new monks” for whom it served as a center of an emerging textual community in which new Buddhist orientations and identities were articulated. Another area in which Taixu was quite successful

091

A New Cult for New Buddhists

109

was in education. Taixu founded the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies (Wuchang foxue yuan 武昌佛學院) in 1922, which became a model not only for a series of his own future institutes but also for seminaries throughout the country.17 All three of these endeavors played an important role in the cult of Maitreya in the years to come. Although Taixu had abandoned involvement in radical politics prior to entering seclusion, he nevertheless remained interested in radical thought through 1927. His writings on the topic always assert the ultimate supremacy of the Dharma yet are strongly sympathetic to the ideas of the time. In the 1920 essay “Tang Dynasty Chan and the Currents of Modern Thought” (Tangdai chanzong yu xiandai si chao 唐代禪宗與現代思潮), for instance, reveals a continuing affinity for the goals of anarchism, if not the means.18 Around this time, the May Fourth ideal of science assumed a new prominence in Taixu’s thought. There are signs of such interest back in his radical days,19 but in works such as the 1924 essay “Humanistic Science” (Renshengguan de kexue 人生觀的科學) we begin to see an articulated theory of science and its relationship to Buddhism,20 a theme we return to in ­chapter 4. Although Taixu steered clear of radical politics himself, he served as a mentor (daoshi 導師) to the Buddhist New Youth (Fohua xin qingnian 佛化新青年), who embraced it, seeking to meld Buddhism to the ideals of the New Culture Movement. The group had an anarcho-​socialist bent and was particularly interested in the applied utopianism of the New Village movement.21

Origins and Roots of the Cult It is at this time, when the slogans of May Fourth still hung in the air amidst the gun smoke of the warlords and Taixu was building the foundations of his reform movement, that he chose to establish the Maitreya School (Cizong 慈 宗). Taixu consistently dates the school’s inception to the morning of February 5, 1924. That day, the lunar New Year and the feast of Maitreya’s birth, Taixu wrote the “Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” (Cizong san yao xu 慈宗三要序). The core of this school lies in three “essential” texts, of which the first two are believed to have been spoken by Maitreya himself while the last takes him as its focus. They are the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” (Zhenshiyi pin 真實義品) from the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra (Yuqie shidi lun 瑜 伽師地論) (T30, 1579), a text providing a Yogācāra gloss of the doctrine of emptiness; the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa (Yuqie pusa jieben 瑜伽菩薩戒 本), another portion of the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra22 offering a set of precepts (prātimokṣa) providing a code to govern the practice (yoga) of aspiring bodhisattvas; and the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on the Contemplation of Maitreya

0 1

110

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tuṣita Heaven (Guan mile pusa shengsheng doushuai tian jing 佛說觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經) (T14, 452)  (hereafter the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent or the Ascent Sutra), a scripture teaching rebirth in Maitreya’s Inner Court through visualization and moral and devotional practice. The Three Essentials thus bring together two of the aspects of Maitreya mentioned in the introduction: Maitreya as Master of Yogācāra and as Lord of Tuṣita. At this stage, it appears that the former strand was dominant in Taixu’s mind. Although he extolls the superiority of rebirth in Maitreya’s Inner Court, the Essentials are located within the framework of Yogācāra. The preface presents these texts as an easier version of the Thirty Verses on Consciousness Only (Weishi sanshi lun song 唯識三十論頌) and its commentary the Cheng weishi lun, whose threefold division of the path into object (jing 境), practice (xing 行), and fruit (guo 果) it adopts to classify the essentials.23 Thus, at its inception, Taixu seems to have viewed the new school as a species of Yogācāra. Indeed, the Chinese term “zong” 宗, which I am rendering here as “school,” might be rendered in other contexts as “theme”or “lineage”24 and Taixu seems to have had both these senses in mind as well initially:  a body of Yogācāra teaching that can be traced back to Maitreya and that focuses on him. Also in the background was the growing influence of Japanese Buddhist historiography. Although zong 宗 (Japanese reading: shū) never became institional bodies in China as they did in Japan, many Republican-​era Chinese Buddhists were using the term as an important organizing principle for understanding their history. I have chosen to render “zong” as “school,” but all of these meanings are at play, and we shall see the Taixu and his associate’s conception of the Maitreya School grows more expansive over time. But why would Taixu found such a school at all? In the next chapter I argue that he found in these three texts analogues to key values that he had imbibed from anarcho-​socialism. In particular, he found in the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” a scientific worldview and in the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa an activist revolutionary ethic, while in the Ascent Sutra he found a way to ensure progress on the path to Buddhahood even while engaging in work in the world. Yet Taixu did not simply wake up that morning and decide to establish a new school of Buddhism. The origins of the school must be seen against the backdrop of the wave of interest in Yogācāra that had begun in late Qing. Recall that Zhang Taiyan spent his three-​year imprisonment studying the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra. Later, in 1910, Yang Wenhui retrieved lost Chinese Yogācāra texts from Japan, among them Kuiji and Doryun’s commentaries of the Yogācārabhūmi. Taixu’s initial exposure to the treatise thus likely dates to his enrollment in Yang’s school, which included the text as well as specifically the Yogācāra Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa in its curriculum.25 This interest

111

A New Cult for New Buddhists

111

deepened in his retreat period, when he began more serious study of the śāstra. His essay “My Aspiration and Practice” (Zhi xing zishu 志行自述), written at the same time as the “Preface,” states that it was in seclusion in the winter of 1915 that he adopted the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa as the basis of his personal practice.26 The larger wave of interest in Yogācāra that helped to bring Maitreya to Taixu’s attention also served to give the cult traction in Buddhist circles, helping to feed the cult throughout its development. The early work of figures such as Yang was carried on by the likes of Ouyang Jingwu and Han Qingjing, as well as Taixu. Many in this period found Yogācāra to be the crown jewel of Buddhist thought, more authentically Indian than Sinitic schools such as Tiantai or Huayan and grounded in a rigorous and rational analysis. The world viewed through the prism of Yogācāra was one of experiencial phenomena (dharmas) to be carefully categorized and arrayed in causal relationship. To its enthusiasts this idealism seemed to prefigure certain developments of European philosophy while the intellectual domination of the world through categorization and analysis seemed distrinctly modern and scientific. Some, including Taixu as we shall see, even claimed it to be supra-​scientific. That Maitreyan treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra played a key role in the most prestigious school of Buddhist thought of the day gave Maitreya a new currency and prestige in the wider community of Budddhist elites.27 Although figures such as Ouyang and Han approached the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” for instance, from different angles and with different concerns, the shared attention to the text ensured that the name of Maitreya reverberated beyond Taixu’s immediate circles. Proponents of the cult themselves recognized the popularity of Yogācāra as a key factor in its rise.28 The origins of Taixu’s interest in Maitreya’s Tuṣita paradise are more difficult to pin down. Though included in the canon, the Ascent Sutra and other scriptures focused on Maitreya had little if any independent circulation,29 and aspiration to rebirth in the Inner Court had been decidedly uncommon for centuries. It may be that the vogue for Yogācāra also turned Taixu’s attention to the Inner Court via an interest in the lives of Yogācāra thinkers such as Xuanzang and Kuiji, who were Maitreya devotees as well. Other sources of inspiration may have included the murals at Dunhuang and Japanese Buddhism and scholarship. One of the striking discoveries at the caves at Dunhuang were the murals of Buddhist paradises (jingtu bian 淨土變), including that of Maitreya, a discovery Taixu mentioned later in his career.30 Although Taixu did not see the murals for himself, word of their contents may have piqued his interest in Maitreya’s pure land. A trip to Japan, where devotion to Maitreya was more prominent than in China, that Taixu took after

2 1

112

T he C ult o f M aitreya

leaving his retreat may have had the same effect. It is possible that on that trip he heard of On Maitreya Pure Land (Miroku jōdo ron 弥勒浄土論), a scholarly work by Matsumoto Bunzaburou 松本文三郎, whom Taixu learned of at that time.31 This may be where he picked up the phrase “Maitreya Pure Land.” Unattested in earlier Chinese sources, the idea that Maitreya’s Tuṣita paradise is a pure land is actually quite a departure from tradition. Tuṣita is a heaven set firmly within the six realms of rebirth according to classical cosomology, not a transcendent pure land beyond them. While we shall see that the idea that rebirth in Maitreya’s Inner Court brings non​retrogression has clear support in the Ascent Sutra and some attestation elsewhere in the canon,32 it was a staple of the Pure Land tradition to claim that rebirth in Tuṣita left one subject to backsliding on the path while birth in the western pure land did not.33 One might also wonder whether the contemporarneous rise of the new religious movements known as redemptive societies played some role. It is true that both Taixu’s Maitreyan theology and many redemptive societies share a vision of religious practice emphasizing the the spiritual transformation of the individual and the ethical uplift of the masses, which many redemptive societies referred to as “inner work” and “outer work” (neigong waigong 內功外功). Moreover, many of these groups were heirs to the apocalyptic Maitreyanism of the Eternal Mother tradition, which promised that Maitreya would inaugurate a paradise, albeit after a cataclysm. Might they have played some role in the formation of the Maitreya School? It seems they did not. While we will see interactions between the reformist cult of Maitreya and redemptive societies later in this chapter and, more importantly, in Part III, they came later in its development, and it was Buddhism that influenced the salvationist movements rather than the reverse. The concern with spiritual transformation and ethical uplift had deep roots in Chinese tradition and was broadly shared across society. In some cases the similarity might reflect similar underlying moral frameworks drawn from indigenous traditions of sagehood and modern traditions of revolution and reform. In other instances, the resemblance might be more superficial. In either case, this would have helped to give Taixu’s Maitreyan theology recognizibility and resonance. Yet there is no indication that Taixu or his associates drew from these movements, and we shall see in ­chapter 4 that the relationship between individual self-​perfection and the moral reform of the world is articulated in ways that clearly derive from Buddhism and anarchism. In addition, it must be noted that Maitreya was important to some redemptive societies but by no means all. The Daoyuan 道院, Society for the Study of Morality (Daode xueshe 道德學社), and the Hall of the One Mind (Yixin

13

A New Cult for New Buddhists

113

tang 一心堂), for example, did not place any importance on Maitreya.34 Other organizations, such as the Fellowship of Goodness (Tongshan she 同善社) assigned him an important role in theory without emphasizing him in practice.35 In movements where Maitreya was in fact central, such as the Way of the Nine Palaces (Jiugong dao 九宮道), his role was obscured by secrecy.36 Thus, although redemptive societies thrived in the Republic, Maitreya’s name did not ring out in these quarters as we might imagine, at least prior to the Japanese invasion. In the Maitreya School’s formative period, the influence of the messianic vision of Maitreya was likely limited to the historical memory of the stereotype of “White Lotus” Maitreyan subversion and rebellion, which may have delayed the articulation of utopianism that we see in the second phase of the cult’s development.37

Taixu’s Personal Piety Whatever his sources of inspiration, Taixu pursued the practice of the cult with a piety and devotion quite at odds with the picture painted of him in much scholarship. Taixu rarely discussed his personal cultivation, but the Three Essentials are widely reported to have been the primary basis of his daily practice38 and Taixu twice undertook seven-​day (most likely solitary) Maitreyan retreats to pass the lunar New Year, once in 1926 and once in 1937.39 In a 1937 essay, “On the Four Practices of Discipline, Mediation, Esoteric, and Pure Land” (Jing chan mi jing si xing lun 律禪密淨四行論), he provides a rare account of his own mature spiritual path.40 According to this account, the Maitreya School played a central role: After the meditative awakenings of his youth he “gradually .  .  . came to be stricken with an inability to discipline (bu ru lüxing 不入律行) [his] mental and physical activities.” He thus went into seclusion where he “plumbed the Vinaya to regulate [his] activities and researched the Yogācāra sutras to order [his] thoughts.”41 This, Taixu notes, was when the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa assumed special importance for him. He continues As for the practice of pure land and esoteric, although they have often been helpful, I have not given them my full attention (yi wu zhuan xiang 意無專向).42 On New Year’s Day of 1923 [sic] I wrote the preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School, which incorporated meditation through the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” and collected the discipline in the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, and especially brought to bear the teaching of the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent. Thus its focus lay in the pure land of the Inner Court, so it progressed from meditation and discipline

4 1

114

T he C ult o f M aitreya

to pure land. In recent years, I have used objects [of concentration] to advance on the path (zengshang 增上) and received and practiced esoteric mantras, but in the end I still dedicate [the merit] to rebirth in Tuṣita.43 Thus although Taixu was unable to devote himself to cultivation and pursued a variety of methods, he put them all in the service of rebirth in the Tuṣita pure land. There is also intriguing evidence of a personal identification with Maitreya. This identification is illustrated most vividly by a photograph taken sometime after 1934 (Figure 3.1).44 The photograph depicts Taixu seated in the “royal

Figure 3.1  Taixu as Maitreya

15

A New Cult for New Buddhists

115

ease” (zizai 自在) position with a robe draped loosely around the lower half of his body and over one shoulder, leaving his pot-​belly clearly visible. Whereas other photos of Taixu typically portray a serious expression, here a smile lightens his round face. Behind him the photographer’s backdrop displays a full moon unmistakably positioned so as to suggest a halo. He is, in other words, the very picture of Budai 布袋, the form of Maitreya seen in the first hall of a monastery.45 Such portraiture was certainly not unprecedented. Yet it was rather unusual—​aside from a similar and better-​known photo of Taixu’s student and fellow devotee of Maitreya Cihang 慈航, I am not aware of any other cases in the Republic.46 This personal aspect—​Taixu’s own devotion to and identification with Maitreya—​was certainly a key driving force behind the cult’s development. No one would promote the cult with quite the enthusiasm and tirelessness of the master. Moreover, no one would do so from such a privileged position. Taixu was a key node in the discursive network of elite Buddhism. Although the monk could be controversial and had little direct authority over anyone, his role in education, publishing, and the public propagation of Buddhism, gave him special influence in shaping the conversation of Buddhist elites. The Maitreya School was far from the only topic of concern to this prolific figure, but, as we shall see, it was much more important to him than has been appreciated.

Seminaries The new cult of Maitreya first took root at the Wuchang seminary. Indeed, Maitreyan practice at the institute predates the formal establishment of the Maitreya School. The original regulations for the school published just before the school’s opening in 1922 called for the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa to be studied in the final semester and to be regularly recited by all students on the lunar first and fifteenth.47 Fortnightly recitation of prātimokṣa texts is a typical feature of monastic life. Taixu thus was maintaining the familiar rhythms of monastic life but replacing the lyrics to infuse it with a distinctive ethos, about which we will have more to say in c­ hapter 4. By the time classes began that fall, the Ascent Sutra had also claimed a place of prominence. According to Huijue 會覺 (1892–​1971), one of Taixu’s “four great disciples”48 and a student in the first class at Wuchang, the sutra was recited every night along with Maitreya’s name with the merit dedicated to rebirth in Tuṣita while the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa was chanted at meals.49 Taixu is said to have participated in these regular devotions alongside his students.50 Maitreyan texts apparently continued to be a part of the seminary’s ritual life throughout its

6 1

116

T he C ult o f M aitreya

operation, though over time the focus on Maitreya may have become less exclusive as more standard liturgical elements (recitation of Amitābha’s name and the Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa) were substituted on an occasional basis.51 Periods were also set aside for more intensive cultivation. Huijue reports that following the collation of the Three Essentials in 1924, a retreat was held each lunar new year, known as “Seven[-​day] Maitreya retreats” (Mile qi 彌勒 七),52 loosely modeled on the seven-​day retreats of Chan (Chan qi 禪七) and Pure Land (fo qi 佛七). During the seven days, they would recite the Ascent Sutra, chant Maitreya’s name, and practice seated meditation to cultivate visualization of Tuṣita as recommended by the text.53 These retreats likewise continued throughout the life of the institution. According to a 1934 report, they were still required each lunar new year. Daily practice was divided into four two-​hour sessions in the shrine rooms. These shrines were said to be elegantly adorned with banners and parasols and equipped with offerings of fruit and flowers such that entering was said to be “like being born in the Inner Court, like ascending to the West, like entering the Palace of the Dharma-​realm.”54 Such a picture suggests a far richer cultic life than the reform movement has been given credit for. Again, however, we must note that in later years the focus on Maitreya had loosened and shrines for the practice of Pure Land and Esoteric had been added. This is in keeping with the “nonsectarian” tenor of Taixu’s reform program and the broader Buddhist revival of the day. Although Taixu promoted the Maitreya School, this did not translate into the exclusion of other forms of practice. The Maitreya School was not solely of ritual concern; it was also the object of academic study. In the opening years of the school, Taixu lectured on all three of the Essentials. He taught the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” the first semester in 192255 and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and the Ascent Sutra in the spring of 1924 just after codifying the Three Essentials.56 Students in the latter class were apparently assigned essays on the theme of “flawless deportment” (weiyi bu que 威儀不缺), one of the practices for securing higher level rebirth in Tuṣita, four of which were published in Haichaoyin.57 Texts that had lain dormant in the grand, but dusty, canonical collections a century before were thus made a part of the “actual canon” of lived Buddhism for the young monks who passed through the institution.58 In its inclusion of Maitreyan practices as in so many other areas, Wuchang set the pattern for Taixu’s later seminaries. Accounts of the liturgies at the other schools are limited, but they appear to have been similar.59 Annual Maitreya retreats are reported to have been the rule at all seminaries,60 and Maitreyan texts were included in the curricula of all of Taixu’s other

17

A New Cult for New Buddhists

117

institutions. Taixu himself lectured on Maitreyan texts at Minnan in 1929 and 193061 and included them in his 1932 “Curriculum for All Levels of a Buddhist Educational System” (Fojiao jiaoyu xitong geji kecheng biao 佛教教育系統各 級課程表),62 This plan was followed with variations in the curricula of the South Seas Institute of Buddhist Studies (Nanhai foxueyuan 南海佛學苑),63 the Buddhist Studies Institute for Women (Foxue nüzhong yuan 佛學女眾 院),64 the Sino-​Tibetan Doctrinal Institute,65 and the Ci’en School Monastery (Ci’en zong si 慈恩宗寺),66 a seminary dedicated to Yogācāra that had almost been dedicated to the Maitreya School.67 There is even some suggestion that the Maitreya School may have made its way into the curriculum of seminaries not directly associated with Taixu.68 Although Holmes Welch is right to point out that the new style of monastic education pursued by Taixu and those who followed him never reached more than a small minority of the entire Chinese sangha, it is nevertheless one of the most important developments of the Republican period. Rongdao Lai has shown that these institutions were the incubators of a new monastic identity, a vision of the modern monk that spread through reformist periodicals far beyond the walls of the institutions themselves.69 The graduates produced by these seminaries formed the core of the reformist movement and spread ideas learned and discussed in Taixu’s seminaries throughout the country. Maitreyan texts were not the sole object of study, and Maitreyan practices were not the sole form of cultivation, but they were an important part of the seminary experience. As Jiang Canteng has suggested, replacing Amitābha with Maitreya in the daily liturgy was a powerful way of distinguishing the “new” Buddhism of the seminary from other forms.70 As a part of both the academic and ritual life of these institutions, the Maitreya School formed a part of the habitus in which these monks and the new monastic identity was formed. It gave cultic form to the key values of the revolutionary utopian framework and helped to authenticate their Buddhist character. In the first few years of its existence, then, the Maitreya School seems to have been a somewhat modest “house cult,” the personal practice of Taixu and his seminarians, closely associated with Yogācāra. Attempts to actively propagate it more widely seem to have been limited. The Three Essentials of the Maitreya School was published in 1924 with Taixu’s preface by the Wuchang Sutra Press (Wuchang yin jing chu 武昌印經處) but likely had limited circulation, and the preface appeared separately in Haichaoyin and Foyin 佛音, the journal of the Xiamen chapter of the Buddhist New Youth.71 Taixu also suggested in two 1926 works that Buddhists beyond his seminaries might seek rebirth in Tuṣita as well as Amitābha’s pure land in the West in order to secure nonretrogression on the path but does not devote any significant attention to the issue.72

8 1

118

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Likely this was due in large part to Taixu’s general preoccupation with education in these years. This is, in turn, attributable at least in part to the May Fourth context. Like the 1960s in the United States, this was an age when students were at the vanguard of social change. Thus, although Taixu would later say that in these first years after the collection of the Three Essentials the school was “allowed to drift” (dianpei 顛沛),73 it may be more accurate to say that Taixu was attempting to use it to provide spiritual foundations for the activist careers he hoped his students would pursue, careers devoted to remaking Buddhism, the nation, and the world.

Budai in the Marketplace: Expansion and Articulation in the Nanjing Decade Background The year 1927 inaugurated a new era in Republican China. That year, the Nationalists swept up from their base in Guangdong to unify China under a central government once again, ushering in a decade of comparative stability. Yet this was not a return to the short-​lived democracy of the postrevolutionary days. In order to increase its chances of completing the revolutionary project the Nationalist Party had been reorganized along Leninist lines with Soviet aid and advice and incorporated radical leftists. This was primarily a marriage of convenience, however. Soon after establishing a government in Nanjing, Chiang Kai-​shek (Jiang Jieshi 蔣介石), who had used his power within the military to gain control of the party, purged first the Communists then the anarchists from its ranks, driving the former into the countryside and eliminating the latter as a significant force. The once broad-​based civilian party became therefore increasingly militarized and rightist.74 After an unpromising start Buddhism thrived under Nationalist rule. KMT religious policy had been aggressively hostile in Guangdong and initially remained so during the Northern Expedition and the first years of the Nanjing Decade. Buddhist property, including the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies, was seized and occupied during the campaign to unify the country, and from 1927 to 1930 there was a concerted effort to appropriate temples for educational and other purposes in tandem with a broader campaign against religion and superstition spearheaded by the KMT Left. Buddhists, however, were able to organize to defend their rights while the leftists were purged. Thereafter the religion in the main enjoyed state protection, though popular cults and redemptive societies continued to be repressed, albeit unevenly.75

9 1

A New Cult for New Buddhists

119

Taixu in the Nanjing Decade The Nanjing Decade marked a new phase for Taixu and his associates. In many ways it was a time of great ambition. Taixu began to conceive more international aspirations for his movement and expanded the number of seminaries and periodicals under his aegis. Intellectually, it was during this time that Taixu formulated his signature idea:  Human Life Buddhism (rensheng fojiao 人生佛教).76 Although clearly descended from his earlier Human Vehicle (ren sheng 人 乘), Human Life Buddhism was much broader in scope, aiming to encompass the entirety of the path while reorienting it for the age. Although often summarized as simply a rejection of preoccupation with death and ghosts (sigui 死 鬼) in favor of human beings and the present life (rensheng 人生), it actually sought a threefold rebalancing of Buddhist teachings—​away from other lives and toward this one, away from self-​liberation and toward benefitting others, and away from subitism and toward gradualism—​in order to accord with the era’s emphasis on ordinary life, society, and science, respectively. It was a gradual path that began with the improvement of human life and human morality in this world but culminated in Buddhahood77 and built on the foundation the “pure land on earth” (renjian jingtu 人間淨土), a vision of an ideal society he formulated in 1926,78 which we discuss in c­ hapter 4. This period also saw Taixu shift rightward politically, becoming a Nationalist supporter. There were probably several reasons for this. For one, Taixu claims to have discovered Sun Yat-​sen’s later works in the late 1920s and found them similar in some respects to his own thought,79 and several of his writings in this period adopt a three-​part conceptual schema modeled implicitly or explicitly on Sun’s Three People’s Principles.80 It is likely that the rise of Marxist communism, to which Taixu had had an aversion since his anarchist days, to a dominant position in radical circles had an impact.81 The role of anarchists in temple confiscations in the early Nanjing Decade and the subsequent collapse of the movement following the KMT purge of 1929 no doubt cemented his alienation from the left. Personal ties were also certainly a factor. Taixu made the acquaintance of Chiang Kai-​shek in 1927 and over the succeeding years received important support from him. Perhaps most tellingly, Chiang arranged for Taixu to become abbot of Zisheng Monastery (Zisheng si 資聖寺) on Xuedou shan 雪 竇山 near Ningbo. Chiang’s family claimed close ties with the monastery for generations, and Chiang’s own mother’s spirit tablet was kept there. Effectively, then, he had made Taixu the Chiang family priest.82 This gives Taixu’s rightward drift a hint of opportunism. Yet Taixu does not appear to

201

120

T he C ult o f M aitreya

have been simply motivated by personal advantage, though he surely recognized the opportunity Chiang presented. While his praise of Sun and Chiang could sometimes be obsequious,83 Taixu’s use of Sun’s ideas predates the success of the Northern Expedition. Moreover, frustration with China’s instability likely also made him, like many Chinese of the time, receptive to the promise of stability offered by the Nanjing government. Finally, as we noted in Part I, Taixu was hardly the only member of those early cohorts of anarchists to find common cause with the KMT, a point we return to in the following chapter.

Developments within the Maitreya School This period also saw substantial shifts within the cult. We have seen in the previous section that the cult of Maitreya began as a fairly delimited movement. Theologically, it was closely tied to Yogācāra and concerned with science and revolution as well as the path to enlightenment (points, again, to be substantiated in the following chapter). Socially, it was centered on Taixu and his seminaries, though some limited attempts to spread the cult to laity were made as well. In the second phase of the cult, the Maitreya School burst the boundaries of Yogācāra and spilled forth from the seminary gates. New aspects of the Maitreyan tradition were brought to the fore, engaging the cult with a wider swath of Chinese Buddhism. The ideas and practices of the Maitreya School were articulated in ritual and actively propagated in a variety of ways, as attempts were made to institutionalize the school. This swell of activity brought the cult to the attention of others, orthodox Buddhists and not, who borrowed from it or rejected it. The cult likewise began to be articulated in relation to a larger set of movements as its advocates incorporated elements from some and sought to distinguish it from others. Entering the Marketplace

What sparked these shifts? Taixu and his associates provide no direct indication, but there is intriguing evidence to suggest that the initial impetus came from outside Taixu’s circle, from a little-​known Shanghai lay organization called the World Peace Maitreya Society (Shijie heping mile hui 世界和平彌 勒會). The society was founded in 1926, but, due to the difficulties and disruptions occasioned by the Northern Expedition, it was initially inactive and invisible. In 1928, it surfaced briefly in the historical record with a grand plan that earned coverage in Shenbao 申報, Shanghai’s newspaper of record, and then disappeared again. Drawing on Maitreya’s association with a future paradise, the society planned to construct a set of images of Maitreya to represent the

2 11

A New Cult for New Buddhists

121

Chinese people’s hope for lasting peace. Inspired by the “peace goddesses” said to have been erected in Europe in the wake of the Great War, the images were to be enshrined in a World Peace Buddha Hall (Shijie heping fodian 世 界和平佛殿). In order to publicize the plan and secure additional funding, the society held a vegetarian banquet at Shousheng Abbey (Shousheng an 壽 聖菴) in July to exhibit a scale model for the media and prospective donors. According to a journalist who was present, I heard that all the models could be completed by the end of August. In total there will be one hundred nine images, all manifestations of Maitreya, each with an auspicious appellation. Within the images there is a mechanism allowing the mouth and eyes to move and the smile to beam forth merrily. There is also a group of mechanical monks holding Buddhist instruments. When the mechanism is engaged they play in time.84 Response to this planned glockenspiel for peace was apparently not what the society had hoped. Although in late July preparations were still in motion, by the middle of August the society had decided to shelve the plan, blaming a cumbersome municipal approval process, “jealousy,” and general moral decline. Fearing unspecified “harm to their reputation,” donors “did not dare to court disaster by providing financial support and have cooled to the idea for now.”85 Not all responses were negative, however. Taixu seems to have had some enthusiasm for the idea. Following the initial exhibition, he contacted the society to request that it quickly prepare pamphlets promoting peace and photographs of the World Peace Buddhas for distribution on his upcoming tour of Europe and America.86 Were these then followers of Taixu? This seems unlikely. There is no mention of the society in Taixu’s collected works, Yinshun’s biography, or Haichaoyin. Of the two named individuals involved, one—​Shao Ruxin 邵如馨—​is likewise unmentioned and the other—​Ji Mijue 姬彌覺, general manager of the Hardoon Firm and sworn brother of the important Buddhist patron Luo Jialing 羅迦陵—​is mentioned only for drawing Taixu’s ire by gossiping about clerical misconduct.87 Although it is quite possible that a group of elite lay Buddhists in Shanghai were aware of Taixu’s ideas regarding Maitreya, we need not assume that they were influenced by him. Even if they were, by identifying Maitreya as the Buddha of world peace, they highlighted his role in the promised future utopia that Taixu had thus far left implicit.

221

122

T he C ult o f M aitreya

It is not known whether Taixu brought the requested pamphlets and photographs with him to Europe. He did, however, discuss Maitreya there at the inaugural meeting of the Paris Les Amis du Bouddhisme in February 1929. As it was the Chinese New Year and Maitreya’s feast day, Taixu recited the Ascent Sutra and explained its import. There is no record of his remarks,88 but it seems likely that the Maitreya Society’s message of peace found its way into his comments. We do know that this was Taixu’s first lecture on Maitreyan topics before a lay audience and that he asked that the Three Essentials be translated into European languages and circulated across the continent.89 This trip marks the beginning of a shift in the cult that becomes clear in 1932. Prior to this, Taixu had emphasized the first two essentials: the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa. Afterward, the third, the Sutra on Maitreya’s Ascent, comes to the fore. Furthermore, if Taixu discussed Maitreya in terms of world peace in Paris, it would be the first time that he articulated the utopian aspect of Maitreya tied to his role as future Buddha. As we discuss in the next chapter, he was already alluding to a connection between Maitreya’s future utopia of the pure land on earth not long after his return from Europe, though he makes this explicit only in 1932. His Paris lecture was also the first time Taixu spoke on Maitreyan topics before a lay audience. This prefigures a move to actively propagate the Maitreya School that becomes clear in 1931 and 1932. The fact that this first occurs in the heart of Europe is a sign not only of the great importance the cult held for him but also that his promotion of the cult cannot simply be seen as some kind of concession to Chinese custom and expectations. Articulation

The relative shift in emphasis from Maitreya as author of the Yogācārabhūmi​ śāstra to the bodhisattva and future Buddha of the sutras was part and parcel of important theological shifts. The Maitreya of the sutras is not the master of Yogācāra but the lord of Tuṣita and the Buddha of the future. As such, this shift corresponded to new articulations of the Maitreya School as a form of pure land but also an all-​inclusive Buddhist teaching. We defer a discussion of its utopian aspects to ­chapter 4. The first important shift was the new prominence given to pure land elements. As we noted in the introduction, rebirth in Maitreya’s Tuṣita paradise had been a common goal of Chinese Buddhists until it was eclipsed by Amitābha’s pure land in the Tang dynasty. Taixu clearly intended from the outset to restore Tuṣita as an alternative, even rival, pure land. Already in the “Preface to the Three Essentials,” Taixu extolled rebirth in Tuṣita, comparing

213

A New Cult for New Buddhists

123

it favorably to rebirth in other lands,90 and he and his seminarians regularly vowed to be reborn there. Yet little attention seems to have been given to spelling out this aspect in the first phase of the cult’s development. Taixu lectured on the Ascent Sutra, which lays out the promise of rebirth in Tuṣita, only once prior to his European tour and published nothing on the issue for several years. This changed in the 1930s as Taixu and subsequently others began to proclaim the superiority of Maitreya Pure Land over and against Amitābha Pure Land, rekindling the old debate between advocates of Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī. Contrary to some of what has been written about Taixu, he did not object to Pure Land as such. Taixu is, after all, well known for professing a Buddhist inclusivism that found a place for all schools. He never disparaged Amitābha or his pure land. Indeed, in his lectures on Pure Land sutras, he is full of praise.91 His objection was to a particular strain of Pure Land practice that had become dominant in recent centuries that he felt ignored everything but recitation of Amitābha’s name. For this strain, as one wag put it, it was as though “all of the scriptures brought by Xuanzang fell into the river and [when he] laid them out to dry in the sun on the riverbank, they were eaten up by turtles. Now all that’s left is the phrase ‘Homage to Amitābha (Namo amituofo 南無阿彌陀佛).’ ”92 To Taixu and his associates, such a view impoverished the Dharma and encouraged a dangerous passivity.93 Such concerns with Pure Land are certainly one reason why Taixu came to promote the cult of Maitreya more widely. Yet he avoids explicit criticism of Sukhāvatī, preferring to extol the “excellences” or “superiorities” (sheng 勝) of the Tuṣita Pure Land. In his 1932 commentary on the Ascent Sutra Taixu codified these into a set of three: First, as the heir to Śakyamuni, Maitreya has a special karmic connection to the beings of this world. Second, his pure land is within the desire realm of Saha and devoted to the salvation of its sentient beings, implying that rebirth there is easier than “other” more distant lands. Here, Taixu is competing with Amitābha Pure Land on its own turf, laying claim to its central selling point—​that it is the easy path to assured salvation. And third, one is reborn there through ethical action. Rather than passively waiting to die, the Maitreya Pure Land practitioner secures rebirth through an activist ethic dedicated to making this world a better place.94 This last point is a major theme in our discussion of Taixu’s Maitreyan theology in c­ hapter 4. By the mid-​1930s, the pure land aspect of the cult had moved from the margins of Taixu’s Maitreyan thought to the center. Explaining the distinction between the “Ci” 慈 (Maitreya) School and the Ci’en 慈恩 School (the Chinese form of Yogācāra promoted by Xuanzang and Kuiji), Taixu notes that not all

241

124

T he C ult o f M aitreya

practitioners of Yogācāra seek rebirth in Tuṣita and not all who seek rebirth in Tuṣita study Yogācāra. Thus, he states, the key for the Maitreya School is devotion to the bodhisattva Maitreya in order to be reborn in the Inner Court. This is just like reciting [the name of ] Amitābha Buddha in order to be reborn in the Land of Bliss; one focuses one’s devotion on Amitābha. . . . Just so, [in the Maitreya School] one focuses on Maitreya Tathāgātha. The Maitreya School, which had originally been presented as a precis of Yogācāra, is thus differentiated from that school of thought and portrayed instead as a form of pure land, a form, what is more, with a longer history in China than Amitābha’s.95 Once Taixu put the superiority of Maitreya’s Inner Court on the agenda, several of his students and associates took up the issue with essays of their own. These individuals, including Daoping 道屏, Daming 達明, and Hu Zheng 胡徵, were more direct in their criticisms and strident in tone. They cited Sukhāvatī by name and argued that not only was rebirth in Tuṣita easier, but the threshold for entrance into Sukhāvatī was in fact forbiddingly high. For support they pointed to scriptures citing samādhi—​profound meditative absorption—​as a prerequisite to rebirth. In contrast, moral activity sufficed to gain birth in the Inner Court. Thus, whereas Amitābha Pure Land required withdrawal and rejection of the world, Maitreya Pure Land allowed positive engagement with it. As such, it was more suitable to modern society.96 Such claims did not go unanswered. Even some within Taixu’s movement were uncomfortable with the more intemperate construals of Amitābha Pure Land. Daoping’s classmate Tianran 天然, for instance, called his fellow monk out on what he saw as his cavalier treatment of his sources and comments he felt crossed the line into disparaging one of the Buddha’s teachings.97 A few individuals outside Taixu’s immediate circles responded as well. On Maitreya’s feast day in 1936, Ji Shengyi 季聖一, chairman of the Suzhou Awakening Society (Jue she 覺社),98 addressed the issue in his lunar New Year remarks. Ji notes that although one could in theory be reborn in any number of pure lands, today everyone seeks rebirth in either Tuṣita or Sukhāvatī. To avoid regrets, he states, one must understand the difference between the two. While both offer the promise of nonretrogression, Maitreya’s pure land requires stringent adherence to the precepts and ideally study of Yogācāra. This is why only a few worthies such as Dao’an and Xuanzang have sought rebirth in Tuṣita and everyone else aspires to Sukhāvatī.99 Assertions of Sukhāvatī’s superiority to Tuṣita continued after the onset of War with an essay in the journal Honghua

215

A New Cult for New Buddhists

125

弘化 associated with the great Pure Land advocate Yinguang. In this piece the author, Zhang Yiliu 張一留, grants that rebirth in Tuṣita offers the promise of nonretrogression, but he offers excerpts from the Tang dynasty Doubts about the Pure Land (Jingtu qun yi lun 淨土群疑論) to show that Sukhāvatī is ultimately superior.100 These responses were rather measured in tone, but this was not always the case. In a 1936 essay on Buddha recitation for the periodical Pure Land Monthly (Jingtu zong yuekan 淨土宗月刊), Daoping complained that some advocates of Amitābha “slandered” the recitation of Maitreya’s name as “base and not excellent” (xiajian bu shusheng 下劣不殊勝).101 Later that year a direct and vociferous attack on claims of Maitreyan superiority was made in a book review by the prominent lay Buddhist Fan Gunong 範古農 (1881–​195l). The book in question was The Essentials of Maitreya’s Sanctuary (Mile daochang gaiyao 彌勒道場概要) produced by the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society (Defeng fahui 德風法會). Founded in the French Concession in 1935, the society102 was not an orthodox lay Buddhist association but a redemptive society, a new type of religious group sweeping Chinese cities that combined modern organizational structures, charitable work, and spirit-​writing, a practice in which a possessed medium transcribes messages and teachings from deities, in this case the heretofore unknown bodhisattva Great Hero (Daxiong 大雄).103 Although such groups often drew from the salvationist theology of the Eternal Mother, of which Maitreya was a prominent part, this particular society’s vision of Maitreya owed less to the Maternist tradition than to Taixu’s commentary on the Ascent Sutra. The spirit-​written Essentials alludes to that work when it points to the identification of Xuedou shan 雪竇山 as Maitreya’s sanctuary, an idea first raised in Changxing’s 常惺 preface to that commentary (discussed later), as a sign that the time is ripe to proclaim the teaching of Maitreya Pure Land. The text endorses the three superiorities of Tuṣita, without attribution, and adds several more to the list. The surest way to secure rebirth there, however, is to register one’s name with Maitreya’s representative office on earth, the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society.104 Unsurprisingly, Fan’s review excoriated such heterodox claims. Yet it did not stop there. A Pure Land devotee who elsewhere claimed that there was no orthodox practice without the recitation of Amitābha’s name,105 Fan appears to have used the review as an opportunity to criticize Maitreya Pure Land by proxy. He rebuts the Essentials point by point, arguing that it is in fact Amitābha and his pure land that are superior. As a Buddha, Amitābha is superior to a bodhisattva such as Maitreya and a land that draws beings from all ten directions must be counted more excellent than one that accepts beings only from

261

126

T he C ult o f M aitreya

this world system. Furthermore, Maitreya Pure Land requires samādhi, too, and Amitābha Pure Land accepts beings of all capacities. Rebirth in Sukhāvatī is also more secure, Fan argues, pointing to the tale of Buddhasiṃha (Shi Zijue 師子覺), recorded in the Xuanzang’s Journey to the West (Xiyou ji 西遊 記). According to legend, Buddhasiṃha had been reborn in the Inner Court but was led astray by the delights of heaven, women in particular. The all-​male Sukhāvatī carries no such risk.106 We cannot be certain of course that Fan intended this as indirect criticism of Taixu’s own positions, but his student Zhiding 智定 certainly read it as such and felt the need to bring it to the master’s attention and record his response for publication in Right Faith (Zhengxin 正信). Taixu wholeheartedly agreed with Fan’s refutation of the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society’s heterodoxy. He noted he himself had been contacted by the society, which had sent him a copy of the Essentials as well as a spirit-​written sutra.107 Taixu burned them and wrote back to the society to suggest that they do the same and take up the orthodox Ascent Sutra instead. Taixu nevertheless felt that it was “most inappropriate” for Fan to go beyond refuting heterodoxy and promote Amitābha’s pure land by disparaging Maitreya’s. One should not cling to one expedient and reject others. As for the superiorities of Maitreya’s pure land, he directs reader to his commentary on the Ascent Sutra.108 Here we see highlighted the delicate position of Maitreya Pure Land. On the one hand, it had to negotiate for position relative to the Pure Land School, which, as the most popular form of Buddhist piety in China, was both a model to be emulated and a competitor from which the cult had to distinguish itself. On the other, it had to carefully police its boundary with the heterodox movements with which Maitreyanism was historically associated. This task was complicated by the fact that redemptive societies such as the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society, unconstrained by closed canons or monastic authority, could borrow freely from the school’s ideas, as we shall see occurred again in the 1980s. Moreover, theologically, Taixu and his circle felt that the traditional Pure Land desire to escape this world could lead to passivity, while the apocalypticism some redemptive societies associated with Maitreya could lead to violent upheaval as well as defrauding of the masses.109 Both of these were incompatible with the progressive and engaged vision of the school. We shall see these issues again in subsequent chapters. Along with this reorientation from Yogācārin aspects of Maitreya to Pure Land aspect came a new expansiveness in which Maitreya was presented as central to all of Buddhism and the Maitreya School as an all-​inclusive teaching. This was first seen in the formulation of a planned Maitreyan canon. In the 1924 “Preface,” Taixu had legitimated the Three Essentials as a précis

217

A New Cult for New Buddhists

127

to the Cheng weishi lun. The priority is reversed in his 1933  “Preface to the Essential Canon of the Maitreya School” (Cizong yao zang 慈宗要藏), a publishing project undertaken in Xiamen by the Maitreya Study Association (to be discussed later). The Essential Canon adds to the Three Essentials a number of texts related in varying degrees to Maitreya to form a “canonical digest,” a genre of scriptural collection popular at the time.110 Taixu’s conception, however, extended beyond the immediate publishing project at hand. He envisioned a Maitreyan canon arrayed in ever-​more inclusive circles. Whereas originally Yogācāra had seemed to encompass the Maitreya School, now the Maitreya School encompassed Yogācāra in the Concise Canon (luezang 略藏).111 Moreover, given that Maitreya is the future Buddha of this world and thus Śakyamuni’s heir, all Buddhist teachings belong to Maitreya as the Greater Canon (dazang 大藏). Even this, however, does not exhaust the scope of the school. The Extended Canon (guangzang 廣藏) encompasses everything that brings understanding, aids sentient beings, and improves morality—​ essentially all that is good and true.112 It may be tempting to dismiss this as mere grandiose rhetoric, something for which Taixu is justifiably known. Yet Taixu made virtually exactly the same points in his 1936 lecture “The Name ‘Maitreya School’ ” (Cizong de mingyi 慈宗的名義). There, too he states “The teachings of Yogācāra all take [the teachings] of Maitreya as fundamental. Thus the Maitreya School can encompass the Yogācāra, but Yogācāra cannot encompass the Maitreya School” and extends the cult’s scope through the teachings related to Yogācāra and Maitreya on to the entirety of the Dharma entrusted to him by Śakyamuni. In fact, he claims, the Maitreya School is the axis of the entire Buddhadharma. This is to say . . . the Buddhist teachings which flowed out over the world from the sea of Śakyamuni’s awakening to deliver sentient beings and bring them to Buddhahood will all converge upon and return to Maitreya, the Buddha-​to-​come.113 The Maitreya School thus not only includes all teachings, but the Dharma divided among different schools, traditions, and languages in the present world will be united again in the future with Maitreya. This idea would have lent itself to engagements with any number of Buddhist traditions. Yet Taixu and his associates had a special interest in esoteric traditions, particularly that of Tibet. The wave of Chinese interest in Esoteric Buddhism, first Japanese then Tibetan, has received a good deal of scholarly attention.114 These teachings portray themselves as superior to

281

128

T he C ult o f M aitreya

ordinary exoteric Mahayana, which presented an occasional challenge for Taixu’s movement in general and the Maitreya School in particular. Most famously, the Wuchang seminary was financially threatened at one point due to a loss of lay patronage to esoteric teachers.115 Enthusiasm for esoteric techniques could also pose a challenge for Maitreyan practices. The layman Luo Puwu 羅普悟, for example, reported that friends encouraged him to abandon the four investigations taught by the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” in favor of esoteric cultivation or Pure Land recitation, arguing that they were more reliable.116 Hu Zihu 胡子笏, an important patron of Taixu and enthusiast of Tibetan Buddhism, argued that Tantric practices were superior for securing a vision of Maitreya.117 In both cases Taixu defended exoteric Maitreyan practices derived from Yogācāra against claims of esoteric superiority.118 Oftentimes, however, Chinese interest in esotericism offered opportunities. While it almost led to the closure of Wuchang, Gray Tuttle has shown that Taixu was able to parlay it into official support for his Sino-​Tibetan Doctrinal Institute from a Nationalist government eager to use Buddhism to keep Tibet within the Chinese polity.119 For the Maitreya School, too, there were opportunities to be had. The Tibetan tradition offered its own set of Maitreyan practices and shared the Maitreya School’s reverence for the bodhisattva precepts found in the Yogācārabhūmi. In Tibet, these were the basis of the bodhisattva vows seen as a perquisite for tantric practice120 and the subject of an important commentary by Tsongkhapa, himself a devotee of the bodhisattva. Tibetan Buddhism thus served as an independent source of interest in Maitreyan texts and practices. In Sichuan interest in the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts goes back to the 1920s when Tibetan Buddhism was first starting to gain attention there. Taixu’s disciple Dayong 大勇, who had studied esoteric teachings in Japan, transmitted and expounded upon the precepts to a group of more than thirty men and women at the Wenshu Cloister (Wenshu yuan 文殊院) in Chengdu in 1925 before traveling on to Tibet for further study.121 The lay scholar Liu Zhuyuan 劉洙源 lectured on the precepts at the Chengdu Buddhist Seminary in 1928.122 The Sichuan-​born Chinese lama Nenghai 能海 also lectured on the precepts on the eve of war and again in 1942.123 Tibetan-​ derived interest in the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts was also high in Beijing. There the North China Lay Buddhist Lodge (Huabei jushi lin 華北居士林) under the leadership of Hu Zihu, arranged for their transmission at least five times in the early 1930s.124 Tibetan Buddhism also inspired activity focused on the bodhisattva himself. On Maitreya’s feast day in February 1936, Sichuan Buddhists held a seven-​day Dharma assembly for world peace, in which a geshe undertook unspecified Maitreyan practices in an esoteric shrine, while the prominent local monk Changyuan 昌圓 led monastics and laity in the

291

A New Cult for New Buddhists

129

recitation of Maitreya’s name in an exoteric shrine. This event is said to have drawn more than five hundred participants per day125 and earned Changyuan an invitation to repeat the assembly the next month, though whether this occurred is unclear.126 Taixu and his associates also participated in this current. The demand for the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts in Sichuan, for instance, led the provincial Buddhist Association and other groups to invite Taixu, who they praised as “deeply cultivated in the path of Maitreya’s Yoga precepts,” to Chengdu to transmit them in 1930.127 The commentary he delivered there was published not only in Haichaoyin but also in the inaugural volumes of Sichuan Buddhist Monthly (Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊) in 1931 and 1932.128 Tibetan Buddhist accounts of the precepts appeared in the pages of Haichaoyin, which published a translation by Nenghai of a verse summary of the precepts in 1931 and a translation by Taixu’s student Fazun 法尊 of the aforementioned Tsongkhapa commentary in 1935.129 At the Sino-​Tibetan Institute, students received Tibetan teachings for rebirth in Tuṣita from Ngawang Namgyal in the summer of 1935.130 Given this convergence of interests, it is small wonder that Taixu began to explicitly incorporate Tibetan elements into the Maitreya School in 1936. In his introductory remarks on the Ascent Sutra that April, later published as “The Name ‘Maitreya School,” he states that all three division of Buddhism—​ the Hinayana centered on Sri Lanka, the exoteric Mahayana centered on China, and the esoteric Mahayana centered on Tibet—​were three streams that emerged from Śākyamuni’s teaching and would converge again with Maitreya.131 A year after the Sichuan Dharma Assembly for peace, a special issue of Haichaoyin devoted to Tuṣita Pure Land appeared in which two of three articles were devoted to esoteric Maitreyan teachings. The first was a set of translations by Fazun titled “Methods of Maitreyan Cultivation in the Tibetan Tradition” (Xizang chuan mile xiufa 西藏傳彌勒修法) and the second a discussion of Japanese esoteric Maitreyan practices by Tanxuan 談玄 who had studied Shingon and Tendai in Japan.132 The effect was to make room for Tibetan, as well as Japanese, esoteric teachings while also incorporating them within an exoteric framework shorn of troublesome claims of esoteric superiority. Ritualization

This new reorientation and expansiveness was vividly represented in a series of ritual texts published in a sudden burst in 1933. That year Taixu composed “The Daily Rites Necessary for Members of the Right Faith Society” (Zhengxin huiyuan meiri bixiu zhi chang ke” 正信會員每日必修之常課) and published it

301

130

T he C ult o f M aitreya

in Right Faith, the lay association’s journal. Around the same time a liturgy used in Maitreyan retreats at the Minnan Institute was published in the gazetteer of its host institution Nanputuo Monastery. Finally, the “Rites for the Regular Practice of the Maitreya School” (Cizong xiuxi yi 慈宗修習儀) was published as an appendix to Taixu’s commentary on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality.”133 They are composed of the typical elements of such texts: prostrations, refuge formulas, gāthās, name-​recitation, and chanting of sutras and dharani, distinguishing themselves primarily by their tight focus on Maitreya. The Daily Rites, intended for lay followers, is the shortest of the three. It consists of a short set of prostrations and recitations to be performed once or twice a day. The practitioner begins by taking refuge in Śakyamuni, then the constantly abiding three jewels, and finally Maitreya. The first act is thus one of temporal orientation as they entrust themselves to the historical source of the teaching, its current manifestation, and its future culmination. Thereafter, they recite a verse of praise to Maitreya derived from the one that Xuanzang is said to have recited at his death.134 Then the practitioner is to recite “Homage to Maitreya Tathāgata” 49 or 108 times and conclude with a dedication of merit to rebirth in Tuṣita. Interestingly, the text then states that Pure Land practitioners are to use the same rite but with certain adjustments and substitutions.135 The Rite for the Seven[-​day] Maitreya Retreat, intended for seminarians in Xiamen, utilizes many of the same elements. It differs primarily in adding the recitation of the Ascent Sutra between the refuge formula and the dedication of merit. The liturgy was to be performed upon entering the sanctuary in the morning, afternoon, and evening and to be followed by individual cultivation of one’s choosing.136 Perhaps the most intriguing element shared by these two texts is their mandalas. In the Daily Rites, there are two.137 The first, to be contemplated while taking refuge in the three jewels, bears Śakyamuni’s name in the center, while at the top is “the ever-​abiding Buddhas of the ten directions” with arrows following the arc of the circle stretching down to “ever-​abiding Dharma of the ten directions” and “ever-​abiding sangha of the ten directions” on the right and left, respectively. In the second, to be contemplated during devotions to Maitreya, Śakyamuni disappears from the center of the circle, while arrows reach down from “Dharma” and “sangha” to “Maitreya Tathāgata” at the bottom. The mandala in the Rites for Retreats (Figure 3.2) combines these two adding arrows pointing up from Śakyamuni to the ever-​abiding Buddhas and down to Maitreya.138 It is this directionality that makes these diagrams remarkable. Typically mandalas are maps of an idealized space. Here, however, we see rather maps of idealized time. The mandalas bear no commentary, but something—​the

131

A New Cult for New Buddhists

131

Ever-Abiding Buddhas of the Ten Directions

Ever-Abiding Dharma of the Ten Directions

Sakyamuni Buddha

Ever-Abiding Sangha of the Ten Directions

Maitreya Buddha

Figure 3.2  Mandala from the Rites for Retreats

teachings, presumably—​emerges from Śakyamuni and passes into the ever-​ abiding Three Jewels. In the second mandala, it then passes through them into Maitreya. In the mandala from the Rites for Retreats, this is collapsed into a single diagram. Maitreya thus stands as a concrete embodiment of futurity with which the devotee can enter into relationship.139 Yet there is not simply direction and temporality but also a telos. This prefigures Taixu’s assertion in “The Name ‘the Maitreya School’ ” that the Dharma that flowed out from Śakyamuni would be drawn together again in Maitreya, and we shall see variations on it again later on. Another striking feature of the diagrams is their closed nature. What emerges from Śākyamuni is received by Maitreya with nothing added along the way. This seems to reflect Taixu’s concern to strictly delimit orthodoxy. There is no new dispensation, only a rearticulation of old verities. This concern would be made explicit a few years later in Taixu’s dealings with the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society. The “Rites for Regular Practice,” composed by Taixu and published by the lay Maitreya Study Association in Xiamen, lacks these mandalas but is otherwise significantly more expansive than the other two. It is a collection of five rites requiring increasing levels of time and commitment. The first, the “essential rite” (yao yi 要儀) requires as little as ten minutes and is similar to the “Daily Rites.” Like the “Rite for Maitreya Retreats,” the second, “concise” (lue 略) rite simply adds the Ascent Sutra. The third rite, to be performed in three sessions over the course of the day, is the “full rite” (ben yi 本儀). This liturgy includes all three of the Essentials. In the morning one recites the

321

132

T he C ult o f M aitreya

“Chapter on Knowing Reality” and engages in contemplation based on it, and at noon one recites the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and reflects upon one’s actions based on that standard, as the text says Kuiji once did. In the evening, the practitioner recites the Ascent Sutra as in the concise rite, closing with Xuanzang’s gāthā.140 In the last two “rites,” Taixu departs from conventional liturgical models. In fact, they are not liturgies at all but the bodhisattva path. The fourth rite is the “surpassing” (sheng 勝) in which the aspirant completes the initial stages of the bodhisattva path (glossed in Yogācāra terminology), “broadly collecting the supplies of merit and wisdom and according with the excellence of understanding and practice” based on the examples of Xuanzang and Vasubhandu. In the fifth, “great” (da 大), rite, the aspirant cultivates the higher levels of the path “realizing the two emptinesses, fully cultivating the ten perfections, seeking bodhi in the five sciences, and fulfilling the four virtues of nirvana.” based on the examples of Asanga and Maitreya himself.141 Here again, we see the structure of the Maitreyan canon anticipated as ritual as the vision of Maitreyan “rites” grow progressively more expansive until it becomes all-​compassing. We may make here a few general observations regarding these liturgies. First, while the liturgies are themselves new, they are all built from existing parts. The “Rites for Regular Practice” explicitly acknowledges that the vow text is adapted from Xuanzang (T53, 2122:  406 a13-​15), the gāthā is drawn from the Mahayana Sutra on the Contemplation of the Mind Ground in this Life (Dasheng bensheng xindi guan jing 大乘本生心地觀經 (T3, 159:  305c29-​ a3),142 and the practice of reciting the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa at noon is attributed to Kuiji. The formal elements, likewise, are drawn from tradition. Nevertheless, the liturgies are unusual in their tight focus on Maitreya and in their simplicity. This simplicity and brevity (in most cases) suggests a drive to make the cultivation of the Maitreya School accessible and flexible enough for active laity and activist monks. (We shall see in the following chapter that this was also an important theological concern). Not coincidentally, pure land elements—​name recitation, the Ascent Sutra, and vows to be reborn in Tuṣita—​figure prominently in these liturgies. Yogācāra elements—​ the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” and the exemplars—​are also present but concentrated at more demanding levels, reflecting again the concern for convenience and accessibility. At the same time, the Rites for Regular Practice demonstrates the new expansiveness of the cult. Just as the Maitreyan canon includes all Buddhist teachings and ultimately all that is true, so Maitreyan cultivation ultimately includes the entirety of the path and all useful knowledge. It also represents a new more deliberate expansion of the cultus of the

313

A New Cult for New Buddhists

133

Maitreya School. Rather than a mere substitution of Maitreya’s name for Amitābha’s, there is an attempt to think through a distinct form of praxis. Taixu was not the only individual to write a Maitreyan ritual text, however, nor even the first. He was actually preceded in this by one of his students. In 1931, Jingyan 淨嚴, a Wuchang graduate, published a piece in Haichaoyin announcing the publication of a new ritual edition of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa with the Central Scriptural Press (Zhongyang kejing yuan 中央 刻經院). Feeling that the text was difficult to understand, he and his Dharma brothers Jingxi 淨昔 and Jingxiang 淨詳 prepared an edition with divided text and numbered headings and subheadings, so that practitioners could more easily keep track of the content as they recited.143 The text also included a liturgy for recitation borrowed from the Rite for the Twice-​Monthly Recitation of the Bodhisattva Precepts (Banyue song pusa jie yishi 半月誦菩薩戒儀式) (X38, 696) composed by Hongzan 弘贊, the early Qing dynasty Vinaya master and Maitreya devotee, with slight adaptations and annotations.144 Strictly speaking, there is little that is new in the text. Even the use of Hongzan’s liturgy may very well derive from the Jingyan’s days at Wuchang. What does seem to be new is the desire to make the ritual recitation of the precepts more widely available and accessible. Propagation

Along with the theological reorientation and expansion of the cult, this phase of the Maitreya School’s development saw a clear and concerted attempt to propagate Maitreyan ideas and practices. Judging the success of such efforts is difficult. The alluring clarity of a headcount is impossible. The Maitreya School was not a Christian denomination or a redemptive society; there were neither conversions nor initiations, much less membership rolls. Rather the school was a set of ideas and practices from which Buddhists might derive inspiration and orientation and that they might choose to adopt as part of their personal religiosity. A few practitioners were associated with Maitreyan groups, but most of them likely practiced individually. Instead, we must look to activity and impact in making an assessment. How prominent a feature of the reform movement and 1930s Chinese Buddhism was the cult? To what degree did individuals beyond Taixu himself become involved in discussions and activities surrounding the Maitreya School? We shall see over the course of this section that Maitreyan activity accelerated over the course of the 1930s, reaching a crescendo on the eve of war with Japan, and while Taixu remained a key driver of the cult’s development, his students and associates were increasingly important. Public lectures, publishing, and various attempts at institutionalization raised the profile of the reimagined cult of Maitreya.

341

134

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Let us first consider public lectures. Taixu was central in this respect. The master was an early iteration of the Buddhist monk as “public intellectual”145 and “media personality.”146 His lectures were major events announced in local newspapers, not only the Buddhist press, that could draw audiences of more than a thousand. Taixu’s 1933 lecture in Hangzhou provides a good example. Lingyin Monastery (Lingyin si 靈隱寺) had recently rebuilt its Hall of the Heavenly Kings, redubbing it the Hall of Maitreya147 and invited Taixu, who sometimes stayed there when visiting Hangzhou, to lecture on the Ascent Sutra for the occasion. According to news reports from the Citizen (Shimin bao 市民報) and various wire services, the lecture took place over seven consecutive days and each day drew audiences of over a thousand, including prominent provincial KMT committee members. On the final day, Taixu exhorted his audience to cultivate according to the text and led them in the recitation of Maitreya’s name.148 Yet this is only a well-​reported example. A  survey of all Taixu’s talks on Maitreyan themes up to 1937 (see Appendix A) makes several things apparent. First, Taixu treated this topic many times and with increasing frequency. He lectured on Maitreya or Maitreyan texts twenty-​two times, nine of them from 1929 to 1933 and ten from 1934 to 1936, climaxing in a tour of Hong Kong and Guangdong in which he lectured on Maitreya at every stop. Second, Taixu’s 1929 lecture in Paris, discussed previously, marks the beginning of a shift toward lay audiences. Taixu gave two more talks to his students at Minnan in 1929 and 1930, but thereafter all of his lectures were public. Third, in the second phase of the cult, sutras become more prominent. Taixu lectured on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” in 1929 and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa in 1930, but thereafter he expounded only on sutras and their themes. Finally, we may note that the Descent Sutra, which describes the ideal world at the time of Maitreya’s advent, assumes increasing prominence as this phase progresses. We find then public outreach growing in tandem with theological shifts in the cult. Taixu’s students also began to lecture on Maitreyan texts and themes in this period. Moru 默如 gave a series of lectures on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” for the Maitreya Study Association in Xiamen in 1934,149 while Huijue lectured on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa in 1933 for the Right Faith Society in Hankou.150 When Taixu established a Maitreya School Lecture Series (Cizong jiangxi ban 慈宗講習班) at Xuedou shan in 1936, he lectured on the Ascent and Descent Sutras himself but delegated the “Chapter” and Prātimokṣa to associate lecturer Kequan 克全 and assistant lecturer Baoren 寶忍, respectively.151 The contents of these lectures went mostly unrecorded, but it is likely that they cleaved closely to Taixu’s ideas. Only Huijue’s introductory remarks,

315

A New Cult for New Buddhists

135

for instance, were printed in Right Faith. For an explanation of the text itself, the editors referred readers to Haichaoyin for Taixu’s commentary.152 This was partly due to the fact that the slimmer Right Faith did not carry such long work, but it also highlights the differential treatment of lectures by Taixu versus his students. It may be that there were other lectures by his students that were not mentioned in print. Unlike their teacher, their every move was not treated as newsworthy. Ritual interactions, often in conjuncture with lectures, also served to propagate the cult. According to one longtime lay follower, when presenting new refuge disciples with their certificate, Taixu would always enjoin them to recite the name of Maitreya153 and on at least two occasions he also transmitted the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts. The first occasion, discussed earlier, was when he was invited to do so by the Sichuan Provincial Buddhist Society and other local Buddhist groups in 1930.154 The second occasion on which Taixu would transmit the bodhisattva precepts came five years later at the Hankou Right Faith Society. Whereas in the previous case Taixu was conducting the ritual by invitation, this time he was the instigator. Taixu planned to transmit the precepts to provide “a standard of behavior for the Right Faith Society’s social service.” Despite a preparatory lecture by his disciple Huijue,155 the ceremony took place a full year behind schedule on Maitreya’s birthday, February 4, 1935. Moreover, the lay members of the society were well outnumbered by monastic recipients. On that day, twenty-​one monastics—​including some of Taixu’s most prominent disciples and students such as Fazun, Zhifeng, Daxing, and Fafang156—​and only five laity received the precepts. This suggests that despite the exhortations of Taixu and his student not as many laity were interested in receiving the precepts as had been hoped. Participation among Taixu’s monastic disciples and students on the other hand was stronger. In another sign of the limits of the Maitreya School’s penetration, the merit of the event was dedicated of to Maitreya’s swift attainment of Buddhahood and the rebirth of all sentient beings in the Buddha land of their choice, rather than specifically Tuṣita.157 Maitreyan elements could be added to the Buddhist repertoire, but not all were willing to forsake the West for the Inner Court. Another key mode of propagating the cult was the new mass media. The printed word played a central role in the development of Buddhism in the Republic. Modern printing techniques and innovative business models created a national network that brought together Buddhist elites from one end of China to the other. This fostered national integration, incubated new forms of community, and facilitated the spread of ideas.158 So important was the written word to elite Buddhist life in this period that conversion stories often begin with a chance encounter with a book and Taixu’s discussion of the stages of lay

361

136

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Buddhist practice begins with reading and lists a number of the works available from contemporary publishers.159 Publishing thus provided a key avenue through which to propagate minority viewpoints, such as the Maitreya School, and bring together scattered practitioners into a larger textual community. We have already seen the fundamental role that books played in the development of the school. Its inaugural event, after all, was the compilation of the Three Essentials and its founding document was Taixu’s preface to that book. It was published by the Wuchang Sutra Press in 1924, and the preface was reprinted separately in both Haichaoyin and Foyin. Advertisements indicate that it was still in print in 1930 and 1932.160 The shift to the second phase of the cult’s development was also marked by a publishing effort. As we have seen, Taixu first articulated his new, more expansive vision of the Maitreya School in his “Preface to the Essential Canon of the Maitreya School.” Conceived to include dozens of texts,161 the Essential Canon was likely inspired by Ouyang Jingwu’s Canonical Essentials (Zangyao 藏要). The project was to have been undertaken by the Maitreya Study Association, but it seems that only two volumes were produced: Taixu’s Lecture on the Essentials of the Chapter on Knowing Reality from the Yogā(cārabhūmi śāstra) (Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao 瑜 伽真實義品講要) in 1933162 and his Outlines of Dharma Characteristics and Consciousness-​only (Faxiang weishi xue gailun 法相唯識學概論) likely around the same time.163 These works probably circulated primarily within the network of reformist seminaries and lay associations but may have had some commercial distribution as well. The story was quite different for Taixu’s Lecture on the Essentials of the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on the Contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tushita Heaven (Foshuo guan mile pusa shangsheng doushuaituo tian jing jiangyao 佛說觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率陀天經講要). This work was published in 1933 by Buddhist Books (Foxue shuju 佛學書局). Employing an innovative semicommercial approach, the press had by that point grown to be the largest purveyor of Buddhist works in the country and had cobbled together a nationwide distribution network. Taixu’s commentary was released as part of the Buddhist Small Book series (Foxue xiaocongshu 佛學小叢書), which aimed to supply a mass readership with an accessible introduction to Buddhism and included books by many of the foremost figures of the day.164 As with other books it published, Buddhist Books actively advertised Taixu’s commentary, placing several advertisements and notices for their edition of Taixu’s lecture on the Ascent Sutra in various periodicals, including their own Buddhist Biweekly (Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊)165 and Buddhist Publishing (Foxue chuban jie 佛學出版界)166 as well as Haichaoyin. Although Buddhist Books had no special interest in the cult of Maitreya, its agenda as a purveyor of his book and

317

A New Cult for New Buddhists

137

Taixu’s as a proponent of the school intersected.167 In the advertisements, the language of the commercial pitch blends with the religious appeal to sell both the book and its message: Taixu, deeply learned in Maitreyan teachings, recently spoke on this sutra that Buddhists might know that besides Western Pure Land there is also Tuṣita Pure Land and that its merit is superior and inconceivable. For those who wish to enter Maitreya’s tower with the flick of a finger, this book is their ticket issued (zuojuan 左券).168 There are reasons to think that the Lecture on the Essentials was quite successful on the market. The book was subsequently reprinted the next year,169 suggesting brisk sales, and it was still available for purchase as of 1944.170 Moreover, Buddhist Books went on to release two editions of Maitreyan sutras in 1935: an edition of the Ascent Sutra with the Descent Sutra appended and a volume containing all three major sutras—​the Ascent, Descent, and Achievement of Buddhahood Sutras.171 Given its semi-​commercial nature, it would appear that the press was responding to indications of demand. A further volume, The Sutra on Maitreya’s Achievement of Buddhahood (Mile da chengfo jing 彌勒大成佛經) was also published, apparently by another press, in 1936 with a foreword by Changxing, who also penned the preface to Taixu’s Ascent Sutra commentary.172 Including Jingyan’s edition of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, then, eight books were published by orthodox Buddhists in the years prior to the war, seven after 1930. While all this was only a small part of the vigorous Buddhist publishing scene of the day, it represents a remarkable resurgence of activity surrounding a set of texts that did not even commonly circulate at the end of the Qing. We shall see in c­ hapter 6 that the Maitreyan sutras are now well ensconced in the “actual canon” of Chinese Buddhism. At least as important as books were periodicals. They were the circulatory system of the Buddhist textual community, providing forums for the articulation and exchange of ideas. Periodicals especially important to Taixu. His flagship publication Haichaoyin as well as Right Faith, the house organ of the Right Faith Society, allowed him to reach audiences beyond the crowds who attended his public lectures and served as the anchors for new Buddhist identities and communities.173 Although Haichaoyin enjoyed national, even international, distribution in the 1920s and was the best-​known Buddhist periodical in China, its actual print runs were quite low—​sometimes as little as a hundred copies. This changed in 1932 when distribution was taken over by Buddhist Books, raising circulation to 1,800.174 While this number

381

138

T he C ult o f M aitreya

is still relatively low, many copies of the large, relatively expensive journal would have been purchased for the libraries or reading rooms of seminaries, lay societies, or even secular groups such as chambers of commerce, meaning that readership was likely significantly larger than the number of copies in circulation.175 Right Faith actually had a greater circulation than its more famous sister publication. In the early 1930s, Right Faith had print runs of 2,500, and there were plans in 1935 to add another thousand copies, indicating circulation well beyond its active membership of 1,000.176 Excluding news items, twenty-​nine pieces promoting or discussing aspects of the Maitreya School177 appeared from 1922 to 1937. Of these, three—​Taixu’s “Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” and “Record of a Lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa,” as well as Hu Zheng’s “Maitreya Pure Land and Amitābha Pure Land”—​were each reprinted once, so that Maitreyan articles and other writings were published thirty-​two times in the periodical press. All but three of the thirty-​two appeared after 1930 (see Appendix B). Although the great majority were published in Haichaoyin or Right Faith, a few were published elsewhere. Examined diachronically, the bylines reveal an interesting development. Taixu authored all of the essays published in the cult’s first phase. Between 1931 and 1933 he authored six of ten distinct pieces. Between 1934 and the onset of war in July 1937, he authored only four of seventeen distinct pieces. This shift in textual production signals that while the master was still the driving force behind the Maitreya School, its propagation was being taken up by a wider circle of his students and associates. We see something similar in the content of the essays. Taixu’s writings largely define the themes of the Maitreya School, but his students do not merely reiterate but expand and flesh out these ideas. A few pieces related to the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa appeared, including a chart of the precepts produced by Jingyan, his preface to the text, and a comparison with the better known Brahma’s Net Prātimokṣa as well as Huijue’s remarks on the text.178 Several individuals published pieces on the relationship of Maitreya Pure Land to Amitābha Pure Land and on esoteric Maitreyan practices that we consider later. Less directly related to Taixu’s work were Tanxuan’s 談玄research on Maitreyan scriptures179 and Nianxi’s 念西 “biography” cobbled together from references to Maitreya in the sutras.180 Perhaps the most unique piece was poem written by Zhang Shenghui 張 聖慧 about a solitary retreat undertaken in 1935.181 In this case, the title truly says it all: “On the Last Lunar Month of 1934 in Solitary Retreat in Guizhou, Wuchang [I]‌Practiced the Full Rite of Consciousness-​only Contemplation Delineated by the Great Master Taixu and Glimpsed the Marvel of the Unobstructed Interpenetration of the Three Essentials, Whereupon Based on

391

A New Cult for New Buddhists

139

the Import of the ‘Chapter on Knowing Reality,’ the Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, and the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent, [I] Used the Rising, Falling, Level, and Whole Tones to Weave Them into Thirty Simple Verses.”182 This work is interesting for several reasons. First, it suggests that some individuals were engaged in intense cultivation of the Maitreya School apart from any group. Second, the formal allusion to the Thirty Verses on Consciousness-​only and the labeling of the full rite of the Maitreya School as that of Consciousness-​only Contemplation demonstrates the continuing strength of the Yogācāra connection. Finally, while the form shows the stamp of Yogācāra, the content shows Taixu’s success in shaping at least this one reader’s encounter with the texts. Zhang’s poem follows his divisions of the texts and repeats points from his commentaries. Of particular interest is the special issue of Haichaoyin in January 1937, which was devoted to Tuṣita Pure Land. This issue carried three lengthy pieces by members of Taixu’s circle: an expanded version of Nianxi’s “biography” of Maitreya and the two articles on esoteric teachings by Fazun and Tanxuan discussed earlier. The issue is important, however, as much for who did not contribute as who did. Taixu himself wrote nothing for the issue. It may well be that the special issue was Taixu’s idea—​there is no evidence one way or the other—​but the fact that such an issue appeared with no contribution from the master is a milestone. All three pieces were by others, and each built upon but went beyond Taixu’s Maitreyan thought. Periodicals brought Maitreya to their readers not only through text but also, albeit less frequently, through images.183 Images of Maitreya were printed in Haichaoyin four times. Interestingly, all of these images are of the princely form of Maitreya, never the bodhisattva’s manifestation as Budai 布袋. This was apparently so uncommon at the time that the monk Chisong 持松 doubted that the ordinary person would recognize Maitreya in his “true form” at all.184 The bodhisattva is thus portrayed as the lord of the Inner Court and the master of Yogācāra, rather than as the merry monk, who was also worshipped by the unsophisticated masses and the heterodox redemptive societies and salvationist movements from which Taixu and his circle wanted to dissociate themselves. The first such image published was a photo of a statue in Chicago’s Field Museum taken on Taixu’s journey to the West.185 The others were published in the context of special issues. The 1937 issue on Tuṣita Pure Land naturally featured an image of Maitreya as did the 1931 issue on Yogācāra, specifically of the monumental Bamiyan Buddha visited by Xuanzang.186 Most interesting is the image included in the 1934 special issue devoted to Human Realm Buddhism. It appears in the front matter below an image of Śakyamuni. In the table of contents they are described as “Śākyamuni Buddha,

401

140

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Human Realm Buddhism’s Lord of the Teaching” (Renjian fojiao jiaozhu shijiamouni fo人間佛教教主釋迦牟尼佛) and “Maitreya Buddha, Human Realm Buddhism’s Future Lord of the Teaching” (Renjian fojiao danglai jiaozhu mile fo 人間佛教當來教主彌勒佛).187 The positioning of the two images recalls that of the mandalas discussed previously and makes explicit the implications of futurity we found there. It also shows that Maitreya (along with Śākyamuni) was being positioned as an object of devotion uniquely suited for the new humanistic dispensation. A final way that periodicals served to spread the cult was through ads and announcements. We have already mentioned that the books associated with the Maitreya cult were publicized through advertisements. Advertisements related to the Maitreya cult were particularly prominent in Right Faith in the early 1930s. In 1933 and 1934, notices invited participation in the annual retreats at the Wuchang Institute, which, as we saw, included a Maitreya shrine.188 In roughly the same period, Right Faith ran a series of exhortations to the recitation of Maitreya’s name. They appeared twenty-​one times in the biweekly periodical from late October 1933 to late September 1934.The ads always appear at the end of the magazine just before the advertisements in part, it appears, to fill leftover space.189 The exact phrasing of the ads varies, but most simply ask the reader to chant the name devoutly one hundred, one thousand, or ten thousand times.190 These appeals are notable both for their directness and for their simple piety. Indeed, they differ from similar ads in Pure Land periodicals only in the Buddha named. These notices and exhortations indicate a special effort to propagate the cult of Maitreya within the Right Faith Society. Around the same time, Right Faith also published Taixu’s “Daily Rites Necessary for Members of the Right Faith Association,”191 which as we saw encouraged devotion to Maitreya in place of Amitābha. Huijue’s prefatory remarks on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa appeared there as did the debate over the relative merits of Tuṣita and Sukhāvatī discussed earlier. Outside of print, Taixu delivered his important lecture on the Ascent Sutra there in 1932. Huijue lectured on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa in 1933, and Taixu transmitted the Yoga precepts there in 1935. All this suggests a concerted attempt to promote the Maitreya School within the thousand-​member society. But did it work? It is unclear. Although better known for its charity and relief work, the Right Faith Society at its inception included Pure Land devotion as a prominent part of its activities.192 There is no indication that the efforts of the early 1930s changed this.193 The lack of any reports of Maitreyan activities by the society and the low lay participation when Taixu transmitted the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts suggests that the cult may have been a harder

4 11

A New Cult for New Buddhists

141

sell than he hoped. Moreover, it should be remembered that Taixu enjoyed little more than the authority of his charisma in the society. Indeed, the society, which funded the Wuchang Institute, arguably held greater real power over Taixu than the reverse. Thus while he could exhort, he could not insist.194 The flurry of Maitreyan pieces in Right Faith may thus have indicated support from the periodical’s editor at the time Lü Huicheng 呂慧成 or the propagation group responsible for it, but it does not appear to have led to any shift in practice, at least beyond the individual level. Institutionalization

Whereas in Hankou Taixu seems to have attempted to inject devotion to Maitreya into a long-​standing organization to mixed results, in Xiamen he was presented with an opportunity to start fresh with a new institution. Just after ending his second term as abbot at the Nanputuo Monastery there, a group of his refuge disciples formed the Maitreya Study Association (Cizong xuehui 慈宗學會). The small group numbered at least twenty men and women and included local professionals in education, medicine, business, and aviation. Most significantly they included at least three individuals who had been involved in the radical Buddhist New Youth, including Yu Yu 虞愚,195 a Wuchang graduate and former Buddhist New Youth member, who, like Taixu, admired Kropotkin and had been influenced by Zhang Taiyan as a youth;196 Cai Jitang 蔡吉堂, who founded the branch in Xiamen; and Su Huichun 蘇慧純, who had been a member.197 We might recall here, too, that Taixu’s “Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” was published in Foyin, the Xiamen branch’s journal. These individuals had been attending morning and evening services at the monastery and asked to take refuge with Taixu. They did so in the Tuṣita Hall behind the monastery on December 25, 1932, at which time they decided to form the association in order to “facilitate their common study.”198 Members were to “study all Buddhist learning on the basis of Master Taixu’s Essential Dharma of the Maitreya School” and “spread the Dharma according to the teachings of our school and advance human morality.” The society’s regular meetings were to be held at the Tuṣita Hall (discussed later), and each year there would be a grand assembly coinciding with Maitreya’s birthday.199 News reports published in Haichaoyin over 1933 present a picture of a vigorous new organization. According to a June report, the association had been holding weekly study groups focusing on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” led first by Taixu himself and, following his departure, by his student Moru 默如.200 The Association’s second major activity was the publication of the Essential Canon of the Maitreya School of which only Taixu’s commentary on

421

142

T he C ult o f M aitreya

the “Chapter” and his Outlines of Dharma Characteristics and Consciousness-​ only ever went to press. At the end of the summer the association seemed to be thriving. It had expanded its activities to include charity work and planned to build a new headquarters. By August a committee201 had been formed to undertake the project once permission was received from Nanputuo Monastery to erect the structure on their land.202 The sssociation appeared to be on an upward trajectory, yet there are no further reports of its activities. The organization did not cease operation, for it is listed among the local Buddhist groups that greeted Taixu when he stopped in Xiamen in January 1936.203 Yet it seems it was unable to sustain the momentum of its early days. Most likely the association continued to function as a study group and perhaps a charitable organization, but its more ambitious plans were dropped. The reasons for this are unclear, but the departure of Taixu in early 1933 was certainly a factor as was perhaps the decline of the Minnan Institute.204 The economic difficulties and organizational troubles that plagued so many Republican groups also likely contributed to the association’s failure to thrive. While the Maitreya Study Association did not live up to its initial promise, it did inspire at least one imitator in Tongcheng 桐城, a city in central Anhui. This group was also formed through lay initiative but with rather more indirect ties to Taixu. The seed for this second Maitreya Study Association seems to have been planted when a local layman Ma Miaoguang 馬妙光205 took refuge with Cihang, a student of Taixu and devotee of Maitreya. It is likely through him that Ma first learned of the Maitreya School and met Taixu, who presented him with an image of Maitreya and suggested that he write to the Henan Buddhist Study Society for a copy of its edition of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa.206 In the summer of the following year, Ma wrote a letter, published in Right Faith, announcing the formation of the Tongcheng Maitreya Study Association on February 10 for regular sutra recitation, worship, and repentance. The letter, written in a highly formal style suggesting some erudition, was signed by eighteen individuals, not including Ma,207 and requested instruction from Taixu.208 The group lasted until at least 1938, when Cihang wrote to them to encourage them to study Yogācāra texts, including the Three Essentials, and to work diligently to propagate the Dharma.209 In addition to these two well-​attested groups, there may have been one other attempt to found a lay society in the early 1930s. A  1933 report in Shenbao mentions a Maitreya School shrine located in the Buddha’s Kindness Pharmaceutical Factory (foci yao chang 佛慈藥廠) located in the International Settlement. This company, which produced “scientific Chinese medicine,” was founded by Yu Guanshan 玉觀杉 (Dharma name Huiguan 慧觀), a

413

A New Cult for New Buddhists

143

Korean-​born Chinese refuge disciple of Taixu and important financial backer of his endeavors. This altar suggests that Yu was at minimum a Maitreya devotee himself. Possibly, he was attempting to form another Maitreya Study Association, perhaps seeking members among his employees. His death later that same year seems to have brought an end to any such efforts, however.210 We see here then initial attempts to create lay institutions to support collective study and practice of the Maitreya School. Lay religious groups—​ redemptive societies and spirit-​writing shrines as well as Buddhist socieites—​ proliferated in the Republic. However, most Buddhist groups were either “one-​ stop shops” on the model of the World Householder Grove or the Right Faith Society or dedicated to Pure Land like the Pure Karma Society. The Maitreya Study Associations were thus somewhat unusual for Chinese Buddhism at the time. Results seem to have been mixed. Nevertheless, the fact that the Xiamen Association began at lay initiative and inspired laity in Anhui to start a second association and perhaps even a third in Shanghai suggests that there was interest in group pursuit of Maitreyan practices. Had time allowed, these sprouts may have gradually led to a broader flowering. At this same time the cult of Maitreya was beginning to make itself felt on the Chinese Buddhist landscape as Taixu’s close identification with Maitreya inspired students and associates to inscribe that identification in places associated with him. The first was the Tuṣita Hall (Doushuaituo yuan 兜率陀院) at Nanputuo Monastery. In 1930 a cistern, grandiosely named the Anavatapta211 pool (Anouda chi 阿耨達池), was built roughly a fifteen-​minute walk up the hillside from the monastery in order to provide running water. Because there was a bit of suitable land surrounding it, three small halls (bieyuan 別院) were constructed in order to provide a place for Taixu to engage in secluded practice when he was at the monastery. Daxing dubbed one of the three Tuṣita Hall in honor of his master’s practice.212 At around the same time, Zhuanfeng 轉逢, who had preceded Taixu as abbot, brought back an antique copper statue of Maitreya from Lesser Xuefeng Monastery (Xiao xuefeng si 小雪峰寺). In order to enshrine it, Taixu erected a Maitreya School Shrine (Cizong tan 慈宗壇) where the Maitreya Study Association was later formed.213 The retreat named for the association between Taixu and Maitreya became the occasion for its reiteration and thus reinforcement. An account of the Tuṣita Hall of the time asserts that the master “takes Maitreya’s mind as his mind, the bodhisattva’s practice as his practice.” Furthermore, “it is said, if one wears Yao’s clothes, speaks Yao’s words, and does Yao’s work, one simply is Yao. Now, Master Taixu lives in Maitreya’s home, expounds Maitreya’s Dharma, and practices Maitreya’s path. He simply is Maitreya.”214 It would be too much to read this as a literal assertion that Taixu was a manifestation of

441

144

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Maitreya, but it does show the powerful connection that some of Taixu’s followers saw, or sought to create, between the two. A more consequential attempt to write the cult into the landscape was undertaken at Xuedou shan. We have already noted this mountain several times. In addition to the Chiang family, Xuedou also had a historical connection to Maitreya, as it is situated in Fenghua 奉化 county, where he is believed to have lived as Budai. On the basis of this connection, Xuedou was proposed as Maitreya’s sanctuary, a fifth Buddhist sacred mountain to stand alongside Wutai 五台, Emei 峨嵋, Putuo 普陀, and Jiuhua 九華. This proposal is commonly attributed to Taixu, but the idea actually originated with his associate Changxing. His 1933 preface to Taixu’s lecture on the Ascent Sutra argues for the importance of its inclusion on ritual and cosmological, as well as historical grounds, and enjoins the faithful to make pilgrimages to the mountain.215 Taixu himself seems to have been somewhat ambivalent about this idea. On the one hand, he referred to the mountain’s connection with Maitreya in a lecture on the Ascent Sutra given at Xuedou216 and established a Maitreya School Lecture Series (Cizong jiangxi ban 慈宗講習班) there.217 On the other, he seems hesitant to endorse it as a fifth sacred mountain, always referring to the idea as something that “has been proposed.”218 Others, however, embraced the notion. Dazan 達讚, writing on his experience attending a lecture by Taixu on the Ascent Sutra for Haichaoyin, repeats Changxing’s arguments almost verbatim. Moreover, he takes this as an occasion to expound on what he sees as Taixu’s profound karmic connection to Maitreya. That the reviver of the Maitreya School should become abbot of the monastery where Maitreya was manifest was a “matter of profound causes and conditions” (da shi yinyuan 大事因緣), a phrase commonly used to describe Śakyamuni’s appearance in the world to save living beings.219 We may also recall here the Taiwanese monk Binzong 斌宗, whom we encountered at the outset of this study. Travelling to Xuedou, he failed to meet Taixu, but left with three impressions: (1) Taixu is a leader of Buddhism, a modern eminent monk who teaches and spreads the Maitreya School residing on this famous mountain. [(2)] Xuedou is a famous site of eastern Zhejiang . . . which received the manifestation of Maitreya. . .[(3)] Maitreya is [the Buddha] to come, the bodhisattva-​in-​waiting. From this we can see how the canonization of Xuedou as Maitreya’s sanctuary served to reinforce Taixu’s connection with the cult and raise awareness of it.

415

A New Cult for New Buddhists

145

This inscription of the landscape thus demonstrates the continuing centrality of Taixu to the cult’s development while complicating it. The initiative in both cases comes from others—​Daxing in the case of Tuṣita Hall and Changxing in the case of Xuedou—​and indeed Taixu showed remarkably little enthusiasm for the idea of Xuedou as a fifth sacred mountain. Yet Taixu’s presence and activities are central to others’ accounts of these sites. In the enthusiasm of these accounts we see the charisma of Maitreya and Taixu reinforcing one another and the cult of the bodhisattva resonating with the cult of the master. As such, in the eyes of his associates and followers, Taixu’s connection with Maitreya would have lent him stature while his image as the quintessential modern monk would have colored their conception of the bodhisattva. This inscription and the dynamic it made possible were important in raising awareness of Maitreya School. We shall see in ­chapter 6 that Xuedou shan continues to be important in this respect today.

Conclusion In summary, the cult of Maitreya spearheaded by Taixu developed through two phases. The first corresponds roughly to the second half of the May Fourth era and the second period of Taixu’s career. It was inaugurated in 1924 but has roots that stretch back to Taixu’s seclusion on Putuo and to the vogue for Yogācāra that began in the waning days of the Qing. During this first phase, the foundations of the cult were laid in Taixu’s personal practice and devotion and the ritual practice and academic studies of his seminaries. The second phase, corresponding roughly to the Nanjing Decade and the third period of Taixu’s career, began slowly in the late 1920s and reached a peak of activity in the mid-​1930s. This was a time of expansion for the cult on many fronts. Intellectually, Maitreya the master of Yogācāra was deemphasized in favor of Maitreya the lord of Tuṣita and future Buddha as the cult was joined to the notion of the pure land on earth, rebirth in the Inner Court received new emphasis, and sweeping claims for the all-​ encompassing character of the Maitreya School were made. Socially, there was a concerted effort by Taixu, but increasingly his students and associates as well, to spread the cult beyond the seminaries through a variety of means:  lectures, publishing, and ritual interactions. Finally, Taixu and his followers attempted to institutionalize the cult injecting Maitreyan practices into the repertoire of the Right Faith Society and the establishing of Maitreya Study Associations, while Taixu’s association with Maitreya inspired students to write Maitreya onto the landscape, which in turn strengthened the identification.

461

146

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Several points may be noted here. First, Taixu’s role in shaping and propagating the cult was key. Taixu himself was quite devout and identified with Maitreya. His writings formed the intellectual core of the Maitreya School and set the agenda for others. Yet his students were increasingly active participants in the cult’s second phase. They wrote articles discussing, elaborating, and supplementing the basic framework Taixu had established. They gave lectures, formed lay associations, and took the initiative in inscribing the new cult onto the landscape. The Maitreya School was Taixu’s creation, but it did not belong to him alone. Second, while it is likely that only a minority of individuals, even within the reform movement, made the Maitreya School the basis of their own practice, it is clear that it did have an impact on the Buddhist scene of the day. From its limited scope in the late 1920s the cult grew to become a significant focus of intellectual activity, propagation in multiple media, and limited attempts at institutionalization. Moreover, there is indication that at least a few practitioners of other forms of Buddhism as well as redemptive societies took notice and responded. Third, an examination of the cult of Maitreya reveals Taixu and his followers to be much more interested in cultivation and ritual than scholarly portrayals would suggest. Likewise, it significantly qualifies the common assertions that Taixu disapproved of pure land and devotion to bodhisattvas. Fourth, it shows a movement that, while it looked to the future, was very much engaged with its past. The cult of Maitreya is a “reinvented tradition.” It was an openly novel creation of the period but was built from elements passed down from the past: texts, such as the Three Essentials; practices, such as the noon-​time recitation of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa; and ancestors, such as Xuanzang and Kuiji. In this chapter we have traced the cult’s development to its zenith on the eve of war with Japan. In the following chapter, we examine Taixu’s Maitreyan theology in greater depth and the values imbedded in it. In the process we revisit issues that we have raised here but not yet dealt with fully, including the shift from the first to the second phase, its correspondence with Taixu’s shifting political views, and, most importantly, the values Taixu saw in Maitreya and the Three Essentials that motivated the effort and attention we have documented. In Part III we ask why the cult ultimately declined after 1937 and how it has reemerged in recent decades.

Notes 1. See: Yinshun 印順, “Wei ziji shuo ji zhu hua” 為自己說幾句話 [A few words on my own behalf ], in Yongguang ji 永光集 [Ever-​lasting radiance collection] (Taipei: Yinshun wenjiao jijinhui 印順文教基金會, 2004), Y 43: 260.

417

A New Cult for New Buddhists

147

2. TDN 168–​169. 3. See, for example, Cai Huiming 蔡惠明, “Mile jingtu yu renjian jingtu” 彌勒淨 土與人間淨土 [Maitreya Pure Land and the pure land on earth], Fayin 法音 53, no. 1 (1989): 23; and Li Mingyou 李明友, “Taixu lun renjian jingtu de jianshe” 太虛論人間淨土的建設 [Taixu on the establishment of the pure land on earth], Zhonghua wenhua luntan 中華文化論壇, no. 3 (2000): 104–​109. There are other scholars, such as Yang Huinan 楊惠南, who have discussed Maitreya at length but from a presentist, philosophical point of view, largely under the influence of Yinshun’s thought. Yang Huinan 楊惠南, “Chensi zai longhua shu xia—​mile jingtu de shengshu” 沈思在龍華樹下—​彌勒淨土的殊勝 [Contemplating under the Dragon Flower Tree—​the excellences of Maitreya Pure Land], Faguang 法光 no. 49 (1983). 4. Luo Tongbing 羅同兵, Taixu dui zhongguo fojiao xinadaihua daolu de jueze 太 虚对中国佛教现代化道路的抉择 [Taixu’s choices on the road toward Chinese Buddhist modernization] (Chengdu: Bashu Shushe 巴蜀书社, 2003), 152–​158. 5. Luo Tongbing 羅同兵, “Taixu hongyang doushuai jingtu de zhiqu” 太虛弘揚兜 率淨土的旨趣 [The purport of Taixu’s promotion of Tuṣita Pure Land], Shehui kexue yanjiu 社會科學研究 no. 4 (2002): 68–​70. 6. He would make the reconstruction of a Maitreya Hall or a single talk on Maitreya evidence of special devotion. He Jianming 何建明, “Luelun zhongguo jindai de mile xinyang he mile guan” 略論中國近代的彌勒信仰何彌勒觀 [A brief discussion on modern Chinese Maitreyan belief and Maitreyan contemplation], Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究10 (2001), http://​www.chinabuddhism.com.cn/​a/​fxyj/​2001/​ 200110f38.htm. 7. For a good discussion of this periodization in English, see Eric Goodell, “Taixu’s Youth and Years of Romantic Idealism, 1890–​ 1914,” Chung-​Hwa Buddhist Journal no. 21 (2008): 81–​82. 8. Such claims by novel practices to represent timeless heritage are, of course, the hallmark of invented traditions. Eric Hobsbawm and Terrence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 9. Peter Zarrow, China in War and Revolution 1895–​1949 (London:  Routledge, 2005) 83–​ 94. For an alternate perspective, see Frank Dikötter, The Age of Openess: China before Mao (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 7–​17. 10. Immanuel C.  Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 6th ed. (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000), 493–​511; Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 133–​ 169. On the role of anarchism in New Culture, see Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press 1991), 148–​196. 11. See:  “Zhengli sengqie zhidu lun” 整理僧伽制度論 [On the reorganization of the Sangha System]. TDQ 1-​185; and Fojiao resheng zhengfa lun 佛教人乘正 法論 [On the Buddhist right Dharma of the human vehicle]. TDQ 2, 3:  128–​ 152. Rongdao Lai discusses the former work in her dissertation:  Lei Kuan Rongdao Lai, “Praying for the Republic: Buddhist Education, Student-​Monks,

48 1

148

T he C ult o f M aitreya

and Citizenship in Modern China (1911–​1949)” (PhD diss., McGill University, 2013), 121–​129. 12. TZZ 219. 13. Much has been written about Taixu’s life. In English, Pittman’s is the fullest published account: Don A. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu’s Reforms (Honolulu:  University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001). Eric Goodell’s dissertation provides a more fine-​grained presentation of his reform vision:  Eric Stephen Goodell, “Taixu’s (1890–​ 1947) Creation of Humanistic Buddhism” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2012). In Chinese, Yinshun’s account remains definitive. TDN. Another of Taixu’s students, Xuming, also wrote a brief but useful biography. Xuming 續明, “Taixu dashi shengping shiji,” in Lengyan jing shelun yu yanjiu 楞嚴經攝論與研究 [Collected essays and research on the “Śūraṃgama sūtra”], by Taixu 太虛 (Taipei:  Zhonghua 中華, 1969). More recent scholarly treatments include:  Deng Zimei 鄧子美 and Chen Weihua 陳 衛華, Hui xia yi dai xin seng—​taixu dashi zhuan 麾下一代新僧-​-太 ​ 虚大師傳 [Standard bearer for a generation of new monks: a biography of Master Taixu] (Xining 西甯: Qinghai renmin chubanshe 青海人民出版社, 1999); Deng Zimei 鄧子美, Taixu dashi quanzhuan 太虛大師全傳 [A complete biography of Master Taixu] (Hsintien 新店, Taiwan: Huiming wenhua 慧明文化, 2002); Liu Hanlong 劉漢龍, Zhongguo fojiao gaige zhi fu: taixu dashi zhuan 中國佛教改革之父:太虛 大師傳 [The father of the Chinese Buddhist reformation: a biography of Master Taixu] (Kaohsiung:  Foguang 佛光, 2003); and Chen Yongge 陳永革, Renjian chaoyin—​taixu dashi zhuan 人間潮音—​太虛大師傳 [The sound of the tide in the human realm: a biography of Master Taixu] (Hangzhou: Zhejiang renmin chubanshe 浙江人民出版社, 2003). 14. “Jue she xuanyan” 覺社宣言 [Announcement of the Awakening Society]. TDQ 19, 31:  1013-​1018. Partially translated by Pittman. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism, 91–​93. He renders this as “Bodhi Society.” I  have chosen “Awakening” rather than “Bodhi” because Taixu chose jue 覺 rather than puti 菩 提. The latter is purely Buddhist and nominal. The former has secular uses as well and has a verbal sense more consonant with the society’s mission to “save the world” and to “awaken oneself and others” (zi jeu jue ta 自覺覺他). 15. TDN 226, 298. The name was changed when the society was reconstituted following a period of inactivity during the Northern Expedition. 16. They are listed as author of ninety-​four and twenty-​three pieces, respectively, by the Catalog Database of Republican Era Buddhist Journals 民國佛教期刊文獻集成—​ 書目資料庫 http://​buddhistinformatics.ddbc.edu.tw/​minguofojiaoqikan/​. In his discussion of of Haichaoyin’s precursor, the Awakening Society Collectanea (Jueshe congshu 覺社叢書) dubs this model the “society publication.” Gregory Adam Scott, “A Revolution of Ink: Chinese Buddhist Periodicals in the Early Republic,” in Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, ed. Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 127–​131.

491

A New Cult for New Buddhists

149

1 7. Lai, “Praying for the Republic. 18. “Tangdai chanzong yu xiandai sichao” 唐代禪宗與現代思潮 [Tang dynasty Chan and the currents of modern thought]. TDQ 13:20: 206–​236. 19. Taixu 太虛, “Taixu qishi er” 太虛啟事二 [Notice from Taixu, two], Foxue yuekan 佛學月刊 no. 4 (April 1913), MFQ 6: 186; and “Jiaoguan quan yao” 教觀詮要 [Essential annotations on the teachings and contemplations] TDQ 7, 15: 2778. 20. “Renshengguan de kexue” 人生觀的科學 [Humanistic science]. TDQ 14, 23: 1–​66. 21. Li Shaobing 李少兵, “Zheng yan xun bian—​minguo shiqi fojiao gexin pai lun shehui yu shehuizhuyi’ 徵言尋變—​民國時期佛教革新派論社會與社會主義 [Testing words and seeking change—​republican-​era reformers discussions of society and socialism], Beijing keji daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 北京科技 大學學報 (社會科學版) 16, no. 2 (2000): 40–​42. On the complexities of Taixu’s relationship to the Buddhist New Youth Movement, and his students generally, see Lai, “Praying for the Republic,” 160–​165. 22. This portion also circulated separately as the Pusa jie jiemo wen 菩薩戒羯磨文 [Bodhisattva Precept Karma Text] (T24, 1499). This is the version that Taixu used. 23. “Cizong san yao xu” 慈宗三要序 [Preface to the three essentials of the Maitreya School], TDQ: 19, 30: 168–​169. 24. For a discussion of the term and its usage by Sheng Yen, a student of Taixu and the founder of Dharma Drumn Mountain, see Jimmy Yu, “Revisiting the Notion of Zong: Contextualizing the Dharma Drum Lineage of Modern Chan Buddhism,” Chung-​Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 113–​151. 25. On the popularity of the text in this period see Eyal Aviv, “The Root that Nourishes the Branches:  The Role of the Yogācārabhūmi in 20th-​Century Chinese Scholastic Buddhism,” in The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, ed. Ulrich Timme Kragh (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2013), , 1078–​1091. On Yang’s curriculum, see Lai, “Praying for the Republic,” 113–​117. 26. “Zhi xing zishu” 志行自述 [My aspiration and practice], TDQ 9, 17: 186. 27. For an account of the Yogācāra movement in Buddhism and beyond, see John Makeham, ed., Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 28. Tanxuan 談玄, “Doushuai shengdian fanyi shi” 兜率聖典翻譯史 [History of translation of sacred scripture of Tuṣita], Haichaoyin 海潮音 18, no. 2 (February 1937) MFQ 196: 58. 29. Zhuo Zunhong 桌遵宏 and Hou Kunhong 侯坤宏, Chengyi fashi fangtan lu 成一 法師訪談錄 [The Reminiscences of Master Cherng-​yi (sic)] (Taipei: Sanmin 三 民, 2007), 286. 30. “Lü chan mi jing si xing lun” 律禪密淨四行論 [On the four practices of discipline, mediation, esoteric, and pure land], TDQ 1, 1: 358.

501

150

T he C ult o f M aitreya

31. “Dongying caizhen” 東瀛采真錄 [Unfettered wanderings in Japan]. TDQ 19, 29:327. 32. See for example, the Dasheng benshen xindi jing 大乘本生心地經 (T3, 0159: 306a01-​03; 309c21-​22; 315c22-​23; and 326b17-​19) 33. Examples abound, but perhaps the most authoritative was Zhiyi’s Jingtu shi yi lun 淨土十疑論 [Ten queries on the Pure Land] (T47, 1961: 79, b29-​30). 34. Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉, Minguo huidaomen 民國會道門 [Sects and societies of the Republic], Vol 5 of Zhongguo mimi shehui 中國秘密社會 (Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe 福建人民出版社, 2002), 107–​124, 137–​147, and 193–​209. 35. The Fellowship of Goodness embraced the Maternist eschatological vision in which Maitreya was to undertake the final salvation before the end of the world. He was overshadowed in practice, however, by Amitābha, whose name initiates recited, and Lamplighter Buddha (Randeng fo 燃燈佛). According to the Fellowship, Lamplighter had descended as none other than the movement’s founder Peng Huilong 澎迴龍 (1873–​1950) to aid Maitreya’s mission of final salvation together with all deities. There has been some confusion on this point. Lu Zhongwei has claimed that the Fellowship reversed the order of the three Buddhas (Lamplighter, Śākyamuni, and Maitreya), such that Peng was a Maitreya-​figure even though he identified as Lamplighter (Lu, Minguo huidaomen, 86). The movement’s own texts clearly state otherwise (Peng Huilong 彭迴 龍, “Huilong zunshi pudu yulu” 迴龍師尊普度語錄 [Reverend teacher Huilong’s recorded sayings on universal salvation] in Jindai zhongguo minjian zongjiao jingjuan wenxian 近代中國民間宗教經卷文獻 [Scriptures and documents of modern Chinese popular religions], edited by Wang Jianchaun 王見川 and Fan Chunwu 范純武, Vol. 2 [Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 2015], 530). Ownby states that Peng declared himself to be Maitreya in 1929 in response to the KMT’s banning of the Fellowship (David Ownby, “Redemptive Societies in the Twentieth Century,” in Modern Chinese Religion II: 1850–​2015, ed. Vincent Goossaert, Jan Kiely, and Jon Lagerway [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2015], 701). A leader of the Shanghai branch, and perhaps others, did declare that Maitreya had already descended at that time, but they did not declare that he was Peng. Later, following the enthronement of Puyi in Manchukuo, Peng declared him to be the descent of Maitreya (Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉, “Xiejiao Tongshan she 邪教同善社 [The cult Tongshan she], in Lun xiejiao: shoujie xiejiao wenti guoji yantao hui lunwen ji 論邪教: 首屆邪教問題國際研討會論文集 [On cults: proceedings of the first international workshop on the problem of cults], edited by Shehui wenti yanjiu congshu bianji weiyuanhui 社会问题研究丛书编辑委员会 [Nanning: Guangxi renmin chubanshe 广西人民出版社, 2001], 357). Together with the established identification of Peng with Lamplighter suggests that Fellowship leaders were not referring to Peng when they spoke of Maitreya’s descent in 1929. It should be noted, too, that Buddhist critics of the Fellowship of Goodness focused

151

A New Cult for New Buddhists

151

primarily on the movement’s patriarchate (which implied the eclipse of monasticism), its mode of reciting Amitābha’s name, and its method of self cultivation, not Maitreya. See Foshi 佛屍, “Jiepo tongshan she neimu zhi yi” 揭破同 善社黑幕之一 [First exposé of the Fellowshp of Goodness], Fohua xunkan 佛化 旬刊 (2/​1/​1921) MFQB 1: 356–​361; Xianyue 現月, “Pi Tongshan she” 闢同善社 [Exposing the Fellowship of Goodness], Haichaoyin 海潮音 (10/​18/​1924) MFQ 160: 227–​228; Lizhu zhongshen 笠居眾生, “Lun Tongshan she ren yu xuankong fozi zhi quedian” 論同善社人與懸空佛子之缺點 [On the faults of followers of the Fellowship of Goodness and impractical Buddhists], San jue congkan 三 覺叢刊 (3/​1926) MFQ 27: 72–​73; Dixian 諦閑, “Dixian fashi duiyu Tongshan she zhi piping” 諦閑法師對於同善社之批評 [Master Diaxian’s criticism of the Fellowship of Goodness], Foxue banyuekan 佛學半月刊 (9/​1/​1932) MFQ 47: 411; and Fan Gunong 范古農, “Upholding the correct Dharma gate” 護持正法 門, in Gunong Fo xue da wen 古農佛學答問 [Gunong’s questions and answers on Buddhism] (Shanghai: Foxue shuju 佛學書局, 1936). Reprinted on Bore wenhai 般若文海 http://​book.bfnn.org/​article2/​1460.htm, accessed September 27, 2016. Secular articles in Shenbao likewise fail to mention Maitreya. See, for example, Jiang 江, “Tongshan she” 同善社 [Fellowship of Goodness], Shenbao 申報, February 6, 1922. 36. Scholars have remarkably different views of the movement and its putative founder Li Xiangshan 李向善, the monk Puji 普濟 (c. 1850–​1912), who was regarded to be an incarnation of Maitreya. According to Kong Simeng 孔思孟 and Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉, the Way of the Nine Palaces derived from the Eight Trigrams Teachings (Bagua jiao 八卦教). Its true founder was Wang Suxiang 王 真香 (-​1867), who presented herself as an incarnation of the Eternal Mother and initiated Li Xiangshan at the tender age of fifteen, identifying him as an incarnation of Maitreya. Subsequently, Li traveled to Wutai shan, where he left home and took the name Puji 普濟. In Kong and Lu’s view, this allowed the group to evade the ban on the Eight Trigrams Teachings by disguising themselves as Buddhist. This in turn paved the way for the group to spread throughout north and northeast China, even making inroads into officialdom. The movement fractured after Puji’s death in 1912 but remained vital, spawning a series of organizations based in the capital (Kong Simeng 孔思孟 and Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉, “Wanqing shidai Jiugongdao yanjiu” 晚清時代九宮道研究 [Research on late-​Qing period Jiugong dao], Minjian zongjiao 民間宗教 3 (1997): 1–​25). Wang Jianchuan 王見川 argues strongly against this view. Based on newly discovered stele at Wutai shan, he argues that Puji was in fact a relatively orthodox Chan monk devoted to transmitting the lay and monastic precepts and rebuilding monasteries who amassed a substantial and organized lay following. Wang suggests that that lay following included members of Jiugong dao but that Puji himself was not a leader of that movement (Wang Jianchuan 王見

521

152

T he C ult o f M aitreya

川, “Qingmo-​Minchu Wutaishan de puji ji qi jiaotuan” 清末民初五台山的普 濟及其教團 [Wutai shan’s Puji and his religious organizations in the late Qing and early Republic], in Hanren zongjiao, minjian xinyang yu yuyanshu de tansuo 漢人宗教、民間信仰與預言書的探索 [Investigations in Han Chinese religion, popular beliefs, and prophetic books], [Taipei: Boyang wenhua 柏楊文化, 2008], 127–​169). Maitreya did, in fact, play a large role in this movement. One branch of it, the Wutai Shan Puji Buddhist Society (Wutai shan puji fojiao hui 武台山 普濟佛教會 1928), was also deeply involved with orthodox Buddhist circles. Yet no one in those circles seemed to realize that there was anything unorthodox about them. If we adopt Kong and Lu’s perspective, this must be because they had disguised themselves so thoroughly. Wang’s argument, on the other hand, raises the possibility that these subsequent organizations were themselves heterogenous among and perhaps within themselves. Thus although Li Shutian 李書田 (1884–​1945), who founded the Capital Puji Buddhist Society (Jingshi puji fojiao hui 京師普濟佛教會, 1924) declared himself to be a further incarnation of Maitreya (Lu, Minguo huidaomen, 45) and the 1935 Genealogy of the Ninth Incarnation of Maitreya (Mile jiu zhuan jiapu 彌勒九轉家譜) frames its hagiography of Puji within a Maternist theology (“Mile jiu zhuan jiapu” 彌勒九 轉家譜 [Genealogy of the ninth birth of Maitreya], in Jindai zhongguo minjian zongjiao jingjuan wenxian 近代中國民間宗教經卷文獻 [Scriptures and documents of modern Chinese popular religions], ed. Wang Jianchaun 王見川 and Fan Chunwu 范純武, vol. 3, [Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 2015], 426), the Wutai Shan Puji Buddhist Society rebuilt monasteries, funded monastic education, and underwrote Chinese monks’ studies in Tibet (“Puji fojiao hui zai shanxi sheng tichang fojiao da zuo gongde” 普濟佛教會在陝西省提倡佛教大作功德 [The Puji Buddhist Society has made great contributions to the improvement of Buddhism in Shaanxi province], Zhengjue zazhi 正覺雜誌 (5/​16/​1931) MFQ 29: 435–​443) as well as legally opposed the formation of another Puji-​related society, the Wutai Shan Puhua Buddhist Society (Wutai shan puhua fojiao hui 五台山普化佛教會, 1932), on the grounds that it represented a heterodoxy (waidao 外道) that “mixed the three teachings” (Zhu Ziqiao 朱子橋, “Zhu ziqiao xiansheng fu Wang Hongqi xiansheng han 朱子橋朱子橋先生復王鴻起先生函 [Mr. Zhu Ziqiao replies to Mr. Wang Hongqi’s letter], Fojiao pinglun 佛教評論, MFQ 46: 504). This suggests that it may have been simply Buddhist or that an important faction within it was. Regardless, there is no evidence that this movement played any significant role in the reformist cult of Maitreya. 37. On this stereotype, see Barend J. Ter Haar, The White Lotus Teachings in Chinese Religious History (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1992). 3 8. See, for example, “Yu jiang tesheng jushi shu (liu tong)” 與蔣特生居士書 (六 通) [Six letters to the layman Jiang Tesheng], TDQ 17, 26: 228. See also Wenyuan 文淵, “Nanputuo doushuaituo yuan ji” 南普陀兜率陀院記 [Record of the Tuṣita

513

A New Cult for New Buddhists

153

Hall at Nanputuo Monastery], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 8 (September 1931) MFQ 178:485. 39. TDN 215 and 415. 40. He not infrequently spoke of his early spiritual experiences but much less often of his later cultivation. 41. “Lü chan mi jing si xing lun,” TDQ 1, 1: 355–​365. 42. This is a point we return to in c­ hapter 4. 43. Ibid., 365. 44. In the photo Taixu has no beard. According to Yinshun, Taixu shaved it in January of 1935. TDN 377. 45. There is a much better-​known picture of Cihang 慈航 in a similar pose. Until this photo can be dated, which inspired which will remain uncertain. 46. The late-​Qing empress dowager was famously pohotgraphed as the bodhisattva Guanyin and the Qianlong emperor was painted as Manjusri. Elite layman in the Ming and Qing were also sometimes depicted as arhats. Li Yuhang, “Oneself as a Female Deity: Representations of Empress Dowager Cixi as Guanyin,” Nan Nü 14 (2012): 75–​118; Raoul Birnbaum, personal communication, August 15, 2016. 47. “Foxue yuan zhangcheng” 佛學院章程 [Charter of the Institute of Buddhist Studies]. Haichaoyin 海潮音. 3:5 (1922) MFQ 153: 309. 48. The others were Daxing 大醒 (1899–​1952), Zhifeng 芝峰 (1901–​1949), and Fazun 法尊 (1902–​1980). 49. Huijue 會覺, “Doushuai jingtu—​dashi chabi jinian” 兜率淨土—​大師茶毘紀念 [Tuṣita Pure Land—​in memory of the master], Renjian fojiao 人間佛教 no. 6 (May 1947) MFQ 100:459 50. Pittman, Toward a Modern Buddhism, 239. 51. Cihai 慈海. “Wuchang foxueyuan zhi jinkuang” 武昌佛學院之近況 [Recent conditions at the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies], Haichaoyin 海潮音 11, no. 2 (February 1930) MFQ 174: 555–​560. 52. The formal term was “applied yogic practices [dedicated to] Maitreya Bodhisattva” (Mile pusa yuqie jiaxing 彌勒菩薩瑜伽加行). 53. Huijue, “Doushuai jingtu—​dashi chabi jinian,” 459. See also:  TZZ 262 and TDN 142. Jiang Canteng sees these Maitreyan practices as simply a manifestation of Taixu’s drive to differentiate himself from the conservative establishment. While this may well have been part of the attraction, it certainly does not suffice as an explanation. Jiang Canteng 江燦藤, Taixu dashi qianzhuan (1890–​ 1927) 太虛大師前傳 (1890–​1927) [The early life of Master Taixu (1890–​1927)] (Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 1993), 182. 54. Xingzhe 行者, “Wuchang foxueyuan faqi suo ji” 武昌佛學院法七瑣記 [A record of the seven-​day retreat at the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies], Zhengxin 正信 3, no. 19 (March 4, 1934) MFQ 61:142–​144. See also “Wuchang foxueyuan hanjia xiuxue pusa jiaxing qishi” 武昌佛學院寒假修學菩薩加行啟

541

154

T he C ult o f M aitreya

事 [Announcing the winter retreat for the cultivation of supplementary bodhisattva practices at the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies], Zhengxin 正信 2, no. 4 (March 4, 1934). MFQ 61:94. 55. TDN 142. A  partial account was published in Haichaoyin as “Personal Notes Taken on Hearing [the Master’s Lectures on the] Chapter on Knowing Reality” (Zhenshiyi pin qinwen ji 真實義品親聞記) and preserved in the TDQ (6, 7: 214–​237). 56. TDN 171. 57. Yanding 嚴定, “Neiyuan shangpin liu shi zhong dier weiyi bu que shuo” 內院 上品六事中第二威儀不缺說 [A discussion of flawless deportment, the second of the six practices for higher rebirth in the inner court], Haichaoyin 海潮音 5, no. 4 (May 1924) MFQ 159: 73–​75; Wuyi 晤一, “Neiyuan shangpin liu shi zhong dier weiyi bu que shuo” 內院上品六事中第二威儀不缺說 [A discussion of flawless deportment, the second of the six practices for higher rebirth in the inner court], Haichaoyin 海潮音 5, no. 4 (May 1924) MFQ 159: 75; Zhiqing 志 清, “Shuo Neiyuan shangpin liu shi zhong dier weiyi bu que” 說內院上品六 事中第二威儀不缺 [A discussion of flawless deportment, the second of the six practices for higher rebirth in the inner court], Haichaoyin 海潮音 5, no. 6 (July 1924) MFQ 159: 335; and Cuihua 翠華, “Neiyuan shangpin liu shi zhong dier weiyi bu que shuo” 內院上品六事中第二威儀不缺說 [A discussion of flawless deportment, the second of the six practices for higher rebirth in the inner court], Haichaoyin 海潮音 5, no. 7 (September 1924) MFQ 159: 463. 58. On the idea of an “actual canon” see Miriam Levering, ed., Rethinking Scripture:  Essays from a Comparative Perspective (Albany:  SUNY Press, 1989), 13. Erik Hammerstrom discusses this in connection with engagements with microbiology in “Early Twentieth-​Century Buddhist Microbiology and Shifts in Chinese Buddhism’s ‘Actual Canon,’” Theology and Science 10, no. 1 (2012): 3–​18. 59. The Sino-​Tibetan Institute included the Ascent Sutra in its morning service and always recited the name of Maitreya in its services. Kang Jiyao 康寄遙, “Fo shuo mile xia sheng chang fo jing—​fu yan” 佛說彌勒下生成佛經—​附言 [“The sutra spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s descent and attainment of Buddhahood”—​ a note.], Daxiong 大雄. 1 (March 1948) MFQ 105: 445. 60. These included a special silent retreat devoted to the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” undertaken at the Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies when Huijue was on staff there in 1932. “They gathered all the students in the research level (yanjiu renyuan 研究人員) in one room and papered over all the windows. There we established a shrine to Maitreya Bodhisattva with simple offerings. Each person had a small seat and table at a distance of about two yards from everyone else so as not to disturb each other. Except for three meals of rice porridge and an hour to rest after lunch, each day from three in the morning until ten at night was spent in the shrine [cultivating] in two-​hour sessions. After entering and

515

A New Cult for New Buddhists

155

making obeisance to the Buddha, we would take our seats and silently recite the “Chapter” and then engage in contemplation based on the text with the intent to learn in a brief period to engage in the four investigations so that the truth (lijing 理境) of the text would be manifest. This was for those of deep study and required some time to become adept at.” Huijue 會覺, “Doushuai jingtu—​dashi chabi jinian” 兜率淨土—​大師茶毘紀念 [Tuṣita Pure Land—​in memory of the master], Renjian fojiao 人間佛教, no. 6 (May 1947) MFQ 100:459. 61. TDN 300 and 304. 62. The Ascent and Descent Sutras appear along with the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa in the ordinary level, while the advanced level included study of the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra in all divisions and recitation of the Maitreya sutras in the Yogācāra program. “Fojiao jiaoyu xitong ge ji kecheng biao” 佛教教育系統各 級課程表 [Curriculum for all levels of a Buddhist educational system], TDQ 9, 17: 543–​563 63. “Fojiao jiaoyu xitong ge ji kecheng biao,” TDQ 9, 17: 567–​574. The seminary was founded in 1932 on Putuo shan by Kuandao 寬道, who asked Taixu to serve as president (yuanzhang 院長). Shaozhuang 紹奘. “Nanhai foxue yuan gaikuang” 南海佛學苑概況 [A general review of the South Seas Institute of Buddhist Studies], Haichaoyin 海潮音 13, no. 4 (April 1932) MFQ 180: 398–​400. 64. “Fojiao jiaoyu xitong ge ji kecheng biao,” TDQ 9, 17: 574. 65. The original 1932 curriculum called for the study of the Ascent Sutra in year four of the general studies program and focused its advanced program on Yogācāra, devoting the second year to the study of the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra and the cultivation of the four investigations. “Shijie foxue yuan han zang jiaoli yuan jianze” 世界佛學苑漢藏教理院簡則 [The basic regulations of the Sino-​ Tibetan Doctrinal Institute of the World Buddhist Seminary], Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 2, no. 13 (May 1932) MFQ 57: 264–​267. When the school gained government funding in 1936, however, the curriculum was amended to make greater room for Tibetan studies. “Shijie foxue yuan hanzang jiaoli yuan putong ke jiao ke shu mulu” 世界佛學苑漢藏教理院普通科教科書目錄) [Catalogue of courses and texts for general studies at the Sino-​Tibetan Doctrinal Institute], Hanzang jiaoli yuan lian wenjian huibian 漢藏教理院立案文件彙編 [Compendium of documents establishing the Sino-​Tibetan Doctrinal Institute.] (1936) MFQ 80:1–​56. 66. “Fojiao jiaoyu xitong ge ji kecheng biao,” TDQ 9, 17: 570–​571. 67. Kang Jiyao, “Fo shuo mile xia sheng chang fo jing—​fu yan,” 11. 68. The text of a lecture by Tang Dayuan 唐大圓, an important lay ally of Taixu, at the Hubei Institute of Buddhist Studies (Hubei foxue yuan 湖北佛學院) in February 1928 reveals that the students there were using the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School published by Taixu as a textbook. Tang Dayuan 唐大圓. “Yuqie shidi lun zhenshiyi pin jiangyao lu” 瑜伽地論真實義品講錄 [Record of

561

156

T he C ult o f M aitreya

a concise lecture on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” of the “Yogācārabhūmi śāstra”], Haichaoyin 海潮音 9, no. 4 (May 1928) MFQ 170: 183–​184. 69. Lai, “Praying for the Republic,” especially 9–​12. 70. Jiang Canteng 江燦藤, Taixu dashi qianzhuan (1890–​1927) 太虛大師前傳 (1890–​1927) [The early life of Master Taixu (1890–​1927)] (Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新 文豐, 1993), 182. 71. “Cizong san yao xu” 慈宗三要敘 [Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School], Haichaoyin 海潮音 5, no. 1 (February 1924) MFQ158: 181; reprinted in Foyin 佛音 1, no. 2 (March 24, 1924) MFQ 145: 49. 72. “Jushi xuefo zhi chengxu” 居士學佛之程序 [A course of Buddhist study for laity], TDQ 10, 18:  213; and “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun” 建設人間淨土論 [Establishing the pure land on earth], TDQ 14, 24: 405. 73. “Cizong yao zang xu” 慈宗要藏序 [Preface to the essential canon of the Maitreya School], TDQ 19, 30: 768. 74. See Hsu, The Rise of Modern China:  518–​552; and Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 230–​247. 75. Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation:  Questioning Narratives of Modern China. (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1997), 85–​ 115; and Rebecca Nedostup, Superstitious Regimes:  Religion and the Politics of Chinese Modernity (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Asia Center, 2009). See also Holmes Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press 1968), 142–​152; and Huang Yunxi 黃運喜, Zhongguo fojiao jindai fanan yanjiu 中國佛教近代法難研究 [Research on the modern catastrophe of the Dharma in Chinese Buddhism] (Taipei: Fajie chuban 法界出版, 2006). 76. He gave his first lecture on the topic 1928: “Rensheng de foxue” 人生的佛學 [Buddhist Study for Human Life], TDN 255–​256. 77. “Rensheng fojiao zhi mudi” 人生佛教之目的 [The aim of Human Life Buddhism], TDQ 2, 3:234–​237. “Rensheng fojiao de shuoming” 人生佛學的 說明 [An explanation of Human Life Buddhism], TDQ 2, 3:205–​209. See also Hong Jinlian 洪金蓮, Taixu dashi fojiao xiandaihua zhi yanjiu 太虛大師佛教 現代化之研究 [Master Taixu’s modernization of Buddhism] (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe 東初出版社, 1995), 151–​153. 78. Not in 1930 as Pittman would have it. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism, 223. “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth (Jianshe renjian jingtu lun 建設人間淨土論) was written in 1926 (TDN 220). It is “Creating a Pure Land on Earth” (Chuangzao renjian jingtu 剙造人間淨土), appended to the former text in the TDQ, that was published in 1930. 79. “Zhi wu zhihui xiansheng shu” 致吳稚暉先生書 [Letter to Mr. Wu Zhihui], TDQ 17, 26:191. 80. See “Geming dang cong ge xin qi” 革命當從革心起 [The revolution must begin with the reform of the mind], TDQ 13, 22: 1283-​1299; “Shuo geming” 說革命 [Revolution discussed], TDQ 13, 22: 1270-​1277; and “Dui yu zhongguo fojiao

517

A New Cult for New Buddhists

157

geming seng de xunci” 對於中國佛教革命僧的訓詞 [Instructions for the revolutionary monks of Chinese Buddhism], TDQ 9, 17: 596–​604. 81. Taixu once referred to the CCP as “simply a devil mob of wild beasts and poisonous snakes.” Paul E. Callahan, “T’ai-​Hsü and the New Buddhist Movement,” Harvard University: Papers on China no. 6 (1952): 149–​188. 82. Taiwanese tourists today call Xuedou the “Chiang family temple” (Jiangjia miao 蔣家廟). On Chiang’s relationship with Taixu and Xuedou, see Hou Kunhong 候坤宏, “1930 Niandai de fojiao yu zhengzhi:  taixu fashi he jiang jieshi” 1930 年代的佛教與政治:太虛法師和蔣介石 [Buddhism and politics in the 1930s: Master Taixu and Chiang Kai-​Shek], Sichuan shifan daxue xuebao (shehuikexueban) 四川師範大學學報(社會科學版) 33, no. 5 (2006): 126–​128; Wang Yuexi 王月曦, “Budai heshang yu mile daochang” 布袋和尚與彌勒道場 [The monk Budai and Maitreya’s sanctuary], in Budai heshang yu mile wenhua 布袋 和尚與彌勒文化 [The monk Budai and Maitreyan culture], ed. He Jinsong 何勁 松 (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2003), 170; and Mao Bingyue 毛炳岳, “Fenghua xuedou si chunqiu” 奉化雪竇寺春秋 [The annals of Xuedou Monastery in Fenghua], Fayin 法音 45, no. 5 (1988): 41. 83. For praise of Sun, see “Chanzong liuzu yu guomindang zongli” 禪宗六祖與 國民黨總理 [The Sixth Patriarch of Chan and the KMT Premier], TDQ 18, 28:  488–​493. For examples of praise for Chiang, see Hou, “1930 Niandai de fojiao yu zhengzhi: taixu fashi he jiang jieshi,” 129. 84. “Mile xiaorong keju: zhongguo mile hui zhenlie moxing, hua gange wei yubo, heping yongjiu keqi” 彌勒笑容可掬:  中國彌勒會陳列模型, 化干戈為玉帛, 和 平永久可期 [Maitreya’s beaming smile: The Maitreya Society of China displays a model, shield and spear to be turned into jade and silk, lasting peace expected], Shenbao 申報 (July 3, 1928). 85. “Shijie heping mile hui jinwen” 世界和平彌勒會近聞 [Recent news from the World Peace Maitreya Society], Shenbao 申報 (August 17, 1928). 86. “Shijie heping mile hui choubei huiyi” 世界和平彌勒會籌備會議 [World Peace Maitreya Society planning meeting], Shenbao 申報 (July 29, 1929). 87. TZZ 227–​228. 88. Other lectures from this time, however, were published in (poor) English translation. The contents of these lectures suggests that Taixu did not, for the most part, say radically different things to foreign audiences than to Chinese. Most are standard rehearsals of his ideas. See Chou Hsiang-​kuang, ed. T’ai-​Hsü: His Life and Teachings, (Allahabad: Indo-​Chinese Literature Publications 1957). 89. “Huanyou ji” 寰遊記 [Record of my world tour], TDQ 19, 29: 406. Maitreya also figured in Taixu’s stop in Chicago, where he toured the Field Museum. Taixu recounts that he “saw many ancient Chinese Maitreya images in Germany and France and the [Field] Museum had several as well.” Taixu had a photo taken of one of the more complete images, which was printed in Haichaoyin after his return. See page 422 and Haichaoyin 海潮音 10, no. 4, (May 1929) MFQ 172: 347.

581

158

T he C ult o f M aitreya

90. “Cizong san yao xu,” 767. 91. See, for example, “Foshuo wuliang shou jing yaoyi” 佛說無量壽經要義 [The essential import of the sutra spoken by the Buddha on the Buddha of limitless life], TDQ 7, 15: 2409–​2418. 92. Huanren 幻人, quoted in “Zhongguo foxue” 中國佛學 [Chinese Buddhist Studies], TDQ 1, 2: 746–​747. 93. See: Chen Bing 陳兵 and Deng Zimei 鄧子美, Ershi shiji zhongguo fojiao 二十 世紀中國佛教 [Chinese Buddhism in the 20th century] (Taipei: Xiandai chan 現代禪, 2003), 33. 94. “Fo shuo guan mile pusa shang sheng doushuaituo tian jing jiang yao” 佛說觀 彌勒菩薩上生兜率陀天經講要 [Lecture on the essentials of the “sutra spoken by the Buddha on the contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s ascent to Tuṣita Heaven”], TDQ 6, 7: 86–​121. 95. “Cizong de mingyi” 慈宗的名義 [The name “Maitreya School”] TDQ 6, 9: 1365–​1366. 96. Daming 達明, “Wangsheng jingtu yu shang sheng doushuai zhi yanjiu” 往 生淨土與上生兜率之研究 [Research on rebirth in the pure land and ascent to Tushita], Zhengxin 正信 4:9 (July 9, 1934) MFQ 61:324–​327; Daoping 道屏. “Wangsheng doushuai lun” 往生兜率論 [On rebirth in Tushita]. Zhengxin 正 信 3, no. 22 (March 25, 1934) MFQ 61:178–​179; Daoping 道平, “Wangsheng xifang jingtu lun” 往生西方淨土論 [On rebirth in the western pure land] Zhengxin 正信 4, no. 4 (June 4, 1934) MFQ 61: 269–​271; and Hu Zheng 湖徵, “Mile jingtu yu mituo jingtu” 彌勒淨土與彌陀淨土 [Maitreya Pure Land and Amitābha Pure Land], Renjian jue 人間覺 1, no. 5 (October 1936) MFQ 81:68–​ 69, reprinted Fojiao jikan 佛教季刊 1, no. 2 (June 1937) MFQ 87:204–​205. 97. Tianran 天然. “Xie zai wangsheng doushuai lun hou” 寫在往生兜率論後 [Written after “on rebirth in Tushita”]. Zhengxin 正信. 4:6 (June 18, 1934) MFQ 61:291–​295. 98. Apparently no relation to Taixu’s organization of the same name. 99. Ji Shengyi 季聖一. “Bingzi yuandan mile fo dan ji shezhang zhuci” 丙子元旦 彌勒佛誕季社長祝詞 [An address from the soceity’s chairman, Ji [Shengyi], on Maitreya Buddha’s birthday, the first day of the lunar year bingzi]. Jueshe niankan 覺社年刊 3 (March 1936) MFQ 136: 84–​88. 100. Zhang Yiliu 張一留, “Lun wangsheng yu shangsheng” 論往生與上生 [On going for rebirth and ascending for rebirth], Honghua yuekan 弘化月刊 13 (July 1942), MFQB 68: 466–​467. 101. Daoping 道屏, “Lun nianfo” 論念佛 [On Buddha recitation], Jingtu zong yuekan 淨土宗月刊 16 (February 1936) MFQ 77: 204–​205. 102. The society’s membership numbered several dozen and was composed primarily of small businessmen and a few women. Defeng fahui zhuceji deng wenjian 德風法會註冊記等文件 [Registration records, etc. of the Wind of

591

A New Cult for New Buddhists

159

Virtue Dharma Society]. Shanghai Municipal Archives. For background on redemptive societies, see:  Prasenjit Duara. “The Discourse of Civilization and Pan-​Asianism,” Journal of World History 12, no. 1 (2001): 99–​130; and Vincent Goossaert and David A. Palmer, The Religious Question in Modern China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 93–​108. 103. He Jianming misidentifies this figure as a human author. He Jianming, “Luelun zhongguo jindai de mile xinyang he mile guan.” 104. Daxiong pusa 大雄菩薩, Mile daochang gaiyao 彌勒道場概要 [Essentials of Maitreya’s sanctuary] (Shanghai: Defeng fahui 德風法會, 1936). 105. 范古農 Gu nong Fo xue da wen 古農佛學答問 [Gunong’s questions and answers on Buddhism] (Shanghai:  Foxue shuju 佛學書局, 1936). Reprinted on Bore wenhai 般若文海 http://​book.bfnn.org/​article2/​1460.htm, accessed September 27, 2016. 106. Huanxie 幻修 [pseud. Fan Gunong 范古農], “Ping ‘mile daochang zhi gaiyao’ yi shu” 評”彌勒道場之概要”一書 [Review of “an outline of Maitreya’s sanctuary”], Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊. 6:9 (May 1936) MFQ 52:267–​268. 107. The Fahua yun hua mile jingtu fangbian du ren jing 法華蘊化彌勒淨土方便度 人經 [The sutra manifest from concealment within the Lotus on the expedient deliverance of people through Maitreya’s pure land] (Shanghai: Defeng fahui 德風法會, 1936), a text summarizing the orthodox Maitreya narrative that was concealed within the Lotus Sutra and revealed by Great Hero when the time was right. Taixu misremembered or Zhiding misreported this title as Mile du shi jing 彌勒度世經, 108. Zhiding 智定, “Guanyu mile daochang zhi tanhua” 關於彌勒道場之談話 [A conversation on Maitreya’s sanctuary], Zhengxin 正信 8, no. 7–​8 (May 3, 1936) MFQ 62:  359. It is also included in the TDQ (17, 27:  799–​800). It was later republished in the same venue as Fan’s piece: Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊. 6, no. 11 (June 1936) MFQ 52: 332–​333. 109. On this point, see also: “Zenyang fu longhua san hui” 怎樣赴龍華三會 [How to attend the three assemblies of the dragon flower tree]. TDQ 3, 3: 271–​272. 110. It was to include all sutras that focus on Maitreya, all bodhisattva prātimokṣa, an eclectic mix of Yogācāra treatises, and in a fourth “miscellaneous” category a number of ritual texts and histories. Among them are a number of Taixu’s own works. 111. Strictly speaking, this includes the great treatises by Maitreya, Asanga, Vasubhandu, Dharmapāla, Śīlabhadra, and Ci’en. Lesser Yogācāra related works are swept up in the succeeding Full Canon (benzang 本藏). 112. “Cizong yao zang xu” 慈宗要藏序 [Preface to the essential canon of the Maitreya School], TDQ 19, 30: 768–​769. This is not a surprising move in a tradition that asserts “Whatsoever be well spoken, all that is the Word of the Exalted One.” See Graeme MacQueen, “Inspired Speech in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism II,”

601

160

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Religion 11, no. 4 (1981):  303–​319; and “Inspired Speech in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism II,” Religion 12, no. 1 (1982): 49–​65. 113. “Cizong de mingyi” 慈宗的名義 [The name “Maitreya School”], TDQ 6, 9: 1365–​1369. 114. Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China, 173–​179 and 196–​199; Gray Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China (New  York:  Columbia University Press, 2005); and Chen Bing, “The Tantric Revival and Its Reception in Modern China,” in Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries, ed. Monica Esposito (Paris: École française d’Extrême-​Orient, 2008), 387–​427. 115. TDN 186. 116. “Da luo puwu wen” 答羅普悟問 (五則) [Responses to Luo Puwu’s five questions], TDQ 17, 26: 464–​466. This is abstracted from Puwu 普悟 “Jiangzhe you ji” 江浙遊記 [Travels in Jiangsu and Zhejiang], Haichaoyin 13:3 (March 1932) MFQ 180: 292–​293. 117. Hu Zihu 胡子笏 [pseud. Miaoguan 妙觀], “Canshi riji” 餐石日記 [Stone diet diary], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 12 (December 1934) MFQ 189: 118. 118. “Da luo puwu wen”; and “Du can shi riji” 閱餐石日記 [Reading the rock dining diary], TDQ 16, 25: 175. 119. Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China, 121–​127. 120. David Kittelstrom, Scholars of Buddhist Studies Facebook Page, December 2, 2015 https://​www.facebook.com/​groups/​buddhiststudies/​ 121. Whether this explanation included his master’s views is unknown. “Dayong asheli zai wenshu yuan chuanshou pusa jie zhi jisheng 大勇阿闍黎在文殊 院傳授菩薩戒之紀盛 [The grand occasion of Dayong ācārya transmitting the bodhisattva precepts at Wenshu Cloister], Sichuan fojiao xunkan 四川佛教旬刊 no. 19 (November 24, 1925) MFQ 128:137. 122. “Chengdu foxueyuan qing Liu Zhuyuan jiang yuqie jie pin” 成都佛學院請劉 洙源講瑜伽戒品 [The Chengdu Buddhist Seminary invites Liu Zhuyuan to lecture on the ‘chapter on precepts’ of the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra], Fohua xunkan 佛 化旬刊, no. 111 (May 26, 1928) MFQ, 17: 520. 123. “Nenghai fashi jiang pusa jie” 能海法師講菩薩戒 [Master Nenghai lectures on the bodhisattva precepts], Fohua xinwen 佛化新聞, no. 247 (June 16, 1937) MFQ 86: 407; “Nenghai fashi dingqi zai wenshu yuan jiang pusa jie” 能海法 師定期在文殊院講菩薩戒 [Master Nenghai sets date to lecture on bodhisattva precepts at Wenshu Cloister], Fohua xinwen 佛化新聞 no. 253 (October 1, 1942) MFQ 86: 434. On Nenghai’s life and career, see Ester Bianchi, “The ‘Chinese Lama’ Nenghai (1886–​1967): Doctrinal Tradition and Teaching Strategies of a Gelugpa Master in Republican China,” in Buddhism between Tibet and China, ed. Matthew T. Kapstein (Somerville, MA: Wisdom, 2009), 295–​323. 124. “Huabei jushi lin pusa jie zengjin hui” 華北居士林菩薩戒增進會 [North China Lay Buddhist Lodge’s assembly for advancing in the practice of the bodhisttva precepts], Fojiao banyuekan 佛學半月刊, no. 50 (March 1, 1933) MFQ 48: 116.

6 11

A New Cult for New Buddhists

161

125. “Chengdu foxue she mile fahui shusheng” 成都佛學社彌勒法會殊勝 [Chengdu Buddhist Studies Society’s Maitreya Dharma assembly a great success]. Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 6, no. 2 (February 1936) MFQ 59: 110. 126. “Weishan nianfo hui dingqi ban mile fahui” 惟善念佛會定期辦彌勒法會 [The Weishan Buddha-​recitation Society sets date for Maitreya Dharma assembly], Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 6, no. 2 (February 1936) MFQ 59: 111. 127. “Gongqing taixu san zang dashi zai emei shan jiang puxian heng yuan jing chuan mile yuqie jie tongqi” 恭請太虛三藏大師在峨嵋山講普賢行願經傳彌 勒瑜伽戒通啟 [Letter humbly requesting that Tripitaka Master Taixu lecture on the Sutra of Samantabhadra’s Practices and Vows and transmit the Yoga Precepts of Maitreya], Haichaoyin 海潮音 11, no. 6 (June 1930) MFQ 175:437. 128. Taixu太虛. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu bing xu” 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄并序 [Record of a lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa with preface], Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 1 (April 1931) MFQ 57: 3; “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu” 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄 [Record of a lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa], Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊1, no. 2 (May 1931) MFQ 57: 24–​25; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 3 (June 1931) MFQ 57: 48–​49; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 4 (July 1931) MFQ 57: 68–​69; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 5 (August 1931) MFQ 57: 87–​89; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四 川佛教月刊 1, no. 6 (September 1931) MFQ 57: 107–​108; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 7 (October 1931) MFQ 57: 127–​128; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no.  8 (November 1931)  MFQ 57:  147–​148; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no.  9 (December 1931)  MFQ 57:  169–​170; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 10 (January 1932) MFQ 57: 189–​191; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 11 (March 1932) MFQ 57: 209; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 1, no. 13 (May 1932) MFQ 57: 257–​258; Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 2, no. 6 (June 1932) MFQ 57: 277–​278; and Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 2, no.  7 (July 1932)  MFQ 57:  297–​299. The same journal began to reprint this commentary during the war but quit after just one installment: Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛教月刊 9, no. 8(August 1939) MFQ 60: 122–​124. 129. Nenghai 能海, “Pusa jie shesong” 菩薩戒攝頌 [Verse summary of the bodhisattva precepts], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 1 (February 1931) MFQ 177: 113–​ 115. Fazun 法尊, “Pusa jie pin shi” 菩薩戒品釋 [Explanation of the chapter on bodhisattva precepts], Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no. 3 (March 1935) MFQ 190:  90–​107; Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no.  4 (April 1935)  MFQ 190:  252–​265; Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no. 5 (May 1935) MFQ 190: 368–​382; Haichaoyin 海潮 音 16, no. 6 (June 1935) MFQ 190: 531–​546; and Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no. 7 (July 1935) MFQ 191: 107–​123. 130. Fazun served as interpreter. Fazun 法尊. “Xizang chuan mile xiufa” 西藏傳彌 勒修法 [A Method of Maitreyan cultivation in the Tibetan tradition], Haichaoyin 海潮音 18, no. 1 (January 1937) MFQ 195: 509.

621

162

T he C ult o f M aitreya

131. “Cizong de minyi,”1367–​1368. 132. Fazun, “Xizang chuan mile xiufa,” 496–​509; Tanxuan 談玄, “Xian mi rongtong doushuai jingtu guan” 顯密融通兜率淨土觀 [A perspective on the Tuṣita pure land that fuses Exoteric and Esoteric], Haichaoyin 海潮音 18, no. 1 (January 1937) MFQ 195: 456–​476. 133. This text was said to be at the publishers in the summer of 1933. “Cizong xuehui jinkuang” 慈宗學會近況 [Update on the Maitreya Study Association], Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 6 (June 1933) MFQ 184:232. 134. Maitreya Bodhisattva, Dharma Prince,/​has not eaten meat since arousing the mind of bodhi,/​thus he is known at the Kind One./​In order to ripen sentient beings/​he dwells in the fourth heaven of Tuṣita /​in a wish-​fulfilling hall of forty-​nine stories/​where through day and night he expounds the practice of nonretrogression/​and innumerable expedients to deliver men and gods. 135. “Zhengxin hui yuan meiri bixiu zhi chang ke” 正信會員每日必修之常課 [The daily rites necessary for members of the Right Faith Society], TDQ 10, 18: 278–​281. 136. Yu yu 虞愚 and Jichen 寄塵, Xiamen nanputuo si zhi 廈門南普陀寺志 [Gazetteer of Xiamen’s Nanputuo Monastery] (Yangzhou, China:  Jiangsu guangling guji keyin she 江蘇廣陵古籍刻印社, 1996), 94–​97. 137. “Zhengxin hui yuan meiri bixiu zhi chang ke,” TDQ 10, 18: 279–​280. 138. “Zhengxin hui yuan meiri bixiu zhi chang ke,” TDQ 10, 18: 96. 139. For a similar dynamic, see Sumathi Ramaswamy, “The Goddess and the Nation: Subterfuges of Antiquity, the Cunning of Modernity,” in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, ed. Gavin Flood (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 551–​568. 140. “Cizong xiuxi yi” 慈宗修習儀 [The Rites for Regular Practice of the Maitreya School]. TDQ 9, 17: 537–​541 141. “Cizong xiuxi yi,” TDQ 9, 17: 541. 142. Translation of this title is tentative. 143. Jingyan 淨嚴. “Pusa jieben (songyi hehui biaojie) he kan yuanqi xu” 菩薩 戒本 (誦儀科會表解) 合刊緣起序 [Preface on the origin of the bodhisattva prātimokṣa (with rites for recitation, divided text, and annotation)], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 1 (January 1931) MFQ 177: 112–​113. 144. Jingyan 淨嚴, Yuqie pusa jieben (songyi hehui biaojie) he kan 菩薩戒本 (誦儀科 會表解) 合刊 [Bodhisattva prātimokṣa (with rites for recitation, divided text, and annotation)] (Beijing: Zhongyang kejing yuan 中央刻經院, 1931), 5–​7. 145. Li Xiangping 李向平, Taikyo oshō shukyō kōkyō interi ka?—​ gendai chugoku bukkyō no sezokuka tokuchō 太虚和尚:宗教型公共インテリ か?—​—現 ​ 代中国仏教の世俗化特徴 [The monk Taixu: a religious public intellectual?—​a feature of the secularization of modern Chinese Buddhism], translated by Niu Litao 牛黎濤, Bukkyō bunka gakkai kiyō 仏文化学会紀要 no. 13 (2004), 1–​17.

613

A New Cult for New Buddhists

163

146. Francesca Tarocco, The Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism: Attuning the Dharma (London: Routledge, 2005), 10. 147. The first hall of a Chinese monastery typically enshrines an image of Maitreya in the form of Budai with the four Heavenly Kings standing guard against the wall on each side. Oddly, the hall is almost universally named for the four guardian deities, rather than the more important bodhisattva. Interestingly, Lingyan shan Monastery 靈巖山寺 made a similar switch under the Pure Land master Yinguang. The monastery changed the name of the hall and enshrined a princely image rather than Budai. He Jianming sees this as evidence that Yinguang was propagating the cult of Maitreya. This reads too much into it. Yet it does suggest that Taixu’s Maitreya School, along with the wave of interest in Yogācāra and perhaps Tibetan Buddhism, were shifting perceptions of the bodhisattva. See He Jianming, “Luelun zhongguo jindai de mile xinyang he mile guan.” 148. Reprinted in:  Yongliang 永良, “Taixu dashi zai lingyin si jiang jing shengkuang” 太虛大師在靈隱寺講經盛況 [The grand affair of the great Master Taixu’s sutra lecture at Lingyin Monastery], Haichaoyin 15, no. 2 (February 1934) MFQ 186:284; and untitled wire story from Zhengxin 正信3, no.  6 (December 3, 1933) MFQ 60:462. For a photo of the occasion see Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 2 (February 1943), MFQ 186: 174. 149. Moru 默如, “Zai minnan foxue yuan wu nian lai zhi huigu” 在閩南佛學院五 年來之回顧 [Reminiscences of five years at the Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 3 (March 1934) MFQ 186: 415 150. Huijue 會覺. Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄 [A record of a lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa]. Zhengxin 正信 2, no. 1 (January 15, 1933) MFQB 43:162–​164. 151. “Fenghua xuedou si zhi jianshe” 奉化雪竇寺之建設 [Building up Xuedou monastery in Fenghua], Haichaoyin 海潮音 17, no. 3 (March 1936) MFQ 193: 117. 152. Huijue. “Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu,” 164. 153. Kang Jiyao, “Fo shuo mile xia sheng chang fo jing—​fu yan,” 445. 154. “Gongqing taixu san zang dashi zai emei shan jiang puxian heng yuan jing chuan mile yuqie jie tongqi,” 437. The first part of his trip—​unfortunately prior to his lecture on the precepts—​was reported in a later issue: “Taixu fashi fu chuan hongfa xuji” 太虛法師赴川宏法續記 [Record of Master Taixu going to Sichuan to spread the Dharma, continued], Haichaoyin 海潮音 11, no. 10 (October 1930) MFQ 176: 265–​267. See also TDN 313. 155. Huijue, “Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu.” 156. Also listed were Fafang 法舫, Jingyan 靜嚴 (possibly a typo for Jingyan 淨嚴 who edited the ritual edition of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa), Chenkong 塵空, Weifang 葦舫, Yongxue 永學, Yutan 雨曇, Shuqing 曙清, Yangbo 養 波, Xinyue 心月, Zhi’an 止安, Daoping 道屏 (who composed the intemperate

641

164

T he C ult o f M aitreya

polemic for the Maitreya School), Yanran 嚴然, Jidu 濟廣, Cifang 慈舫, Zhiding 智定, Juemin 覺民, and Huitong 慧通 157. “Chuanshou pusa jie yi cheng” 傳授菩薩戒儀程 [Program for the Rite of Transmitting the Bodhisattva Precepts], Zhengxin 正信 5, no. 20 (February 18, 1935) MFQB 43: 377. 158. Gregory Adam Scott, “Conversion by the Book: Buddhist Print Culture in Early Republican China” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2013); James Brooks Jessup, “The Householder Elite Buddhist Activism in Shanghai, 1920–​1956” (Ph.D. diss, University of California, Berkeley 2010), 49–​59; Lai, “Praying for the Republic”; Paul R. Katz, Religion in China and Its Modern Fate (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2014), c­ hapter 2; and Tarocco, Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism, 59–​63. 159. Scott, “Conversion by the Book,” 2–​3; “Jushi xue fo zhi chengxu” 居士學佛之 程序 [The stages of lay Buddhist study], TDQ 10, 18: 205 160. “Taixu fashi zhushu zhi jieshao” 太虛法師著述之介紹 [Introducing Master Taixu’s works]. Haichaoyin 海潮音 11, no. 9 (September 1930) MFQ 176: 144 and “Wuchang foxueyuan fojing liutongchu chuban shumu guanggao” 武昌佛 學院佛經流通處出版書目廣告 [Advertisement for the catalogue of books published by the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies office for the circulation of scripture], Zhengxin 正信 1, no. 8 (July 5, 1932) MFQ 60: 290. 161. “Cizong yaozang mulu” 慈宗要藏目錄 [Catalogue of the Essential Canon of the Maitreya School], TDQ 19, 29: 5–​11. 162. Yu yu and Jichen, Xiamen nanputuo si zhi, 61. 163. Gregory Adam Scott, The Digital Catalogue of Chinese Buddhism http://​bib.buddhiststudies.net/​item/​1098.html. 164. James Brooks Jessup, “The Householder Elite Buddhist Activism in Shanghai, 1920–​ 1956” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2010), 56. See also: Tarocco, Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism, 59–​63. 165. Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊, no. 55 (May 16, 1933) MFQ 48: 238; and no. 56 (June 1, 1933) MFQ 48: 264. 166. “Guan mile shang sheng jing jiang yao” 觀彌勒上生經講要 [A lecture on the essentials of the Sutra on the Contemplation of Maitreya’s Ascent], Foxue chuban jie 佛學出版界, no. 3 (February 1934) MFQ 64: 424. 167. On this mutualism, see Tarocco, Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism, 61. 168. Foxue banyuekan 佛學半月刊 55 (May 16, 1933)  MFQ 48:  238; 56 (June 1, 1933) MFQ 48: 264; and Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 5 (May 1933) MFQ 184: 124. 169. Of seventeen books authored by Taixu that Buddhist Books published, only three required a second print run. The others were 佛乘宗要論 Fo sheng zong yao lun (1928 and 1933), 唯識三十論紀聞 Wei shi san shi lun ji wen (both in

615

A New Cult for New Buddhists

165

1930). In addition, 金剛般若波羅蜜經講錄 Jin gang bo re po luo mi jing jiang lu (1931 and 1932). Scot, Digital Catalogue. 170. It is listed in the margins of Buddhist Studies Books’ periodical Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊, along with other publications. Foxue banyue kan, no.  298 (April 1, 1944) MFQB 66:401. 171. Beijing tushuguan. Minguo shiqi zong mulu. Vol. 2, 24. 172. Changxing 常惺, “Fo shuo fa miejin jing ji mile cheng fo jing heyin yuanqi” 佛說法滅盡經及彌勒成佛經合印緣起 [The origins of the publication in one volume of the sutra spoken by the Buddha on the complete extinction of the Dharma and the sutra on Maitreya’s achievement of Buddhahood], Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊 6:22 (Novermber 1936) MFQ 53: 156; Changxing 常 惺, “Guan mile shang sheng jing jiang yao xu” 觀彌勒上生經講要序 [Preface to “Lecture on the essentials of the Ascent Sutra”] TDQ 19, 30: 928–​930 173. Lai, “Praying for the Republic”; Tarocco, Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism, 75. 174. On the early years of Haichaoyin, see: Gregory Adam Scott, “Conversion by the Book: Buddhist Print Culture in Early Republican China” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2013), 250–​265. On the role of Buddhist Books, see James Brooks Jessup, “The Householder Elite Buddhist Activism in Shanghai, 1920–​1956” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2010), 56–​57. 175. J. Brooks Jessup, personal communication, September 1, 2015. 176. Lü Huicheng 呂慧成, “Fojiao zhengxin hui minguo ershisan nian jiu yue zhi shier yue si ge yue lai zhengli huiwu baogao shu” 佛教正信會民國二十 三年九月至十二月四個月來整理會務報告書 [Buddhist Right Faith Society’s report on reorganization undertaken over four months from September to December  1934], Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no. 2 (February 1935) MFQ 189: 527–​532. 177. This excludes the four student essays on deportment discussed previously as well as news items. It also excludes articles responding to the Maitreya School. 178. Jingyan 淨嚴, “Cizong sanyao yuqie pusa jieben tongxi biao” 慈宗三要瑜伽 菩薩戒本統系表 [Systematic chart of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa of the Maitreya School’s Three Essentials], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 3 (April 1931) MFQ 177: 375–​379; Jingyan 淨嚴, “Pusa jieben (songyi hehui biaojie) he kan yuanqi xu” 菩薩戒本(誦儀科會表解)合刊緣起序 [Preface on the origin of the bodhisattva prātimokṣa (with rites for recitation, outlined text, and chart)] Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 1 (January 1933) MFQ 177: 112–​113; and Mingxing 明性, “Yuqie pusa jieben yu fanwang pusa jieben bijiao zhi yanjiu” 瑜伽菩薩戒 本與梵網菩薩戒本比較之研究 [Comparative research on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and the Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa] Haichaoyin 海潮 音 16, no. 10 (October 1935) MFQ 191: 512–​518; and Huijue. Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu.

6 61

166

T he C ult o f M aitreya

179. Tanxuan 談玄, “Doushuai shengdian fanyi shi” 兜率聖典翻譯史 [History of translation of sacred scripture of Tushita] Haichaoyin 海潮音 18, no. 2 (February 1937) MFQ 196: 58–​67. 180. Nianxi 念西, “Mile fo dashi yinyuan ji” 彌勒佛大事因緣記 [Record of the causes and conditions of the great affairs of Maitreya Buddha], Fohaideng 佛海 燈. 2, no. 3 (January 1937) MFQ 79: 373–​375. 181. Since the title indicates that in was written in last lunar month of Minguo 23 and the text was published in February 1935, it is likely that the author is mixing the lunar and solar calendars. 182. Zhang Shenghui 張聖慧, “Min ershi san nian la yue zai wuchang guizhou zhong duju yi shi xiuxi taixu dashi suo guiding zhi weishiguan benyi po jue jing xing guo san rongtong wu ai zhi miao yuan yi zhenshi yi pin pusa jieben ji mile shang sheng jing zhi yong shang xia ping quan yun lian cheng sanshi jue jin zhi” 民二十三年臘月在武昌歸舟中獨居一室修習太虛大師所規 定之唯識觀本儀頗覺境行果三融通無礙之妙爰依真實義品菩薩戒本及彌勒 上生經之義用上下平全韻聯成三十絕謹質 [On the last lunar month of 1934 in solitary retreat in Guizhou, Wuchang [I]‌practiced the fundamental rites of Cconsciousness-​only contemplation delineated by the Great Master Taixu and glimpsed the marvel of the unobstructed interpenetration of the Three Essentials whereupon based on the import of the Chapter on Knowing Reality, the Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, and the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent, [I] used the rising, falling, level, and whole tones to weave them into thirty simple verses], Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no. 2 (February 1935) MFQ 189: 499–​503. 183. On the use of images in Chinese Buddhist periodicals, see: Tarocco, Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism, 85–​86. 184. Chisong 持松, “Fojiao zaoxiang fashi xu” 佛教造像法式序 [Preface to methods for crafting Buddhist images], Foxue banyuekan 佛學半月刊 150 (May 1, 1937) MFQ 53: 458. See also the note appended to another image of Maitreya’s “true form” in Hongci foxueyuan niankan 弘慈佛學院年刊 3, no.  2 (December 8, 1930) MFQ 27: 112. 185. “Meiguo zhijiage feierte bowuyuan suozang zhongguo gu mile xiang” 美國 芝加哿費爾特博物院所藏中國古彌勒像 [Ancient Maitreya image collected by the Field Museum in Chicago, America]. Haichaoyin 海潮音 10, no. 4 (May 1929) MFQ 172: 347; and “Danglai xiasheng mile zunfo” 當來下生彌勒尊佛 [The revered Buddha Maitreya who is to come], Haichaoyin 海潮音15, no. 1 (January 1934) MFQ 186: 7. 186. “Doushuai neiyuan mile rulai xiang” 兜率內院彌勒如來像 [Image of Maitreya Tathāgata in Tuṣita’s Inner Court]. Haichaoyin 海潮音 18, no. 1 (January 1937) MFQ 195: 413; and Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 5 (June 1931) MFQ 178: 8. 187. Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 1 (January 1934) MFQ 186: 4. 188. The stated goal for retreatants in the Maitreya shrine was that they might in a brief time cultivate bodhisattva mind and become practiced enough in these

617

A New Cult for New Buddhists

167

methods that they may be a guide for behavior in social service. “Dingqi xiuxue yuqie pusa fa zhengqiu tongdao” 定期修學瑜伽菩薩法徵求同道 [Seeking fellow practitioners for fixed-​period cultivation of the yoga bodhisattva methods]. Zhengxin 正信 2, no. 1 (January 15, 1933) MFQB 43: 167; and “Wuchang foxueyuan hanjia xiuxue pusa jiaxing qishi” 武昌佛學院寒假修學菩薩加行啟事 [Announcing the winter retreat for the cultivation of supplementary bodhisattva practices at the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies], Zhengxin 正信 2, no. 4 (March 4, 1934) MFQ 61: 94. 189. The ads appear in all different parts of the page and in all shapes and sizes, and they appear frequently but irregularly, suggesting that the vagaries of layout may have determined when they were included. 190. Zhengxin 正信 3, no. 1 (October 29, 1933) MFQ 60: 421; 3, no. 2 (November 5, 1933) MFQB 43: 278; 3, no. 8 (December 10, 1933) MFQ 61: 21; 3, no. 13 (January 21, 1934) MFQ 61: 70; 3, no. 15 (February 2, 4, 1934) MFQ 61: 94; 3, no.  16 (February 11, 1934)  MFQ 61:  106; 3, no.  19 (March 4, 1934)  MFQ 61:  146; 3, no.  21 (March, 18, 1934)  MFQ 61:  173; 3, no.  22 (March 25, 1934)  MFQ 61:  186; 3, no.  23 (April 1, 1934)  MFQ 61:  198; 3, no.  24 (April 8, 1934) MFQ 61: 209; 3, no. 25 (April 15, 1934) MFQ 61: 222; 4, no. 6 (June 18, 1934) MFQ 61: 296; 4, no. 7 (June 25, 1934) MFQ 61: 308; 4, no. 8 (July 2, 1934) MFQ 61: 311; 4, no. 9 (July 9, 1934) MFQ 61: 333; 4, no. 10 (July 23, 1934) MFQ 61: 345; 4, no. 12 (August 6, 1934) MFQ 61: 369; 4, no. 13 (August 13, 1934) MFQ 61: 381; 4, no. 14 (August 20, 1934) MFQ 61: 393; and 4, no. 15–​ 17 (September 30, 1934) 61: 440. 191. “Zhengxin huiyuan mei ri bi xiu zhi changke” 正信會員每日必修之常課 [The daily rites necessary for members of the Right Faith Society], TDQ 10:18: 278–​ 281. Originally published in Zhengxin 正信 2, no. 11 (July 7, 1933). 192. A report of its establishment states that its facilities included a recitation hall (nian fo tang 念佛堂) and that group cultivation the first year included two seven-​day recitation retreats (fo qi 佛七). Moreover, affiliated groups in the area included nine groups calling themselves recitation halls. Li Zongtang 李宗唐, “Hankou fojiao hui chuangshi ji” 漢口佛教會創始記 [Record of the creation of the Hankou Buddhist Society], Haichaoyin 海潮音 4, no. 5 (May 1923) MFQ 156:  224–​226. A  1930 report on the year’s activities paints a similar picture. “Fojiao zhengxin hui yi nian zhi gongzuo baogao” 佛教正信會一年之工作報 告 [Report on the Hankou Right Faith Society’s work this year], Haichaoyin 海 潮音 11, no. 9 (September 1930) MFQ 176: 158–​159. 193. See for example the1935 report on the society’s reorganization: Lü Huicheng, “Fojiao zhengxin hui minguo ershisan nian jiu yue zhi shier yue si ge yue lai zhengli huiwu baogao shu.” 194. On the relationship between Taixu and his lay following in Hankou, see Jiang, Taixu dashi qianzhuan, 176, 179, 185–​186. 195. Also known as Yu Foxin 虞佛心 and Yu Deyuan 虞德元.

681

168

T he C ult o f M aitreya

196. XFRC 1371-​1373; and Yu Deyuan 虞德元. “Renjian fojiao de huzhu jichu” 人間 佛教的互助基礎 [The foundation of mutual aid in Human Realm Buddhism], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 1 (January 1934) MFQ 186: 98–​104. 197. XFRC 1582 and TDN 222. 198. “Yang fahui shuo guiyi.” 揚法會說皈依 [Refuges preached at Dharma assembly], Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 1 (January 1933) MFQ 183: 118; “Cizong yao zang xu” 慈宗要藏序 [Preface to the essential canon of the Maitreya School], TDQ 19, 30: 768–​769. See also TDN 352. A photo of the refuge takers can be found in Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 2 (February 1933) MFQ 183: 132. 199. “Cizong xuehui jinkuang” 慈宗學會近況 [Update on the Maitreya Study Association], Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 6 (June 1933) MFQ 184: 232. 200. Moru provides a very brief account of these events from his point of view in Moru, “Zai minnan foxue yuan wu nian lai zhi huigu.” 201. Including Hong Xuetang 洪雪堂 the association’s executive and a local paper baron; Chen Dingmo 陳定謨, an academic; Cai Jitang 蔡吉堂, a very active lay Buddhist and organizer of the Buddhist New Youth in Xiamen; Su Huichun 蘇慧純, an important lay follower of Taixu and a member of the Buddhist New Youth in Xiamen; Luo Dan 羅丹, a publisher; Chen Cunyao 陳存瑤, a middle school principle; and Chen Huiqing 陳慧卿. 202. “Cizong xuehui jinkuang” 慈宗學會近況 [Update on the Maitreya Study Association], Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 8 (August 1933) MFQ 184: 521–​522. Republished as: “Nanputuo si cizong xuehui jinkuang” 南普陀寺慈宗學會近 況 [Update on the Maitreya Study Association of Nanputuo Monastery], Weiyin 威音 no. 51 (September 1933) MFQ 39: 462. 203. “Taixu dashi nan xia hongfa zhisheng” 太虛大師南下宏法誌盛 [Record of the grand occasion of the great Master Taixu’s trip south to spread the Dharma], Haichaoyin 海潮音 17, no. 1 (January 1936) MFQ 192: 355. 204. Shenghui 聖輝, ed. Minnan foxue yuan (1925–​2005) 閩南佛學院 (1925–​2005) [The Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies (1925–​2005)] (Xiamen:  Minnan foxue yuan 閩南佛學院, 2005), 6. 205. This is almost certainly a Dharma name. I have been unable to find any other information about him. 206. Ma Miaoguang 馬妙光, “Ma Miaoguang jushi han” 馬妙光居士函 [Letter from Layman Ma Miaoguang], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15 no. 2 (February 1934) MFQ 186: 279. 207. Unfortunately, I have been unable to identify any of them. 208. Ma Miaoguang 馬妙光, “Tongcheng cizong xuehui shang ben hui daoshi han” 桐城慈宗學會上本會導師函 [Letter from the Tongcheng Maitreya Study Association to the guiding teacher of this society], Zhengxin 正信 6, no. 11 (June 10, 1935) MFQ 62:192.

6 91

A New Cult for New Buddhists

169

209. Cihang 慈航. “Fu tongcheng cizong xuehui han” 復桐城慈宗學會函 [Response to a letter from the Tongcheng Maitreya Study Association], Zhengxin正信 9, no. 3 (August 3, 1938) MFQ 63:19–​20. 210. “Benbao duzhe zhujun qing zhuyi! Foci yaochang yuan yu zhujun jieyuan zeng pin” 本報讀者諸君請注意!佛慈藥廠願與諸君結緣贈品 [Attention gentle readers! The Buddha’s Kindness Pharmaceutical Factory wishes to establish karmic affinity with a gift]. Shenbao 申報 (May 3, 1933). 211. A wonderful lake in Jambudvīpa, north of the Himalayas. 212. Wenyuan 文淵, “Nanputuo doushuaituo yuan ji” 南普陀兜率陀院記 [Record of the Tuṣita Hall at Nanputuo Monastery], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 8 (September 1931) MFQ 178: 484–​485. 213. “Cizong yao zang xu” 慈宗要藏序 [Preface to the essential canon of the Maitreya School], TDQ 19, 30:  768. Dongchu describes it thus:  “The Hall is over ten feet tall and painted with whitewash. Clean, bright, and elegant, it delights the heart and eyes. Within there is a Buddha Hall with a Maitreya School Shrine enshrining Maitreya Tathāgata [before whom] is offered flowers and fruit. The facilities are most elegant. Each time Taixu returns to the monastery, he engages in personal practice here, because he is the Master propagating the Maitreya School in Chinese Buddhism. There is also a parlor with landscape photography covering the walls. . . . In the back there is a bedroom, empty like Vimalakirti’s.” Dongchu東初, “Nanputuo you ji” 南普陀遊記 [Travel notes from Nanputuo], in Nanputuo si zhi, 177. 214. Wenyuan, Nanputuo doushuaituo yuan ji, 484–​485. See also a pair of poems by Daxing and Nianxi eulogizing the Hall in the Xiamen Buddhist magazine Awakening in the Human Realm (Renjian jue 人間覺), both of which suggest an identification between Taixu and Maitreya. Daxing 大醒, “Nanputuo doushuaituo yuan ti bi” 南普陀兜率陀院題壁 [Inscription on the wall of the Nanputuo Tuṣita Hall], Renjian jue 人間覺 2, no. 11 (June 5, 1937) MFQ 81: 458; and Nianxi 念西, “He qian yun” 和前韻 [Poem in response], Renjian jue 人間覺 2, no. 11 (June 5, 1937) MFQ 81: 458. 215. Changxing 常惺, “Guan mile shang sheng jing jiang yao xu” 觀彌勒上生經 講要序 [Preface to “Lecture on the essentials of the Ascent Sutra”], TDQ 19, 30: 928–​930. 216. Dazan 達讚, “Xueshan dusui tingjiang mile shang sheng jing ji” 雪山度歲 聽講彌勒上生經記 [Notes on attending the lecture on the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent [given] at Xue[dou] shan for the new year], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 3 (March 1934) MFQ 186: 435. 217. “Fenghua xuedou si zhi jianshe” 奉化雪竇寺之建設 [Building up Xuedou monastery in Fenghua], Haichaoyin 海潮音 17, no. 3 (March 1936) MFQ 193: 117.

701

170

T he C ult o f M aitreya

218. See “Guanyu mile daochang zhi tanhua” 關于彌勒道場之談話 [A conversation on Maitreya’s sanctuary], TDQ 17, 27: 799; and “Fota de guangming” 佛塔的光 明 [The glory of the stupa], TDQ 18, 28: 561. He also seems to have discussed the notion of Maitreya’s special connection, apparently more positively, in the course of a Lunar New Year lecture on the Ascent Sutra at Xuedou. Dazan, “Xueshan dusui tingjiang mile shang sheng jing ji,” 435. 219. Dazan, “Xueshan dusui tingjiang mile shang sheng jing ji,” 433.

171

4

Bodhisattva of Progress

Introduction We have now established that the cult of Maitreya was in fact a significant part of the activities of the reform faction during Taixu’s lifetime. We have made conjectures as to its proximate causes and have sketched out the contours of its development. In so doing, however, we have largely skirted the central issue. Why should Taixu have formulated such a theology in the first place? What made it attractive to himself and others? Here I argue that the cult of Maitreya represents a further synthesis of the core values that animated Taixu in his radical period. Prompted by renewed interest in the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra (especially that of Zhang Taiyan), the newly discovered murals of Dunhuang, and perhaps Japanese Buddhism and Buddhology, Taixu’s attention was turned to comparatively marginalized strains of the Buddhist tradition, which contain indigenous analogues of some of the core anarchist values that fired his imagination as a young man. In Taixu’s interpretation we find a convergence and realignment of Buddhist and anarchist values to form a new constellation oriented by the hypergoods of Buddhahood and utopia, perfected self and perfected society. This new constellation represents a more stable synthesis, rooted more organically in the Buddhist tradition, yet the constitutive values nevertheless remain in a degree of tension that reveals their distinct sources. As we noted in the previous chapter, Taixu himself identifies the origins of his Maitreya cult with his collation of three texts as the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School in 1924. Our analysis of the Maitreya School’s theology and practice is thus organized around these three “essential” texts and Taixu’s commentarial lectures on them, though we draw upon the full collection of Taixu’s Maitreyan writings. This raises a few methodological issues, however.

721

172

T he C ult o f M aitreya

The first issue is that of criteria. If we are to argue that Taixu found in the Maitreyan texts indigenous analogues to values that motivated him as a young radical, we must establish what will count as evidence of that. The first criterion is simply resemblance of certain passages in the root texts with certain anarcho-​socialist concepts. This may appear a superficial standard, but it is nevertheless important. There are in fact statements in these texts that have at least apparent similarity with radical doctrines. These, I argue, are part of why Taixu was attracted to these texts, rather than, for instance, Pure Land sutras. By itself, any individual instance of such resemblance may be unpersuasive, but the cumulative effect across the three texts he selected cannot be attributed to coincidence. Taixu’s commentary provides additional criteria. Oftentimes his comments will provide confirmation, implicit or explicit, that he saw the commonality of the text with radical values, though they are never labeled as anarchist or socialist. The most definitive evidence will be those cases where Taixu augments this resemblance in his commentary, exaggerating commonalities, finding similarities where there are none, and even directly contradicting the text in the service of an interpretation. In order to make these textual layers clear, passages or concepts from the root text are designated as “the root text,” “the text,” or the “Chapter,” and so on. Taixu’s interpretations will be marked with “the commentary says” or “Taixu states,” and so on. Another issue is that of context. Like most of his works, nearly all of Taixu’s Maitreyan commentaries and essays are occasional pieces, delivered orally, to different audiences. That is, there is no one work that sets out to establish a systematic Maitreyan theology. Moreover, two of the essentials, the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, have importance that is not strictly limited to their role in the Maitreya School. Thus, for instance, one might object that Taixu’s commentary on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” which was delivered to his students at the Minnan Buddhist Seminary, should be seen as simply an explication of Yogācāra rather than the Maitreya School. This need not worry us overmuch. Whatever the context, we would expect Taixu’s explanation to convey his view of the core import of the text. Thus even if he was not lecturing on a text specifically as a Maitreyan text, the significance of its inclusion in the Three Essentials should nevertheless be clear. Moreover, we have established in the preceding chapter that Maitreyan practices were actually pervasive in Taixu’s movement. Thus he was addressing audiences who were well aware of the significance these texts had in the cult. Another potential pitfall is falling into a synchronic mode of analysis that treats Taixu’s Maitreyan theology as an ahistorical “system of thought.” Yet although each of the major commentaries on which this chapter focuses

713

Bodhisattva of Progress

173

was delivered toward the beginning of the second phase of the cult’s development—​1929, 1930, and 1932, respectively for the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, and the Sutra on the Contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tuṣita Heaven—​there are sufficient writings available from throughout the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s to provide some sense of historical development. Indeed, our examination of these texts will allow us to show important shifts from the first phase to the second.

The Three Essentials With that established, let us turn now to the texts at hand. According to the “Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School”—​the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” (Zhenshi yi pin 真實義品), the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa (Yuqie pusa jieben 瑜伽菩薩戒本), and the Sutra on the Contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tuṣita Heaven (Guan mile pusa shangsheng doushuai tian jing 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經)—​are respectively the object (jing 境), practice (xing 行), and fruit (guo 果) of the Maitreya School. This rubric, derived from exegesis of the Thirty Verses on Consciousness-​Only (Weishi sanshi song 唯識三十頌) and the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (Treatise Establishing Consciousness-​Only), subsumes the entirety of the path to Buddhahood. The “object” refers to the object of cognition, “practice” to the methods of cultivation, and “fruit” to the attainment of advanced stages of the path. This portrays the essentials as an integrated sequence, and some of Taixu’s writings attempt to gloss them as such.1 Yet, in fact, there is very little actually tying them together beyond their associations with Maitreya. Instead we shall see that they reflect a cluster of values derived from Taixu’s anarchist days.

The Object—​The “Chapter on Knowing Reality” We begin with the most difficult and abstruse of the Three Essentials, the “Chapter on Knowing Reality.” As befits its designation as the object of cognition, the “Chapter” focuses primarily on knowledge of truth and its ramifications. We shall find in our analysis that the doctrines enunciated in this text, especially as construed in Taixu’s commentary, show strong convergence with values that Taixu imbibed in his radical youth. The root text provides a view of knowledge that echoes Taixu’s understanding of science in its scope, character, and methodology. In this view, knowledge is, moreover, revolutionary in nature. Finally, it underwrites a view of the bodhisattva as a heroic figure engaged in a long and perilous campaign of selflessly working for the benefit of others that recalls Taixu’s anarcho-​socialist ideas.

741

174

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Though short in length, this highly technical text deals with a variety of topics and touches on a number of important doctrines. The “Chapter” is one of the most important portions of the encyclopedic Yogācārabhūmi śāstra. According to legend, this treatise was delivered by Maitreya himself when he descended from Tuṣita Heaven at the request of Asanga in order to clarify the Middle Way.2 After several partial translations into Chinese, it was rendered in its entirety by Xuanzang (T 30, 1579). Taixu lectured on the “Chapter” twice, once to his students at the Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies in 19223 and once to his students at the Minnan Institute in 1929.4 Though both lectures were recorded, only the second was transcribed in its entirety. Thus it provides the primary focus for our discussion. Before embarking on our analysis, however, let us first briefly summarize the root text. In Taixu’s division, the “Chapter” has three main sections. In the first, reality is divided into two main aspects: the true nature of dharmas in their actuality (rusuoyouxing zhufa zhengshixing 如所有性諸法真實性) and the comprehensive nature of dharmas in their totality (jinsuoyouxing zhufa yiqiexing 盡所有性諸法一切性). “Dharmas,” here, refers to the fundamental constituents of the experienced world. The first aspect refers to their nature as empty and the second as conditionally arisen. It then offers a different division of reality, this time according to the mode of knowing. These are the four types of truth: that commonly assented to based on custom (shijian jicheng zhenshi 世間極成真實), that commonly assented to based on reason (daoli jicheng zhenshi 道理極成真實), that which is the sphere of functioning of the cognition purified of the obstacles of the afflictions (fannao zhang jing zhi suoxing zhenshi 煩惱障淨智所行真實), and that which is the sphere of functioning of the cognition purified of obstacles of the knowable (suozhi zhang jing zhi suoxing zhenshi 所知障淨智所行真實). These are the truth of linguistic convention, the truth of reason, the truth of non-​self-​realized by the Two Vehicles, and the truth of the selflessness of dharmas—​of their ineffable (empty) and posited (conditionally arisen) natures—​realized by bodhisattvas. The remainder of the “Chapter” clarifies and spells out the implications of knowledge of this reality. It first treats emptiness by means of the twofold negation of existence and inexistence—​that is, the refutation of naïve realism through the doctrine of emptiness and the refutation of nihilism through the doctrine of conditioned arising, which is the corollary of emptiness. The next three sections in Taixu’s division of the text focus on the relationship between such understanding and the Path. Briefly put, it allows the bodhisattva to balance samsara and nirvana, completing the bodhisattva path of ripening all Buddhadharmas and all sentient beings, and serves as the basis of all cultivation. The “Chapter” then proceeds to a series of refutations of

715

Bodhisattva of Progress

175

misunderstandings and competing doctrines and a collection of proof texts. Finally, it demonstrates how, in the absence of the knowledge of reality, the deluded discrimination (fenbie 分別) of essential natures—​that is, the imputation of independent and enduring characteristics and existence to radically contingent and ephemeral phenomena—​leads to the invidious cosmogony of samsara and how that cosmogony may be cut off through the cultivation of the four investigations (si xunsi guan 四尋思觀). On several points, the root text bears a clear and striking resemblance to Taixu’s understanding of science. In his most important work on this topic, “Humanistic Science” (Renshengguan de kexue 人生觀的科學), Taixu defined science as “something that relies on experience, analysis, reason, and trial in order to establish true and accurate knowledge of phenomena of every part of the universe and obtain the principles of their relationship.”5 The “Chapter’s” concern for “true and accurate knowledge” is readily apparent in the first of the two aspects of reality, the true nature of all things as they are. The fact that both are concerned with “truth” is obvious and perhaps superficial, but that does not diminish its significance on the level of values. Nor is this the limit of the resemblance. In the same essay, Taixu characterizes scientific method as proceeding in part by “eliminating the errors of intuition.”6 We return to the issue of method presently. For now we may simply note that scientific truth thus seems to have a negative aspect for Taixu: it is the absence of erroneous intuition. In the “Chapter,” the true nature of dharmas is likewise negative. It is the ineffable nature (liyan zixing 離言自性), the nature of phenomena revealed when the essential natures erroneously posited by language are eliminated.7 Once error is eliminated and this negative aspect of reality is realized, the positive aspect, dharmas as conditionally arisen, is revealed. This is the comprehensive nature. This aspect, too, has a similarity to Taixu’s view of science that goes beyond the obvious claims to all-​inclusive scope. According to Taixu’s commentary, whereas the true nature is the “true principle” of dharmas, the comprehensive nature is their “correct measure.” The correct measure of dharmas is not easily taken, however. As conditionally arisen phenomena, they implicate the entire roiling matrix of mutual causality. Any attempt to measure one ultimately requires measuring all. Taixu glosses this by means of two doctrinal formulations that elucidate the scope and relationality of dharmas. The first is the Yogācāra doctrine of the five marks (wu xiang 五相).8 The second is the “four phrases” (si ju 四句) associated with the Huayan doctrine of the four dharmadhatus.9 The first rubric serves to analytically define dharmas by mapping them vis-​à-​vis other dharmas in terms of their characteristics and in terms of causation. The second

761

176

T he C ult o f M aitreya

lacks the analytic specificity of the first but enunciates a principle of relationship that is universal in scope.10 Taixu thus unpacks the comprehensive nature in terms reminiscent of his view of science as the understanding of “all phenomena of the universe and their relationship.” The root text itself also presents such a totalistic theory in its analysis of samsara. According to the “Chapter,” the failure of ordinary beings to understand reality is the source of all suffering, in fact, of the entire world of samsara as we know it. The roots lie in eight deluded discriminations (fenbie 分別). The first three involve discriminating and imputing real existence to identity (zixing 自性), difference (chabie 差別), and generality (zongzhi 總 執); the next two, to “I” (wo 我) and “mine” (wosuo 我所); and the final three, to the attractive (ai 愛), the unattractive (fei’ai 非愛), and the neutral (bi ju xiangwei 彼俱相違). On the basis of the first set, deluded discrimination and discursive proliferation (fenbie xilun 分別戲論) impute all manner of distinctions and nonunity, which Taixu glosses as the entire world of consciousness, sense organs, and objects. On the basis of the second set emerges all manner of wrong view related to the self. Finally, on the basis of the final three emerges the three poisons of craving, aversion, and ignorance. This cosmogonic sequence is logical, however, rather than temporal. In fact, the entire process is at work in every moment and has been since beginningless time, binding all sentient beings to the round of samsara. Thus it provides a comprehensive view of all phenomena, both subjective and objective, and their relationships. The means by which this comprehensive, relational knowledge is obtained also mirrors Taixu’s view of science. In “Humanistic Science” Taixu stated that scientific knowledge is derived from “experience, analysis, reason, and trial.” In his commentary on the “Chapter,” he states that all knowledge is derived from logical reasoning (tuili 推理) and experiential verification (qinzheng 親 證).11 The former could encompass reasoning and analysis, while the latter could include both experience and trial. While this might seem a rather partial understanding of science that makes of it simply a species of empiricism, such interpretations were common in Taixu’s day.12 For Taixu, the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” serves as a model for this sort of knowing. As we mentioned in the previous chapter, cultivation of the object involved the devotee “reciting the ‘Chapter on Knowing Reality’ and quietly contemplating its meaning.”13 In reciting the “Chapter,” an attentive practitioner14 would in effect be rehearsing its contents. These contents are highly analytical and densely reasoned. In this vein, we have already discussed the root text’s analysis of the origins of samsara. It also includes logical argumentation refuting competing doctrines or misunderstandings. For instance, with regard to the

717

Bodhisattva of Progress

177

position that dharmas do have essences corresponding to those posited by conventional language, the text offers the following refutation: If vis-​à-​vis dharmas and phenomena there were self-​nature according to predication, then in this case each dharma and phenomenon should have many self-​natures. Why? Because a multitude of conventions are established to explicate a given dharma or phenomenon. And without a multitude of conventions to explicate it, determination cannot be reached.15 Reciting the “Chapter,” one retraces this analysis. Thus the ritual engagement with the text not only provides the practitioner with the contents of a Buddha’s knowledge but a means through which he can mimetically cultivate that mode of knowing himself. This is further demonstrated by the next step, in which the practitioner moves to a more freeform meditation, the four investigations (si xunsi guan 四尋思觀).16 In these investigations, one focuses on the relationship between language and phenomena—​seeing names as only names, phenomena as only phenomena and recognizing the deluded cognitive processes whereby one confuses one’s reified conceptions for the contingent and impermanent phenomena themselves, giving rise to the multifarious distinctions imposed upon unified reality.17 Although the root text does very little to spell out the specifics of the practice,18 it is clear that it is a method of rational, analytic investigation. Such yogic cultivation is, in Taixu’s view, part of science “in the broad sense.” In “Humanistic Science,” he argued that ordinary scientists’ reliance on the evidence of their five senses supplemented by equipment such as telescopes or microscopes results in some of the phenomena of the universe being excluded from investigation. In order to break free of these limitations, a sixth sense, mentation (yi 意), must also be included and augmented by the methods of yoga (i.e., contemplative practice) in order to bring all phenomena under consideration. The meditation hall thus becomes a laboratory where the meditator studies his own mind.19 In this laboratory, the four investigations serve as a sort of lab method to extend and refine the powers of the sense of mentation. Without such refinement, according to Taixu true knowledge must always lie beyond our grasp. Such distinctions between the subjective and objective world as objects of knowledge will be familiar to any student of the science and metaphysics debates of the 1920s to which “Humanistic Science” was explicitly addressed.20 Like others in these debates, Taixu carves out a space in subjectivity beyond

781

178

T he C ult o f M aitreya

the grasp of the intellectual behemoth that dominated his time. Yet while Taixu competed with science, he did so on its terms. The scientific value of analytic rationality was embraced even as scientism was rejected. Moreover, unlike some who rejected scientism, Taixu did not so much assert the incommensurability of the subjective and objective worlds as propose Buddhism as a super science that fulfills scientism’s all-​embracing ambitions.21 Taixu’s commentary on the “Chapter” makes a similar move. In his discussion of the four types of truth, he relegates science to the first two types of truth, subordinated to the two higher and distinctly Buddhist types.22 Although science thus proceeds by means of reasoned analysis, it is inferior to the analysis undertaken in the four investigations. The knowledge achieved by these methods is nothing less than revolutionary for Taixu. In “Revolution Discussed” (Shuo geming 說革命), Taixu defined revolution as anything that removes the old to make way for the new (ge qu gu er ding qu xin 革去故而鼎取新). Such revolutions were of two types: those of human affairs (renshi 人事) and those of nature (ziran 自然), the world as apprehended by unreconstructed cognition.23 In the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” it is the imagined essences and discriminations of ordinary language that must be swept away. This bears some similarity to the falsifying role that “names” played in Taixu’s earlier “The Three Great Evils.” In his commentary, Taixu sees this world, cloaked in falsehood, as an “unbearably corrupt natural world” and claims The aim of Buddhism is to thoroughly eradicate [this world] and create another perfect pure world—​that is, to transform this world of conventional truth into a transcendent world of ultimate truth, as if completely destroying a residence and building a new structure.24 One world is cleared away and another takes its place. By eliminating the imagined nature, one achieves bodhi and the world is revealed as a pure land. This is precisely what Taixu termed a “revolution of nature.”25 This revolution, then, is epistemic and the new world achieved seems to be a species of mind-​only pure land, in which the pure land is simply this world seen with awakened perception. Taixu’s commentary, however, slips from epistemic transformation into transformations of the actual world. In the very passage just quoted, he is comparing Buddhism favorably to science and philosophy. These, he asserts, fall short of full revolution, seeking merely “the progress and reform of the world as if repairing a residence.”26 While science and philosophy are modes of knowledge, “progress and reform of the world” are difficult to read in merely epistemic terms. Placed

791

Bodhisattva of Progress

179

in this context, it seems that the pure world that Taixu refers to is not simply mind-​only. The revolution of nature Taixu sees in the “Chapter” strays beyond the epistemic again in a section discussing the importance of insight into emptiness for the cultivation of the path. Without this insight, we are told, one will harbor thoughts of the struggle for survival (shengcun jingzheng 生存競爭) and hearing that those who seek the insight of a Buddha overturn the natural world (ziran jie 自然界) in which people survive, one will fear, thinking the more one cultivates the less joy there will be in life. Thus they cut off the provisions of bodhi.27 The natural world then is not merely the world of delusion but also of Darwinism. This identification is confirmed by the fact that Taixu states at the outset of his commentary that evolution is among the issues addressed.28 Although Taixu does little to tie this notion to the root text, it appears that he saw the deluded imputation of essences and the clinging engendered as the root of Darwinian struggle, which in anarchism was thought to underlay the predatory tendencies of capitalism and imperialism.29 Epistemic revolution thus slips toward social revolution. In his introduction, Taixu addresses the connection between the transformation of perception and the transformation of the world in more explicit, albeit still vague, terms. There he describes the ultimate master of yoga (yuqieshi 瑜伽師) that the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra both describes and supports. Such a master of yoga is the engine of a virtuous cycle in which fruits of the path are attained, those fruits are taught, those teachings practiced, and those practices rewarded with the fruits. From this, Taixu states, “we can expect the realization of a future pure world (jianglai qingjing shijie 將來清淨 世界).30 Purifying their own perception, practitioners aid others in purifying their own. Purification spreads outward through the teachings of yoga until eventually a pure world is obtained. Transform enough individuals and the world is likewise transformed. The bodhisattva in Taixu’s commentary is portrayed as the agent of this transformation of self and world in ways that recall the selfless revolutionary heroes of his radical writings. The root text characterizes the bodhisattva path as “ripening all Buddhadharmas and all sentient beings” (chengshou yiqie fofaji zhu youqing 成熟一切佛法及諸有情), that is, mastering teachings oneself and using them to awaken others. This is no easy task, however. The Yogācārabhūmi śāstra subscribes to the long view of the path typically seen in Indian Mahayana texts rather than short view seen in East Asian texts

801

180

T he C ult o f M aitreya

preaching sudden awakening. For the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” the bodhisattva must master all teachings and save all beings. This admits of no exceptions. If he rushes ahead to nirvana prematurely, he will fall short of Buddhahood. Yet, on the other hand, should he come to delight in samsara and avoid nirvana he will make no progress at all.31 The bodhisattva must always be reaching forward toward nirvana and at the same time backward to the sentient beings still mired in samsara and he must continue to do so for eons of time. Much like the revolutionaries of “On the Hun and Po [Souls]” discussed in ­chapter 2, he faces a difficult and seemingly endless task and weariness is a constant danger. Just as in his piece in Social World Taixu argued that the recognition of selflessness could be the antidote to this, in the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” the proper understanding of emptiness is key to maintaining one’s morale on the long campaign of the bodhisattva path. With such understanding, the bodhisattva can pursue the path and aid sentient beings with heroic valor. Though this point is not as pronounced as in the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, we find the bodhisattva described in dashing terms in the “Chapter.” The bodhisattva does not “retreat in the face of hard labor and harsh difficulty” but is “possessed of supplementary practices like solid armor.” As these heroes “encounter great suffering in samsara, just so they wax in unexcelled bodhi. As they attain nobility and excellence, just so they wane in pride.”32 Taixu’s commentary accents the martial undertone, describing the bodhisattva’s practice as “fierce like a soldier going into battle wrapped in armor.”33 Loins girded, the bodhisattva cultivates right practices. He learns to abandon attachment and give of body and property in order to aid sentient beings. He studies all sciences (yiqie mingchu 一切明處) in order to resolve the doubts of sentient beings and bring them benefit. Even meditation is practiced, in part, in order to “accomplish activities beneficial to sentient beings.”34 Standing as the counterpoint to Taixu’s comments on the deluded struggle for existence, this passage on the bodhisattva’s activities is implicitly cast as the alternative to selfish Darwinian striving. As such, the bodhisattva’s self-​sacrifice in the service of others might recall Kropotkin’s mutual aid. “Humanistic Science” provides some support for this inference. That essay vigorously recommended Kropotkinism replace Darwinism as the basis of social science and described the doctrine in terms that parallel the features of the path we have just seen. The bodhisattva recognizing emptiness devotes himself to aiding others and thereby secures his own spiritual progress. Likewise, according to “Humanistic Science,” Kropotkin’s theory of evolution through mutual aid leads to the cultivation of man’s moral nature. Moreover, evolution through mutual aid, which can be seen in everything from the stars

8 11

Bodhisattva of Progress

181

to the human psyche, Taixu claims, is simply a more limited case of inexhaustible conditioned arising,35 which, it will be recalled, is none other than the comprehensive nature of the “Chapter.” Finally, we may note that, as the master of yoga and like the anarchist revolutionary, the bodhisattva is slowly educating and helping the masses to transform the world. In summary, then, we may say that the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” shows points of convergence with values that attracted Taixu in radicalism. Like science as Taixu conceived it, the root text offers a comprehensive vision of the truth of all phenomena in the universe and their relationships. It also offers a scientific mode of knowledge—​rational and analytic. This knowledge is revolutionary in nature, involving an epistemic transformation that overturns the “natural” world. Yet it remakes not only subjective perception but also, in ways not fully articulated, the objective world. The bodhisattva is a heroic figure in this text, engaged in an almost infinitely long campaign to transform himself and others. Much like the anarchist revolutionary, he strives heroically, sacrificing himself to benefit others. Guided and supported by his knowledge of truth, he is able to avoid both attachment to samsara and premature nirvana without succumbing to fatigue, a danger for all who seek to change the world. There remains tension, however. Though Taixu would claim that the knowledge described and modeled in the “Chapter” is scientific, even supra-​ scientific, it is different from science in a few key ways. First, although the text does offer a view of all phenomena and their relationship, this view is in at least some respects monistic. True knowledge is achieved only by rejecting all differentiation. Second, although the text advocates a kind of rational and analytic inquiry, this inquiry is of an essentially closed, mimetic nature. In the “laboratory” of the meditation hall, the practitioner is more like a science student than a full-​fledged scientist. As she goes about her investigations, the proper results are always known in advance. Finally, all practitioners are eventually called upon to achieve this knowledge for themselves (though not necessarily in this life). This is rather different than in anarchism or other forms of radicalism in which science is generally seen as material and ideological support for their ideals but not something that all people must master. It is desired that the masses learn to think scientifically, not that they actually become scientists. There is also tension in Taixu’s interpretation of the “Chapter” as revolutionary. Although the transformation in consciousness described can certainly be legitimately termed revolutionary, there seems little support for the notion that it will transform the objective world. More specifically, the text is missing any sort of social critique, an essential element of any radical ideology. Rather

821

182

T he C ult o f M aitreya

the text is entirely idealist and moral in its focus. This is perhaps best illustrated by the falsifying role of language. Although similar to the evil of names in Taixu’s “The Three Great Evils,” the falsification here masks ontological truth rather than social iniquity. Likewise, the invidious cosmogony presented is idealist rather than social in nature. Finally, although there certainly are heroic overtones to the “Chapter’s” treatment of the bodhisattva, the Kropotkinite light in which they are cast seems a bit of a stretch. The bodhisattva path is indeed one of self-​sacrifice and aiding others. True mutuality, however, is missing. The bodhisattva is essentially a solitary hero here. Though in anarchism as well the vanguard that has awakened first may be isolated, eventually mutual aid is practiced in an egalitarian community. The bodhisattva, on the other hand, is defined by the hierarchies of the path. Though determined by wisdom and morality rather than coercive authority, these hierarchies dictate that those above help those below. Those below can aid those above only by serving as recipients. We return to these tensions in the conclusion.

The Practice—​The Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa As the “practice” of the Maitreya School, Taixu designated the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa. Like the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” this text derives from the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra, though Taixu works from a version of the text (T 24, 1499) excerpted from the treatise as a whole at imperial behest by Xuanzang to serve as a prātimokṣa, a collection of precepts that could be ritually transmitted and recited. It offers one of several sets of bodhisattva precepts to be found in the canon. In fact, it portrays itself as a compilation of precepts preached by the Buddha elsewhere.36 The most popular of these those found in the Sutra on Brahma’s Net (Fanwang jing 梵網經) (T 24, 1484). Although the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa was never entirely forgotten, it was the precepts of Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa that had been taken by all monastics and many devout lay Buddhists for the last several centuries.37 In retrieving the Yoga Prātimokṣa, Taixu was propounding not merely the word of Maitreya but a map of the path to Buddhahood that could be read as offering a heroic ideal and an activist—​even revolutionary—​ethic that was flexible enough to support engagement in the world while demanding enough to avoid secularization. We do not provide an exhaustive account of all of the precepts here, but a rough summary of the root text’s contents is in order. After an initial exhortation to diligent practice, the text enumerates four major precepts, known as “precepts of other-​victory” (ta sheng chu fa 他勝處法). Taixu’s gloss of this term reveals again a heroic, even martial, vision of the bodhisattva. According to his

813

Bodhisattva of Progress

183

commentary, “other victory means to be defeated by others. A bodhisattva can defeat all. If he is defeated, then he is no longer a bodhisattva.”38 A bodhisattva is an invincible hero, thus should he commit one of these grave offenses, he loses not only all precepts but his very bodhisattvahood.39 This is followed by forty-​one minor precepts grouped into those which serve to accumulate virtue (she shan 攝善), identified with the six perfections, and those which benefit sentient beings (raoyi 饒益), identified with the four methods of winning over sentient beings (si she 四攝).40 Precepts that serve to accumulate virtue and precepts that benefit sentient beings are two of the traditional “three groups” (san ju 三聚) of bodhisattva precepts. Missing are those of discipline (lüyi 律 儀). Taixu identifies these as the precepts of the seven assemblies taken by monastics and laity according to their ecclesiastical status, which he states must be taken separately.41 While these provide the foundation for the practice of the bodhisattva precepts according to Taixu, their focus on stopping evil (zhi’e 止惡) reflects a Hinayana passivity.42 While the notion that Hinayana is passive is shopworn polemic, it is true that the precepts of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa have a distinctively active cast. Generally speaking, precepts are negative:  they are vows not to do something. The very word for precept in Chinese, jie 戒, means prohibition and abstention. Yet some precepts may be positive:  one vows not to fail to do something.43 Such precepts are unusually common in the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, constituting over half of the total (twenty-​five out of forty-​five). While such precepts are also found in the Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, they are far less common, making up less than a quarter of the total (fourteen out of fifty-​eight). The effect is significant. Reading the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa one is presented with a vision in which the bodhisattva is defined more by what he does than what he refrains from doing. The root text acknowledges that other sets of precepts enjoin “doing less, acting less, and desiring less” (shao shi shao ye shao xiqang 少事少業少希望) but designates these as precepts of the śravaka not to be studied by the bodhisattva.44 Taixu identifies the fact that it thus “actively enjoins the good” as one of the excellences of the text vis-​à-​vis the alternatives.45 Many of the activities enjoined are, moreover, of a socially engaged rather than contemplative nature. For while the root text does instruct bodhisattvas to study meditation46 and the Mahayana canon,47 it also mandates activities such as serving the sick48 and aiding those in misfortune.49 The bodhisattva is instructed to give whenever asked50 and to aid sentient beings in all rightful endeavors, including accompanying them on travels and guarding property.51 Taixu sees this as an ethic of self-​sacrifice and mutual aid. According to him, all giving is to sacrifice oneself to benefit others (xisheng ziji liyi taren 犧牲

841

184

T he C ult o f M aitreya

自己利益他人).52 This vision of active engagement and self-​sacrificial giving provides a vision of society in which all work for the benefit of all expressed in terms reminiscent of anarchism. Thus according to Taixu, These bodhisattva precepts truly are deeply suitable for Buddhists of the seven assemblies today doing practical work. . . . Anything related to the multitudes and of benefit to society, today and in the future, should be done. No longer does closing the gates for cultivation exhaust our responsibility. .  .  . The idea that each of us can take care of ourselves and families in order to handle everything ourselves just does not work anymore. Thus for the masses of Buddhists to vigorously engage in enterprises of mutual care and benefit for the masses of society (yu shehui renqun huguan huyi zhi shi 於社會人群互關互益 之事)—​only that can express the spirit of the Dharma, only that can establish the basis for a civic morality (guomin daode 國民道德).53 His student Huijue makes much the same point language in language that more clearly reflects the anarchist concern to replace Darwinian competition with Kropotkinite mutual aid: “In studying and maintaining these precepts . . . we seek to erase the world’s cruel slaughter and struggle, working together for peace and mutual aid (hu zhu 互助) and secure happiness enjoyed by all together.”54 The Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa provides support for more than simply working for mutual benefit, however. A few of the activities that are enjoined actually involve actions rarely condoned in the Buddhist canon let alone recommended. The Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa is one of a minority of Mahayana texts that endorse the notion that a bodhisattva may, solely in the interest of benefitting other beings, commit “inherent sins” (xingzui 性罪), acts such as killing and stealing, which are generally considered evil by nature.55 The bodhisattva may kill, steal, engage in sexual relations, lie, sow dissension, speak harshly, and engage in idle and frivolous pursuits if it is required in order to serve sentient beings.56 Most interesting is the root text’s discussion of the precept against stealing. It instructs that should a bodhisattva encounter an evil official, he should destroy his career or block his advancement. Likewise, if a leader takes from the sangha, the bodhisattva should destroy his dominion. Taixu reads this as an injunction to comfort the people and punish the sinner (diaomin fazui 弔 民伐罪).57 Indeed, there are several precepts that call on the bodhisattva to punish and subdue sinners.58 In his 1924 essay, “My Aspiration and Practice,” Taixu identifies this as one of the text’s points of superiority vis-​à-​vis other

815

Bodhisattva of Progress

185

prātimokṣa. Moreover, he makes it clear that he sees this as nothing less than an ethic of revolution, stating “the appropriate and reasonable points of Tang of the Shang and Wu of the Zhou’s righteous uprising . . . on down to the political and class revolutions of today are all included”59 This is an idea that traces back to Zhang Taiyan, the individual who first convinced Taixu that Buddhism and anarchism were complementary.60 In later years, Taixu is more circumspect on this point. In his commentary, for instance, he avoids the term “revolution,” though he does not mince words in discussing the bodhisattva’s obligation to oppose and unseat unjust authority.61 Yet it is unlikely that Taixu’s interpretation of the text changed. Rather, he saw revolution as no longer suitable to China’s circumstances under the KMT. Confronted with the military predations of the Japanese in the Mukden incident, Taixu explicitly cites this passage to implore Japanese Buddhists to rise up against their unjust government.62 Meanwhile, others in his circle continued to connect the text explicitly to revolution. Shuyi 蜀一,63 for instance, in a 1934 article on Human Realm Buddhism and socialism, cited the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa to argue that Buddhists had the right and duty to resist the injustices of imperialism, capitalism, and other forms of oppression.64 In addition to providing an activist, even revolutionary, view of the bodhisattva’s mission, the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa also allows a high degree of flexibility in its pursuit. We have already seen that under certain conditions the root text instructs bodhisattvas to commit inherent sins in the service of sentient beings, but this is only the most obvious example of the latitude afforded by these precepts in the service of saving sentient beings.65 The text also allows bodhisattvas to follow worldly ways to a greater extent than other prātimokṣa. They are, for example, positively enjoined to adapt to the minds of sentient beings, deporting themselves in a manner pleasing to those they would save.66 They may, moreover, spend up to a third of their time in the study of worldly doctrines, thus Taixu’s seminarians were acting in accord with this precept when they studied science and philosophy as well as other secular subjects in addition to Buddhist learning.67 As Mingxing noted in an article on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa in Haichaoyin, this opens up possibilities for expedient means that the Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, which strictly forbids the study of non-​Buddhist doctrines, closes off.68 More important, however, is the nuanced approach taken by the root text to violations of the precepts. Unlike most precepts, which are direct and fairly inflexible injunctions, those of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa almost resemble a modern legal code. There are several gradations of violation and nonviolation depending on intention and context. Violations of the major precepts are divided into first degree (shangpin chan 上品纏), second degree (zhongpin

861

186

T he C ult o f M aitreya

chan 中品纏), and misdemeanor (ruanpin chan 軟品纏) offences. Violations of the minor precepts are usually divided into offenses with contamination (ran weifan 染違犯), offenses without contamination (feiran weifan 非染違犯), and non-​offenses (wu weifan 無違犯). Offenses with contamination are those done deliberately with evil intent. Offenses without contamination are done out of simple laziness or unwholesome habits one has tried unsuccessfully to subdue. Finally, there is no offense in situations where one breaks a precept to convert sentient beings or because external conditions make it inordinately difficult or because one is physically or mentally incapacitated.69 Only a first-​degree violation of a major precept results in the loss of the precepts. Violations of lower degree or of minor precepts can all be redressed through repentance in which one verbally confesses the sin to another practitioner.70 Repentances of major precepts are graded by severity of the violation. Second-​degree violations require an audience of three or more, while an audience of one is sufficient for a misdemeanor. Repentance, however, must be swift. Should no one be available, repenting alone and vowing to mend one’s ways is preferable to delay.71 Even if the bodhisattva were to commit a first-​degree offense and lose the precepts, the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, unlike the monastic prātimokṣa, allows for the fallen bodhisattva to retake the precepts in this life.72 Thus the text provides very flexible ethical guidance for one who would work in the world. The violations one might expect in such circumstances, violations based on the constraints of circumstance and the fatigue and forgetfulness arising from one’s commitments, are allowed for. Yet it would be wrong to see this as a license for laxity. The very flexibility and nuance of the text requires a higher degree of ethical vigilance and introspection than hard-​and-​fast rules might, as Taixu states in his commentary.73 The root text makes this clear at the outset, saying that the bodhisattva should “repeatedly contemplate, focused upon the truth, [whether] this [given action] is something rightly done by a bodhisattva or this [given action] is not rightly done by a bodhisattva.”74 This vigilance is inculcated through ritual engagement with the text. According to Taixu, the designation of the text as a prātimokṣa (jieben 戒本) indicates that it is to be recited daily.75 Thus, in his full rite for the Maitreya School, Taixu indicates that practitioners should recite the precepts each day at midday. Having recited them, they are to engage in meditative reflection on their own behavior of the previous day. Should they find any violation of the precept, they are to repent.76 This balancing of a flexible, activist ethic with stringent ethical awareness was an important attraction of the text for Taixu, who identified it as another superiority of the text in his commentary. The practice of these bodhisattva precepts allows one to mediate between the worldly and the world-​transcending,

817

Bodhisattva of Progress

187

to walk “the middle way of according with truth while entering the world” (qie zhen ru su zhi zhongdao 契真入俗之中道).77 Without the guidance of the text and the ethical awareness it requires, Taixu fears monastics engaged in practical work might “destroy the Dharma and violate the holy rule without even knowing it.”78 This is likely why he referred to the Prātimokṣa as “a standard of behavior for . . . social service.”79 In essence, it allows Buddhists to work in the world without being of it, in Weber’s famous phrasing. This concern recalls the notes of self-​reproach for his overzealous involvement in radicalism we noted in ­chapters 1 and 3 as well as his remonstrance of revolutionary monks in 1928, whose “childish” radicalism he deemed to fall into simple secularization.80 The fact that he cites this as a “superiority” of the text in his 1930 commentary but not in his 1924 essay “My Aspiration and Practice” suggests that his concern with this had grown. Thus there is a tension here between the continuing hold of radical values on Taixu’s imagination and a deliberate attempt to keep them in check. This is especially clear when he claims the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa contains an ethic of revolution in “My Aspiration and Practice.” While it is true that it does enjoin the bodhisattva to resist unjust authority, this is closer to Robin Hood than Kropotkin. In the root text, the bodhisattva resists only one unjust individual with power. This is importantly different from modern notions of revolution, including that in “The Equalization of Wealth,” in which the target is not merely an unjust individual but an unjust system. Such strains show the continuing allure of radicalism, but an allure that the bodhisattva must now guard against overindulging. The bodhisattva is an aloof activist, a restrained revolutionary, who works in the world while transcending it. This is a vision that stands in contrast with socialism and anarchism and even the fervor of Taixu’s own early writings.

The Fruit—​The Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent We next turn to the final “essential,” the fruit. As we have seen, in the early years the Ascent Sutra received rather less attention than its fellows, while in the second phase of the cult’s development it came to occupy center stage. We have already mentioned in the previous chapter that Taixu lectured on this text more than any other, but he also elaborated on the ideas and themes therein in a wide variety of essays and lectures. As such, this section draws from a broader pool of his works than the previous two. It focuses primarily on his commentarial lecture “A Lecture on the Essentials of the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on the Contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tuṣita Heaven” given at the Right Faith Society in Wuchang in 1932, but it also looks at his

881

188

T he C ult o f M aitreya

lectures on the other key Maitreya scriptures and other related works, most importantly “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” (Jianshe renjian jingtu lun 建設人間淨土論). Examining the Ascent Sutra in light of these other texts, we will see that Taixu came to see it as integrating his central concerns and values, offering assurance to all of constant progress toward Buddhahood through rebirth in Maitreya’s pure land attained by active moral praxis that simultaneously perfects the present world. The Ascent Sutra is not, on the face of it, a text that many would expect to be attractive to an activist monk like Taixu. Translated by Juju Jingsheng 沮 渠京聲 (d. 464), it was the last of the major Maitreya scriptures to be transmitted to China. The Buddha’s discourse in this instance is occasioned by a question from Upali who wishes to know more about the future of this rather unexceptional looking monk81 that Śakyamuni has predicted will be the next to attain Buddhahood. The Buddha obligingly describes how Maitreya would pass away in Jambudvipa and be reborn in Tuṣita heaven. There an assortment of devas would create for him a marvelous palace called the Inner Court, whose many wonders are carefully described. Much like the better-​known Visualization Sutra (Guan wuliang shou jing 觀無量壽經), the text recommends that the practitioner meditate upon the sights described in order to secure rebirth there in the presence of Maitreya, the bodhisattva-​in-​waiting, who will descend to Jambudvipa in fifty-​six trillion years to attain Buddhahood. The text then presents a series of additional practices to be cultivated by aspirants before closing with the typical discussion of the name of the sutra and exhortation to circulate it. That a text focused on devotion to a celestial bodhisattva and rebirth in his heavenly realm should be of such importance to Taixu is not what one would expect from the scholarly literature.82 Yet there is no doubt that Taixu was in earnest about the importance of rebirth in Tuṣita. He spends a substantial portion of the introduction to his commentary on the Ascent Sutra to an argument for the reality of pure lands against challenges both secular and religious. To those who might argue that the pure lands are simply imagined places of spiritual refuge or posited visions of ideal worlds, Taixu responds that science has borne out the many-​worlds cosmology of the sutras,83 and the pure lands are simply other planets, distant from our own but no less real. To those who might argue that the pure lands do not exist because they are empty or are mind-​only, Taixu responds that this is to misunderstand Mahayana doctrine: All things are empty and mind-​only. As such, the pure lands are no less real than our own world.84 In short, Taixu deliberately resists attempts to rationalize away pure lands on either worldly or Buddhist grounds. Demytholigization, at least beyond a certain point, is explicitly rejected.

891

Bodhisattva of Progress

189

Taixu requires that the pure lands be real because he requires that the fruit they offer be real. That fruit is nonretrogression, the point on the path when one’s future progress is assured and backsliding is no longer possible, when the inertia of samsara is overcome and momentum toward nirvana is unstoppable. This fruit is generally taken to be attained at a quite late stage in the path (the seventh of the ten abodes), which compounds the precariousness already mentioned. Failure to maintain focus and resolve can lead one to stray from the path, wasting all one’s effort and leaving one vulnerable to the ripening of evil karma from lives long past, karma that might lead even to rebirth in hell. Rebirth in a pure land ensures nonretrogression because one has the opportunity to commune (qinjin 親近) with a Buddha, hearing the Dharma and enjoying his salvific presence. This has long been one of the selling points of the pure land dharma-​gate.85 The fruit of nonretrogression is likewise the key selling point of rebirth in Tuṣita’s Inner Court as taught by the Ascent Sutra. Taixu explicitly identifies this as his reason for selecting the text in the foundational “Preface to the Three Essentials.” There, as we have seen, he acknowledges that whereas the choice of the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” as the object and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa as the practice would likely be uncontroversial, his selection of the Ascent Sutra as the fruit would be more puzzling to some. In response he highlights the insecurities of the path: While practitioners may strive mightily for bodhi, one’s life hangs between breaths and [when] one day [it proves] inconstant, the next life arrives. If one has not attained sovereign freedom (zizai 自在) vis-​à-​vis birth and death and does not avail oneself of the shepherding (shechi 攝持) power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, then one may worry that one will be carried by the current through the various courses of rebirth, forgetful of one’s aspiration. Thus one must take as urgent the task of [gaining the opportunity to] delight in the pure land and be close to the sages. . . . Thus, this sutra is truly the essential for attaining nonretrogression [on the path to] the fruit of Buddhahood in one life. Those who have given rise to bodhi-​mind cannot but honor and uphold it in order to maintain direction.86 On this point, Taixu stands on unambiguous textual grounds. The root text twice states that practitioners of this dharma-​gate will gain this fruit when they are reborn in the presence of the bodhisattva.87 But Taixu was not content to let the text speak for itself on the issue, raising the point on five additional occasions in his commentary88 and returning to it again and again in

901

190

T he C ult o f M aitreya

other discussions of Maitreya.89 The reverse also holds true. Discussions of nonretrogression become occasions to return to the importance of devotion to Maitreya.90 A  piece titled “How to Arouse Bodhi-​Mind and Cultivate the Practices of the Bodhisattva Without Retrogressing” (Ruhe fa puti xin xiu pus axing er bu tui 如何發菩提心修菩薩行而不退) is actually devoted largely to explaining Maitreya Pure Land and exhorting its practice.91 While the importance of nonretrogression to Taixu is undeniable, the significance it held requires more explication. On the one hand, as we have noted, the perils of backsliding troubled many Buddhists. As such, it is not entirely surprising that they should have concerned Taixu as well. Yet by placing this concern within the broader context of Taixu’s thought, we can see additional dimensions. We have noted in c­ hapter 2 that Taixu was concerned in his radical days with the problem of self-​sacrifice on the part of the revolutionary for a better world he may never see. We have also seen that the other two essentials reflect an awareness of the difficulty of maintaining oneself on the path while working to benefit sentient beings in the world. Here we may further consider the resonance these concerns may have had for Taixu and his followers. Progress on the path is generally seen to result from sustained and intensive self-​cultivation. Yet this was precisely the sort of practice that Taixu and his followers had comparatively little time for. Though regular cultivation was certainly part of life for these reformers, as we have seen, much of their day was devoted to study, teaching, and charity work. Secularization was a risk. Taixu seems to have felt that he strayed too far into the world during his radical days, and he warned his students against doing the same. In his later life, there are indications that Taixu did not feel that he had continued to progress in his practice. In his 1940 lecture, “My Religious Experiences,” Taixu describes his three awakening experiences. Each of these occurred during Taixu’s early career, two prior to his encounter with radicalism and one during his retreat on Putuo shan. In his lecture, Taixu conjectures that had he not encountered Huashan and been inspired to save the world he might have attained the holy fruit of the three vehicles (san sheng sheng guo 三乘聖果).92 We need not take any position on the content of Taixu’s meditative experiences or on what may have lain at the end of that path not taken. The fact remains that in this lecture Taixu presents himself as having hit his spiritual peak in his early twenties. Thereafter, he was too distracted by his work in the world to make additional progress. The practice of Maitreya Pure Land, however, allows for just such distraction. The Concise Rite of the Maitreya School can be performed in around an hour and the Abbreviated Rite in less than half an hour. Moreover, the merit from any activity can simply be dedicated to rebirth in Tuṣita. As we have seen,

9 11

Bodhisattva of Progress

191

this seems to have been Taixu’s own approach to cultivation in his later life. In “On the Four Practices of Discipline, Meditation, Esoteric, and Pure Land” (Lü chan mi jing si xing lun 律禪密淨四行論), Taixu states that he had been unable to devote his full attention to the cultivation of Maitreya Pure Land but that nevertheless he dedicated the merit of all his practices to rebirth in the Inner Court.93 Furthermore, in Taixu’s reading of the Ascent Sutra, rebirth in the Inner Court is secured in part precisely through ethical work in the world. As in the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, there is a balance struck between samsara and nirvana in Taixu’s reading of the Ascent Sutra. The text declares explicitly that practice of this dharma-​gate is for those who “do not detest samsara” (bu yan shengsi 不厭生死). These individuals, it states, “do not seek to cut the fetters of birth and death” (bu qiu duan jie 不求斷 結),94 yet nevertheless “it is as though they had the six supernormal powers.” In his commentary Taixu explains that “Because they do not cut their fetters, they are not Hinayanists; because they gain the six spiritual powers, they are different from ordinary people.”95 They stand in tension between the worldly and the world-​transcending—​in the world but not of it. Though Taixu does not develop the connection, there is a parallel here between the practitioner and Maitreya himself in the beginning of the sutra—​apparently ordinary yet in fact a dharma-​body bodhisattva—​and the disposition of Maitreya’s Inner Court—​a pure land in Taixu’s interpretation yet suspended within samsara in this very realm of desire. The practices recommended by the sutra for attaining rebirth in this pure land are a similar mix of the world-​transcending and worldly. There are several references to meditative practices. Most important, the aspirant is to contemplate the wonders of Tuṣita as described in the sutra,96 but he is also counseled to “engage in a multitude of samādhis, deeply entering into right absorption” and to “fix his mind on the recollection of the Buddha’s form and call Maitreya’s name.”97 Taixu integrates this aspect of the cult in his ritual text, which includes many invocations of the name as well as contemplation of the wonders of Tuṣita,98 and we have seen that recital of Maitreya’s name was an important part of the cult. Yet in his commentary and elsewhere Taixu places the emphasis on more this-​worldly forms of cultivation. As noted in the previous chapter, the third of the three excellences of Tuṣita Pure Land according to Taixu is “rebirth through human [conduct]” (cong ren shangsheng 從人 上生), that is, through moral action.99 The text does indeed lay considerable on ethical cultivation, calling on aspirants to maintain precepts and cultivate the ten virtues100 and to vigorously cultivate merit and practice pure karma.101 Thus the pursuit of exactly the sort of activities recommended by Human

921

192

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Life Buddhism, which might divert one from intensive and sustained self-​ cultivation, are a key part of the practice of Maitreya Pure Land, securing the fruits of the path they might otherwise put at risk. This is one reason why in his 1926 essay “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” Taixu states that if one already is engaged in the practices involved in establishing a pure land on earth, “the refuges and the ten virtues, then one has only to add recitation and dedication of merit to obtain birth in the pure land of the Inner Court” in order to avoid the dangers of retrogression.102 Later Maitreyan literature from the second phase of the cult’s development also draws connections to the pure land on earth but does so in ways not seen (or at least not made explicit) in Taixu’s two earlier works devoted to the concept.103 Whereas in the former Maitreya Pure Land seems to be an incidental addition to the creation of a pure land on earth, in the latter the creation of a pure land on earth is presented as an integral part of Maitreya Pure Land. Taixu discusses the relationship between the two twice in his commentary on the Ascent Sutra. The ethical practice of Maitreya Pure Land is bifocal, reaching at once upward to Tuṣita and outward to the human world around us. The cultivation of the five precepts and the ten virtues are such that “even if one were not reborn in Tuṣita Heaven by these [actions], they would still increase human morality and hasten social evolution so as to create a pure land on earth.”104 Thus far, this is essentially the same as the connection drawn in “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth.” Elsewhere, however, Taixu takes the connection farther. He states that the ethical cultivation of Maitreya Pure Land “causes human morality to increase and society to evolve, becoming a pure and peaceful human world. Thus it can stimulate (gan 感) Maitreya to descend and attain Buddhahood earlier, which is to establish a pure land on earth.”105 The ultimate pure land on earth in this telling is not simply a purified society but a true Buddhaland presided over by Maitreya. Moreover, the aspirant will enjoy both Maitreya’s heavenly and earthly pure lands because he will descend with him at the time of his last birth and be among the assemblies that hear him preach the Dharma. Although simple on the face of it, this assertion is actually dense with significance. It implies a complete but gradual transformation of this world from the bottom up as it progresses to a teleological future. Let us first consider the extent of the transformation. At the time of Maitreya’s descent, our world, now called Ketumati, will be unrecognizable. At that time, according to the Descent Sutra, the land will all be rich and fertile. There will be no punishment or disaster. Its men and women will all be born of virtuous karma. The

913

Bodhisattva of Progress

193

ground will be without thorns and brambles, producing only soft grass. . . . [It] will spontaneously yield fragrant rice, abundant in flavor. The trees will produce clothing. . . . The people there will live to eighty thousand years and be without disease or suffering. They will be removed from affliction and [dwell] always in peace and joy [enjoying] perfect physical beauty and strength.106 There is no deprivation in this world nor any depravity. It is, in short, a very nearly perfect world inhabited by very nearly perfect people. They are ruled over by a Wheel-​turning King,107 the just monarch of Buddhist thought who rules not by force of arms but force of virtue. Thus, although there is government, there is no oppression. Even this limited form of government may disappear when the king renounces lay life to become a monk under Maitreya. This vision recalls the sort of perfect societies imagined by Taixu in his anarchist days but brought to mythological levels of perfection. As in those visions, perfection is not limited to the social but extends to the soteriological as well. Following Maitreya’s attainment of Buddhahood, he will preach the Dharma in the Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower Tree (Longhua san hui 龍華三 會), delivering billions of sentient beings.108 A land so perfect, however, is not built in a day. It is an extraordinarily long process—​fifty-​six trillion (wushiliu yiwan 五十六億萬) years, to be precise, according to the Ascent Sutra, even longer according to the Abhidharmakośa.109 Starting in the 1930s, Taixu is frequently at pains to stress the great distance of the time of Maitreya in his writings.110 The explicit targets of these protests are heterodox Maitreyan teachings, though it is not clear to what degree Taixu is responding to actual groups as opposed to generic stereotypes.111 In Taixu’s view, such teachings proclaim that Maitreya has arrived or is soon to arrive in order to “confuse the masses.” They proclaim “The end is nigh! Hurry, give foreign currency to our such-​and-​such a Way . . . to buy a place for yourself and avoid disaster, otherwise later the spots will be sold out and our hands will be tied when you meet your fate!”112 By stressing orthodox systems of reckoning, then, Taixu is seeking to distinguish himself from heterodox forms of Maitreyanism that predict the imminent apocalyptic transfiguration of this world. Implicitly, he is also rejecting the achievement of utopia through immediate upheaval and conflict.113 Instead, Taixu embraces an incrementalist, evolutionary view. In this vision, morality “increases” and society “evolves” over a cosmic expanse of time. At most, human effort in moral and social purification can “hasten” (cu 促) this process.114 When the evolutionary process is complete and the world is purified, this stimulates (gan 感) Maitreya to descend and achieve

941

194

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Buddhahood.115 This bears strong resemblance to some ideas from Taixu’s radical period. First, the language used here mirrors that employed in the Buddhist Monthly version of “On Atheism,” which likewise envisions an evolutionary process, which can be “hastened” (cu 促) by assisting in moral progress (zhu rendao zhi jinhua 助人道之進化).116 More interestingly, the process of transforming the world here is bottom-​ up as it is in anarchist thought. It is by a multitude of individuals morally transforming themselves that the world is changed. Just as in anarchism when a critical mass of people have become good anarchists anarchy is spontaneously achieved, in Taixu’s Maitreyan thought when a critical mass of people reaches sufficient moral perfection, Maitreya is spontaneously “stimulated” to descend. The resemblance to anarchism in this respect is highlighted by the contrast to both the heterodox and the orthodox views noted earlier. In the former, Maitreya is the agent of change who comes to save and redeem the world. In the latter, the world process is an impersonal one in which the moral quality of people and the corresponding quality of the natural environment rises and falls with the regularity of the tides.117 Taixu’s is a third way in which agency is attributed to the ordinary beings of this world who may “hasten” but not skip the long evolutionary process. A final point to note in this regard is the way in which Taixu’s vision of a pure land on earth trillions of years from now creates a teleological, future-​ oriented vision of history. We saw signs of this in ­chapter 3, but it is made especially clear in the closing exhortation of his commentary on the Ascent Sutra. There he states I hope that all of you will, from this day forth, understand truth based on the teachings and practice based on that truth [so that] you may attend not just the Dharma assembly that ends today, but also in the future the assembly in Tuṣita, the assemblies of the Dragon Flower, and all the assemblies of the [eons to come]!118 Here Taixu draws a line of continuity from the present assembly on through progressively greater assemblies of the future, a line to be traveled through the agency of the listeners. Rhetorically, Taixu faces his audience forward to the future and says, “Onward and upward!” Whereas much of contemporary Buddhism, and especially Amitābha Pure Land, was passive and oriented primarily toward death in Taixu’s view, the Ascent Sutra offered an activist vision oriented toward the future.119 This portrayal of the pure land on earth may be surprising for some readers. Certainly this is not how the notion is presented in the English-​language

915

Bodhisattva of Progress

195

scholarly literature.120 Pittman, for instance, in his book on Taixu portrays the pure land on earth as a “practical” vision for the future undertaken by humanistic bodhisattvas. This, however, represents partial reading of “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth.”121 A closer examination reveals more continuity than one might have expected. “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” is a surprisingly complex and variegated text. It is cast as a response to a layman’s letters, which suggest plans for a Buddhist commune, which he terms a “pure land,” in which life and property will be secure, allowing individuals to opt out the struggles of broader society. Taixu takes this as a springboard for his own thoughts on a pure land on earth that will satisfy these two basic desires. Taixu’s analysis of the obstacles to such security show echoes both of radical thought and of some themes seen in his views of the Essentials. Although there is nothing wrong with the desire for security of person and property, the way it is pursued is counterproductive. Much as in the “Three Great Evils,” Taixu argues that people have children in order to extend their lives and form nations to protect their property. Yet family and nation breed competition and conflict that endangers person and property rather than secures them.122 Amplified by Darwinism, “the theory that taught people to imitate animals,” this has bred the twin dangers of the “whitification” (baihua 白化) of imperialism and the “redification” (chihua 赤化) of class struggle.123 In such a world, the beings of the evil births walk among us: Those who emphasize strength and power are . . . asuras who harm others to benefit themselves. Those who value the necessities and focus on benefit are beasts and animals who eat others to fatten themselves. The many who are oppressed by capital and work without recompense, are they not hungry ghosts? The many who oppressed by force, free in neither speech nor movement, are they not in hell?124 Humanity remains trapped in this state of affairs in part because people either exaggerate the problem or fail to recognize it. Pessimists believe this world can never become a pure land. One might as well commit suicide or just float along; trying is useless. Optimists, one the other hand, think this world is already a paradise. Infatuated, they see no problem to be resolved.125 Like samsara and nirvana in the Maitreya School, pessimism and optimism must be held in equidistant tension in order to work for a better world. The Buddhist tradition, according to Taixu, offers a “model” of such a world:  Uttarakuru, the utopian northern continent of Buddhist cosmology, which Taixu invoked in “A Cursory Discussion of the Equalization of

9 61

196

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Wealth.”126 In his “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth,” Taixu quotes the chapter on Uttarakuru (Yudanyue zhou pin 鬱單越洲品) from the Sutra on the Causal Foundation for the Arising of the World (Qi shi yin ben jing 起世因本經) (T1, 24)  in its entirety and provides commentary. In Taixu’s interpretation, Uttarakuru comes to resemble the utopian imaginings of Wu Zhihui. It is a world of freedom and material abundance without family or government. All live in a world of Datong in which all their needs are met by wondrous trees and pools, which Taixu interprets to be references to advanced technology. Like the pure lands, Uttarakuru is not a mere metaphor but another planet not unlike ours and thus suitable as a model.127 It would be wrong, however, to see Uttarakuru as indicating that technology is sufficient to address human suffering and secure person and property. Science may alleviate bodily and environmental suffering. But many disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, and plagues are beyond science’s powers as is social suffering. To eliminate suffering altogether, the fundamental source, the mental karma of sentient beings, must be purified.128 An Uttarakuru-​like pure land on earth must be established through “Buddhification” (fohua 佛化), implicitly a third way that avoids the evils of whitification and redification.129 Taixu distinguishes between two aspects of this approach:  that treating the disease (zhi ben 治本) and that treating the symptoms (zhi biao 治標). The latter refers to the things that Pittman emphasizes in his account: the creation of an international Buddhist organization that will allow individuals to opt out of Darwinian struggle in favor of a life of virtue and mutual aid and of a ideal community referred to as a pure land on earth centered on a core monastery that will serve as a model inspiring others to establish similar communities of their own.130 The former is based on the teaching of Uttarakuru and focuses on the purification of individuals. In a manner similar to the yogic cycle discussed in the section on the first essential, one is to first transform oneself through the practice of the ten virtues and then take the ten virtues as one’s practice and spread this teaching, transforming the multitudes, extend virtue and propriety, reform vulgar customs, eliminate war and punishment, improve livelihoods, care for the old and young, save the crippled and comfort the tired. If greed is eliminated, proletariat and capitalist classes can be equal; if aversion is eliminated, international wars can be laid to rest.131 This second approach seems to point not to a provisional, model pure land but a world fully transfigured. This would seem to be the pure land on earth

917

Bodhisattva of Progress

197

in which Taixu envisions an absence not only of Darwinian struggle but even of flood and fire and which he has in mind when he suggests that Uttarakuru is a model for this world. The relationship between the “concrete pure land” of the model community and this full pure land on earth seems to echo that between the New Villages of the New Culture Movement and the utopia their founders hoped they would usher in.132 It thus seems likely that the addition of this element to the cult of Maitreya in the late 1920s or early 1930s played a key role in the shift from the circumspect first phase of the cult to its expansive second phase. Taixu does not make the connection explicit until his 1932 Ascent Sutra commentary, but there are already hints of it in his 1930 talk “Creating a Pure Land on Earth,” which states that after “incalculable time, [this world] will become the universe of a Buddha.”133 Certainly this would do much to explain the increased frequency of lectures on the Ascent Sutra after 1929 and the addition of the Sutra of Maitreya’s Descent as another important text. Yet it may be objected that it seems unlikely that Taixu would not realize the utopian possibilities of Maitreya until so late in the cult’s development. It might be argued that Taixu plays down the Maitreyan connection in his first iteration of the pure land on earth in order to appeal to a broader audience. “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” may have been designed to address constituencies less amenable to Maitreyan eschatology, such as the relatively secular-​minded or followers of Amitābha Pure Land. Perhaps since Maitreya is the fulfillment of the pure land on earth rather than the agent of its creation, Taixu felt he could be omitted in order to reach a larger audience. This is unlikely, however. “Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” could certainly have been framed around Ketumati rather than Uttarakuru, but it was not. Also, had Taixu seen a close connection between the pure land on earth and Maitreya at that time, we would expect to see the shift to active propagation of the cult coincide much more closely with the timing of the essay. Finally, it must be pointed out that although the term “pure land on earth” is not used by Taixu until 1926, the idea was present in incipient form in his radical works, particularly “On the Three Great Evils.” Moreover, in his radical days as in “On Establishing the Pure Land on Earth,” he connects it with Uttarakuru. Why then did Taixu fail to make the connection? There are a few possibilities. First, we have noted the strong Yogācāra cast of the cult in its early days. Maitreya in his role as the master of Yogācāra is less obviously utopian than he is in other contexts. The selection of the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent rather than the more clearly utopian Sutra of Maitreya’s Descent for inclusion in the Three Essentials may be connected to this. The former was a text of importance to

981

198

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Yogācārins such as Xuanzang and Kuiji, whereas the latter was not. Also, the strong association between the utopian side of Maitreya and heresy may have been important. We have noted Taixu’s strong reaction to the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society in the previous chapter and in the present one we have seen additional evidence of his concern to distinguish his Maitreya School from heretical doctrines. It may be that Taixu initially resisted the utopian possibilities of Maitreya due to this association. Why then did he make the connection when he did? We saw in the previous chapter that there is reason think that one proximate cause for the shift in the cult was the plan for a World Peace Maitreya mooted in Shanghai in 1929. We might speculate that this demonstrated both the appeal of Maitreya as a symbol of hope for the future and the possibility of recasting his future utopia in new language to loosen the association with heterodoxy. The mixed reaction to the World Peace Maitreya may account for the additional lag before Taixu proclaimed the connection in print. Conversely, the commercial success of his Ascent Sutra commentary may have encouraged him to make this a more prominent part of his reform program. In conclusion, then, Taixu’s writings on the Ascent Sutra and Maitreya Pure Land suggest an articulation of his key concerns over time. Initially, it seems that his central concern was with securing nonretrogression and thus ensuring eventual Buddhahood for himself and his followers through ethical work in the world that might have led them astray from the path but only increased their chances of birth in the Inner Court. Later it seems that this came to be entwined with the utopian ideology of the pure land on earth. What was simply an insurance policy for earthly bodhisattvas striving to elevate society became an integral part of Taixu’s vision of a perfect world. Though still created from the bottom up by individuals purifying their own moral natures, the pure land on earth was deferred into the mythological future and crowned by the advent of Maitreya. Those beings who had made this pure land possible and been reborn with him in Tuṣita would then be reborn and attain the fruits of the path under a fully enlightened Buddha. Thus practitioners of the Maitreya School could be assured of both a perfected self and a perfected world that they themselves would see. The entwining of these two was almost certainly a factor in the shift to a more expansive vision of the cult and toward its active propagation. The construction of this edifice is not without interpretive strain, however. Melding a progressive, evolutionary, and voluntaristic vision of history to the Maitreya narrative is not an easy fit. There is no basis in the Ascent Sutra for this, and it contradicts the classical notion of the cosmic cycles found in many texts, including the Abhidharmakośa, a text Taixu himself cites

9 91

Bodhisattva of Progress

199

in his commentary. According to the Kośa, we are currently in the declining phase of the cosmic cycle, which must bottom out and reach a new zenith before Maitreya is born at which time the decline phase begins again.134 This process is, moreover, impersonal and inalterable.135 Taixu extracts Maitreya from the context of this cyclical cosmology and frames him instead in the teleological metahistories he imbibed from the reformers and radicals of his youth.136

Conclusion We can thus see that Taixu’s reading of the Three Essentials is shot through with values that had concerned him since his anarchist days. In the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” he saw a form of knowledge that paralleled and surpassed science and that would transform both self and world. Both there and in the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa he saw a conception of the bodhisattva as a self-​sacrificial hero, an activist working to implement an ethic of mutual aid. Moreover, the latter text was interpreted to offer justification for revolution against injustice and oppression. Finally, in the Sutra on Maitreya’s Ascent and related texts, he found a teleological vision of history in which the moral self-​perfection of individuals would drive a progressive evolutionary process that would culminate in a perfected world in the future. These interpretations simultaneously bind these values to core concerns of the Buddhist tradition. The pursuit of the path is precisely the work of revolution, both in the outer world and in the inner, and guarantees one’s future Buddhahood. As we have seen, this synthesis is not without tension. The Yogācāra teachings of the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” are not entirely like science, nor is the connection drawn between inner and outer revolution very clear. In both the “Chapter” and the Prātimokṣa, the critique of social systems that is a hallmark of modern revolutions is missing. Moreover, the bodhisattva path holds its practitioner aloof from the world even as it urges him to engage it. Finally, the progressive and voluntaristic vision of social evolution that Taixu finds in the Maitreyan sutras is a direct contradiction of texts he himself cites. We might further add that the Three Essentials as a group are only rather loosely knitted together. Though they all relate to Maitreya in some fashion, additional attempts to tie them to one another have a rather ad hoc feel. This is perhaps a difficulty inherent in the approach that Taixu took in 1924 when he inaugurated the Maitreya School through the collation of existing texts. While this tied the new cult firmly to tradition, it also made tight intellectual integration difficult.

02

200

T he C ult o f M aitreya

Nevertheless, it is a more stable configuration than the shifting positions we saw in ­chapter  2. There are two reasons for this. First, the Three Essentials all answer problems that Taixu found in radicalism. The “Chapter on Knowing Reality” brings the subjective into the realm of true knowledge in a way that he (and others in on the philosophy of life side of the science and metaphysics debates) felt that scientism could not. The Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa’s demand for constant moral vigilance guards against the secularization that Taixu felt he had fallen victim to in his radical days and that his students had more recently. Finally, the Ascent Sutra offers a way to ensure that one may work for a perfect world while being assured of seeing it oneself, as well as guaranteeing one’s continued progress on the path. Second, the Three Essentials do provide indigenous analogue to radical values in important respects, even if they may be exaggerated in Taixu’s interpretation. The “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” like all Yogācāra, is characterized by an analytical rationality that bears some resemblance to that of science. The Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa does provide a more activist ethic. And the Maitreyan sutras do provide an orientation toward the future and a dream of a better world. These are strains of the Buddhist tradition that had been comparatively marginal in recent centuries in Chinese Buddhism. By drawing them to the center of his thought in the cult of Maitreya Taixu was able to create a place in Buddhism for the anarchist-​derived values that had taken hold of him in his youth. In this new constellation the key values are still oriented by the hypergoods identified in c­ hapter 2: perfected self and perfected society, Buddhahood and utopia. These remain in a degree of tension. As we have seen, all three texts reflect contradictory urges to engage the world and to transcend it. Although Maitreyan theology does not resolve this, by rooting it firmly in a set of received texts it recasts it as the tension between saving sentient beings below and seeking bodhi above (xia du zhongsheng, shang qiu puti 下度眾生, 上求菩 提). This tension, inherent in the bodhisattva path, is given new life through the superscription of anarchist ideals. The anarchist heritage of the new cult of Maitreya also sheds light on the evolution of Taixu’s utopian thought and political leanings. We noted in ­chapter  2 that in Taixu’s radical writings there is a strong connection between the spontaneity of anarchist revolution and the subitism of Chan. We also noted that anarchism’s insistence on a spontaneous and complete transformation of the social sphere was a difficult stance to maintain. As a result, many erstwhile anarchists such as Wu Zhihui deferred the revolution and the utopia it would bring far into the future in favor of concrete gradual

201

Bodhisattva of Progress

201

reforms in the present, a stance that opened the way for cooperation with the KMT. Now we can see an interesting variation on this pattern in the case of Taixu. Taixu demonstrates ambivalence about revolution as an immediate possibility and first delayed utopia into the indefinite future in “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” and then further into the mythological future in the Ascent Sutra commentary. As in the case of other anarchists, this deferral is part of Taixu’s rightward drift. Once the revolution that inaugurates utopia is deferred, the anarchist emphasis on individual moral transformation is quite compatible with a more conservative orientation. Interestingly, this shift in Taixu’s thought also follows a long-​standing pattern in Chinese Buddhism. A number of eminent monks who were advocates of the immediacies of sudden Chan in their youth eventually came to embrace the gradual and mediated practice of Pure Land. The evolution of the cult of Maitreya, with its gradual practices, deferred utopia, and promise of a pure land, may thus have been driven by instabilities in both the radical and the Buddhist traditions. In the past two chapters I have argued that the cult of Maitreya was significant both historically and intellectually. In the next chapter I address perhaps the most important objection to this argument: If the cult was in fact so significant, why is it not a more prominent part of the contemporary Buddhist landscape or even very well remembered?

Notes 1. In part of a 1936 lecture later published as “The Meaning of ‘Maitreya School,’ ” Taixu asserts that one practices based on the object—​that is, on right knowledge—​and achieves the fruit based on practice. “Cizong de mingyi” 慈宗 的名義 [The name “Maitreya School”], TDQ 6, 9: 1368. It is not easy to see this in the actual content of the texts, however. 2. Other versions state that Asanga ascended to Tuṣita to hear the treatise, but this is the version Taixu mentions. 3. “Yuqie shidi lun pusa di zhenshi yi pin qin wen ji” 瑜伽師地論菩薩地真實義品 親聞記 [Personal notes on [Master Taixu’s] lecture on the Chapter on Knowing Reality of the Bodhisattva Grounds [Section] of the “Yogācārabhūmi śāstra”], TDQ 6, 7: 214–​237. 4. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao” 瑜伽真實義品講要 [Lecture on the essentials of the Chapter on Knowing Reality from the “Yogā(cārabhūmi śāstra)”], TDQ 6, 7: 122–​213. 5. “Renshengguan de kexue” 人生觀的科學 [Humanistic Science], TDQ 14, 23: 13.

0 2

202

T he C ult o f M aitreya

6. Ibid., 65. 7. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 138. 8. According to this teaching, each dharma has five types of marks: (1) self marks (zi xiang 自相)—​its unique identity; (2)  common marks (gong xiang 共相)—​ those characteristics that it holds in common with others of its type; (3) distinguishing marks (chabie xiang 差別相)—​those characteristics that distinguish it from other dharmas; (4) causal marks (yin xiang 因相)—​the particular causal conditions that led to the arising of the dharma; and (5)  fruition marks (guo xiang 果相)—​the accomplishment of the dharma’s arising. 9. (1) One encompasses one (yi she yi 一攝一)—​each dharma retains its own character in the causal matrix; (2)  one encompasses all (yi she yi qie 一攝一切)—​ each dharma is causally related to the entire universe; (3) all encompasses one (yiqie she yi 一切攝一)—​the entire universe is causally related to each dharma; and (4) all encompasses all (yiqie she yiqie 一切攝一切)—​every dharma is tied to every other dharma in causal bonds of “mutual connectivity” (xianghu zhi liandaixing 相互之連帶性). 10. Ibid., 138–​139. 11. Ibid., 140. 12. Erik J. Hammerstrom, The Science of Chinese Buddhism: Early Twentieth-​Century Engagements (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), ­chapter 3. 13. “Cizong xiuxi yi” 慈宗修習儀 [The Rites for Regular Practice of the Maitreya School], TDQ 9, 17: 539. 14. If he wished to contemplate the meaning of such a complex text, he would need to be attentive. 15. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 175. 16. Names (ming 名), phenomena (shi 事), posited identity (jiashuo zixing 假說自 性), and posited difference (jiashuo chabie 假說差別). 17. Ibid., 200–​201. See also: Tao Jiang, “A Buddhist Scheme for Engaging Modern Science: The Case of Taixu,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 29 (2002): 533–​552. 18. Taixu unfortunately seems to have believed that the text itself could teach the practice. The uncertainty and trouble that at least some lay and monastic followers had with it suggests that additional instruction would have been helpful. See “Da luo puwu wen” 答羅普悟問 [Responses to Luo Puwu’s inquiries], TDQ 17, 26: 464–​465. 19. “Rensheng guan de kexue,” 14–​17. Some Buddhists of the day agreed that Yogācāra constituted a form of scientific inquiry but saw this as a defect. Erik J. Hammerstrom, “The Heart-​of-​Mind Method: Legitimating a New Buddhist Movement in 1930s China,” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 17, no. 2 (2013): 16. 20. On these debates, see: David W. Y. Kwok, Scientism in Chinese Thought, 1900–​ 1950 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965). On Buddhist involvement,

0 23

Bodhisattva of Progress

203

see:  Erik J. Hammerstrom, “Buddhism and the Modern Epistemic Space,” in Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, ed. Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 79–​110. 21. Donald Lopez makes a similar observation. Donald S. Lopez, Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 19. 22. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao” 152. Tang Dayuan makes a similar point in his lecture on the text. Tang Dayuan 唐大圓, “Yuqie shidi lun zhenshiyi pin jiangyao lu” 瑜伽地論真實義品講錄 [Record of the Concise Lecture on the Chapter on Knowing Reality of the “Yogācārabhūmi śāstra”], Haichaoyin 海潮音 9, no. 4 (May 1928): 33. 23. “Shuo geming” 說革命 [Revolution discussed], TDQ 13, 22: 1273–​1274. Similar notions can be found in “Geming dang cong ge xin qi” 革命當從革心起 [The revolution must begin with the reform of the mind], TDQ 13, 22: 1283–​1299. 24. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 152. The phrasing, of course, recalls one version of the first utterance of the Buddha following his awakening. 25. “Shuo geming,” 1274. 26. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 152. 27. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 161. 28. Ibid., 135. 29. For further discussion of this point in the context of Taixu and other reformers’ engagement with evolutionary theory, see Justin R. Ritzinger, “Dependent Co-​ evolution: Kropotkin’s Theory of Mutual Aid and Its Appropriation by Chinese Buddhists,” Chung-​Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 89–​112. 30. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 127–​128. This must qualify Chen’s assertion that proponents of Yogācāra were too enamored of the world-​transcending aspects of the school to use it to engage in the world. Chen Bing, “Reflections on the Revival of Yogācāra in Modern Chinese Buddhism,” translated by Justin Ritzinger, in The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, ed. Ulrich Timme Kragh (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 1076. 31. “Yuqie zhenshi yi pin jiang yao,” 159–​160. 32. Ibid., 163. 33. Ibid., 164. 34. Ibid., 165–​166. 35. See “Renshengguan de kexue,” 44–​49. Taixu claims to have already made this argument in 1914, at the height of his anarchist period. Yu Yu, a member of the Maitreya Study Association, also makes this point in his discussion of Kropotkin’s mutual aid and Human Realm Buddhism. Yu Deyuan 虞德元, “Renjian fojiao de huzhu jichu” 人間佛教的互助基礎 [The foundation of mutual aid in Human Realm Buddhism], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 1 (January 1934) MFQ 186: 101–​103.

0 42

204

T he C ult o f M aitreya

36. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu” 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄 [Record of the lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa], TDQ 6, 16: 415 37. See William Chu, “Bodhisattva Precepts in the Ming Society:  Factors Behind Their Success and Propagation,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 13 (2006). http://​ blogs.dickinson.edu/​buddhistethics/​files/​2010/​04/​chu-​article.pdf. 38. Ibid., 358. 39. Ibid., 360. 40. This organization is not in the original text but is not unique to Taixu. For another example, see Lü Cheng 呂澂, “Yuqie pusa jieben jiemo jiangyao” 瑜伽菩 薩戒本羯磨講要 [Lecture on the essentials of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa Karma], in Xueyuan wu ke jing lun jiangyao 學院五科經論講要 [Lectures on the essentials of the five sutras and treatises of the Academy] (Xizhi 汐止, Taiwan: Daqian 大千, 2003). 41. Lü Cheng, on the other hand, identifies the four weighty precepts as those of discipline. Ibid., 473. 42. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 417. 43. The ungainly double negative here reflects the Chinese. 44. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 370–​371. 45. “Zhi xing zishu,” 志行自述 [My aspiration and practice], TDQ 9, 17: 190. 46. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 387–​388. 47. Ibid., 391. 48. Ibid., 399. At least one of Taixu’s followers seems to have taken this quite literally. According to a report in Haichaoyin, a graduate of Wuchang was inspired by the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa to study medicine and establish a hospital in Beijing. “Mile yuan lishi yiyuan” 彌勒院立施醫院 [The Maitreya Cloister establishes a hospital], Haichaoyin 海潮音 14, no. 5 (May 1933) MFQ 184:113. The name of the monastery with which he was affiliated seems to be coincidental. 49. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 403. 50. Ibid., 403. 51. Ibid., 398. 52. Ibid., 298. See also “Zhi xing zishu,” 188. 53. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 418–​419. 54. Huijue 會覺. “Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu” 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄 [A record of a lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa], Zhengxin 正信 2, 1 (January 15, 1933) MFQB 43:  164. The Chinese term, “hu zhu,” seems to have been associated specifically with Kropotkin’s mutual aid in this period. Indeed, it may be a neologism created for the purpose. 55. As opposed to activities such as sleeping immoderately (“Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 387), which are prohibited by the precepts but are only sinful only so far as their commission betrays the precepts one has taken and the aspiration to Buddhahood they represent. For one who has not taken the relevant precept, no sin accrues.

0 25

Bodhisattva of Progress 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

6 1. 62. 63. 64. 6 5. 66. 67. 68.

6 9. 70. 71. 72. 73.

7 4. 75.

205

Ibid., 373–​378. Ibid., 373–​378. Ibid., 383, 407–​409. “Zhi xing zishu,” 190. Deng Zimei 鄧子美 and Ding Lu 丁露, “Cong mile pusa dao taixu pusa: jian lun dashi renjian fojiao sixiang fazhan mailuo” 從彌勒菩薩到太虛菩薩: 兼論大師 人間佛教思想發展脈絡 [From Maitreya Bodhisattva to Taixu Bodhisattva: with a discussion of the context of the development of the master Human Realm Buddhism thought], in Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝: 紀念太虛大師示寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence] ed. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉 (Beijing:  Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社 2008), 161. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 374–​375. TDN 333–​335. I have unfortunately been able to find no information about the figure. It may be that Shuyi is a style or pen name. Shuyi 蜀一, “Renjian fojiao yu shehuizhuyi” 人間佛教與社會主義 [Human Realm Buddhism and socialism], Haichaoyin 海潮音 15, no. 1 MFQ 186: 96–​97. A key advantage of the text according to Huijue. “Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu,” 163. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 405–​406. Ibid., 391–​392. Mingxing 明性, “Yuqie pusa jieben yu fanwang pusa jieben bijiao zhi yanjiu” 瑜伽菩薩戒本與梵網菩薩戒本比較之研究 [Comparative research on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and the Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa], Haichaoyin 海潮音 16, no. 10 (October 1935): 516. The precise details vary from precept to precept. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 410. Ibid., 412–​413. Ibid., 362. In “My Aspiration and Practice,” Taixu identifies this as one of the excellences of the text. “Zhi xing zishu,” 189–​190. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 416. See also “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 363, and Huijue, “Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu,” 164. The difficulty of the text is perhaps captured most vividly by Jingyan 淨嚴, the editor of the ritual edition: “Although I recited it fortnightly, it was like chewing wax. How could I understand its all its fine distinctions?” Jingyan 淨嚴, “Pusa jieben (songyi hehui biaojie) he kan yuanqi xu” 菩薩戒本(誦儀科會表解)合刊緣起序 [Preface on the origin of the bodhisattva prātimokṣa (with rites for recitation, divided text, and annotation)], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 1 (January 1933) MFQ 177: 112–​113. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 356. Ibid., 354.

6 0 2

206

T he C ult o f M aitreya

7 6. “Cizong xiuxi yi,” 540. 77. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu,” 417. 78. Ibid., 418. See also Taixu 太虛, “Yuqie pusa jieben shi mingti” 瑜伽菩薩戒 本釋名題 [An explanation of the title of the “Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa”], Haichaoyin 海潮音 12, no. 3 (April 1931) MFQ 117: 343. 79. Huijue, “Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu,” 163. 80. “Dui yu zhongguo fojiao geming seng de xunci” 對於中國佛教革命僧的訓 詞 [Instructions for the revolutionary monks of Chinese Buddhism], TDQ 9, 17: 596–​604. 81. As we shall see in the next chapter, Yinshun makes much of this point. Taixu, however, did not. 82. See, for example, Don A. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism:  Taixu’s Reforms (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001), 202–​203, 205, 220, 240, and 252; ­chapter  3 of Holmes Welch, Buddhist Revival in China (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1968); and Ma Tianxiang 麻天祥 20 Shiji Zhongguo Foxue Wenti 20世紀中國佛學問題 [The problems of 20th-​ century Chinese Buddhism], rev. ed. (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue chubanshe 武漢大學出版社, 2007), 71. 83. This was not an original idea. The missionary-​ scholar Joseph Eitel made the same point in the winter of 1870–​1871 as did Shen Shandeng 沈善登 in 1878. Likely the notion circulated broadly. Lopez, Buddhism and Science, x; and Hammerstrom, Science of Chinese Buddhism, 56. 84. “Fo shuo guan mile pusa shang sheng doushuaituo tian jing jiang yao” 佛說觀 彌勒菩薩上生兜率陀天經講要 [Lecture on the essentials of the “sutra spoken by the Buddha on the contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s ascent to Tuṣita Heaven”], TDQ 6, 7: 92–​93. Taixu also sought to prove the existence of Tuṣita on other occasions. “Taixu dashi nan xia hongfa zhisheng” 太虛大師南下宏法誌盛 [Record of the grand occasion of the great Master Taixu’s trip south to spread the Dharma]. Haichaoyin 海潮音 17, no. 1 (January 1936) MFQ 192: 355–​358. 85. Ouyi’s 蕅益 disciple Chengshi 成時, for instance, identified it as one of the reasons to pursue exclusive practice of pure land. “Zhongguo foxue” 中國佛學 [Chinese Buddhist Studies], TDQ 1, 2: 748. 86. “Cizong san yao xu” 慈宗三要序 [Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School], TDQ 19, 30: 766–​767. 87. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 117, 118. 88. Ibid., 91 (twice), 93, 107, and 115. 89. “Doushuai jingtu yu shifang jingtu zhi biguan” 兜率淨土與十方淨土之比觀 [A comparative examination of Tuṣita pure land and the pure lands of the ten directions], TDQ 6, 9: 1361; “Cizong xiuxi yi,” 538, and “Cizong de mingyi,” 1368. 90. “Jushi xue fo zhi chengxu” 居士學佛之程序 [The stages of lay Buddhist study], TDQ 10, 18: 213.

0 2 7

Bodhisattva of Progress

207

91. “Ruhe fa puti xin xiu pusa xing er bu tui” 如何發菩提心修菩薩行而不退 [How to arouse bodhi-​mind and cultivate the practices of the bodhisattva without retrogressing], TDQ 18, 28: 500–​505. 92. “Wo de zongjiao jingyan” 我的宗教經驗 [My religious experiences], TDQ 13, 21: 348. 93. “Lü chan mi jing si xing lun” 律禪密淨四行論 [On the four practices of discipline, meditation, esoteric, and pure land], TDQ 1, 1:635. 94. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 107. This point is also highlighted in the writings of Taixu’s followers. Daming 達明, “Wangsheng jingtu yu shang sheng doushuai zhi yanjiu” 往生淨土與上生兜率之研究 [Research on rebirth in the pure land and ascent to Tuṣita], Zhengxin 正信 4, no. 9 (July 9, 1934) MFQ 61: 324–​327; and Hu Zheng 湖徵, “Mile jingtu yu mituo jingtu” 彌勒淨土與彌 陀淨土 [Maitreya Pure Land and Amitābha Pure Land], Renjian jue 人間覺 1, no. 5 (October 1936) MFQ 81: 68–​69. 95. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 113–​114. 96. Ibid., 107. 97. Ibid., 113. 98. “Cizong xiuxi yi.” 99. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 94. See also “Doushuai jingtu yu shifang jingtu zhi biguan,”1363–​1364. 100. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 107, 118. 101. Ibid., 113–​114. 102. “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun” 建設人間淨土論 [Establishing the pure land on earth], TDQ 14, 24: 405. The same is true of Sukhāvāti. 103. The connection between the two concepts is not unknown in Chinese-​language scholarship, but it has yet to be the object of sustained analysis. See Cai Huiming 蔡惠明, “Mile jingtu yu renjian jingtu” 彌勒淨土與人間淨土 [Maitreya pure land and the pure land on earth], Fayin 法音 53, no. 1 (1989): 23; Li Mingyou 李明友, “Taixu lun renjian jingtu de jianshe” 太虛論人間淨 土的建設 [Taixu on the establishment of the pure land on earth], Zhonghua wenhua luntan 中華文化論壇 3 (2000); Luo Tongbing 羅同兵, “Taixu hongyang doushuai jingtu de zhiqu” 太虛弘揚兜率淨土的旨趣 [The purport of Taixu’s promotion of Tuṣita pure land], Shehui kexue yanjiu 社會科學研究 4 (2002): 68–​70; and Luo Tongbing 羅同兵. Taixu dui zhongguo fojiao xinadaihua daolu de jueze 太虚對中國佛教現代化道路的抉擇 [Taixu’s choices on the road toward Chinese Buddhist modernization] (Chengdu: Bashu Shushe 巴蜀書社, 2003), 155. 104. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,”  107. 105. Ibid., 95. See also “Doushuai jingtu yu shifang jingtu zhi biguan,” 1364; and “Fo shuo mile xia sheng cheng fo jing jiang yao” 佛說彌勒下生成佛經講要 [Lecture on the essentials of the sutra spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s descent and achievement of Buddhahood], TDQ 3, 3: 199.

0 82

208

T he C ult o f M aitreya

1 06. “Xia sheng jing jiang yao,” 194. 107. Ibid., 197. 108. Ibid., 208. See also “Shang sheng jing jiang yao” 112. 109. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 112. 110. See ibid., 91 and 112; “Zenyang fu longhua san hui” 怎樣赴龍華三會 [How to attend the three assemblies of the dragon flower tree], TDQ 3, 3: 270–​272; and “Fo shuo mile da cheng fo jing kai ti” 佛說彌勒大成佛經開題 [Initial remarks on the “sutra spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s great achievement of Buddhahood”], TDQ 3, 3: 220. See also Changxing 常惺, “Fo shuo fa miejin jing ji mile cheng fo jing heyin yuanqi” 佛說法滅盡經及彌勒成佛經 合印緣起 [The origins of the publication in one volume of the sutra spoken by the Buddha on the complete extinction of the Dharma and the sutra on Maitreya’s achievement of Buddhahood], Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊 6, no. 22 (November 1936) MFQ 53: 156. 111. Taixu first addresses this in general terms in his 1932 Ascent Sutra commentary and again more forcefully in his 1934 “How to Attend the Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower Tree” (see note 110). He does not have contact with the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society until 1936, and Maitreyan movements do not become prominent in the secular press until 1945 when the victorious KMT begins cracking down on many of them. It may be that Taixu was aware of heterodox Maitreyan movements before they attracted broader attention (Yiguan dao was just beginning its expansion in the 1930s), or it may be that he was just creating a straw man composed of stereotypic features of heterodox movements. 112. “Zenyang fu longhua san hui,” 271. 113. In this he is similar to many former anarchists, such as Wu Zhihui, who eventually deferred anarchist utopia far into the future. 114. It is worth noting in this connection that when Taixu transmitted the yoga bodhisattva precepts to his followers in Hankou, the merit of upholding them was dedicated to Maitreya’s swift attainment of Buddhahood. “Chuanshou pusa jie yi cheng” 傳授菩薩戒儀程 [Program for the rite of transmitting the bodhisattva precepts], Zhengxin 正信 5, no. 20 (February 18, 1935) MFQB 43: 377. 115. On “stimulus and response” (ganying 感應) as a form of causation in Chinese Buddhism see ­ chapter  2 of Robert Sharf, Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002). 116. “Wushen lun” 無神論 [On atheism], TDQ 13, 21: 284. 117. For a discussion of various Buddhist theories of temporal cycles, see Part 1 of Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1991). 118. “Shang sheng jing jiang yao,” 121. 119. Hu Zheng in his piece on Maitreya Pure Land strongly emphasizes this point. Hu Zheng, “Mile jingtu yu mituo jingtu,” 68–​69.

9 0 2

Bodhisattva of Progress

209

120. The Chinese-​language literature notes the connection but rarely pursues it and frequently interprets it through the lens of Yinshun’s thought. 121. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism, 225–​226. 122. “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun,” 356. 123. Ibid., 384. 124. Ibid., 393. 125. Ibid., 427. 126. Taixu 太虛. “Jun pin fu qianshuo: yi pingdeng jiaoyu wei shouxu, yi gongchan zhuyi wei mudi” 均貪富淺言: 以平等教育為手續, 以共產主義為目的 [A cursory discussion of the equalization of wealth: equal education as method; communism as goal], Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 2 (May 1912): 16. 127. “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun,” 357–​382. Taixu goes on to cite Sukhāvatī as the ultimate fulfillment of the need for security of person and property but does not lavish the same commentarial attention on it or regard it as a model for this world. Ibid. 384–​391. 128. Ibid., 383. The idea that moral reform of the populace could avert natural disasters echoes the Qing-​dynasty stream of apocalyptic spirit-​writing cults centered on Guandi. Wang Chien-​ch’uan 王見川, “Spirit Writing Groups in Modern China (1840–​1937):  Textual Production, Public Teaching, and Charity,” translated by Vincent Goossaert, in Modern Chinese Religion II: 1850–​2015, ed. Vincent Goossaert, Jan Kiely, and Jon Lagerway (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2015), 652–​668. 129. “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun,” 396. 130. Significantly for those who see Taixu’s thought as a form of secularization, the other main form of effort under this category is prayer. Ibid., 399. 131. Ibid., 398. 132. It is noteworthy in that regard that Taixu also cites the failure of a Buddhicized New Village, the Repaying Kindness Village (Bao’en cun 報恩村) as another reason for writing the essay. Ibid., 349. 133. Ibid., 430. Emphasis mine. 134. On this and other cosmic cycles, see part one of Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time.. 135. Though there are of course other cosmological narratives in which the karma of sentient beings seems to be the driving factor. These narratives are not associated with Maitreya, however. 136. On the resulting resemblance to Christian eschatology, see Justin R. Ritzinger, “If We Build It, He Will Come: Hope, Eschatology and the Modern Reinvention of Maitreya in China,” in Hope, a Form of Delusion? (Sankt Ottilien, Germany: EOS, 2013), 207–​228. There is also an echo here of Kang Youwei’s reordering of the three ages from the Confucian classics.

021

21

PART III

Worlds Closing and Opening

21

231

5

Future Interrupted

Introduction At the end of 1936 and the beginning of 1937, the Maitreya School had reached its peak. Long the house cult of Taixu’s seminaries, it was being promoted as a broader movement through a range of media and activities. Bringing together the common dream of a better world with the goal of nirvana, it could, perhaps, have become the cultic side of reform Buddhism. Time, however, had run out. The Maitreya School was on an upward trajectory in early 1937, but its foundations were far from secure. While his students and associates were assuming a larger role in the school, Taixu remained central, setting the agenda for the cult and anchoring it in his personal charisma. In this chapter, we trace the cult’s decline in the decades following the onset of the War of Resistance against the Japanese, as World War II was known in China. This decline can be attributed to several factors: (a) internal weakness—​the cult was still reliant on its charismatic founder; (b) historical happenstance—​ war caused massive disruption to the movement; (c) intellectual evolution—​ Yinshun provided a new interpretation of Maitreyanism that eclipsed Taixu’s, lent itself to a diffusion of the revolutionary utopian framework, and elided those elements most conducive to a popular movement; and (d) political-​cultural shifts—​the world that had broken open with the crumbling of the Qing was closed as strong states in China and to a lesser degree in Taiwan asserted a monopoly on the modern project of remaking society. This last point helps, in some small part, to explain the modest comeback of the cult following reform and openness in the People’s Republic of China and the end of martial law in Taiwan, which we examine in c­ hapter 6.

421

214

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

War and Its Aftermath War The first blow to the Maitreya School was the eruption of war with Japan in July 1937. The Japanese had already been occupying Manchuria for several years, but the Nationalist government had elected to avoid confronting Japan’s much stronger military. This came to an end, however, with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident on July 10, 1937, which the Japanese used as pretext to begin the invasion of north China. Although the government committed itself to defend the nation, they could not withstand the modernized Japanese forces. By the end of July, the two largest cities of the North, Beiping and Tianjin, had fallen. In August, Shanghai was also invaded. When the elite troops defending Nanjing collapsed three months later, the government retreated to the city of Chongqing deep in China’s interior. Within a little more than a year, most of the coastal provinces were under Japanese occupation.1 As Xue Yu has shown, Buddhism in occupied areas was devastated. Monks were often killed on the slightest suspicion of ties to the resistance, and many temples and other structures were destroyed in indiscriminate bombing and bombardments. Significantly, this included the Buddhist heartland of Jiangnan, as well as Taixu’s base of Wuhan. Xuedou Monastery was burned by Japanese forces in November 1938, destroying buildings as well as Taixu’s belongings and rare scriptures and statues. The Wuchang Institute was also forced to close. Many publications ceased or continued only in much reduced form due to paper shortages and Japanese retaliation for prewar propaganda. The occupiers also attempted to establish a united front based on common adherence to Buddhism. Prominent monastics were forced to choose between some degree of accommodation as a condition of public activity and retirement from active life. Taixu’s great rival Yuanying seems to have eventually chosen the former route, while his disciples Daxing and Zhifeng, who had remained in Shanghai, chose the latter, spending much of the war confined to Jing’an Temple (Jing’an si 靜安寺).2 Buddhism in unoccupied China fared only marginally better. The fall of the coastal provinces led to a wave of internal migration as the government, the military, and many civilians retreated to the interior. While spared the outright destruction visited upon many of the temples of the east, the temples in Nationalist-​controlled areas were once again being occupied by government agencies and military units desperate for accommodations in their new surroundings. Monastic resources were also drawn into the war effort in other ways. Monasteries performed rituals to pray for peace and raised funds for the government. The war drained not only time and treasure but also talent. Many

251

Future Interrupted

215

young monks participated in the war in various capacities. Some volunteered for relief teams in the early days, but in 1939 they were subject to combat duty, and following the mass conscriptions of 1944 many enlisted voluntarily, including students from Taixu’s Sino-​Tibetan Institute. Monks even engaged in espionage and assassination in conjunction with the Communists as well as the Nationalists, a service to the cause that would earn them praise at the time but suspicion later.3 Taixu, who fled to Chongqing, spent much of his time on the war effort in these years, actively serving the government in a variety of capacities. In addition to raising money, he served as a mediator between the government and Buddhists and accepted posts on the Committee for General National Mobilization and the China Branch of the International Anti-​ Invasion Conference. He also became closely involved in Buddhist affairs in Yunnan in hopes of tying the province, which had been largely independent since the Qing, more closely to the central government by fostering a sense of a shared religious heritage. Most famously, he undertook a tour of South and Southeast Asia at government expense in an attempt to counteract Japanese propaganda that justified the invasion of China as an attempt to protect Buddhism from persecution by a Nationalist government dominated by Christians.4 Taixu continued to write, teach, and lecture as well but not on the same scale as before the war. Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Maitreyan activity dropped off precipitously. The classes on the Ascent Sutra at Xuedou continued as the troops drew closer in the spring of 19385 but presumably ceased when the monastery was burned. Nothing more was heard from the Maitreya Study Associations in Xiamen or Tongcheng. The Right Faith Society also seems to have ceased operation. What Buddhist activity there was in occupied areas was determined primarily by the agenda of the occupiers. Japanese-​sponsored organizations such as the Buddhist Common Purpose Society (Fojiao tongyuan hui 佛教同願會) and the Sino-​Japanese Buddhist Study Society (Zhongri fojiao xuehui 中日佛教學會) dominated the scene, and ritual occasions such as the Buddha’s birthday were coopted by the occupying authorities to make a demonstration of Sino-​Japanese “friendship” and deliver politically oriented sermons.6 In unoccupied China, Maitreyan activity continued but in attenuated form. The Ascent Sutra and Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa remained in the curriculum at the Sino-​Tibetan Institute and the recitation of the Ascent Sutra and Maitreya’s name continued in the morning liturgy there.7 The cult was also written onto the landscape there as it had been at Nanputuo when Taixu suggested that a proposed “Taixu Terrace” (Taixu tai 太虛台) at the Sino-​Tibetan

621

216

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

Institute be named “Maitreya Terrace” (Cishi tai 慈氏台).8 Maitreya featured prominently in government-​sponsored rites of mourning for the Panchen Lama in which Taixu was involved.9 More quietly Taixu dedicated a printing of the Sutra on Producing the Bodhi-​mind (Chu puti xin jing 出菩提心經) to his late student Baoren’s rebirth in Tuṣita.10 Taixu spoke only twice on the Maitreya School during this time, once at the memorial service for the Panchen Lama in 1938 and once at the Guilin Buddhist Society (Guilin fojiao hui 桂林佛教會) in January 1944.11 Taixu published nothing in this period, but a few of his associates did. Not long after the invasion, Nianxi’s biography of Maitreya appears to have been published as a book with financial support from individuals across China as well as Singapore and the Philippines. Five hundred copies were subsequently sold in order to raise funds to care for those wounded in the war.12 A few years later in occupied Beiping, Taixu’s lay follower Yang Mu 楊木13 published two pieces, one on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and one devoted to the Three Essentials.14 There were a few glimmers of continuing enthusiasm for institution building, but they seem to have been short-​lived. According to a 1942 report published in Shenbao 申報 and Buddhist Studies Biweekly (Foxue banyuekan 佛 學半月刊), monks at Jing’an Temple and Tianzhu Monastery (Tianzhu si 天 竺寺) in Shanghai wanted to establish a “Maitreya School Institute” (Cizong xue yuan 慈宗學院).15 Apparently nothing came of the plan, however. Another ambitious effort took place at Qinglin Monastery (Qinglin si 青林寺).16 When a monk named Jingmiao 淨妙17 took over as abbot, he changed the temple’s name to Maitreya Cloister (Mile yuan 彌勒院), dedicating it to the practice of Tuṣita Pure Land and commissioning a Maitreyan liturgy. On the lunar first and fifteenth there was to be one-​day Maitreya recitation and each year on the Chinese New Year a seven-​day Maitreya recitation retreat.18 Like the Maitreya Institute, however, the Maitreya Cloister disappears from the historical record as soon as it appears. While the Sino-​Japanese War drastically curtailed the development of the Maitreya School, that does not mean that the school was entirely unimportant in these years. As mentioned, one of the most important developments during the war was monastic participation, even in combat. Xue Yu in his study Buddhism, War and Nationalism is much distressed by this, arguing that Buddhists read the canon selectively, seizing on a minority of texts that justify what he terms “compassionate killing,” killing in order to save sentient beings. While Xue Yu is certainly correct that such texts are in a distinct minority, an understanding of the Maitreya School helps to contextualize this. The Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa is part of that minority of texts, as we saw in ­chapter 4,

2 71

Future Interrupted

217

and was recited regularly at all of Taixu’s seminaries and perhaps at other institutions as well. When war loomed in the 1930s, it then should come as no surprise that the Prātimokṣa was one of the texts used to justify Buddhists killing the enemy in combat.19 Thus the notion of “compassionate killing” was not seized on in an entirely ad hoc manner. The cult of Maitreya, along with interest in Yogācāra and Tibetan Buddhism, had made it a prominent part of the “actual canon” for a large number of reform-​minded young monks. We must note here that the slowdown in Maitreyan activity among the reformers does not indicate a lack of interest in Maitreya in other parts of the Chinese religious landscape. Heterodox Maitreyan activity was growing. As we noted in the introduction, popular Maitreyanism set his advent in an apocalyptic narrative. Maitreya would come, in this vision, to save the righteous from the catastrophes in which the wicked would perish. Small wonder that this version of Maitreya appealed amidst the chaos and suffering of the war. Some proponents were otherwise rather orthodox, such as the Lotus Pool Releasing Living Beings Society (Lianchi fangsheng hui 蓮池放生會), which combined popular Maitreyan eschatology with more orthodox Maitreyanism.20 Much more important was a redemptive society called Yiguan dao 一貫道, or the Way of Unity, which was spreading rapidly in occupied territories. Emerging from the Maternist tradition of salvationist religion, its understanding of Maitreya bore only a very little resemblance to that of Taixu and his associates, but, as we shall see, that superficial resemblance likely caused trouble for the Maitreya School in the postwar era, and in ­chapter 6 we find that each has played a notable role in the development of the other since the 1980s.

Since I Could Not Stop for Death . . . The war ended in August 1945. For a moment, it must have seemed that all things were possible again for the reformers. The participation in the war effort, from fundraising to combat, had done much to raise the prestige of the monastic community in general and of Taixu in particular, while suspicions of collaboration (fair or not) had cast a shadow on his major rival Yuanying.21 At long last he had been granted the authority to reorganize the Chinese Buddhist Association (Zhongguo fojiao hui 中國佛教會), and real power to enact reforms lay within his grasp.22 That the reorganization committee was headquartered in Pilu Monastery (Pilu si 毘盧寺) in Nanjing,23 where he had long ago founded his Society for the Advancement of Buddhism as young firebrand, must have made his victory all the sweeter. Old projects were also brought back on track. Taixu’s seminaries were being reopened as was the Right Faith Society and Xuedou Monastery.

821

218

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

The Maitreya School was also showing signs of life. Taixu continued his personal practice, rising early each day to engage in Maitreyan contemplation (Mile guan 彌勒觀)24 and resumed frequent lecturing on the Maitreyan sutras. He did so twice in 1946, once on the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s Great Achievement of Buddhahood (Fo shuo mile da cheng fo jing 佛說 彌勒大成佛經, T14, 456) in Shanghai in May25 and once on the Ascent Sutra in Nanjing in December.26 In the former case, a transcript of his remarks (albeit incomplete) was published in Haichaoyin as had been the custom in the prewar days. In those remarks Taixu elaborates on some of his old ideas, drawing parallels between the Ascent, Descent, and Achievement Sutras and the three Pure Land sutras and hinting at a patriarchate, as well as taking a swipe at heterodox movements.27 This all suggests that, given the opportunity, Taixu would have continued to promote the cult in the postwar era. Such was not to be, however. On March 12, 1947, just nineteen months after the war’s end, Taixu suffered a critical stroke. Though doctors were summoned, nothing could be done. Taixu’s followers silently recited Maitreya’s name by his bedside and prayed for his recovery. On the fifteenth, he is reported to have suddenly said, “Sukhāvatī is so clear and cool; Tuṣita is so delightful,” after which he became unresponsive.28 Taixu died two days later with a number of his monastic and lay followers crowded around his bed, “chanting the name of Maitreya for him that he might be reborn in Tuṣita and return to this world.”29 Taixu’s death inaugurated a great burst of Maitreyan activity. In Shanghai, Fazun was asked to give a seven-​day series of lectures on the Ascent Sutra in order to honor the Master and raise funds for a memorial.30 Another disciple, Huijue, then head of the Wulin Institute of Buddhist Studies (Wulin foxue yuan 武林佛學院) in Hangzhou, called off classes on the eighth of May in order to devote the day to Taixu’s memory. A liturgy was to be recited four times over the course of day, focusing on the recitation of the Ascent Sutra and other Tuṣita Pure Land practices, and the following morning Huijue gave a talk about the Maitreya School and the place it held in Taixu’s seminaries.31 Such memorials were not limited to Taixu’s immediate circle. When news of his death spread, monasteries and temples all over the country held memorial rites, many of them featuring Maitreyan texts.32 Maitreya was also a prominent feature of memorials in the Buddhist press. Haichaoyin published a special issue devoted to the Master in May. Although no essays were devoted to Taixu’s propagation of Maitreyan teachings, almost all referred to the departed Master as having “ascended to be reborn [in Tuṣita]” (shangsheng 上 生) rather than the more typical “gone for rebirth [in the pure land]” (wangsheng 往生).33

921

Future Interrupted

219

While Haichaoyin’s memorial issue carried nothing focused on Taixu’s Maitreyan beliefs and practice, such materials appeared elsewhere. Both Awakening Beings (Jue youqing 覺有情) and Human Realm Buddhism (Renjian fojiao 人間佛教), a journal published by Cihang in Singapore, ran transcripts of Huijue’s remarks to his students, which close with an exhortation to promote the cult. Notably the latter periodical also carried an accompanying photo of Taixu in Maitreyan guise, much like the one discussed in ­chapter 3.34 Great Hero (Daxiong 大雄), the journal of the Shaanxi Buddhist Society (Shanxi fohua she 陝西佛化社), published a memorial issue in honor of the first anniversary of his cremation, which carried an afterword to a special edition of the Descent Sutra—​the text on which Taixu had lectured when he visited Xian in 1931—​that the society had organized. The thousand-​volume printing was dedicated to prayers for Taixu’s return to the human realm and the well-​being of the nation. In his afterword, Kang Jiyao 康寄遙 recalled Taixu’s special connection with Maitreyan teaching and suggested that the Master was in fact a manifestation of the bodhisattva, unrecognized in his day just as Budai had been in his.35 Though Taixu’s death brought the cult into popular consciousness, it was a disaster for the Maitreya School. First, as we noted in ­chapter 3, Taixu remained key to the school’s promotion. No one else had anywhere near his stature or ability to set the agenda for the reform movement. It may also be that no one quite had the same enthusiasm for the project. There may be many reasons for this, some of which we consider presently. Members of the reform movement continued to write and speak on Maitreya occasionally and maintained devotion to him as their personal practice, but no one dedicated himself to the cult’s promotion as Taixu had. Finally, we must add that Taixu’s death was simply a catastrophe for the reform movement as a whole. Taixu had prestige in broader social circles that none of his followers could match. Moreover, his close ties to the Revolutionary Alliance and the KMT had given him powerful political connections, while his long experience (including many missteps) had given him a degree of savvy in dealing with the government that would be sorely needed in the rough days ahead.

Maitreya in Exile Communist Rise, Nationalist Retreat Faced with the common threat of the Japanese, the Nationalists and the guerilla Communists had made a reluctant peace and formed a united front. Both were simply biding their time, and not long after the Sino-​Japanese

0 2

220

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

War ended the Chinese Civil War began. The Nationalists enjoyed significant advantages, including control of most major cities, a larger military, and the majority of the arms and equipment confiscated from Japan. Yet these advantages were squandered through mismanagement and corruption. By 1947, the Communists began to push back the Nationalist forces. More effective on the battlefield and more adept at popular mobilization, the Communists quickly routed the government forces. By the fall of 1949 Mao Zedong was proclaiming the establishment of a new People’s Republic, while Chiang Kai-​shek had fled to Taiwan with around two million soldiers and civilians.36 The rise of the new Communist regime would prove catastrophic for Buddhism. “In the first years after Liberation,” according to Holmes Welch, “there were places in China where monasteries were destroyed, monks were beaten or killed, copies of the Buddhist canon were burned, and sacred images were melted down for their metal. In these places the sangha . . . already worried about the effects of land reform, was reduced to a ‘state of terror.’ ”37 Yet Brooks Jessup has shown that such terror was not universal at the onset of the Communist era. The early days of the Nationalist government had not been without their own excesses after all, and some Buddhists held out hope that they might prove their value to the new regime as they had to the old. The Young Buddhist Association actually grew in membership and expanded its activities in the 1950s even as it actively participated in the “campaign corporatism” of the day38 and “progressive Buddhists,” most importantly Juzan 巨 贊 (1908–​1984), interpreted Buddhist teachings to support the state’s vision of a New China.39 In 1951 we see an intriguing attempt to do something like this with the Maitreya School. In December of that year, Huijue delivered a talk on the Ascent Sutra at the Xiamen Buddhist Studies Association to commemorate the passing of Fafang. His remarks hit many of the themes we have already seen:  the ease of rebirth in Tuṣita, the special affinity beings of our world have with Maitreya, the idea that Tuṣita is not a celestial plane but a heavenly body somewhere in the vastness of space. The connection between Maitreyan practice, morality, and social change, on the other hand, was reframed to fit the new context. The moral practice that we have seen was central to the cult in the Republic was touted as allowing Buddhists to display “the spirit of active endeavor” (jinqu jingshen 進取精神) and thereby avoid social criticism. More importantly, Huijue argued that one changes oneself precisely through the activity of changing the world, a position that he identified with the Party’s “mass line” and the thought of Ai Siqi 艾思奇, a Marxist thinker who had influenced Mao Zedong.40 The lecture thus represented an attempt

221

Future Interrupted

221

to rearticulate the moral frameworks we have located in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology in a Communist idiom. This is the first and last time we hear of the Maitreya School under Mao, however. Beginning in the mid-​1950s, the social and ideological space available to Buddhists shrank. While Marxist ideology led the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to officially bide its time, waiting for religion to inevitably disappear with the socialist transformation of society and the economy, in practice its policies, including land reform, political reeducation, and mass mobilization campaigns actively undercut Buddhism and blurred the distinction between monastics and ordinary citizens by forcing them to work as laborers and enforcing acquiescence to CCP leadership even at the expense of religious commitments. It was a struggle simply to maintain established religious praxis; to promote a new form would almost certainly have been impossible.41 Moreover, the Maitreya School likely faced special problems in this environment. The task of remaking the world was now strictly the province of the Party and the State. While Buddhist periodicals might still refer to the goal of a pure land on earth, they now carefully described Buddhists’ role as assisting the government in its realization.42 From the State’s perspective, the approach taken in the cult of Maitreya would have been doubly tainted. The notion that the moral transformation of individuals would lead to utopia without resort to conflict and struggle, which we have linked to anarchism, was one of the key faults that the Chinese Communists found in that ideology. The idea that such cultivation could lead to the advent of Maitreya would have seemed superstitious at best, seditious at worst. Appeals to Ai Siqi and the mass line could not change that. Maitreya’s connection to heterodox uprisings added to the difficulty. Yiguan dao, which had spread throughout the country after the Japanese defeat, became a key target of the campaign against sects and secret societies and was eradicated on the Mainland.43 Orthodox Buddhists had resented Yiguandao for some time, so many embraced the State’s campaign against it, drawing sharp distinctions between that movement and their own view.44 Yet it is doubtful that the average cadre would appreciate the distinction between the orthodox recitation of Maitreya’s name and the Yiguandao version.45 The possibility of mistaken identity and the potentially catastrophic results would have discouraged active propagation or group cultivation of the Maitreya School. Even if the political climate had been more tolerant, none of the potential torch bearers of the Maitreyan movement was in a position of influence. Huijue spent the early years quietly in Nanputuo Monastery in Xiamen, dying during the Cultural Revolution.46 Another of Taixu’s four great disciples,

2

222

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

Zhifeng is said to have died during the Revolution in 1949.47 The last to remain on the Mainland, Fazun, spent most of his remaining career translating Buddhist texts and other works from Tibetan into Chinese and teaching, dying in 1980.48 Yu Yu, who had been involved in the Maitreya Study Association in Xiamen, likewise pursued a quiet teaching career.49 The only associate of Taixu to achieve a position of any influence, Juzan, had never shown any interest in Maitreya. If these or any other members of the reform movement continued to practice the cult of Maitreya after 1951, they did so privately. Things were far from easy for their Dharma brothers across the Taiwan Strait as well. Although Buddhists were spared the harsh measures of the Communists, conditions on Taiwan were difficult. Buddhist circles suffered not only from a fearful political climate but also factionalism and competition for scarce resources. Politically, the island was full of tension. The local population, the ethnic Taiwanese, had suffered a wrenching transition from fifty years of Japanese rule to KMT governance that saw administrative structures transformed, streets renamed, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese repatriated. Resentment against the government’s heavy-​handedness and corruption erupted in unrest on February 28, 1947, and was violently suppressed. The incident ushered in a period of government repression known as the “White Terror.” The collapse of the Nationalists and the central government’s retreat to Taiwan made things even worse. Fearful of both ethnic unrest and Communist subversion and invasion, the authorities arrested individuals on the slightest pretext in the early days.50 Buddhist monks were not exempt; in fact, they were particularly subject to suspicion. This can be seen in a 1951 ad run in Haichaoyin using Buddhist idiom to call on spies to turn themselves in and for others to inform on them.51 This shows that the government was concerned not merely that spies might dress as monks but that actual monks might in fact be spies. This is not entirely surprising. The mobility and relative anonymity of the monastic life made monks well suited to espionage, and they had played that role for both KMT and CCP forces during the war. This suspicion trapped the large number of monks who had fled to Taiwan in a double bind. Monks traveling, especially in groups, might attract police attention and be arrested, but because they lacked the household registration required for legal residence, temples were reluctant to let them stay. The authorities often visited temples to check everyone’s papers, and a number of monks were arrested, most famously Cihang and Xingyun 星雲.52 Such was the situation for monks without connections. Those with the prestige or contacts necessary to arrange proper paperwork faced a different

23

Future Interrupted

223

set of problems. A number of prominent monastics, such as Daxing, Baisheng 白聖, Zhiguang 智光, Nanting 南亭, and Dongchu 東初, came with the KMT and others, such as Yinshun and Yanpei 演培 followed shortly after. They brought with them the rivalries that had been playing out on the Mainland for decades. Often this is presented as simply a case of reformers versus conservatives. Allegiances, however, were shifting and often had as much or more to do with personal resentments and calculations of interest than interpretations of the Dharma. These rivalries were exacerbated by the smaller stage they played out on. Like most Mainlanders, these monks all settled in the north of Taiwan, bringing them into more direct contact and immediate competition. Furthermore, they were vying for a share of much-​reduced resources. Lay support was a key source of revenue, which the proximity of all parties turned into a zero-​sum game.53 A particular bone of contention, as we shall see, was Shandao Temple (Shandao si 善導寺), the jewel in the crown of Taipei’s monasteries, which brought with it a large lay following.

Yinshun, Maitreya, and the Tempest over Texts It was in this context that Yinshun’s ideas regarding Maitreya were disseminated. Yinshun’s ideas and the reception of the primary work in which he articulated them, the New Treatise on Pure Land (Jingtu xin lun 淨土新論), helped both to cement Maitreya’s place in the repertoire of reformist Buddhism and to ensure its comparative marginality. Born in 1906 in a small village in Zhejiang (not far, as it happens, from where Taixu was born),54 Yinshun left home to enter the monastic life in 1930 after a period of searching. In 1931 he enrolled at the Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies. Soon he was teaching there and beginning to publish pieces in Haichaoyin and other Buddhist periodicals. With the onset of the war, he fled to Sichuan in 1938 where he taught at the Sino-​Tibetan Institute. Already at this early point in his career his students referred to him as “mentor” (daoshi 導師) for his great intellect and erudition. When the Mainland fell to the Communists, he again fled, this time to Hong Kong, staying there until he was invited to Taiwan in 1951 by Li Zikuan 李子寬, a lay follower of Taixu and KMT legislator.55 There he would eventually embark on a career of writing and teaching that would make him the most influential monk of the last half-​century. By the time of his death in 2005, he was widely regarded as the greatest scholar monk since Ouyi Zhixu 藕溢智旭 (1599–​1655), if not Xuanzang (c. 602/​603–​664). In many ways, Yinshun came to be the second founder of the reform movement. As the editor of Taixu’s collected works and the author of his

4 2

224

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

biography, he defined Taixu for later generations even as he came to overshadow him. There are several reasons this occurred. First, his books and writings have been widely available in Taiwan since the 1950s. Indeed, in the 1950s his works made up a significant portion of all Buddhist publishing there. In contrast, Taixu’s works, though collected by Yinshun in the Complete Writings, were not as easily accessible. The massive collection (thirty-​two large volumes) is too expensive for most individuals to afford, though smaller collections of essays, reflecting the priorities of their editors, were available. Second, Yinshun was extremely influential in education. He had his own seminary, the Fuyan Vihara (Fuyan jingshe 福嚴精 舍), and his works were widely used as textbooks in other institutions.56 Third, Yinshun’s longevity is not an insignificant factor in his influence, as Bingenheimer has noted. Yinshun lived until 2005, long after all other major students of Taixu had passed.57 Although Yinshun is widely considered Taixu’s heir and he often gestured to the debt he owed his teacher, the differences between the two are not inconsequential. Both championed forms of what is sometimes referred to as “humanistic” or “engaged” Buddhism that encouraged ethical action in the world, but their conceptions differed in key respects. We noted in ­chapter  3 that Taixu’s Human Life Buddhism was a threefold rebalancing of Buddhist teachings to emphasize the present life, benefitting others, and gradualism to address an era that valued ordinary life, society, and science. Yinshun preferred the term “Human Realm Buddhism” (renjian fojiao 人間 佛教). Whereas “human life,” for Yinshun, indicated that Buddhism was not a religion of death and ghosts, it did not make a sharp enough break from the theism that he felt had corrupted the Dharma.58 As glossed by Marcus Bingenheimer, Human Realm Buddhism means that “the three treasures exist or at least originated in the human realm. . . . The human realm is the true field of [Buddhism’s] history, doctrine, and practice.”59 Taixu, however, found Yinshun’s focus on the human realm excessive and criticized him on this point. While the human realm may be pivotal, it remains for Taixu part of a much larger cosmos.60 Yinshun also differed substantially from Taixu in terms of approach. Whereas Taixu was an activist and leader of a movement, Yinshun was primarily a scholar and teacher. Whereas Taixu, at least in his later years, sometimes found it politic to merely gesture to certain problems in Buddhism, Yinshun preferred to pursue them even at the expense of displeasing others. Finally, whereas Taixu emphasized the Chinese schools of Buddhism and pursued ever-​broader syntheses, Yinshun effectively privileged Indian Buddhism, especially Madhyamika, and took a more critical approach rooted in textual

25

Future Interrupted

225

analysis.61 All of these differences can be seen reflected in Yinshun’s treatment of Maitreya. The core of Yinshun’s Maitreyan thought is to be found in his work New Treatise on Pure Land. We noted in c­ hapter 3 that some devotees of Maitreya had attempted to differentiate between Maitreya’s pure land and Amitābha’s pure land by arguing that the former was better suited to the modern world because it was closer to our world and promoted social engagement while the latter was far off in another world and encouraged practitioners to passively wait for deliverance at death. Such arguments, however, pale in comparison to the innovation of Yinshun’s work and the ambitions of its claims and scope. Originating in a series of lectures given at the Hong Kong Pure Karma Lodge (Jing ye lin 淨業林) in 1951, it offers a comprehensive reinterpretation and reorientation of pure land,62 which has been the dominant form of piety in Chinese Buddhism for centuries. Its thesis, laid out on the opening page, is that there is more to pure land than reciting the name in order to be reborn in Sukhāvatī. Chinese Buddhism’s near-​exclusive focus on Amitābha’s pure land and recitation of his name to secure rebirth there represent a profound imbalance. Yinshun attempts to redress this in three ways: (a) redefine “pure land,” (b) recover the plurality and balance of the pure lands, and (c) restore the original meaning of “Buddha recollection” (nianfo 念佛) and the priority of the difficult path (nanxing dao 難行道) over the easy (yixing dao 易行道).63 Maitreya occupies a special place in this work. Although Yinshun discusses several pure lands besides Amitābha’s, Maitreya’s is the only one to receive an entire section devoted to it. In fact, the promotion of the Maitreya Pure Land as an alternative to Amitābha Pure Land is often taken as one of the major points of the work. The prominent Taiwanese historian Jiang Canteng, for instance, identifies this as one of the text’s key innovations and even a point of contrast between Yinshun and Taixu, writing, Pure Land beliefs have been the main current of Chinese Buddhism in recent centuries. When critiquing Chinese Buddhism, Yinshun naturally could not avoid it. Yet he also could not avoid offering a replacement. Thus he chose Maitreya beliefs, which are more deeply rooted in early Buddhist thought and include Maitreya’s descent and attainment of Buddhahood, as a replacement for Amitābha Pure Land.64 In a response to Jiang, Yinshun denies that there was anything innovative in his treatment of Maitreya, pointing to Taixu’s promotion of the Maitreya School. He argues, “None of Taixu’s followers were unaware of his advocacy

6 2

226

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

of Maitreya Pure Land. I only carry on the Master’s legacy. How can he say there is any difference between Master Taixu and I [on this point]?”65 While Yinshun is certainly correct to point out that his thought in this area is rooted in Taixu’s, his claim to “only carry on the Master’s legacy” without any difference is not accurate.66 While largely true to the spirit of Taixu’s thought, Yinshun makes some subtle, yet important, changes. First, Yinshun decouples the Maitreya sutras from the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and the “Chapter on Knowing Reality.” Although Taixu laid increasing emphasis on the sutras in the later phases of his life, they always remained part of the broader Maitreya School. Yinshun, in contrast, never discusses the sutras with the other texts as a group. In fact, he never uses the term “Maitreya School” in his works except in connection to Taixu. This may be because, unlike Taixu, he did not accept the attribution of the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra to Maitreya.67 Moreover, since he considered Madhyamaka, not Yogācāra, the highest expression of the Dharma, he had less reason to stress the text. Second, while Yinshun’s thought carries on the radical values we found implicit in earlier Maitreyan theology, he makes them explicit. Yinshun highlights the similarities between pure lands and the worldly utopias of anarchism. A  pure land, in Yinshun’s view, has a purified economy organized according to the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” in which all enjoy equality. Likewise, it has a purified society in which there is no family, an institution he states is based on mutual ownership and the perpetuation of private property, as well as no race. Under such circumstances, there is no invasion or oppression; rather, “altruistic aid” (wu daijia de xiezhu 無代價的協助) is the rule. Features such as this, he explains, are why Taixu said, “in politics, anarcho-​socialism (wuzhengfu de shehuizhuyi 無政府的社會主義) is extremely close to Buddhist thought.”68 Yet while Yinshun makes this aspect of Taixu’s thought explicit, he also diffuses it. As we saw in the previous chapter, Taixu associated these things specifically with the future earthly pure land of Maitreya (as well as Uttarakuru). Yinshun, on the other hand, makes them general features of pure lands as a class. Something similar occurs with his discussion of the “adornment” (zhuangyan 莊嚴), or creation, of pure lands. We noted in the previous chapter that, for Taixu, Maitreya’s pure land on earth was created from the bottom up by sentient beings gradually purifying themselves and others. Yinshun develops this notion by tying it to the doctrine of shared karma (gongye 共業). While sentient beings’ bodies are purely the product of their own karma, the environment they experience in common is the result of shared karma. As such, “the sentient beings of the world can pull each other up and help one another.”69 Buddha worlds such as that of Śakyamuni and Maitreya are primarily  the

2 7

Future Interrupted

227

result of the karma of sentient beings, but even otherworldly pure lands are created through the efforts of groups of bodhisattvas. As Yinshun puts it, “pure lands are created by Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and sentient beings gradually pulling one another up (huxiang zengshang 互相增上).”70 The anarchist themes of a bottom-​up transformation of the world through mutual aid comes through clearly here, and as in the previous case it is diffused to pure lands in general (at least in part). Like Taixu, moreover, Yinshun is willing to sacrifice fidelity to the canon in the service of these values. In these sutras, pure lands are the creation of the vows and practices of a single bodhisattva, not a group. Yinshun is able to ground his interpretation in the abstract principles of doctrine, but this marks a departure from the close reading of the sutras he adopts elsewhere in the text. Third, Yinshun places overwhelming emphasis on Maitreya’s earthly pure land in the future at the expense of his current heavenly pure land in the present. This contrasts markedly with Taixu, who placed the two on roughly equal footing. Yinshun presents this as a corrective, stating at the outset that “the average student of Buddhism knows that Maitreya Bodhisattva dwells in Tuṣita Heaven, that there is a Tuṣita pure land, but does not know that Maitreya’s pure land is really in the human realm.”71 But Yinshun is not simply trying to bring the scales back to even. He is placing his thumb firmly on the side of the pure land on earth. One of the surprising things about this section is how repetitive it is, in marked contrast to Yinshun’s other writings. Five times in five pages Yinshun tries to impress upon the reader that the real significance of Maitreya Pure Land is in the pure land on earth; Tuṣita is significant only as a means to that end.72 Tuṣita, though acknowledged, is thoroughly instrumentalized and consistently deemphasized, here and elsewhere in Yinshun’s works.73 Rebirth in Tuṣita is given independent treatment only in his comprehensive primer, The Way to Buddhahood (Cheng fo zhi dao 成佛之道) where it is briefly glossed as an expedient suitable for those at the earliest stages of the path.74 One reason for this is the absence of the deep concern for nonretrogression that marked Taixu’s Maitreyan thought. Yinshun scarcely mentions it in the New Treatise, referring to it only briefly as a general characteristic of pure lands.75 Yinshun, it seems, was not moved by the same soteriological anxiety that Taixu felt. This may be rooted in their different approaches. Yinshun was always more of a scholar-​monk. Even at his most active, his primary endeavors were lecturing and research. The latter was itself for Yinshun a profound form of cultivation.76 As such, he may have felt more securely rooted in the Dharma than his activist teacher whose frenetic schedule and political involvements must have led to far more distractions.

8 2

228

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

A second reason is Yinshun’s low view of the “easy path” exemplified for him by none other than Maitreya. “Ease” (yi 易), as we have seen, had long been one of the key arguments for Amitābha Pure Land. We have also seen that some in the 1930s tried to make the argument that Maitreya Pure Land was actually easier. Yinshun dismisses this debate as “without much significance.”77 According to Yinshun, the entire notion of the “easy path” has been fundamentally misunderstood. Although Nāgārjuna is usually cited as the locus classicus for this idea, Yinshun traces its origins to the Sutra on the Questions of Maitreya Bodhisattva (Mile pusa suowen jing 彌勒菩薩所問經) (T12, 349). In this scripture the easy and difficult paths refer not to separate ways to attain Buddhahood but two aspects or phases of the path. The former refers to “pleasant practices” (anle xing 安樂行) such as devotion and rebirth in pure lands, while the latter refers to “painful practices” (ku xing 苦行) such as asceticism and sacrificial giving. Both are necessary, but as an expedient the novice bodhisattva may first undertake the pleasant practice of devotion and rebirth. This is not a neutral decision, however. According to the Sutra of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Question, Maitreya himself first undertook the pleasant practices, while Śākyamuni first devoted himself to the painful practices. The result was that although Maitreya attained nonretrogression eons earlier than Śākyamuni, when Śākyamuni turned his attention to devotions, the tremendous merit he had accumulated on the difficult path enabled him to complete the easy path in a single night, leapfrogging ahead of Maitreya. The lesson drawn is that while the so-​called difficult path may be riskier, it is much faster. As Yinshun puts it, “On the difficult path, it is easy to attain Buddhahood; on the easy path, on the other hand, it is difficult.”78 We have here, then, a Buddhist tale of the tortoise and the hare that indicts the easy path. Thus, in Yinshun’s view, although Nāgārjuna discussed the easy path of rebirth in the pure land, he considered the concern for nonretrogression to betray a fear in the face of samsara unworthy of a bodhisattva.79 The true bodhisattva works to create a pure land, not be reborn in one. Even Taixu comes in for implicit criticism on this point. Yinshun quotes a eulogy by Fan Gunong, “The great master expounded the true path, [yet] he took the expedient path.”80 Thus the creation of Maitreya’s future pure land on earth and the securing of rebirth in his current one that Taixu had joined together, Yinshun puts asunder, elevating the former over the latter. In the process, Yinshun injects a deep ambiguity into his treatment of Maitreya. In his telling of the tale in the Sutra on Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Questions, Maitreya comes off as a rather lazy and unworthy figure. He is an exemplar of what Yinshun sees as the wrong approach to the path. Yet

9 2

Future Interrupted

229

elsewhere he takes a very different view. In a New Year’s sermon published in Haichaoyin in 1954,81 he addresses the fact, mentioned in ­chapter 4, that although Maitreya is an advanced bodhisattva, he appeared as an ordinary being in Śākyamuni’s assembly. According to Yinshun, Maitreya manifested himself in this way in order to provide a “model for sentient beings in the latter ages.” Thus he did not focus on the cultivation of samādhi and cutting off afflictions, but in order to benefit others worked more on giving, precepts, forbearance, compassion, diligence, etc. In the sutra, someone asked: How can someone like Maitreya who does not cultivate samādhi or cut off afflictions become a Buddha? Śākyamuni replied that only he could become a Buddha, because those on the bodhisattva path focus on benefitting others and in benefitting others bring self-​benefit to completion.82 Today, the notion developed here of forgoing deep personal cultivation in favor of aiding others is typically known among Taiwanese Buddhists as the “Maitreya spirit” (Mile jingshen 彌勒精神).83 Maitreya is thus the exemplar of both the true bodhisattva spirit and inferior bodhisattva practice. The similarities and differences between Yinshun and Taixu’s thought on Maitreya and the pure lands suggests that Yinshun’s vision can be seen as a new articulation of the same underlying constellation of hypergoods. Utopia is clearly present and still construed in terms that reveal its anarchist origins, but Buddhahood is manifest differently. In Taixu’s later Maitreya Pure Land thought, we saw a three-​staged pursuit of Buddhahood and utopia—​(1) heroically work for the betterment of the world now to (2)  earn rebirth in Tuṣita, where one’s eventual Buddhahood will be secured, and (3)  descend with Maitreya to a world perfected. Yinshun, in contrast, seems to find that step 2 no longer does justice to the heroism of the bodhisattva. Accordingly, he elevates Śākyamuni over Maitreya as an exemplar and argues that only the creation of pure lands through self-​sacrificial practices is truly worthy of the bodhisattva. Maitreya is exemplary only in his penultimate earthly life in which he lives in a completely world-​engaged manner despite his world-​ transcending nature. Yinshun’s thought on Maitreya in the 1950s has exercised great influence in the succeeding decades, even eclipsing that of Taixu. We have already seen an indication of this in Jiang Canteng’s mistaken identification of Maitreya Pure Land as Yinshun’s innovation. The fact that one of the most authoritative historians of modern Chinese Buddhism could make such a mistake speaks volumes. Yinshun’s displacement of Taixu in this area can also be seen in

0 32

230

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

the common knowledge of educated Buddhists today. Very few of these individuals would recognize the term “Maitreya School” or the “Three Essentials.” Rather, in a discussion of Maitreya they typically use Yinshun’s preferred term, “Maitreya Pure Land,” or the “Maitreya spirit,” which is attributed to him.84 Yinshun’s Maitreyan ideas overshadowing Taixu’s helped to insure that the reinvented cult of Maitreya fell into dormancy even as he perpetuated the moral frameworks embedded within it. This is, first, because Yinshun simply was not interested in personally promoting this movement or any other, preferring to devote himself to research and education. It is also the case, however, that his ideas on Maitreya offered little to others who might have been so inclined. One might be inspired by Yinshun’s conception of Maitreya’s future pure land or by the “Maitreya spirit,” but no distinctively Maitreyan mode of praxis is offered. One should work to purify the world, but in the New Treatise this is not firmly connected to Maitreya but is rather a universal feature of the bodhisattva path. Moreover, whereas Taixu tied proper work in the world to Maitreya through the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, Yinshun decouples that text from Maitreya Pure Land. Likewise, all of the meditations, liturgies, and devotions that Taixu promoted were at best uninteresting to Yinshun or at worst sharply disapproved of as in the case of recitation of the name.85 Those aspects of the cult that might have made the Maitreya cult comfortable or accessible to ordinary believers are absent, leaving little way for potential devotees to integrate the values expressed in Yinshun’s Maitreyan thought into their devotional lives. Whereas for Taixu in the 1930s the pure land on earth was closely tied to Maitreya’s advent, for Yinshun, although they are often connected, the ideal lends itself more toward diffusion. The pure land on earth was never exclusively connected to Maitreya, as we noted in the previous chapter, but for those following in Yinshun’s wake they have been effectively divorced. Thus, even though a special connection between Maitreya and the pure land on earth is acknowledged at times in the writings of major figures, such as Xingyun and Sheng Yen 聖嚴86 as well as in any number of books published by young seminarians,87 typically contemporary Buddhists treat is as a generalized goal of Humanistic Buddhism. This is perhaps part of why in most Humanistic Buddhism organizations formal practice and cultic observance appear to be relatively unintegrated with the charitable work they pursue under the banner of “building a pure land on earth.”88 But it is not merely the content of Yinshun’s thought that has helped return Maitreya to the margins. The reception of his pure land ideas, especially those of the New Treatise on Pure Land, was also important. The work unleashed a storm of controversy and played a key role in driving Yinshun

231

Future Interrupted

231

from the abbotship of Shandao Temple. The incident is well studied, so a brief summary will suffice here.89 In his own account, Yinshun portrays himself as victim of factional politics, the object of bitter jealousies over his designation as a delegate to a conference in Japan and most importantly his position as abbot of Shandao. As a result, Yinshun was the object of proxy attacks and a whisper campaign that drove away lay supporters. Most dramatically, his New Treatise on Pure Land and the related Casual Discussion of Buddha-​Recollection (Nianfo qian shuo 念佛淺說) were gathered up by Amitābha Pure Land devotees in Taichung and burned in 1953. This was an unprecedented act: never before had Buddhist books been burned by other Buddhists. For some, the writing was on the wall. Wu Lao Tzer 吳老擇, a student of Yinshun’s at Fuyan at the time, states, “In the White Terror era, they thought that right was right and wrong was wrong. There was no room to let people explain and if you wanted to put someone in mortal peril, there was no need for a knife.” When the book burning took place, there were more than a hundred copies of the New Treatise at Shandao. Rather than wait for the book to be banned, Wu and another student, Changjue 常覺, buried them.90 As it turned out, however, it was a different work, An Outline of the Dharma (Fofa gailun 佛法概論) that met that fate. In that work, Yinshun described Uttarakuru, the northern continent of traditional cosmology that we touched on in ­chapters 2 and 4, in terms similar to those used in the New Treatise as a paradisiacal land without classes or property. He also suggested that the original inspiration was the Tibetan plateau. Although the text was written prior to 1949, an informant made secret charges that it “paved the way for Communism” by stating that Communist-​controlled Tibet was a Buddhist paradise. The result, according to Wu, was a “White Terror that blacklisted Master Yinshun and his followers” (fengsha Yinshun fashi ji qi menxia zhi baise kongbu 封殺印順法師及其門下之白色恐怖).91 The book was banned in January 1954, and the Buddhist Association sent telegrams to all branches and chapters asking that copies be removed from circulation. Although Yinshun’s connections were sufficient to avoid arrest, he was eventually forced to petition to revise the work, claiming that he had made mistakes due to lack of access to the canon, an action he found humiliating. Yinshun escaped prison but continued to be harassed both by the Buddhist Association and the authorities until he gave up the abbotship of Shandao in 1957. As stated earlier, Yinshun portrays this as strictly an ugly incident of monastic politics, mentioning his ideas about pure land as factor only in passing.92 Although the cessation of harassment when Yinshun resigned as abbot confirms that factional rivalries and jealousies were the ultimate motive, Yinshun seems unwilling to confront the role his ideas, and their presentation, played

23

232

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

in the affair. Many found the New Treatise deeply offensive—​and not just “conservatives.” Dao’an 道安, a former student of Taixu and figure of some prominence at the time, for example, thought that the New Treatise denied the existence of the pure lands and identified Amitābha as a sun god. Though he had been a supporter of Yinshun, he cooled toward him after reading the text.93 Even devotees of Maitreya such as Moru and Cihang were put off.94 Some ordinary believers in the 1950s were uncomfortable just with the notion of a plurality of pure lands. The idea that rebirth was an unworthy goal and recitation of the name was not a suitable practice must have seemed threatening, even heretical, to many.95 The tone Yinshun adopted only made matters worse. In the New Treatise, Yinshun discusses the simple Pure Land piety that seeks rebirth in Amitābha’s pure land in the West through the recitation of his holy name with sarcasm bordering on contempt. This is most obvious in his section on Buddha recollection. There he recounts a story from the Record of Foreign Lands (Waiguo ji 外 國記) in which Amitābha, in order to convert the Persians, who were so dense that they could not understand the Dharma at all, manifested as a wondrous parrot who taught the people to recite “Homage to Amitābha.” Although they still knew little or nothing, the story goes, many were reborn in the West. The Chinese, Yinshun states, are not much different. “One cannot help but think that among those reciting the name, people who are even familiar with the Three Jewels are hard to come by.” Yinshun concludes by naming Yinguang, at the time being promoted by the devout as the thirteenth patriarch of Pure Land, as one of the individuals responsible for leading people to profoundly neglect the “deep meaning and great practice of the Mahayana” in the service of accessibility.96 To briefly recap, in this “tempest,” (mantian fengyu 漫天風雨), as Yinshun terms it,97 the three general features of Buddhism on Taiwan in the 1950s sketched out earlier—​monastic factionalism, competition for scarce resources, and a climate of political fear and paranoia—​came together to bring down one of the most prominent monks in the country. But although factionalism and competition may have been the underlying cause, the opportunity was created by the convergence of alternative pure lands and radicalism that characterized Yinshun’s pure land thought as it did the broader Maitreya cult. Yinshun’s rivals were able to mobilize a narrow Pure Land fundamentalism98 against him and use the characterization of a Buddhist paradise in terms of values shared with Communism (though deriving from anarchism) as evidence of subversion. I would argue that this had a chilling effect on anyone who might have thought of carrying on the torch of Taixu’s Maitreya School. Jiang Canteng

23

Future Interrupted

233

claims that Yinshun’s pure land thought was a taboo subject in the 1960s. As support he relates the story of a trip to Taiwan by the Japanese scholar Fujiyoshi Jikai 藤吉慈海. In his conversations with monastics he would ask about Yinshun. The monastics would invariably say that they “did not concur” (bu yi wei ran 不以為然) with Yinshun but would avoid stating precisely with what they did not concur. When Fujiyoshi asked Yinshun, Yinshun replied that they probably meant his ideas about pure land.99 Jiang relates a second case from 1961 in which a young lay person from Taipei wrote to Yinshun because several friends in Taichung had questions about his views on pure land. Yinshun rather impatiently replied that since he lived in Taichung as well they should just come talk to him themselves rather than going through a friend from out of town.100 Second, Yang Huinan has argued that Yinshun being driven from Shandao Temple marked the return of conservatives to political dominance of Chinese Buddhism.101 It is likely that few wanted to challenge this establishment and its Pure Land fundamentalism and meet the same fate as Yinshun. Such trepidations may have been reinforced by the suppression of Yiguan dao by the Nationalist government in 1954, the same year that accusations of subversion were laid against Yinshun. Proponents of the Maitreya School had long been nervous about its superficial resemblance to such apocalyptic Maitreyan movement, so Yiguan dao’s vilification by not only the government but also the Buddhist Association may have been additional grounds for caution. Although Maitreya’s place in Yiguan dao theology was not as central in this period as outsiders sometimes thought,102 his position at the center of its altars might have made devoting space to collective Maitreyan cultivation untenable, given that police often had difficulty differentiating Yiguan dao Buddha Halls from other religious venues.103 Even after the Taiwan government recognized that Buddhists were both staunchly anti-Communist and diplomatically useful,104 opponents of alternative pure lands ensconced in the Buddhist Association could have accused proponents of the Maitreya School of merely using it as a front for the proscribed movement, as we shall see they did in at least one case in the post-​martial law era. This is perhaps why a number of monks continued to practice devotion to Maitreya but, aside from the occasional lecture or essay, did not attempt to propagate the cult in a public way. Even if they had wished to, restrictions on religion during the martial law period made organization difficult. In 1952, the KMT government adopted a corporatist structure under which each social constituency was allowed only one representative organization whose primary mission was to act as a liaison between the government and that constituency.105 This created a monopoly for

4 2 3

234

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

the conservative-​dominated Buddhist Association. More broadly, it placed the initiative in remaking society primarily in the government’s hands, leaving relatively little room for independent efforts at transformation. Perhaps the strongest support for this contention that conservative dominance and government repression prevented a renewal of the cult, however, is that once martial law was lifted in 1987 and the Buddhist Association became largely irrelevant, Maitreya devotion began to make a comeback.

Conclusion In summary, the reformers’ cult of Maitreya suffered a series of blows at the height of its activity. First, the onset of the War of Resistance completely disrupted Chinese Buddhism. Monastic infrastructure was destroyed and human resources were drawn into the war effort. While Maitreyan activity among the reformers did not cease entirely, it did decline drastically, even as heterodox groups for whom Maitreya was important, most significantly Yiguan dao, grew in prominence. After the war, the reform faction and its leader Taixu emerged strengthened and endowed with new prestige for its role in supporting the KMT government. There are signs that propagation of the Maitreya School would have begun anew, but Taixu died shortly after. His death deprived the cult of its key proponent and the reform movement as a whole of a savvy leader who had accumulated significant prestige and political connections. The fall of the Mainland to the Communists a few years later effectively ended any possibility of spreading the cult there. Though officially tolerant of religion until the Cultural Revolution, the People’s Republic actively undercut Buddhism. The dream of a pure land on earth was yoked to the State’s own vision of a world remade in which Maitreyan eschatology and anarchist preference for moral transformation and mutual aid over class conflict could have no place. Meanwhile in Taiwan Buddhism also faced hardship. The political climate was one of fear as the defeated Nationalist government faced the prospect of invasion from without and subversion from within. Buddhists fleeing from the Mainland faced not only this atmosphere of paranoia but also factionalism and competition for scarce resources. Eventually, the KMT adopted a corporatist structure through which it would attempt to remake society and which would also sharply limit Buddhists’ space for social involvement. The publication of Yinshun’s New Treatise on Pure Land at this time was the final blow to the school. Intellectually, its vision lent itself to the diffusion of the revolutionary utopian framework that Taixu had closely linked to

253

Future Interrupted

235

Maitreya, made the radical roots of that orientation explicit, and downplayed or denigrated those aspects that most resembled conventional piety and thus best lent themselves to propagation. Politically, Yinshun’s denigration of conventional piety alienated supporters and gave opponents envious of Yinshun’s position as abbot of Shandao Temple the opportunity to mobilize Pure Land devotees against him while the acknowledgement of values that, although derived from anarchism, are shared with Communism created the pretext for secret allegations to the authorities. The harassment eventually drove Yinshun from Shandao, and the whole affair had a chilling effect that discouraged the propagation of the Maitreya cult. The Maitreya School thus fell into dormancy as the “age of openness” that had made it possible thus drew to a close. In the final decades of the twentieth century, however, democratization in Taiwan and more limited reform in the People’s Republic once again created space for the cult of Maitreya to spread and grow. We turn to these contemporary developments in our final chapter.

Notes 1. Immanuel C.  Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 6th ed. (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000), 578–​585; Peter Zarrow, China in War and Revolution 1895–​1949, (London: Routledge, 2005), 303–​313. 2. Xue Yu, Buddhism, War, and Nationalism: Chinese Monks in the Struggle against Japanese Aggressions, 1931–​1945 (London: Routledge, 2005), ­chapter 5. 3. Ibid., ­chapter 4. 4. Ibid., 86–​94. 5. Tanxuan 談玄, “Tanxuan fashi xueshan kuxing chu bannian” 談玄法師雪山苦 行初半年 [The bitter practice of Master Tanxuan at Mt. Xue(dou) in the first half of the year], Haichaoyin 海潮音, 19:3 (March 1938) MFQ 198:218–​219. 6. Xue Yu, Buddhism, War, and Nationalism, 160–​170. 7. Kang Jiyao 康寄遙, “Fo shuo mile xia sheng chang fo jing—​fu yan” 佛說彌勒下 生成佛經—​附言 [“The Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s Descent and Attainment of Buddhahood”—​A Note.], Daxiong 大雄, no. 1 (March 1948) MFQ 105: 445. 8. TDN 434. 9. Chenkong 塵空. “Zhongqu zhuijian banchan dashi ji” 中樞追薦班禪大師 記 [A record of the central government’s commemoration of the great master Panchen], Haichaoyin 海潮音 19, no.3 (March 1938) MFQ 198: 209–​212. 10. “Chusheng puti xin jing jiangji ba” 出生菩提心經講記跋 [Preface to the lecture on the Sutra on Producing the Bodhi-​Mind], TDQ 19, 30: 758. Baoren had been one of the individuals lecturing on Maitreyan texts at Xuedou in the mid-​1930s.

6 32

236

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

11. TDN 510. 12. Si zhong foxue yanjiushe 四眾佛學研究社, “Mile jiaoshiguan” 彌勒教史觀 [A scriptural biography of Maitreya], Fohaideng 佛海燈 3 (January 1938), MFQ3 23: 261; and “Mile jiaoshiguan gongde ming” 彌勒教史觀功德銘 [A record of meritorious (donations toward the publication of ] the scriptural biography of Maitreya), Fohaideng 佛海燈 3 (January 1938), MFQ3 23: 262. 13. Yang Xingsen 楊星森, who would later assist Yinshun with editing the Complete Writings. 14. Yang Mu 楊木, “Xue jie suibi:  lun ‘pusa jieben’ ” 學戒隨筆:論「菩薩戒本」 (Notes on studying the precepts: on the bodhisattva prātimokṣa), Foxue yuekan 佛學月刊 2, no.5 (October 1, 1942) MFQ 96: 48–​49; and Yang Mu 楊木, “Cizong sanyao shiyi lun 慈宗三要釋疑論 [On resolving doubts regarding the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School], Foxue yuekan 佛學月刊 4, no. 2–​3 (September 1944) MFQ 96: 483–​486. 15. “Chuanban cizong xueyuan” 創辦慈宗學院 [Establishing a Maitreya School Institute]. Shenbao 申報 (October 27, 1942): 5; and “Fojiao chuangban cizong xueyuan” 佛教創辦慈宗學院 [Buddhism to establish a Maitreya School Institute], Foxue banyue kan 佛學半月刊, no. 265 (November 1, 1942) MFQB 66: 206. 16. The location of this monastery unfortunately cannot be determined. 17. I have been unable to find any information on this individual though his plans for the temple suggest he may have been a graduate of one of Taixu’s seminaries. 18. “Qinglin si geng ming mile yuan” 青林寺更名彌勒院 [Qinglin Monastery renamed Maitreya Cloister], Fohua xinwen 佛化新聞, no. 233 (March 23, 1942) MFQ 86: 352. 19. Xue Yu, Buddhism, War, and Nationalism, 48–​50. See also page 80 where Taixu makes a case for killing in the spirit of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, though not taken directly from the text itself. 20. The group shows no clear sign of Taixu’s influence and claimed his rival Yuanying as its honorary chair. Huang Weishi 黃維時, “Qing yi puxian pusa shi da xing yuan wei danglai xiasheng mile fo zao xiang qidao jiang shi hua jie” 請以普賢菩薩十大行願為當來下生彌勒佛造像祈禱降世化劫 [Please pray for Maitreya to descend to earth to transform the kalpa-​disaster by performing Puxian’s ten great practices and vowing to create and image of Maitreya, the Buddha-​to-​come,” Lianchi hui wen 蓮池會聞 no.6 (July 31, 1942) MFQ 97: 89–​ 90; Huang Weishi 黃維時, “Zhengqiu zhuzao cibei zhe weilai da mile fo sheng xiang qidao jiangshi huajie xiaozai zengfu zhi zhongda yiyi” 徵求鑄造慈悲者 未來大彌勒佛聖像祈禱降世化劫消災增福之重大意義 [The profound meaning of requesting a cast image of the great future Buddha Maitreya, the compassionate one, in order to pray for him to descend to earth to transform the kalpa, ending diasaster and increasing happiness], Lianchi hui wen 蓮池會聞,

2 73

Future Interrupted

237

no.6 (July 31, 1942) MFQ 97: 90–​94; and Yuanying 圓瑛, “Ben hui yuhuizhang Yuanying lao fashi zhi jiang huizhang han” 本會名譽會長圓瑛老法師致江會長 函 [Letter from our honorary chairman venerable master Yuanying to chairman Jiang], Lianchi hui wen 蓮池會聞, no.11 (August 30, 1943) MFQ 97: 195. 21. Xue Yu, Buddhism, War, and Nationalism, 173. 22. For an account of the struggles over national leadership of the association following its establishment in 1929, see Holmes Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1968), 40–​50. 23. TDN 524. 24. Lengjing 楞鏡, “Taixu dashi de shenghuo diandi” 太虛大師的生活點滴 [A glimpse into the life of Master Taixu], Taiwan fojiao 臺灣佛教 1, no. 2 (August 1947): 19–​20. Whether this refers to the visualization of the Ascent Sutra or the investigations of the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” is unclear. 25. TDN 526. 26. Yuexi 月西, “Zheng jue hong fa yi dai zongshi” 正覺弘法一代宗師 [The eminent Master of a Generation who, rightly awakened, spread the Dharma], in Taixu dashi linian jinian zhuanji 太虛大師歷年紀念文專輯 [Special collection of memorials for Master Taixu over the years] (Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會, 2005), 312. This lecture is not mentioned in the TDN. It is worth noting here that that text, while thorough, draws primarily from Haichaoyin. As such, we might expect it to be less complete in its accounting of the war and postwar years, when the journal was published erratically and did not record Taixu’s activities as exhaustively as in previous years. 27. See “Fo shuo mile da cheng fo jing kai ti” 佛說彌勒大成佛經開題 [Initial remarks on the “sutra spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s great achievement of Buddhahood”], TDQ 3, 3: 216–​220. 28. Weiyi 葦一, “Taixu dashi shiji tongyan” 太虛大師示寂慟言 [A lament on the quiescence of Master Taixu], Taiwan fojiao 台灣佛教 1, no. 1 (July 1947): 14. 29. TDN 538. 30. Weiyi, “Taixu dashi shiji tongyan,” 14. 31. Huijue 會覺, “Doushuai jingtu—​dashi chabi jinian” 兜率淨土—​大師茶毘紀念 [Tushita Pure Land—​in memory of the master], Renjian fojiao 人間佛教, no. 6 (May 1947) MFQ 100: 459–​460. 32. “Ge di zhuinian zhi shengkuang” 各地追念之盛況 [Grand memorials from all over the country], Haichaoyin 海潮音 28, no. 5–​6 (May 1937) MFQ 203: 408–​ 410; and “Fojiao xinwen” 佛教新聞 [Buddhist news], Haichaoyin 海潮音 28, no. 7 (July 1937) MFQ 203: 462–​463. 33. See for instance a poem from the issue: Meichuan jushi 梅川居士, “Taixu dashi shangsheng”“ 太虛大師上生 [Master Taixu’s ascent], Haichaoyin 海潮音 28, no. 5–​6 (May 1947) MFQ 203: 402; and another from the following: Song Jiemin 宋 介民, “Taixu dashi wangsheng doushuai tian jinian” 太虛大師往生兜率天紀念

8 2 3

238

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

[In memory of Master Taixu’s ascent to Tushita heaven], Haichaoyin 海潮音 28, no. 8 (September 1947) MFQ 203: 493. 34. Huijue, “Doushuai jingtu—​ dashi chabi jinian,” 459–​ 460; and Huijue 會覺, “Doushuai jingtu” 兜率淨土 [Tushita Pure Land], Jue youqing 覺有情, no. 187-​ 188 (June 1, 1947) MFQ 89:161–​162. 35. Kang Jiyao, “Fo shuo mile xia sheng chang fo jing—​fu yan,” 445; A  decade later this connection was also explicitly drawn by Yueji 月基, who stated of the Master, “As for me, I simply saw the old [Master] as a living Maitreya.” Yueji 月基, “Zhuinian taixu dashi” 追念大虛大師 [Comemorating Master Taixu], in Taixu dashi linian jinian zhuanji 太虛大師歷年紀念文專輯 [Special collection of memorials for Master Taixu over the years] (Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會, 2005), 129. 36. Zarrow, China in War and Revolution, 341–​357. 37. Holmes Welch, Buddhism under Mao (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1972), 1. 38. J. Brooks Jessup, “Beyond Ideological Conflict:  Political Incorporation of Buddhist Youth in the Early PRC,” Frontiers of History in China 7, no. 4 (2012): 551–​581. 39. Xue Yu, “Buddhist Contribution to the Socialist Tranformation of Buddhism in China: Activities of Ven. Juzan during 1949–​1953” Journal of Global Buddhism 10 (2009):  217–​253; and Xue Yu, “Buddhist Efforts for the Reconciliation of Buddhism and Marxism in the Early Years of the People’s Republic of China,” in Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, 177–​215. 40. Huijue 會覺, “Mile shengsheng jing tiyao” 彌勒上生經提要 [Key points of the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent], Wujin deng 無盡燈 1, no. 2 (December 1951) MFQ3 32: 35–​37. 41. For a case study of Suzhou, see Jan Kiely, “The Communist Dismantling of Temple and Monastic Buddhism in Suzhou,” in Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, ed. Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 216–​253. 42. Welch, Buddhism under Mao, 290. 43. On the fate of Yiguan dao in the early People’s Republic of China, see Thomas David DuBois, The Sacred Village: Social Change and Religious Life in Rural North China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005), ­chapter 6. 44. Jessup, “Beyond Ideological Conflict,” 573. 45. Yiguandao practitioners invoke Maitreya’s name in their secret mantra (mijue 秘訣), “wutai fo mile” 無太佛彌勒. 46. XFRC 1309. 47. Ibid., 707. 48. Brenton Sullivan, “Blood and Teardrops:  The Life and Travels of Venerable Fazun,” in Buddhists: Understanding Buddhism through the Lives of Practitioners, ed. Todd Lewis (Chichester and Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2014), 296–​304.

9 32

Future Interrupted

239

49. XFRC 1371–​1372. 50. In the early 1950s, the Nationalist’s situation was so precarious that the CIA fully expected them to fall to the Communists. David M. Finkelstein, Washington’s Taiwan Dilemma, 1949–​1950: From Abandonment to Salvation (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2014). 51. Haichaoyin 海潮音 32 (Autumn 1951): 70. 52. Charles Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan:  Religion and the State, 1660–​ 1990 (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press 1999), 105–​109. 53. According to Wu Laoze, if Yinshun lectured at Shandao Temple on the same day that others lectured at Shipu Temple (Shipu si 十普寺) or the Huayan Lotus Society, Shandao would be standing room only, while the others would be almost empty. Even allowing for exaggeration, we can see the very direct competition these unsteady new institutions faced. Zhuo Zunhong 桌遵宏 and Hou Kunhong 侯坤宏, Taiwan fojiao yi jiazi: Wu laoze xiangsheng fangtan lu 台灣佛教 一甲子:吳老擇先生訪談錄 [The sixty years development of Buddhism in Taiwan, 1943–​2002: The reminiscences of Mr. Wu Lao Tzer (sic)], (Taipei: Guoshiguan 國 史館, 2009), 112–​113. Welch noted issues, as well: Holmes Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 256. 54. Xu Xinmin 徐新民, “Diyu wenhua dui taixu, yinshun fojiao sixiang de yingxiang” 地域文化對太虛, 印順佛教思想的影像 [The influence of local culture on Taixu and Yinshun’s Buddhist thought], in Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝: 紀念太虛大師示寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], ed. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金 玉 (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2008). 55. Marcus Bingenheimer, “Yinshun,” Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, http://​www. buddhism-​dict.net/​cgi-​bin/​xpr-​ddb.pl?q=印順 (accessed April 4, 2017). 56. Li, Yu-​ chen, “In Pursuit of Buddhahood:  Yinshun and Buddhist Studies in Postwar Taiwan,” in Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen, and Lori Meeks (Hualien, Taiwan: Tzu Chi University Press, 2007). 57. Marcus Bingenheimer, “Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian Fojiao and the Contribution of Venerable Yinshun to Chinese Buddhist Modernism,” in Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism:  Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen and Lori Meeks (Hualien, Taiwan: Tzu Chi University Press, 2007), 151. 58. See, for instance, Yinshun 印順, “ ‘Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de dongxiang’ du hou” “台灣當代淨土思想的動向”讀後 [After reading “A New Direction in Contemporary Taiwanese Pure Land Thought”], Huayu ji 華雨集 [Flowers and rain collection], Vol. 5 (Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe 正聞出版社 1993) Y 29: 101. 59. Bingenheimer, “Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian Fojiao,” 142.

0 42

240

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

60. Ibid., 147–​148. 61. Yinshun, “ ‘Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de dongxiang’ du hou,” 101–​102. 62. As noted in the conventions, “Pure Land” capitalized refers to the Pure Land School devoted exclusively to Amitābha Pure Land; “pure land” uncapitalized refers to the broader tradition of thought and practice surrounding Buddhas and bodhisattvas and their paradises. 63. For more extended summaries see William Yau-​ nang Ng, “Yin Shun’s Interpretations of the Pure Land,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34, no. 1 (2007):  25–​47; Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan, 126–​131; and Stefania Travagnin, “Master Yinshun and the Pure Land Thought: A Doctrinal Gap between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, no. 3 (2004): 271–​328. 64. Jiang Canteng 江燦騰, “Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de xin dongxiang: sixiangshi de tantao” 台灣當代淨土思想的新動向:思想史的探討 [A new direction in contemporary Taiwan pure land thought:  a study in intellectual history], Dongfang zongjiao yanjiu 東方宗教研究 2 (1988), 179. 65. Yinshun 印順. “Wei ziji shuo ji ju hua” 為自己說幾句話 [A few words on my own behalf ], Yongguang ji 永光集 [Everlasting light collection] (Taipei: Yinshun wenjiao jijinhui 印順文教基金會 2004) Y 43: 260. 66. Indeed, as a methodological principle, Chinese who claim to “transmit and not innovate” (chuan er bu zuo 傳而不作) should be treated with a degree of suspicion usually reserved for Greeks bearing gifts. 67. Yinshun 印順, “Lue shuo jibin qu de yuqie shi” 略說罽賓區的瑜伽師 [A brief discussion of the Yoga masters of the Kasmir region], Yi fofa yinjiu fofa 以佛法 研究佛法 [Study the Dharma with the Dharma] (Taipei: Zhengwen 正聞, 2000) Y16: 212–​215. 68. Yinshun 印順, “Jingtu xin lun” 淨土新論 [New treatise on Pure Land], in Jingtu yu chan 淨土與禪 [Pure Land and Chan] (Taipei: Zhengwen 正聞, 2000), Y17: 12–​15. For this reason I disagree with Jones’s reading of this passage as a “jab” at Pure Land piety. Although Yinshun is sarcastic at many points in this work, here I take him to be quite serious. See Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan, 127. 69. Yinshun, “Jingtu xin lun,” 33. 70. Ibid., 33–​38. 71. Ibid., 16. 72. Ibid., 16 (twice), 17 (twice), and 20. 73. Yinshun 印順, Fofa gailun 佛法概論, [An outline of the Dharma] (Taipei:  Zhengwen 正聞, 2000) YFZ 8:  135; and Yinshun, “Namo danglai xiasheng mile fo” 南無當來下生彌勒佛 [Homage to Maitreya, the Buddha to Come], in Fofa shi jiushi zhi guang 佛法是救世之光 [The Dharma is the light of the world’s salvation], (Taipei:  Zhengwen 正聞 2000) Y24:  29–​36. See also Yinshun 印順. “Gaoji foxue jiaoke shu” 高級佛學教科書 [Upper-​level textbook for Buddhist study], in Qingnian de fojiao 青年的佛教 [Buddhism for the youth] (Taipei: Zhengwen 正聞 2000) Y18: 215–​216.

241

Future Interrupted

241

74. Yinshun, The Way to Buddhahood, trans. Wing H. Yeung (Somerville, MA: Wisdom, 1998), 102–​105. 75. Yinshun, “Jingtu xin lun,” 15. 76. See his fascinating essay, Yinshun 印順, “Yi fofa yanjiu fofa” 以佛法研究 佛法 [Study the Buddhadharma with the Buddhadharma] in Yi fofa yanjiu fofa以佛法研究佛法 [Study the Buddhadharma with the Buddhadharma] (Taipei: Zhengwen 正聞 1990) Y16: 1–​14. 77. Yinshun, “Jingtu xin lun,” 20. 78. Ibid., 64–​72. 79. Ibid., 69. 80. Ibid., 41. 81. Yinshun 印順, “Namo danglai xiasheng mile fo” 南無當來下生彌勒佛 [Homage to Maitreya, the Buddha to come], Haichaoyin 海潮音 35, no. 3 (March 1954) 19–​21. 82. Yinshun, “Namo danglai xiasheng mile fo,” Y24: 31–​32. 83. Though commonly attributed to Yinshun, the term never appears in his works. 84. This is based on my discussions with a number of individuals over the two and a half years I conducted dissertation research in Taiwan from 2006 to 2009. This impression is confirmed, if only slightly more scientifically, by a Google search conducted on December 1, 2009. The term Cizong 慈宗 (Maitreya School) yielded only 32,000 hits, while the term Mile jingtu 彌勒淨土 (Maitreya Pure Land) yielded 119,000. 85. One of the controversies of Yinshun’s later career came when he was accused of being insufficiently grounded in practice. While not entirely fair perhaps, there was enough truth to the characterization for the controversy to gain traction. 86. See:  Xingyun 星雲, “Cong xianshi de shijie shuo dao fojiao lixiang de shijie” 從 現實的世界說到佛教理想的世界 [From the real world to the ideal worlds of Buddhism], in Xingyun dashi yanjiang ji 星雲大師演講集 [Collected lectures of Master Xingyun] (Kaohsiung, Taiwan:  Foguang chubanshe 佛光出版社, 1979), 74–​77; Shengyan 聖嚴, Fagu shan de fangxiang 法鼓山的方向 [Dharma Drum Mountain’s direction], in Fagu quanji 法鼓全集 [The complete collection of Dharma Drum], CD-​ROM (Jinshan 金山, Taiwan:  Dharma Drum 2007) 8, 6: 491. While both men studied in Taixu’s seminaries in their youth, they were both influenced by the rearticulation of reform Buddhism by Yinshun in the decades between their arrival in Taiwan after the fall of the Mainland and their rise to prominence. 87. Many of these consist largely of recitals of Yinshun’s arguments. See, for example, Liao Yuepeng 廖閱鵬, Jingtu sanxi zhi yanjiu 淨土三系之研究 [Research on the three systems of pure land] (Kaohsiung: Foguang chubanshe 佛光出版 社, 1989); and Juexing 覺醒, Qingjing guotu: fojiao jingtu guan 清淨國土:佛教淨 土觀 [Lands of purity: the Buddhist view of pure lands] (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2003).

2 4

242

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

88. Tzu Chi, whose monastic community pays special reverence to Medicine Buddha (Yaoshi fo 藥師佛), may be an exception to this. 89. The summary here draws from Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan, 131–​133; Jiang “Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de xin dongxiang,” 179–​180; and Yang Huinan 楊惠南, “Dangdai Taiwan fojiao ‘chushi’ xingge de fenxi” 當代台灣佛教”出 世”性格的分析 [An analysis of the “otherworldly” character of contemporary Taiwan Buddhism], Dongfang zongjiao yanjiu 東方宗教研究 1, (1990):  326–​ 333; as well as Yinshun’s memoir: Yinshun 印順, Pingfan de yisheng 平凡的一 生 [An ordinary life], rev. ed. (Taipei: Yinshun wenjiao jijinhui 印順文教基金 會) Y41: 62–​101. 90. Zhuo and Hou, Taiwan fojiao yi jiazi, 114. 91. Ibid., 109. 92. Yinshun, Pingfan de yisheng, 65–​66. 93. Jiang, “Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de xin dongxiang,” 180. 94. Trafagnin, “Master Yinshun and the Pure Land Thought,” 283 n51. There were certainly some jealousies involved, in at least the latter case. 95. For a more complete discussion of the challenges the text made to traditional doctrine, see Ng, “Yin Shun’s Interpretations of the Pure Land,” 28–​36. 96. Yinshun, “Jingtu xin lun,” 62–​64. It is worth contrasting this with Taixu’s criticism discussed in c­ hapter 3. There we noted critiques that were similar but rather more politic. Yinguang is taken to task there primarily for not holding others to his own high standards. Yinshun might take this as a case where Taixu would simply point out a problem rather than pursue it, but it is likely that Taixu also simply had more respect for the senior monk, with whom Taixu had been friends in his early career, and for the piety he represented. 97. Yinshun, Pingfan de yisheng, 63. 98. I follow Raoul Birnbaum’s suggestion here on terminology. Raoul Birnbaum, “Buddhist China at the Century’s Turn,” The China Quarterly 174, (2003): 433. 99. Yinshun later claimed in a response to Jiang’s article that he was simply avoiding airing the dirty laundry in front of a foreign visitor. In fact, he asserts everyone “did not concur” with him over the conference in Japan and his abbotship of Shandao Temple. It seems odd, however, for someone to say they “did not concur” with this. Moreover, Yinshun had resigned eight years prior to Fujiyoshi’s visit. Yinshun, “ ‘Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de dongxiang’ du hou,”103. 100. Jiang, “台灣當代淨土思想的新動向” 179. 101. Yang, “Dangdai Taiwan fojiao ‘chushi’ xingge de fenxi,” 331–​331. 102. Although his role was important, he was not only subordinate to the Eternal Mother but also overshadowed by the Living Buddha Jigong and the patriarchs. 103. Wang Jianchuan reports one instance in which authorities asked monks to help them determine whether a temple was Yiguan dao or Buddhist, while Jordan

2 4 3

Future Interrupted

243

and Overmyer report that a legal spirit-​writing society was disbanded after it was misidentified as Yiguan dao. Wang Jianchuan 王見川, “Taiwan yiguandao yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang” 台灣一貫道研究的回顧與展望 [A retrospective and prospective look at research on Yiguandao in Taiwan], in Taiwan de minjian zongjiao yu Xinyang 台灣的民間宗教與信仰 [Taiwan popular religion and beliefs], by Wang Jianchuan 王見川 and Li Shiwei 李世偉 (Luzhou, Taiwan:  Boyang wenhua chuban 博揚文化出版, 2000), 193; and David K. Jordan and Daniel L. Overmyer, The Flying Phoenix: Aspects of Sectarianism in Taiwan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 91–​92. 104. André Laliberté, “Religious Change and Democratization in Postwar Taiwan:  Mainstream Buddhist Organizations and the Kuomintang, 1947–​ 1996,” in Religion in Modern Taiwan:  Tradition and Innovation in a Changing Society, ed. Philip Clart and Charles B. Jones (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003), 162. 105. Andre Laliberte, The Politics of Buddhist Organizations in Taiwan:  1989–​ 2003: Safeguarding the Faith, Building a Pure Land, Helping the Poor (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), 38–​39.

42

6

Reawakening Maitreya Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

Introduction In the early 1970s, the situation for Chinese Buddhism looked grim. In Buddhism Under Mao, Holmes Welch calculated a “common-​sense estimate” of the religion’s future and foretold its diminution and demise. Even if “a small number of culturally important monasteries” might be reopened, it would be as museums and parks, staffed by elderly monks who served as custodians rather than ritualists or teachers. Certain Buddhist metaphors and ideas, he granted, would linger “for some years to come, but Buddhism as a living religion that is identifiably Buddhist will have disappeared.”1 Welch, of course, was referring to Buddhism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The religion continued in Taiwan but, constrained within the strictures of the KMT’s corporatist state, it clearly did not strike Welch as a beacon of hope for the future either. Yet dawn turned out to be not so far away after all. Since the 1980s, Chinese Buddhism in has seen a dramatic renaissance in both polities. After a period of gradual liberalization, martial law was revoked on Taiwan in 1987 and religion was deregulated. In this new age of openness, Buddhists, as well as followers of other religions such as Yiguan dao, were now free to organize and propagate their religion without restriction.2 This, together with Taiwan’s economic “miracle,” resulted in an unprecedented boom. The most visible manifestations are the so-​called “four great mountains” (si da shan 四大山)3—​ Foguang shan 佛光山, Dharma Drum Mountain (Fagu shan 法鼓山), Chung tai shan (Zhongtai shan 中台山), and Tzu Chi (Ciji 慈濟). These organizations have done much to increase the prestige of Buddhism in Taiwan and to spread Yinshun’s vision of Human Realm Buddhism.4

2 4 5

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

245

A revival also began on the Mainland with the advent of the Reform era in the 1980s. While we may speak of “openness” in Taiwan, in the PRC it is better to speak of “openings.” Religion remains highly, though unevenly, regulated, yet the confluence of certain forces and interests creates opportunities for well-​positioned Buddhist actors and institutions. As an important part of China’s traditional culture and civilization, Buddhism has benefitted from the cultural nationalism the state has attempted to foster and the vogue for traditional culture it has encouraged. It has also gained from the dislocation of rapid economic growth, which has created a class of individuals with a longing for meaning and the economic wherewithal to serve as patrons. Finally, it has enjoyed a degree of preferential treatment from state agencies, which see its ethical teachings as conducive to a “harmonious society” (hiexie shehui 和 諧社會), its historic monasteries as key resources in the development of tourism, and its cosmopolitan connections as an important source of soft power. All this has led to dazzling growth in wealth and infrastructure in certain areas of the country but also, it has been argued, to secularization and hollowing out of the religion as it is commercialized by the tourist industry and “stained red” by cooperation with the state.5 Although conditions in Taiwan and the People’s Republic obviously remain very different, the two revivals are closely related. The Buddhist Association of China (Zhongguo fojiao xiehui 中國佛教協會) in the 1980s and 1990s was led by a former lay follower of Taixu, Zhao Puchu 趙樸初 (1907–​2000), and has to a degree promoted Humanistic Buddhism, adopting it as part of its official charter in 2002.6 Just as China’s economic development was assisted in no small part by Taiwanese investment and managerial expertise, so too the Buddhist revival, especially in its early phases, received great material support from monastics who fled to Taiwan in 1949 and pious Taiwanese pilgrims. Taiwan has also provided many of the textbooks used in seminaries, if not by donation then by authorship,7 as well as a model of modern monasticism. The cult of Maitreya has been revived on both sides of the Taiwan Strait as part of this general renaissance. The new climate of openness is an important factor, as is the prominent role of Humanistic Buddhism and the ideal of the pure land on earth in the contemporary Buddhist scene. A number of individuals have taken up the cause. At least a dozen monastics have been involved in propagating the cult in recent years8 as well as a number of devoted lay people. Significant figures in China include Mingshan 茗山 (1914–​2001), a graduate of Wuchang who rose to prominence in the post-​Mao era, and Fayin 法因 (1911–​1991), a former associate of Taixu at the Pali Tripitaka Institute and scholar of Yogācāra. Some prominent examples in Taiwan include Master Chengyi 成一 (1914–​2011) of the Huayan Lotus

6 42

246

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

Society (Huayan lianshe 華嚴蓮社), who took up the practice and propagation of the cult in his retirement, though on a small scale due to his advanced age,9 and Master Huiguang 慧廣 (d.u.) who has written widely on the practice of Maitreya Pure Land.10 In Taiwan, Maitreyan sutras also appear to have firmly entered the contemporary “actual canon,” appearing not only from small Buddhist presses and more academically oriented publishers like Xinwenfeng 新文豐 but also in Foguang shan’s widely sold series of vernacular sutra translations as well as in Multi View’s (Duoshi jie 多識界) series of manga adaptions of sutras.11 In this chapter we survey the legacy of the Maitreya School today, examining some of its most important contemporary proponents. We begin with the People’s Republic, where state interests and limited openings have combined to feed rapid development in some areas, but strangle it in others. From there we turn to Taiwan, where full religious liberalization has made possible substantial growth through methods both traditional and innovative. Finally, we examine the influence of the Maitreya School in Taiwan beyond orthodox Buddhism, where its impact has perhaps been even greater. We shall see that the basic constellation of hypergoods—​Buddhahood and utopia, perfected self and perfected society—​continues to animate the cult but is sometimes articulated and spread in new ways.

Openings: The Cult of Maitreya in the PRC Xuedou shan The institution most important to the cult of Maitreya in the PRC today is Xuedou shan. Destroyed completely in the Cultural Revolution, the temple began to be restored in 1987 and in 1995 gained a young—​only twenty-​seven years old—​abbot named Yizang 怡藏 (1968–​), a graduate of two of the premier seminaries in the PRC, the Qixia Institute of Buddhist Studies (Qixia foxueyuan 棲霞佛學院) and the Buddhist Academy of China (Zhongguo foxueyuan 中國佛學院).12 During his tenure, Yizang has completed the restoration of the monastery and set in motion a massive expansion on the mountain. When I first visited the monastery in April 2008, it was just completing a key phase of its planned expansion. It had added a seminary, the Maitreya Institute of Buddhist Studies (Mile foxueyuan 彌勒佛學院), the Taixu Reliquary Cloister (Taixu ta yuan 太虛塔院), and two off-​site subsidiary monasteries. The main monastery itself was being doubled in size at that time in conjunction with the erection of a monumental open-​air image of Budai.13 Inspired by the monumental image of Guanyin erected at Putuo shan in

4 2 7

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

247

1999, Yizang conceived this plan as a way to symbolize and solidify Xuedou’s claims to be the fifth sacred mountain. The bronze image stands 33 meters tall (said to represent the location of Maitreya’s Inner Court in the Heaven of the Thirty-​three [sic.])14 and rests upon a 14.74 meter structure, bringing its total height to 56.74 meters (a reference to the 5.764 billion years until Maitreya’s descent [sic.]).15 Dubbed “Human Realm Maitreya” (Renjian mile 人間彌勒), it stands at the apex of the “Great Kindness Buddhaland” (Daci foguo 大慈佛 國), a series of halls and broad courtyards oriented toward tourists and running parallel to the original halls of the monastery, and serves as the visual symbol of the monastery.16 The monastery was thus well on its way to achieving its plan to create a monastic complex with “one Buddha, three monasteries, and six cloisters/​ institutes (yuan 院).” Yet rather than winding down, today expansion is accelerating. The grand Buddha was a monastic initiative that was achieved with the support of local government bodies that helped to secure funding and coordinate the project in the hopes that it would be a boon to tourism and development. It would appear that it has been, because in 2013 authorities approached Yizang with plans for further expansion far beyond what he had originally envisioned. The new plan envisions thirty-​three temples constellated around a series of three “cores.” Situated midway up the mountain, the current monastic complex would form the middle core and would be joined by one at the mountain’s base and one near the summit. The first core would be comprised of an expanded seminary and a large venue for events dubbed the Maitreya Sanctuary (shengtan 聖壇), an ovular glass dome representing Mount Meru topped by a palatial structure representing the Inner Court. This dome itself will accommodate up to three thousand people and the plaza outside an additional ten thousand. Near the mountain’s summit will stand a more conventional monastery graced by a large white stupa. Together the three represent the three stages of practice: learning (wen 聞), thinking (si 思) and cultivation (xiu 修). Again, the authorities will secure the funding and coordinate construction for this round of development.17 The confluence of the monastery’s desire to be the fifth great mountain and state agencies’ interest in tourism as a source of development is thus transforming the mountain and raising Maitreya’s profile.18 This confluence also shapes and to a degree dilutes the presentation of Maitreya and Taixu’s Maitreyan thought on the mountain. Insofar as the monastery serves as a tourist destination, its primary concern is self-​promotion. Signage and tour guides’ explanations focus on Maitreya’s connection to the site and its claims to be the fifth great mountain. Basic information about Maitreya’s career and destiny as the Buddha of the future are relayed, often through explanation of

8 4 2

248

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

symbolic numbers, but the more specific interpretations of Taixu can be hard to find. One hears and sees instead generic invocations of a prosperous future and vague references to the “Maitreyan spirit,” usually glossed as tolerance and forbearance,19 and Maitreyan “culture,” a term that recasts Buddhism as part of China’s glorious patrimony and a worthy tourist attraction. This is vividly exemplified in the Maitreya Culture Festival. The festival is an annual three-​day Buddhist event that doubles as an investment showcase for Fenghua. Although it takes place primarily at the monastery, it is organized by the local authorities and four thousand of the five thousand invitations issued go to business and government leaders rather than believers (though there may be believers among the businessmen and women). The event focuses primarily on the figure of Budai, casting him as a crystallization of the Fenghua spirit, and includes a variety of events including a tour of sites associated with his life and a gathering of entrepreneurs.20 Its opening ceremonies are a spectacle worthy of Broadway or Las Vegas. Comprised of song, dance, and dramatic performances set against a digitally animated backdrop and illuminated by a light show, these extravaganzas take place in the plaza before the grand Buddha. Watching them, one might be forgiven for concluding that Buddhism on the mountain has simply been secularized.21 Yet a closer examination shows that the cult of Maitreya and Taixu’s legacy remain important. Tourism feeds the monastery’s growth, but it does not define all of its activity. Beyond the tour groups and spectacle, monastic life on the mountain continues to have a Maitreyan cast. Morning services follow the standard liturgy, but Maitreya’s name is substituted for Amitābha’s in ambulatory chanting. A day-​long Dharma Assembly is held each year on the Chinese New Year to celebrate Maitreya’s birth in which the three Maitreya Sutras are chanted. Additionally, a seven-​day Maitreya retreat is held each winter and two-​ to three-​day lectures on Maitreyan sutras are given four times a year. Finally, although the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” does not seem to play any role in life at the monastery, monks take the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts. The monastery is also promoting devotion to the bodhisattva through mass Dharma events. Each year, it holds a set of such events that it dubs the Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower.22 In commemoration of Maitreya’s Awakening, participants process from the mountain gate to the Grand Buddha, prostrating every third step; in commemoration of his ordination, there is a traditional airing of the canon; and in commemoration of his birth, they lead a pilgrimage on foot from the base of the mountain to the monastery following the old path.23 Each event draws thousands of participants. The figure of Taixu also continues to hold some importance. The monastery has a vested interest in highlighting its illustrious former abbot. Taixu

9 42

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

249

is remembered as one of the “four great masters of the Republic,” and his relics are enshrined in Taixu Reliquary Cloister, now renamed Taixu Lecture Monastery.24 He is frequently invoked to add legitimacy to the claim to be the fifth great mountain. Whether in signage, speeches, or the new gazetteer, the 1932 proposal to recognize Xuedou as the fifth mountain is consistently misattributed to him. This allows the current boom in construction to be cast as the fulfillment of the great master’s aspiration.25 While the specifics of his thought are not broadcast to tourists, they are nevertheless readily found in the literature produced by the monastery. A small volume produced to commemorate the erection of the grand Buddha includes an extended discussion of Taixu’s Maitreyan thought that makes clear the connection he drew between Maitreyan cultivation and the creation of a pure land on earth, and also offers treatments of Yinshun’s thought, Maitreya Pure Land, and Maitreyan cultivation.26 While not always so prominent, references to the connection between Maitreya and the pure land on earth can be found in other works as well.27 Moreover, although it is not spelled out to tourists, this idea looms symbolically over the entire monastery in the form of the grand Buddha. The title emblazoned on its pedestal, “Human Realm Maitreya,” is intended to invoke precisely Maitreya’s role in inaugurating the pure land on earth.28 Taixu’s legacy can even be found amidst the spectacle of the Culture Festival’s opening ceremonies. In the 2014 ceremonies, Human Life Buddhism was frequently invoked and his ideas echoed in assertions that “Buddhahood is achieved through the perfection of our humanity” and “when each of us has become a Maitreya, the pure land on earth will at last be realized.”29 Thus while the monastery is clearly “stained red” by its close association with state agencies, and the sound of chanting is sometimes drowned out by the roar of tour buses, we should be wary of assuming that this is leading to a hollowing out of Buddhism on the mountain. The rearticulation of the tradition as a “religion” in Taixu’s day offered opportunity as well as peril. The rearticulation as “culture” today will likely be the same. Dressed in the “politically correct clothing” of Maitreyan culture, the monastery promotes devotion to the bodhisattva on a grand scale.30 The priority of Xuedou shan’s leadership is clearly to advance the mountain itself, and to accomplish this it has negotiated with the state and the forces of tourism. In the process, the legacy of Taixu’s Maitreyan thought is not erased but blurred, made accessible and palatable. What we find here is an attempt, not unlike Huijue’s a half-​century prior, to articulate the moral frameworks of the Maitreya School within the constraints of the time. In the somewhat generic exhortations to virtue and invocations of a bright future, we might see those frameworks recast for the

0 52

250

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

age of the “harmonious society” and the “Chinese dream.” Even if they are thereby diluted to a degree, the monastery’s growing strength means that that it could become an important center of a more overt Maitreyanism in the future, should the religious environment shift.

The Maitreya Study Associations A more direct, but less successful, tack in promoting the Maitreya School was taken by the new wave of Maitreya Study Associations. The first of the new associations was founded by Mingyi 明夷 in Hongjiang 洪江, Hunan in 1999. Seeing itself as the successor to the original Maitreya Study Association in Xiamen,31 the Hunan Association was explicitly dedicated to spreading awareness of the “unrecognized Mani jewel” of the Maitreya School.32 It planned to sponsor religious study and ritual, establish a library and website, and engage in publishing and charity.33 Mingyi clearly had great ambitions for the group. At times referring to it as the “Hunan branch” (Hunan fenhui 湖南分會) of the Maitreya Study Association, he envisioned a nationwide network that would be centered on Xuedou shan. Yet although he petitioned Yizang in an open letter to establish such a body, his plea was apparently ignored.34 It is difficult to ascertain the degree to which most of Mingyi’s plans were realized, but he did take advantage of a key opening in the PRC religious regulatory regime: the Internet. Whereas as conventional preaching is restricted by law to authorized religious venues, religious websites that do not otherwise court controversy are accessible throughout the country and beyond. Mingyi established a website for his association and used it as a forum for his ideas, much the way that Taixu had used the new periodical press in the Republic. Mingyi saw Taixu as the definitive interpreter of the Maitreya School in the modern period and largely reiterated the themes of his thought, emphasizing both rebirth in Tuṣita and the purification of this land. Mingyi’s particular contribution lay in liturgy and historiography. He penned a Maitreyan breviary for morning and evening services as well as a repentance text. He also wrote investigations into the history of Maitreyan ideas and practices including essays on the transmission of the Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts, Dunhuang vow texts, and methods of meditation as well as a history of the Maitreyan societies from Dao’an to the contemporary period.35 Mingyi was thus concerned to provide the Maitreya School with institutional form, liturgical content, and historical legitimacy. For a time, he seemed to be making some progress in reviving the Maitreya School in China. Inspired by his work, as well as the independently conceived Taiwan Maitreya Study Association discussed later, other Maitreya

251

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

251

Study Associations cropped up around China in the early years of this century. Associations were established in Shanghai (2002), Suqian (2003), Fujian (2004), and Shandong (d.u.). In 2006, however, Mingyi apparently left Hongjiang, and the Hunan Association ceased operation. By late 2007 even the website disappeared, and, according to the founder of the Taiwan Association, Mingyi subsequently returned to lay life and gave up active propagation. The other Maitreya Study Associations on the Mainland likewise fared poorly. The Shanghai Association is purely virtual, and a monk who had been associated with it has reportedly returned to lay life.36 The founder of the Fujian Association, Beihua 悲華, continues to maintain a website that promotes the Maitreya School, among other things, but has dropped the pretense of an “association.”37 The Suqian and Shandong Associations appear to have ceased operation entirely. While the exact reasons for this collapse is unclear, the oligopolistic structure of the Chinese religious market is certainly a key factor. The number of legal religious venues is restricted, sharply limiting the opportunities for those “entrepreneurs,” like Mingyi, who would like to promote new religious ideas and practices. As Cide pointed out to me, monks on the Mainland must live and work in public monasteries under the direction of the abbot and monastic administration.38 These authorities do not necessarily welcome individual initiative in promoting alternative Dharma gates. While the Internet provides an opening for such initiative, that opening is perhaps too narrow for a young monk of Mingyi’s ambition and perhaps simply difficult to maintain without real-​world institutional or social support. Mingyi hoped Xuedou might have offered such support, but Yizang likely recognized the risks of sponsoring a interprovincial religious association outside the structures approved by the state and chose to focus his attentions on the more promising ventures described earlier. Nevertheless, while Mingyi failed in his grander ambitions, his writings continue to be posted and reposted across the Chinese Internet as new websites, blogs, and forums spring up, ensuring that his voice, and those of other PRC proponents, continue to reverberate even after they fall silent. The revival of the Maitreya School on the Mainland has thus been rather limited. Xuedou has been able to leverage state agencies interest in tourism as a source of development to vastly expand its infrastructure, but its promotion of the bodhisattva is focused on his connection to the mountain. Taixu’s legacy is still important and visible to those who know what to look for, but his Maitreyan ideas are promoted for the most part in diluted form as “culture.” Mingyi and the Maitreya Study Associations, in contrast, pursued a more robust Maitreyanism but seem to have been thwarted by the limited

25

252

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

opportunities for initiative under the PRC regulatory regime. For a more vigorous revival we must look to Taiwan.

Openness: The Cult of Maitreya in Taiwan Daci shan The first to attempt to actively propagate devotion to Maitreya in Taiwan seems to have been that of Master Changzhao 常照 (1939–​2007). Born in 1939 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, he was educated in the Chinese classics and history and at the tender age of seventeen became a preacher (jiangshi 講師) of Yiguan dao, or the Way of Unity. In 1985, he was given a copy of the Buddhist canon, wherein he “discovered that the Way of Unity had misinterpreted the Dharma, especially the Dharma-​gate of Maitreya.” With this change of heart, he led a group of followers to convert to Buddhism and take refuge. We contextualize this defection within shifts in Yiguan dao later in this chapter. After leaving Yiguan dao, he spent seven years propagating devotion to Maitreya as a layman before becoming a monk in 1992. From 1991 to 1995, he established a series of Maitreya Lecture Halls (Mile jiang tang 彌勒講堂) in Kaohsiung, Hsinchu, Taichung, Tainan, and Panchiao.39 This culminated in the construction of a monastery called Daci shan 大慈山 (Mount Great Kindness) in Nantou County, conceived of as a sanctuary for Maitreya to match the four great mountains of the Mainland.40 Although Changzhao died just prior to its completion,41 today it serves as home to a community of nearly thirty monks and nuns devoted to the cultivation of Maitreyan practices under his successor Rukun 如崑.42 Changzhao and his organization promoted devotion to Maitreya more actively than anyone since Taixu. In addition to frequent talks on Maitreyan sutras and other texts at his lecture halls, Changzhao had a regular program on Dharma Realm (Fajie 法界), one of Taiwan’s several Buddhist cable channels. Rukun claims that, according to the station’s internal marketing research, Changzhao’s program reached an audience of 500,000. Changzhao’s signal innovation, however, was the Dharma Assembly of the Eight Fasting Precepts (ba guan zhaijie fahui 八關齋戒法會). While these precepts have a very long history in Buddhism, Changzhao seems to have been the first to use them as the focus of a Dharma Assembly. His reasons for doing so were twofold: first, he felt that people were more interested in participating in ritual events than in listening to lectures; second, the Ascent Sutra states that maintaining the eight fasting precepts is a means to secure rebirth in the Inner Court. He would use these events, which involved worship, chanting, and repentance,

235

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

253

as well as maintaining the precepts for twenty-​four hours, as an opportunity to teach about Maitreya Pure Land. The events have been a great success, drawing as many as ten thousand attendees. When I  visited in 2009, over four hundred had been held since the 1990s with a total of over a million (nondiscrete) participants. Its popularity is such that it has been adopted by mainstream Buddhist monasteries as well as Maitreyan groups, becoming a common part of the ritual repertoire on the island. In the previous chapter I argued that the burning of the New Treatise by fundamentalist Pure Land devotees and the harassment of Yinshun contributed to a chilling effect upon those who might have promoted the cult of Maitreya but feared similar opposition. If that is the case, the experience of Changzhao suggests that those fears were not unfounded. According to Rukun, the monk met with significant opposition from adherents of Amitābha Pure Land, who criticized him on television by name. But while there was a war of words, in the post–​martial law era, there was little that could be done to stop him. Most of the arguments were the same ones that had been recited against rebirth in Tuṣita since the great Pure Land masters of the Tang and that continue to be made by Pure Land masters such as Jingkong 淨空.43 A more serious accusation, though, was that Changzhao, who had been a preacher of the Way of Unity for decades, was simply preaching that heresy (from a Buddhist perspective) under the guise of Maitreya Pure Land. Again, nothing seems to have come of this. It does suggest, though, that the suppression and vilification of the religion in previous decades may indeed have served to intimidate earlier proponents of the Maitreya School. Ironically, Changzhao’s vision of Maitreya Pure Land may have had more in common with the Amitābha Pure Land of his critics than the Maitreya School conceived of by Taixu. Daci Shan presents itself as tied to the reform movement by including writings from Taixu and Yinshun on the website and making a point of mentioning that Changzhao had consulted Yinshun about questions he had regarding Maitreya Pure Land and was encouraged to propagate the cult, yet their interpretation of Maitreya Pure Land is guided more by the scriptures than either prior master. Whereas for Yinshun Maitreya Pure Land refers primarily to Maitreya’s future earthly pure land, for Daci shan it refers primarily to the present pure land in Tuṣita.44 Their conception of this, however, also diverges from that of Taixu. Whereas for Taixu, one of the key features of the Maitreya cult was the warrant and guidance it provided for engagement in the world, Daci shan has little or no interest in engagement. Their website makes no mention of Human Life Buddhism or Human Realm Buddhism, and they engage in no charitable activities. Theirs is precisely the sort of disengaged, afterlife-​focused cult to which Taixu formulated

4 2 5

254

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

the Maitreya School as an alternative. This is perhaps best symbolized by their recent project: building a Dizang Hall (Dizang yuan 地藏院) behind the monastery to house the ashes of Maitreya devotees. Daci shan’s place in the legacy of the Maitreya School is thus somewhat ambivalent. While locating itself firmly in that lineage, its articulation of the constellation of hypergoods that animated the Maitreyan thought of Taixu and Yinshun is more one-​sided: personal salvation is emphasized over social engagement, perfected self over perfected society. Nevertheless, Daci shan remains important. Changzhao was able to build a full-​fledged Maitreyan organization. It is small compared to Foguang or Tzu Chi, but it has a nearly island-​wide reach. It is not growing under Rukun as it did under its founder, but it continues to be active, holding twenty-​some Eight Precept Assemblies a year. It therefore stands as an important vector for the dissemination of the cult in Taiwan, and we shall see that some individuals who have emerged from that organization offer visions of Maitreyan practice that hew closer to Yinshun.

The Taiwan Maitreya Study Association The second Taiwanese organization to devote itself to the propagation of the Maitreya School is the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association (Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會). It was founded in 2001 by Lin Yide 林義德, or Cide 慈德 (1972–​), a layman then in his late twenties.45 Inspired by Taixu’s writings, he vowed in 1999 to spread the teachings of the Maitreya School. He established his association in 2001 at Faming Monastery (Faming si 法明寺), a small, well-​ appointed temple presided over by his father Lin Yuanhe 林源河 (1949–​). The elder Lin had made his career in business and upon retirement built a temple on the site of his former warehouse so that he might devote himself to religious pursuits.46 In 2003, Lin Yuanhe entered the sangha, taking the name Chanjing 禪敬, together with his partner in the temple enterprise, the nun Ruzheng 如証 (1949–​). Later that year, the temple was rededicated to the exclusive practice of the Maitreya School. This led to an exodus by the temple’s lay following, almost all of whom had their hearts set on rebirth in Sukhāvatī and were not interested in redirecting their devotions. Luckily, Chanjing’s lay career had left the temple with a secure economic foundation with which to weather the storm and continue its activities.47 Although the association and the temple are nominally separate, they work together in a coordinated way. Theologically, the association treats Taixu as the authoritative interpreter of the Maitreyan teachings, relegating Yinshun and others to secondary status. It focuses primarily on Maitreya Pure Land in its activities and writings,

25

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

255

deemphasizing the “Chapter on Knowing Reality” and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa. The Yoga Precepts have been taken by Cide and others in Taiwan but are not often discussed, and Maitreya’s Yogācāra teachings are revered and reprinted but considered too difficult to study. Like Taixu, but unlike Yinshun or Changzhao, they place equal emphasis on Maitreya’s pure land in Tuṣita and his future pure land on earth, seeing Maitreya Pure Land as a means of both purifying this world and securing one’s own position on the path. They regard the Maitreya School as all-​encompassing, progressive, and suited to the contemporary world. The association is active in social welfare work as well as religious cultivation. It is, in short, more faithful to Taixu’s vision than innovative in this regard.48 The association’s innovations lie instead in its legitimation, ritualization, and propagation of the Maitreya School. One key way in which Cide has attempted to legitimate the cult of Maitreya is by crafting a lineage of patriarchs that established continuity between the great masters of the past and the cult’s contemporary proponents. We noted in ­chapter 5 that Taixu had hinted at a patriarchate. Cide develops this the idea, designating forty patriarchs of the Chinese Maitreya School (Zhonghua cizong 中華慈宗), beginning with Dao’an 道安 and including obvious luminaries such as Xuanzang and Kuiji as well as a number of lesser-​known figures. The list includes Taixu and ten other modern figures and identifies an additional three “Maitreya Study Association patriarchs”: his father Chanjing as well as Yizang and Mingyi.49 As Erik Hammerstrom has observed, the construction of such patriarchates is an important way to legitimate new movements in modern Chinese Buddhism.50 Much effort has also been expended in ritual production. Faming Monastery maintains a full liturgical schedule and has assembled a ritual manual of its own to reflect its distinct theological orientation. Although its morning and evening liturgies were composed by Mingyi, most of the twenty liturgies that make up its two-​volume spiral-​bound breviary were composed by either Chanjing or Cide. Some rites are unique, such as the “Precious Repentance Rite of the Maitreya School for the Repentance and Elimination of Sins” (Cizong chanhui miezui baochan 慈宗懺悔滅罪寶懺), while others are versions of standard rites, differentiated only by their dedication of merit to rebirth in Tuṣita and their brevity.51 Most Dharma assemblies take two hours or less, which Cide connects to Human Life Buddhism: busy lay people cannot commit to all-​day Dharma assemblies. Recently, however they have added an all-​day assembly to their repertoire: an Eight Precepts Assembly. Though almost certainly inspired by Changzhao’s rite, it is not the same. Cide told me that their liturgy was based on that of a PRC monk named Tianyou 天佑, who had taken tonsure with Chengyi at his ancestral monastery on the Mainland.

6 52

256

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

Perhaps the most important area of activity, however, is propagation. The Taiwan Maitreya Study Association has distributed hundreds of thousands of copies of texts, including the Maitreyan sutras and Taixu’s commentaries on the Three Essentials, both in Taiwan and the PRC, and has maintained a free periodical since its inception.52 Recently, it has gathered dozens of essays by Cide, Chanjing, and Ruzheng, as well as other contemporary proponents such as Chengyi and Changzhao and forebears like Taixu and Yinshun, into an eight-​volume compilation, The Precious Mirror of the Maitreya School (Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑)53 published in 2007. Print, however, has not been their primary medium. The Taiwan Maitreya Study Association’s signal contribution has been its extensive and sophisticated use of the Internet and other electronic formats. Cide maintains an extensive website that includes not only teachings, scriptures, and images of Maitreya but also a library of books published by the association in pdf format, devotional music and lectures for streaming, video, comics, and cartoons, including animated versions of the Maitreyan sutras.54 They also maintain an active presence on social media, including Facebook and WeChat, an important PRC platform. Their reach is impressive. They claimed 800,000 (nondiscrete) visitors to their website as of January 2016,55 and uploads of their animated sutras to Youtube and Youku have garnered tens of thousands of views.56 Yet the Internet is not simply a mode of distribution. Rather it is an integral part of the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association’s organizational model. Emerging at the same time as its Mainland counterparts, the association developed as part of an online movement in which texts, ideas, and encouragement passed easily among individuals and groups in relatively isolated parts of the Chinese Buddhist world. The Hunan Association figures prominently in the Taiwan Association’s account of its origins, but Mingyi and Cide never met. Yet unlike the associations in the PRC, the Taiwan Association is not limited to the virtual world. As Cide pointed out to me, in Taiwan anyone can buy some property and set up a temple of their own; they are not constrained by the public monasteries and their leadership. Like Taixu in the Republic, contemporary Taiwanese Buddhists can establish their own institutions outside existing structures. Chanjing was able to found his own temple and dedicate it to the Maitreya School with little trouble. This temple provides his son’s lay association with both a venue in which to pursue ritual activity but also the social capital and legitimacy of a monastic community, albeit a small one. At the same time, Cide’s sophisticated web operation allows individuals to participate in the temple’s activities in some capacity even at a distance. A three-​ day Dharma assembly held by the Taiwan Association to celebrate Maitreya’s

2 75

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

257

birth that I attended in 2009 drew an average of only twenty participants, but when prayers for good fortune were offered on the final day, the names of an additional thirty families who had registered online were also included. When I visited in 2014 a pair of flat-​screen TVs had been installed on either side of the main altar to display the names of online sponsors in a rotation as rituals were carried out. The bricks-​and-​mortar temple and the largely online association thus operate synergistically. Today, the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association and Faming Monastery continue to expand. The association has a second branch in Zhushan, Nantou County, not far from Daci shan. Its membership is small, but it has its own building and Chanjing goes down once a month to give a Dharma talk. He has also purchased land nearby in the hopes of building a monastery one day. Progress is slow, but Chanjing is in no rush: “We cast our seeds on the ground. Eventually, they will grow. Now they are just beginning to sprout, but I think it is a matter of time.” For now, the important thing is to provide accurate information about the Maitreya Gate. People do not change gates lightly, so Cide feels that the Internet is the best way to make information available and allow people to make up their own minds.

The Bade Maitreya Lodge This detached approach to propagation contrasts with the almost evangelical fervor of our last Taiwanese Buddhist group: the Bade Maitreya Lay Buddhist Lodge (Bade cishi jushilin 八德慈氏居士林). Established in 2010, the Lodge traces its roots to Changzhao. Its founder, Zhong Mengzheng 鐘孟正 was introduced to Buddhism and the Maitreyan teachings by Changzhao sometime around 1986, not long after he abandoned Yiguan dao for Buddhism. Zhong had originally hoped to enter the sangha under him, but “causes and conditions were not right.” Still, he practiced Maitreya Pure Land and propagated it informally for over two decades before giving his efforts an institutional basis. He was encouraged to establish the Lodge by Master Tiren 提仁 of Tianning Monastery (Tianning si 天寧寺), who had himself been converted to Maitreyan devotion by a disciple of Changzhao. His organization has been quite successful, claiming two hundred members by the time I first visited in the summer of 2014.57 Despite its ties to Changzhao, the Lodge is theologically aligned most closely with Yinshun. Yinshun’s works, along with a copy of the canon, fill the Lodge’s bookshelves and phrases derived from Yinshun’s thought pepper Zhong’s discussions of Maitreya. For instance, he is fond of rattling off Yinshun’s formulation of the three excellences of Maitreya’s pure land:  proximity, ease, and

8 2 5

258

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

accessibility. More significantly, Zhong shares with Yinshun a clear emphasis on the Maitreya’s future pure land. This, he told me several times, was the key point. Rebirth in Tuṣita is not neglected, though. The Lodge’s website affirms that if one simply takes refuge, observes filial piety, makes offerings, and engages in charitable work, then one already meets the bar and has only to resolve to be reborn and recite Maitreya’s name. Yet “the cardinal meaning of Maitreya Pure Land lies in the prayer to hasten Maitreya’s descent to be born in the human realm, the desire to hasten the realization of the pure land on earth.”58 The pure land on earth is to be brought about through the moral transformation of individuals, achieved through the performance of good works but also through the practice of repentance. The Lodge’s most important innovation is its lay character. While there have been several lay Maitreyan associations, the Lodge proclaims itself to be a “lay sanctuary” (zaijia daochang 在家道場). That is, it is a center of Dharma propagation and cultivation operating independent of monastic authority. Although they respect the monastic institution and have a special relationship with Tiren’s monastery, they argue that lay people are best suited to spread the Dharma to other lay people. When I asked about this, Zhong explained that lay people are better able to understand the difficulties and constraints experienced by other lay people. He also made the case that not having taken the full monastic precepts allowed him to better reach those leading a householder life. The monastic day, he pointed out, begins early and ends early. Monasteries generally close by dinner, whereas the Lodge remains open late into the night, so that people can stop by at 11 pm if they want to. Theologically, he argues that this is perfectly orthodox. In fact, it is consistent, he claims, with the original Buddhism of Śākyamuni’s time in which great upsākas often had their own retinues. Defending the orthodoxy of the Lodge and its activities looms large both in conversation with Zhong and on the group’s website, which quotes a whole series of scriptures as well as modern masters such as Yinshun, Xingyun, and Sheng Yen on the topic of Maitreya Pure Land. The reason is that the Lodge bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Yiguan dao. A lay organization devoted to Maitreya eschewing monastic leadership that is located above a vegetarian restaurant will in perhaps every other instance be an Yiguan dao Buddha Hall. In fact, given Changzhao’s background in Yiguan dao, the model may have been directly borrowed. Small wonder then that Zhong felt the need to declare on the very first page of page of the Lodge’s old website that, despite accusations to the contrary, he “must make clear that the Bade Maitreya Buddhist Lodge is a lay sanctuary of pure, orthodox original Buddhism. [It is] absolutely not Yiguan dao!”59

9 52

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

259

Although it has caused controversy, the Bade Maitreya Lodge’s model of organization and propagation has proven quite effective. Whereas the Maitreya Study Association has focused on a low-​key virtual promotion of the Maitreya cult, the Lodge has emphasized more personal outreach tailored to the needs of the local community. Situated in the down market city of Bade 八德 in Taoyuan county, it addresses itself to largely working-​class constituency, offering simple, short rituals at convenient times for working people. “We all have jobs,” I was frequently told. Those jobs often create problems for childcare, so Zhong provides free after-​school care to needy families. Students at nearby schools receive a snack and a safe place to do their homework, along with basic religious instruction. Some students stop coming after a few weeks, but many stay and bring their parents. Childcare is also provided during rituals. The result is thriving children’s and youth groups but also a membership that is much younger on average than that found at many Buddhist organizations. The organic mix of ages also contributes to the convivial atmosphere of the dinners that sometimes follow rituals. I was told by several people “we are like one big family,” and the dinner that I attended did bear much resemblance to an extended family gathering. Another example of this more personal and emotional approach are the testimonials common among the members of the Lodge. Many members spoke to me of the difficulties they had faced before joining: a wayward child falling in with a bad crowd, strained relationships at work, frequent illness. Lost and suffering, they were introduced in one way or another to the Lodge and turned their lives around. They put their faith in Maitreya and the Three Jewels and began to practice repentance and cultivate merit. Thus transforming themselves, their lives are also spontaneously transformed: the prodigal returns to the fold, the workplace becomes more convivial, illness spontaneously heals. Such narratives also appear on the group’s website.60 Although for many of the individuals I spoke with, this personal transformation seemed to loom larger than Maitreya, Zhong Mengzheng clearly sees these transformations of individual lives, wrought with the assistance of Maitreya, as the building blocks of the pure land on earth. The openness in Taiwan has thus allowed for a small but significant revival of the Maitreya School. In the absence of restrictive regulation of religious affairs, different models have been pursued. Daci shan has built a relatively conventional monastery and series of lecture halls through which it has promoted a vision of Maitreya Pure Land focused on rebirth in Tuṣita through television and novel ritual gatherings. The Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, together with Faming Monastery, has spread Taixu’s vision of the Maitreya School through a high-​tech but hands-​off approach centered on

0 6 2

260

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

the Internet. Finally, the Maitreya Lay Buddhist Lodge has opted for a more face-​to-​face approach that emphasizes building Maitreya’s future pure land on earth through personal transformation within a lay community. There are moreover additional groups such as Tiren’s Tianning Monastery, which I have been unable to collect sufficient information on to discuss. While none of these can be compared to Foguang shan in size or resources, in aggregate they represent a significant and vibrant minority with Taiwan’s Buddhist scene and show that the legacy of the Maitreya School is alive and well on the island. Yet Buddhists are not the only ones to have taken up Taixu and Yinshun’s Maitreyan thought. Perhaps their greatest influence lies beyond what they would have considered orthodoxy in Yiguan dao and its offshoot Maitreya Great Way (Mile da dao 彌勒大道)

Heterodox Legacies: Yiguan Dao and Maitreya Great Way Yiguan dao As noted in the previous chapter, Yiguan dao, or the Way of Unity, emerged from the salvationist stream of Chinese religion focused on the Eternal Mother, specifically a network of late imperial movements known as the Way of Former Heaven (Xiantian dao 先天道).61 It shared with them the view that the Mother had populated the world with her children at creation, but they had forgotten their spiritual nature and become lost in samsara. In order to help them return to their true home in the Heaven of Principle, the Mother sent a series of Buddhas to preside over three cosmological periods: Lamplighter Buddha for the age of Green Yang, Śākyamuni for Red Yang, and Maitreya for the age of White Yang. As the last of the series, Maitreya offers the last chance for salvation before the dissolution of the world, after which the cycle begins anew and those who have been saved repopulate a world remade.62 According to Yiguan dao, the onset of the period of White Yang corresponded to the founding of the Republic. As such, the end was in sight and the Mother had flung open the gates to universal salvation in the form of Way of Unity. This Way had been transmitted, they held, through a three-​ part lineage including the sages of Chinese antiquity, the Indian and Chinese patriarchs of the Chan School, and a series of salvationist figures culminating in Lu Zhongyi 路中一 (1848/​1853–​1925), believed to be an incarnation of Maitreya,63 and Zhang Guangbi 張光壁 (1889–​1947), believed to be an incarnation of Jigong. Zhang Guangbi, better known as Zhang Tianran 張天然, was effectively the founder of Yiguan dao as a mass movement, thus it is not

261

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

261

surprising that Jigong eclipsed Maitreya in practice. While Maitreya was the holder of the celestial plate (tianpan 天盤), Jigong was the holder of the plate of the Way (daopan 道盤). This meant that Maitreya was more removed from earthly affairs, whereas Jigong stood at the head of a retinue of popular deities made available through spirit-​writing at the Mother’s behest to lead people to salvation.64 The true keys to salvation, however, lay not with the gods but with the patriarchate. Whereas many salvationist traditions had taught that cultivation must precede receiving the Way, Zhang Tianran taught that receiving the Way must come first. As a patriarch, he was the holder of the Mother’s celestial mandate (tianming 天命), which allowed him and the initiators (chuandianshi 傳點師) acting in his name to transmit the esoteric Three Treasures, which assured salvation. These were the five-​character mantra of Maitreya (wuzi koujue 五字口訣), the mudra (hetongyin 合同印), and the “mysterious pass” (xuanguan 玄關) opened by the initiator to allow the soul passage to the Mother at death.65 Once initiated, salvation was assured and the initiate was to live a holy life within the world, “half sagely, half ordinary” (ban sheng ban fan 半聖半 凡). Individuals were to do the interior work of moral self-​perfection and the outer work of encouraging virtue in others. Like other redemptive societies, Yiguan dao thus combined elements of all three of China’s traditional “teachings”: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. Yet it saw itself as not another “teaching” or “religion” but the “Way” transcending and including all.66 There are elements here that resonate with what we have seen in the Maitreya School, such as the “half sagely, half ordinary” approach to the religious life and the injunction to morally perfect oneself and others. The apocalyptic eschatology in which it was framed, however, resulted in an aloofness from the world that is quite different. The world was bad in classical Yiguan dao thought, and getting worse. The movement’s mission was not to save it but to save people from it. The world’s fate was sealed, and a better world will come only after the cataclysm. This view likely helped Yiguan dao to spread during the war against the Japanese when the horrors of war made its vision all too plausible. It also allowed the movement, if not to collaborate with the Japanese occupation, to coexist with it, continuing the work of spreading the Way without resisting the powers that be.67 The whiff of collaboration that clung to Yiguan dao in the aftermath of the war combined with the relative secrecy with which it conducted itself helped spur the Nationalist government to proscribe it in 1946. Thanks to well-​placed supporters, this proscription was purely nominal. Yet, as we have seen, the movement was once again banned by the Communist authorities and brutally repressed in the early 1950s.68 This action decapitated one of the factions that

6 2

262

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

formed in the wake of Zhang Tianran’s death in 1947 and forced the leader of the other, his second wife Sun Suzhen 孫素真 (1894–​1975), to flee to Hong Kong in 1950 before settling in Taiwan in 1954.69 There the movement was once again banned by the Nationalist authorities. The rationales shifted over time but included sedition, deluding the masses, and various sexual hijinks.70 Enforcement was uneven and sporadic, but even so, it had an important effect on the way in which Yiguan dao organized itself and conducted its activities in Taiwan. Although Sun was regarded by her followers as Zhang Tianran’s co-​patriarch and thus the ultimate source of authority and the guarantor of salvation, she elected to live a quiet and reclusive life in Taichung. Actual day-​to-​day operations were overseen by a set of Elders (qianren 前人), who supervised organizationally independent branches (zuxian 組線). Under the period of renewed proscription on Taiwan, this structure offered important advantages for the clandestine movement. It effectively quarantined branches from one another so that if one became compromised the authorities would be able to learn little about the others. It was (and is) through the branches that members receive initiation, and thus their primary affiliation is with the branch. At the grassroots level, much activity took place in private homes or through Yiguan dao–​affiliated businesses that provided both cover and funding for propagation. For most people these would be their only point of contact with the movement, and nearby Buddha Halls might have no knowledge of one another. Yiguan dao thus became highly segmented as branches developed distinct characters and even diverged to a degree theologically.71 As the martial law period began to draw to a close in the late 1970s and 1980s, a number of developments took place that would shift the movement’s direction and spur the adoption, at least in certain quarters, of more ideas and practices from orthodox Buddhism, in particular the Maitreya School. The first development was a pair of internal crises that shifted the bases of authority. The first crisis was the death of the surviving co-​patriarch, Sun Suzhen, in 1975. With no clear procedures in place for succession, competition among various claimants to the celestial mandate led to internecine conflict. Ultimately, a consensus emerged among most branches that Sun and Zhang had been the last patriarchs, but other branches split off over the issue.72 The second crisis came shortly on the heels of the first. Spirit-​writing had been an important aspect of Yiguan dao practice from the time of Zhang Tianran through the 1970s. In 1980, however, a spirit medium from the Fayi Chongde 法一崇德 branch publically revealed that her Elder had planted the divine messages she had revealed. Word of the scandal spread across branches and ultimately resulted in the practice being discarded by all divisions of Yiguan dao except Fayi Chongde, and even there it plays a much diminished role.73

6 23

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

263

Thus within a few years two cornerstones of authority within the movement—​ the patriarchate and direct communication with the gods—​ceased to be living institutions, leading to an unsettled period where new ideas and sources of authority would be proposed. The second factor leading to shifts in Yiguan dao was the gradual, uneven path to legalization. The first opening for rapprochement between the Naitonalist state and Yiguan dao came in the late 1960s when the KMT launched the Cultural Restoration Movement (Zhonghua wenhua fuxing yundong 中華文化復興運動) as a counterpoint to the Cultural Revolution in the PRC. This allowed Yiguan dao to cast its Confucian classics study groups, which had originally been partly a front for their activities, as support for the government’s campaign. Cooperation deepened in the 1970s when the KMT began to allow local elections and relied upon Yiguan dao to deliver votes. As liberalization grew, this became more important, and when martial law was finally lifted in 1987, so was the proscription on Yiguan dao. As part of this process, Yiguan dao’s cultural conservativism has grown more prominent, and its apocalypticism has been tempered with the end of persecution.74 The final factor that served to push Yiguan dao in a new direction was increased criticism from the Buddhist establishment. Buddhists had been critical of the movement for decades, but their attacks on Yiguan dao appear to have grown in the 1970s and 1980s, most likely as a result of the movement’s rapid growth and the trend toward legalization that began with its electoral cooperation with the KMT. Anti-​Yiguan dao literature was published at an increased rate. Works such as A Bright Light for a Dark Road (An lu ming deng 暗路明燈), True Account of the Heavenly Way (Tiandao zhen chuan 天道真傳), and How I Escaped Yiguan Dao (Wo zenyang tuoli yiguan dao 我怎樣脫離一貫 道) excoriated Yiguan dao for what Buddhists saw as its secretive, seditious character and its “plagiarism” of Buddhist doctrine. Yiguan dao’s portrayal of Maitreya was a particular object of attack. The idea that he is an ancient Buddha who has already succeeded to Śākyamuni’s place and will soon arrive was attacked as a distortion of the orthodox accounts of the Buddhist canon.75 The Buddhist Association attempted to throw its weight behind the anti-​ Yiguan dao campaign in 1982 when it formed the Task Force for Rebutting Heresy and Clarifying Orthodoxy to Protect the Nation and Safeguard the Religion” (Poxie xianzheng huguo weijiao xingdong weiyuanhui 破邪顯正護 國衛教行動委員會). Even on the eve of legalization, Hongyin 宏印 (1949–​), a student of Yinshun, and a group of prominent monks formed the Wheel of the Correct Dharma Propagation Group (Zhengfa lun hongfa tuan 政法輪弘 法團) to counter the growing popularity of Yiguan dao.76

6 42

264

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

These three factors in concert led to a number of shifts in Yiguan dao thought and practice. A Confucianization of the religion has been remarked upon by many scholars,77 but we can also identify a less noticed Buddhification in which certain doctrines were brought closer to orthodox Buddhism.78 Legalization led to a tempering of the movement’s apocalypticism, while the combination of succession struggles and spirit-​writing scandals with Buddhist criticism led some to turn to Buddhist scriptures and thinkers as sources of authority. As a common figure of veneration in both Yiguan dao and Buddhism who was closely associated with eschatology, Maitreya was a natural focal point for these developments. This confluence is most clear in a 1991 work by Ci Weizhong 慈惟中 titled Rays of Light Before the Dawn: An Appeal to White Yang Disciples (Liming qian de shuguang: dui baiyang dizi de huyu 黎明前的曙光: 對白陽弟子的呼籲). In a preface, Ci casts himself as a voice for unity in a time of division. In the wake of Sun’s death, he argues, heresy and dissension broke out throughout the movement. As a solution, he offers veneration of Maitreya.79 In his account, he embraces the sutras as the ultimate authority, frequently criticizing spirit-​ writing as a font of heresy. By proving his positions in this way, he hopes not only to unite Yiguan dao but to make common cause with Buddhists, inspired in part by none other than Hongyin, whom Ci heard speak at a workshop.80 Ci’s vision is arguably closer to the Maitreya School than it is to Yiguan dao. He quotes Xingyun several times and uses phrasings derived from Taixu and Yinshun as well. Although he refers to the Yiguan dao schema of the three ages, he embraces the Buddhist timeline for Maitreya’s advent. Until that time, he argues, human beings should live “half sagely, half ordinary” lives, striving to purify the world through their moral conduct, thereby earning rebirth in Tuṣita heaven and hastening the creation of a pure land on earth. There is no mention of the cataclysm, nor even of the Eternal Mother. Ci does refer to the Celestial Mandate held by Zhang and Sun but presents it as manifestation of the Buddha’s vow. The Three Jewels of Yiguan dao are not an esoteric key assuring salvation but a way of pointing to the initiate’s own ineffable nature.81 Ci Weizhong’s book is an extreme case and not one that resonated with his fellow White Yang disciples.82 Much more significant was the work of Wang Ciguang 汪慈光, also known as Ci Wuyi 慈無依. Wang first emerged as an important Yiguan dao thinker in the early 1980s. Today he is a leader of the heterodox offshoot Maitreya Great Way, which we turn to later in this chapter, but his early work was and remains influential in mainline Yiguan dao.83 In his works we find a more balanced blend of Yiguan dao thought with the reformist cult of Maitreya. Quoting extensively from the works of Taixu

6 25

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

265

and Yinshun among others, Wang argues in works like Maitreya’s Harvest (Mile shouyuan 彌勒收圓) and Final Salvation (Mohou yi zhuo 末後一著) that Maitreya Pure Land is central to the Way of Unity. In the process, he incorporates not only Taixu’s Maitreyan ideas but the underlying moral frameworks into Yiguan dao, while arguing that Yiguan dao’s universalism makes it the true teaching of Maitreya’s pure land on earth. Wang’s early works adopt the twofold pure land of reformist thought basically unchanged. In Maitreya’s Harvest, Wang holds forth the Maitreyan promise of a future golden age, a pure land on earth in which all struggle and strife have disappeared and all may attain liberation by seeing the Buddha and realizing the fruit.84 Human beings have the power to bring this about by emulating Maitreya’s kindness and cultivating their own morality, thereby purifying the world to create the conditions for Maitreya’s advent.85 By this same practice, one earns entry into Maitreya’s Inner Court, there to cultivate under the bodhisattva’s86 guidance. This protects those who might have started on the path but not yet understood ultimate truth from the suffering of rebirth. What is truly important, however, is not the Tuṣita pure land but the pure land on earth.87 This, Wang asserts, is the Mother’s “weighty mission” for followers of Yiguan dao, to deliver the three classes88 from the round of birth and death and promote our ancestral teacher Maitreya’s grandly compassionate vow—​to turn this corrupt world into a pure land on earth, to turn this world of chaos into one of Grand Unity, leading the three classes to join the three assemblies of the Dragon Flower, [there to] see the Buddha, hear the Dharma, and realize the fruit.89 This wholesale adoption of the reformist vision of Maitreya Pure Land requires a degree of revision of classical Yiguan dao thought in both eschatology and soteriology. The progressive eschatology of the Maitreya School is an uneasy fit with Yiguan dao’s cyclic view of time and its attendant apocalypse. As we saw, Taixu faced a similar problem with the Abhidharmakośa’s cyclic view of time and resolved it by appealing to the more abstract category of karma. Wang’s approach in his early works is inconsistent. In Maitreya’s Harvest, he simply ignores traditional Yiguan dao eschatology altogether. In the preface to Final Salvation, on the other hand, he places Maitreya’s advent on the other side of a minor apocalypse, the “lesser chaos” (xiao hundun 小混 沌), which will serve the traditional function of separating those who are saved from those who are condemned to samsara for another cosmic cycle.90 It is never made clear, however, how this event maps onto the transformation of

62

266

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

the world into a pure land, and later in the book Wang returns to ignoring the apocalypse in favor of the progressive vision.91 Wang’s soteriological vision, in contrast, is more integrated. Like many of his contemporaries but unlike Zhang Tianran, Wang believes that receiving the Way through the transmission of the esoteric Three Treasures of Yiguan dao does not of itself suffice for salvation. It is a guarantee, but one that must be made good by the initiate’s own self-​cultivation. Only those who have understood ultimate truth can ascend directly to the Mother’s Heaven of Principle. Other initiates must first purify themselves in the heavenly Buddha Hall. Only after descending with Maitreya will they realize the truth of the Mother.92 This realization at the feet of Maitreya is what Wang means by “universal salvation” (pudu 普渡). Whereas in early Yiguan dao the harvest of universal salvation meant the propagation of Yiguan dao for the sake of saving beings through initiation, for Wang it is the Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower. The universal salvation of Maitreya’s harvest depends on the individual salvation achieved through the cultivation of morality.93 At the same time, Wang construes the figure of Maitreya and his utopia in distinctly Yiguan dao terms. Even while borrowing heavily from Buddhism, he argues Buddhist views of Maitreya are too narrow and parochial. Maitreya is a universal figure transcending all human divisions. How could he be the property of a single religion? He is, in fact, the second coming of the sages of all five teachings (Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism joined by Christianity and Islam).94 Wang thus argues that the Buddhist vision does not do justice to the universality of the world of Grand Unity in which all divisions are dissolved. The basis of that unity must be Yiguan dao, which is not one of the teachings whose limited sectarianism will fall away but the Way, which includes and transcends them all. Essentially, Yiguan dao’s vision of Maitreya is being proffered as truer to the hypergood of utopia. For Wang this is not solely a matter of ideals, however, but also of practicalities. If the achievement of the pure land on earth requires all humanity to work together, Buddhists are simply too small of a minority to bring it about. People of all religions must cooperate to bring about the perfect world all traditions speak of.95 Each may be saved individually according to his or her own tradition and then harvested together by Maitreya in the perfect world to come.96 Socially, too, Wang feels that Buddhism is too narrow. Wang interprets the old Yiguan dao idea that Maitreya has succeeded Śākyamuni to mean that spreading the Dharma is no longer the province of the sangha alone (though Wang rejects Yiguan dao’s traditional anticlericalism) but belongs to the laity as well. As a lay movement Yiguan dao is better able to spread the Way throughout society and make cultivation a part of daily life.97

6 2 7

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

267

Yiguan dao is thus, in his reckoning, more humanistic than Humanistic Buddhism. Although the secretive and segmented nature of the movement makes certainty elusive, it seems clear that these ideas spread widely. They circulated not only through Wang’s own works but also through a spirit-​written text titled A Record of Journey’s among the Heavenly Buddha Halls (Tian foyuan youji 天佛院 遊記), which is reported to have been popular in the 1980s across all branches of the movement, even though spirit-​writing was beginning to be called into question. In this text, his ideas about the power of cultivators, particularly but not only Yiguan dao followers, to secure both salvation and the pure land on earth through moral cultivation and mental purification are reiterated as revelation, at times verbatim.98 This work continues to be reproduced widely online today and seems likely to have been an important vector for popularizing Maitreya Pure Land ideas in Yiguan dao and beyond.99 Today one can easily find discussions of Maitreya Pure Land in the religion’s writings. An Yiguan dao-​produced reference work’s entry on Maitreya reflects Taixu and Yinshun’s ideas100 as does the widely available introductory text Things Yiguan dao Disciples Should Know (Yiguan dao dizi yingyou de renshi 一貫道弟子應有的認識).101 Discussions of the excellences of Maitreya Pure Land can be found on a site for study materials for the Fayi Chongde branch102 and sites associated with the large Jichu 基礎 branch,103 among thousands of others. One Yiguan dao lecturer, Xie Wenzhi 謝文治, has applied these ideas to end-​of-​life care, championing Pure Land-​style “recitation assistance” in which the name of Maitreya is chanted at a dying person’s beside to aid rebirth. His company, Fengda Life Rituals (Fengda shengming liyi gongsi 風達生命禮儀公司), offers such Yiguan dao end-​of-​life care as well as funeral services throughout southern Taiwan.104 At least on the basis of print and Internet sources, then, the influence of the reformist cult of Maitreya on Yiguan dao, refracted through the works of Wang Ciguang, appears to be broad and substantial.

Maitreya Great Way Although Wang Ciguang played a key role in bringing these ideas into the religion’s mainstream, he himself became a founding figure of an offshoot that has come to be seen as heterodox: the Great Way of Former Heaven (Xiantian da dao 先天大道), later Maitreya Great Way (Mile da dao 彌勒大道). In the wake of Sun Suzhen’s death, one of the claimants to the Celestial Mandate was her personal attendant Wang Haode 王好德. Since Wang was not the elder of a branch, he had to build his own movement from scratch. To do

6 82

268

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

this, he partnered with Wang Ciguang, and together they founded a publishing house and a series of Light of Kindness Lecture Halls (Ciguang jiang tang 慈光講堂) to spread their ideas. After legalization in 1987, Wang and Wang established the Heaven’s Favor Maitreya Hall (Tianen mile yuan 天恩 彌勒院) as the headquarters of the Great Way of Former Heaven. In 2000, Wang Haode changed the movement’s name to Maitreya Great Way. He died that same year and was succeeded by Wang Ciguang and Yan Miaoru 顏妙 如. In 2001 Maitreya Great Way was recognized by the government as a new religion and its headquarters moved to Emei in Hsinchu County, where it has since constructed a 72-​meter image of Maitreya.105 This image, together with the organization’s architecturally striking headquarters, has become an important tourist stop.106 Doctrinally, the initial point of divergence from Yiguan dao was Wang Haode’s understanding of the three treasures. In his view, the three treasures were not primarily an esoteric transmission but part of humanity’s intrinsic nature, the inborn mother in all people. Ritually receiving the three treasures simply reveals the original nature that was always there and creates the affinities that secure rebirth in the Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower. Later, Wang began to speak of this inborn nature as conscience (liangxin 良心). The task of humanity in this articulation is to rouse the conscience of all individuals and thereby establish the pure land on earth. This basic vision has been further developed since the establishment of Maitreya Great Way in ways that bring Maitreya to the forefront. Maitreya is now seen as an avatar of the Mother. The Mother’s kindness created the world, and Maitreya is that kindness embodied. That same kindness is also the inborn nature of all beings. By acting with kindness, in imitation of Maitreya, individuals can transform themselves and thereby collectively transform the world ushering in the age of Grand Unity and the advent of Maitreya.107 With this “active Maitreyanization” (jiji milehua 積極彌勒化), this offshoot of Yiguan dao has embraced a fully activist articulation of the frameworks that underlie the reformist cult of Maitreya, one that ironically echoes Taixu’s “Three Great Evils of the World.” In this vision, the apocalypticism of Yiguan dao no longer has any real place.108 Its legacy can still be found in Exegesis on Right Faith (Zhengxin yishu 正信義疏), a collection of Wang Ciguang’s early works updated to reflect Maitreya Great Way terminology,109 but in its contemporary pronouncements and activities Maitreya Great Way eschew this future in favor of a progressive utopianism.110 Therefore, despite the clear lines Taixu attempted to draw to distinguish his ideas from those of the heterodox, reimagining of the cult of Maitreya has had at least as great an impact outside of orthodoxy as within. According to 2005 government statistics, Yiguan dao made up 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s

9 6 2

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

269

population and Maitreya Great Way another 1 percent for a combined total of a million adherents on the island. Millions more are estimated to live abroad.111 The Maitreyan ideas of Taixu, Yinshun, and later figures, reworked by Wang Ciguang and others, have become an important part of recent Yiguan dao theology and played a formative role in the articulation of its largest offshoot, providing an avenue for moderating their apocalyptic worldview and adopting a more progressive, socially engaged stance in the postlegalization era while retaining a maternist theology. Moreover, from this vantage point, we can now see that not only did the reformist cult of Maitreya exercise an important influence on Yiguan dao and its offshoot Maitreya Great Dao but also that the Buddhification of Yiguan dao likely also helped to spark the new wave of Maitreyan activity in Taiwanese Buddhism. Changzhao abandoned Yiguan dao for orthodox Buddhism in 1985, just as the internal crises of authority and external attacks from Buddhists were roiling the movement and not long after the works of Wang Ciguang began to circulate. Other Yiguan dao figures at this time were also turning to the sutras for authority and looking to thinkers like Yinshun for authoritative interpretations of their contents. They too were formulating new conceptions of Maitreya on that basis. Changzhao simply represents an extreme case in that he was willing to reject Yiguan dao entirely. Nevertheless, we might locate the roots of his more vigorous attempts to evangelize Maitreya in Yiguan dao’s missionary tradition. Changzhao’s series of Maitreya Lecture Halls bear a suggestive resemblance to Wang Ciguang’s network of Light of Kindness Lecture Halls, though “lecture halls” are hardly unique to these movements. Zhong Mengzheng’s Maitreya Lodge more clearly suggests Yiguan dao missionary techniques and fervor. While the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association does not have roots in Yiguan dao, its branches almost certainly intertwine with that religion and its offshoot, for followers of Yiguan dao and Maitreya Great Way surely make up some significant portion of the visitors to its website and viewers of its Maitreyan cartoons.

Conclusion In sum, since the implementation of reform and openness in the People’s Republic and the lifting of martial law in Taiwan, the cult of Maitreya has reemerged as part of the broader religious revival. This reemergence has developed quite differently in each country in no small part due to the different sociopolitical environment. In China, heavy regulation and an interventionist state has shaped developments. On Xuedou shan, canny monastic leadership has allowed the monastery to cooperate with local and provincial

0 72

270

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

state agencies interested in fostering tourism to rapidly expand the monastic infrastructure on the mountain. This has created new opportunities to promote devotion to Maitreya in politically palatable forms. While this has led to some degree of dilution, Xuedou shan nevertheless relies on Taixu to help legitimate its claims to be the fifth great mountain. As such, it could one day become a powerful institutional center for a more robust Maitreyanism if conditions allow. Whereas the confluence of state and institutional agendas accelerated development on Xuedou shan, it seems the tension between institutional interests and personal devotion has hindered the growth of the Maitreya Study Associations in the PRC. Mingyi founded the first in Hunan in 1999 with an ambitious agenda to spread the teachings of the Maitreya School as Taixu had conceived it. The idea spread to several other parts of China, aided by the Internet, which facilitated the spread of ideas and inspiration. The oligopolistic structure of the religious market in the PRC, however, constricts opportunity for innovation. Lacking institutional support, Mingyi’s association ceased operations, and Mingyi, unable to strike out on his own legally, returned to lay life. Other associations also crumbled or became little more than websites. Still, the writings of Mingyi and other contemporary proponents, as well as earlier figures, continue to be posted and reposted online, showing continuing interest and allowing for future rediscovery. For now, however, the revival of the Maitreya School in China must be judged to be rather limited. In Taiwan, on the other hand, full religious liberalization has allowed a variety of religious actors and movements to take up the banner of Maitreya Pure Land and experiment with novel modes of propagation. The initial impetus for the revival of interest in Taixu and Yinshun’s Maitreyan ideas seems to have come from outside Buddhism in Yiguan dao. Maitreya Pure Land provided an opportunity for proponents of the tradition to moderate its apocalyptic views, ground it in textual authority and rebut criticism from Buddhists, at a moment when it was being disrupted by internal crises of succession and authority, subjected to attacks from Buddhists who claimed the religion distorted their doctrines, and reimagined as it made the transition from suppressed sect to mainstream religion. Wang Ciguang influentially promoted the idea that the esoteric Three Treasures did not suffice for salvation but instead one must engage in moral self-​cultivation, which both secures rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven and progressively purifies this world. He retained Yiguan dao’s Maternist theology but sidelined and largely ignored its eschatology in favor of the progressive vision of Taixu and Yinshun. Together with Wang Haode, he further developed these ideas in the independent Maitreya Great Way, arguing that Maitreya is the Mother’s kindness made flesh and that

271

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

271

kindness is the inborn Mother in all. By enacting it, in imitation of Maitreya, we perfect ourselves and the world. In Maitreya Great Way we thus see a full Maternist articulation of the moral frameworks underlying the reformist cult of Maitreya. While Wang Ciguang stayed within the salvationist tradition, others responded to the same circumstances by abandoning it entirely in favor of orthodox Buddhism. Such was the case with Changzhao, a longtime Yiguan dao lecturer turned proponent of Maitreya Pure Land. He brought from Yiguan dao an evangelistic vigor that helped him establish a series of lecutres halls crowned by what he envisioned as a mountain monastery holy to Maitreya. While his vision of Maitreya Pure Land was more afterlife-​focused and socially aloof than those of Taixu or Yinshun, he nevertheless claimed that lineage and his follower Zhong Mengzheng would embrace reformist ideas and promote them through Yiguan dao-​like organizational structures with the Maitreya Lodge. Through the “lay sanctuary,” he preaches the Dharma and promotes devotion to the bodhisattva to the working men and women of his local community in immediate and emotionally resonant ways. This contrasts with the low-​key approach of Cide’s Taiwan Maitreya Association, which promotes the Maitreya School as conceived by Taixu by making information widely available online. It combines sophisticated use of the Internet and electronic media with a bricks-​and-​mortar temple and small monastic community started by Cide’s father. This institution, which would have been much more difficult to establish on the Mainland, provides a ritual venue and a traditional source of legitimacy and charisma, while the largely online association vastly amplifies the temple’s reach. Looking to the future, the cult’s prospects are mixed. In the PRC, they are at best unclear. On the one hand, Xuedou’s version of Maitreyanism is somewhat watered down, and the Mainland Maitreya Study Associations survive only on the Internet. On the other, Xuedou is rapidly becoming a large and powerful institution, and writings of the cult’s proponents, past and present, continue to circulate online. One might conclude that there remains significant potential for the cult in China; seeds have been sown that might sprout if causes and conditions align. In Taiwan, the prospects for the cult in both its orthodox and heterodox versions appear good. Within orthodox Buddhism, practitioners of Maitreya Pure Land are a small minority, but they are slowly growing due to the innovative efforts of proponents such as Daci shan, the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, and the Maitreya Lodge. Outside of the Buddhist tradition, reformist-​influenced visions of Maitreya seem likely to continue to be important within Yiguan dao and stand at the center of Maitreya Great Way. Whatever the fate of

27

272

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

these particular groups, since neither the Chinese nor Taiwan government today is interested in enforcing a totalistic vision of social transformation, there will continue to be space for Maitreyan and other Buddhist imaginings of a world remade.

Notes 1. Holmes Welch, Buddhism Under Mao (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 1972), 379–​380. 2. For an overview of the liberalization of the religious sphere in Taiwan, see André Laliberté, “The Regulation of Religious Affairs in Taiwan: From State Control to Laisser-​faire?” Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 38, no. 2 (2009): 53–​83. 3. Also less flatteringly known as the “four mountain strongholds” (si shantou 四山 頭), a term reflecting the high degree of mutual competition, primarily between the first three. 4. On the fidelity of these organizations and their followers to this vision, see Jacqueline Ho, “The Practice of Yin Shun’s Ren Jian Fo Jiao: A Case Study of Fu Yan College, Dharma Drum Mountain and Tzu Chi Buddhist Compassion Relief” (master’s thesis, University of Calgary, 2008). For a brief overview of recent developments in Taiwan, see Marcus Bingenheimer, “Chinese Buddhism Unbound—​ Rebuilding and Redefining Chinese Buddhism on Taiwan,” in Buddhism in Global Perspective, ed. Kalpakam Sankarnarayan (Mumbai:  Somaiya Publications, 2003), 122–​146. Monographs on the topic include Charles Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State, 1660–​1990 (Honolulu:  University of Hawai’i Press 1999); Stuart Chandler, Establishing a Pure Land on Earth:  The Foguang Buddhist Perspective on Modernization and Globalization (Honolulu:  University of Hawai’i Press, 2004); C. Julia Huang, Charisma and Compassion:  Cheng Yen and the Buddhist Tzu Chi Movement (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2009); Chün-​ fang Yü, Passing the Light:  The Incense Light Community and Buddhist Nuns in Contemporary Taiwan (Honolulu:  University of Hawai’i Press, 2013); and Richard Madsen, Democracy’s Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007). 5. Zhe Ji, “Buddhism in the Reform Era:  A  Secularized Revival?” in Religion in Contemporary China:  Revitalization and Innovation, ed. Adam Yuet Chau, (London: Routledge, 2011), 32–​52; Zhe Ji, “Buddhism and the State: The New Relationship,” China Perspectives 55 (2004): 2–​12; and Fenggang Yang, “The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China,” The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006): 93–​122. 6. Ling Haicheng 凌海成, Zhongguo fojiao 中國佛教 [Buddhism in China] (Beijing: Wuzhou chuanbo chubanshe 五洲傳播出版社, 2004), 118.

273

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

273

7. Yinshun’s The Way to Buddhahood and Sheng Yen’s Essential Outline of Vinaya Studies are good examples. Yinshun 印順, Chengfo zhi dao 成佛之道 [The way to Buddhahood] (Taipei:  Zhengwen 正聞, 2000), Y12; and Shengyan 聖嚴, Jielüxue gangyao 戒律學綱要 [Essential outline of vinaya studies], in Fagu quanji 1: 3. I am grateful to Doug Gildow for confirming that this remains the case. Doug Gildow, personal communication, March 16, 2016. 8. Cide jushi 慈德居士, “Cizong mile famen de xingshuai, liuchuan, yu fuxing jianshi” 慈宗彌勒法門的興衰、流傳與復興簡史 [A brief history of the rise and fall, transmission, and revival of the Maitreya School and Maitreya Gate], http://​www. ajita.org/​bookdetails.php?bid=3&id=327&page=3 (accessed December 5, 2009). It is difficult to confirm the degree of commitment of everyone on his list. The primary criterion for inclusion seems to be having written on the topic. Yet most of them with whom I am familiar can be fairly described as proponents of the cult. 9. See: Zhuo Zunhong 桌遵宏 and Hou Kunhong 侯坤宏, Chengyi fashi fangtan lu 成一法師訪談錄 [The reminiscences of Master Cherng-​yi (sic)] (Taipei: Sanmin 三民, 2007), ­chapter 17. 10. Huiguang 慧廣, Mile jingtu zhenyi chanshu 彌勒淨土真義闡述 [An exposition of the true meaning of Maitreya Pure Land] (Taipei: Yuanming chuban 圓明出 版, 1992); and Huiguang 慧廣, ed. Mile jingtu xiuchi lu 彌勒淨土修持錄 [A record of the cultivation of Maitreya Pure Land], 2nd ed. (Kaohsiung: Jietuo dao chubanshe 解脫道出版社, 1998). 11. Guan mile shangsheng jing san jing tong ben 觀彌勒上生經三經同本 [Sutra on the contemplation of Maitreya’s ascent: three sutra collection] (Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 1993); Ye Wuhua 業露華, Foshuo mile shangsheng xiasheng jing 佛說 彌勒上生下生經 [The sutras spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s ascent and descent] (Kaohsiung: Foguang 佛光, 1998); and Lian Gezi 蓮歌子, Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [The sutra of Maitreya’s descent] (Zhonghe, Taiwan: Duo shi jie 多識界, 2001). Despite the name, the manga includes both the Descent and Ascent Sutras. 12. Yizang 怡藏 ed., Fenghua xikou xuedou zisheng chansi 奉化溪口雪竇資聖禪寺 [The Zisheng Chan Monastery of Xuedou (shan) in Xikou, Fenghua] n.d. 5. 13. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏, “Zai taixu dashi yuanji liushi zhounian jinianhui shang de jianghua” 在太虛大師圓寂60周年紀念會上的講話 [Talk given at the conference commemorating the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], in Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝: 紀念太虛大師示 寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], ed. Shi Yizang 釋 怡藏and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉 (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出 版社, 2008), 458. The Reliquary Cloister appears to be referred to here as Upper Xuedou Monastery (Shang xuedou si 上雪竇寺). It seems to have gone through a couple different names, and today it is known as the Taixu Lecture Monastery (Taixu jiang si 太虛講寺).

4 72

274

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

14. Tuṣita is “two floors up” from the Heaven of the Thirty-​Three in typical Buddhist cosmology. Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology:  Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 1997), 58. 15. For reasons that are unclear, their figure is a bit different than Taixu’s. 16. Xuedou si zhi bianzuan weiyuan hui 雪竇寺志編纂委員會 Xuedou si zhi 雪竇寺 志 [Xuedou temple gazateer]. (Ningbo, China: Ningbo chubanshe 寧波出版社, 2011), 35–​65. 17. Xuedou shan fojiao mingshan jianshe gongzuo huibao 雪竇山佛教名山建設工作 匯報 [Work report on establishing Xuedou shan as a famous Buddhist mountain] (Fenghua, China: 2015). 18. Bailin Monastery in Hebei is another prominent example of this interaction. Fenggang Yang and Dedong Wei, “The Bailin Buddhist Temple: Thriving Under Communism,” in State, Market, and Religions in Chinese Societies, ed. Fenggang Yang and Joseph B Tamney (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005). 19. Kuanrong dadu 寬容大度, a pun on 寬容大肚, broad-​faced and big-​bellied, referring to Budai’s girth. 20. “Ci yuan sheng guang” 慈源聖光 [Kindly springs, sagely radiance] (Fenghua, China: Fenghua city government [?] 2014). 21. He Jianbo 何劍波 and Shi Yizang 釋怡藏, Ciyuan shengguang:  2014 Zhongguo (fenghua) xuedoushan mile wenhuajie kaimu shengdian 慈源聖 光: 2014中國(奉化)雪竇山彌勒文化節開幕盛典 [Kindly springs, sagely radiance:  opening ceremony of the 2014 Maitreya Culture Festival of Xuedou shan (Fenghua) China], directed by Xu Qiang 徐強, Shi Weixiang 釋惟 祥, and Fu Na 傅娜 (Shanghai:  Xingkuo wenhua chuanbo 星括文化傳播, 2014) DVD. Brief descriptions of earlier festivals can be found in Xuedou si zhi, 46–​48. 22. Interestingly, salvationist groups such as the Fellowship of Goodness also held three Dragon Flower assemblies annually. They were linked with all three Buddhas, however, rather than just Maitreya. The resemblance is almost certainly due to shared source material rather than direct influence. 23. These are held on the third day of the third lunar month, the sixth of the sixth, and the ninth of the ninth, respectively. 24. I was told by someone at the Taiwan Maitreya Study Association (discussed later) that the relics that were originally enshrined there following his cremation, reputedly including his unburnt heart, were lost in the Cultural Revolution, but Yizang traveled to Hong Kong to retrieve three relics from Yongxing 永惺. Upon his return to Xuedou he discovered that they had multiplied, as relics are wont to do. He is said to have enshrined three, kept two, and given one to the Taiwan Association. 25. Xuedou si zhi, 165. 26. The section on Taixu is in fact the longest single chapter of the work. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, eds, Mile baodian 彌勒寶典 [Precious collection

275

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

275

of Maitreya] (Fenghua:  Xuedou chansi 雪竇禪寺, 2008), 97–​ 108, 117–​ 123, 138–​142. 27. Xuedou si zhi, 30, See also Fenghua shi xuedou si mile dafo shoujian weiyuanhui 奉化市雪竇寺彌勒大佛籌建委員會, Renjian mile 人間彌勒 (Fenghua, China: 2008). 28. Shi Yiang and Wen Jinyu, Mile baodian, 154. 29. The man himself even appeared as a character in the frame story for a musical performance of the life of Budai. He Jianbo and Shi Yizang, Ciyuan shengguang. 30. On this mutualism, see Zhe Ji, “Buddhism and the State: The New Relationship,” China Perspectives 55 (2004): 2–​12. 31. None of the new associations have any direct ties to this original association. 32. Mingyi 明夷 [Xinzhao 心照, pseud.],”Cizong xuehui hunan sheng fenhui yuanqi” 慈宗學會胡南省分會緣起 [Origins of the Hunan branch of the Maitreya Study Association], in Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School], Vol. 2 (Taipei: Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007), 173–​174. 33. “Hunan cizong xuehui zhangcheng” 湖南慈宗學會章程 [Hunan Maitreya Study Association charter], in Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School], Vol. 2 (Taipei: Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007), 175–​176. 34. Mingyi 明夷 [Xinzhao Buxuan 心照不宣, pseud.], “Jianli cizong xuehui zonghui jihua 建立慈宗學會總會計畫 [Plan for the establishment of a General Association of Maitreya Study Associations], article.hongxiu.com/​a/​2004-​2-​2/​ 303770.shtml (accessed September 8, 2007). 35. Mingyi’s works can be found collected along with those of other Maitreyan devotees in Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School] (Taipei: Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007). 36. Again, according to Cide. The website is Shanfa tang 善法堂 http://​www. ceobm.com. 37. Beihua zaixian 悲華在線 http://​www.beihua.org. 38. There are exceptions to this. A few monks and nuns in the PRC have managed to establish their own temples, but it is a daunting task, and such projects hover in a grey area of locally tolerated illegality. Courtney Bruntz, “Tours, Temples, and Technology—​ a 21st Century Chinese Buddhism” (paper presented at Buddhist Tourism in Asia: Sacred Sites within Global Networks, Corvallis, OR, April 9–​10, 2016). 39. “Changzhao fashi jianjie” 常照法師簡介 [Introduction to Master Changzhao], www.dts.org.tw/​master.htm (accessed May 18, 2016). 40. His organization evinces no awareness of Xuedou shan’s claims in this regard. 41. “Yange” 沿革 [Historical development], www.dts.ord.tw/​history.htm (accessed May 18, 2016). 42. Unless otherwise noted, all information on Changzhao and the organization he founded derives from a field visit to Daci shan where I spoke with Rukun on November 29, 2009.

6 72

276

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

43. Jingkong 淨空, “Mile jingtu menkan gao, bu ru zhixin qiu mituo”‘ 彌勒淨 土門檻高 不如志心求彌陀 [The threshold for Maitreya’s pure land is high; better to resolve to seek rebirth with Maitreya], YouTube video, 5:23, posted by Jingkong fashi zhuanji wang 淨空法師專集網, June 3, 2013, https://​ www.youtube.com/​watch?v=ANqC1n1ppwE; Jingkong 淨空, “Jingkong lao fashi: mile ye shi nianfo famen? Weihe you xie fashi renwei qiu sheng mile jingtu jianglai hui tuizhuan?” 淨空老法師:  彌勒也是念佛法門? 為何有些法 師認為求生彌勒淨土將來會退轉? [Venerable Master Jingkong:  Is Maitreya also a Buddha-​recitation Dharma-​gate? Why do some masters believe that if one seeks rebirth in Maitreya’s pure land one will retrogress?], YouTube video, 7:50, posted by wystube48, August 15, 2012, https://​www.youtube. com/​watch?v=K55oran6-​UA. 44. For a representative example, see Changzhao 常照, “Wangsheng mituo jingtu, doushuai jingtu xiuchi nanyi bijiao” 往生彌陀淨土、兜率淨土修 持難易比較 [Comparing the ease of rebirth in Amitābha’s pure land vs. Maitreya’s pure land], Daci shan mile daochang 大慈山彌勒道場 [Daci shan Maitreya sanctuary], accessed March 24, 2016, http://​maitreya.sun.net.tw/​ sutra/​book12.htm. 45. I have published a brief account of Lin and his activities elsewhere: Justin R. Ritzinger, “Maitreya’s IT Guy,” in Figures of Buddhist Modernity in Asia, ed. Jeffrey Samuels, Justin Thomas McDaniel, and Mark Rowe (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2017), 78–​80. 46. The younger Lin plans to pursue the same life path, retiring and leaving lay life after his sons are established. 47. “Chuang hui yuanqi” 創會緣起 [Conditions for the founding of the association], Posha shan mile pusa daochang 波沙山彌勒菩薩道場 [Posha shan, sanctuary of Maitreya bodhisattva], accessed March 24, 2016, http://​www.pss.org.tw/​ mbr/​05htmlbody.asp?id=5A01. Additional information derived from fieldwork undertaken from 2007 to 2009 as well as the summer of 2014. 48. See, for example, Cide 慈德, “He wei cizong” 何謂慈宗 [What is the Maitreya School?], in Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School], Vol. 6 (Taipei: Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007). The essay is, in fact, almost entirely quotations from Taixu’s “Cizong de mingyi” 慈宗的名義 [The name “Maitreya School”], TDQ 6, 9: 1365–​1369. 49. Cide 慈德, “Cizong, mile famen ke you lidai chuancheng de zushi” 慈宗, 彌勒法門可有歷代傳承的組師 [A possible patriarchate for the transmission across the ages of the Maitreya School and Maitreya Dharma-​gate], in Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School] Vol. 6 (Taipei:  Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007), 147–​149. Yizang, again, seems to be included for his position as abbot of Xuedou and corresponding hopes for his involvement more than any actual activities on the movement’s behalf.

2 7

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

277

50. Erik J. Hammerstrom, “The Heart-​ of-​ Mind Method:  Legitimating a New Buddhist Movement in 1930s China,” Nova Religio:  The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 17, no. 2 (2013): 17–​18. 51. Jingchan 敬禪 et al., Fojiao cizong bi bei ke song ben 佛教慈宗必備課誦本 [Essential breviary of the Buddhist Maitreya School] (Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會, 2007). 52. For a chronological account of its activities, see the Posha shan gazateer (Posha shan is another name for the monastery):  “Posha shan zhi” 波沙山誌 [Posha shan gazetteer], Posha shan mile pusa daochang 波沙山彌勒菩薩道場 [Posha shan, sanctuary of Maitreya bodhisattva], accessed May 18, 2016, http://​www. pss.org.tw/​mbr/​2A01list.asp. 53. The name alludes to an important Pure Land work of the Yuan Dynasty, the Precious Mirror of the Lotus School (Lianzong bao jian 連宗寶鑑). 54. Posha shan mile pusa daochang 波沙山彌勒菩薩道場 [Posha shan, sanctuary of Maitreya bodhisattva] http://​www.pss.org.tw. In addition to being more accessible than text, an animated version of the Ascent Sutra also has the advantage of being more conducive to the visualization recommended by the text, functioning as a sort of movie-​mandala, as it were. 55. “Posha shan zhi” 波沙山誌. 56. Each of these has been reposted several times. I  cite here only the most frequently viewed uploads. “Mile pusa shangsheng jing” 彌勒菩薩上生經 [Sutra of Maitreya bodhisattva’s ascent] YouTube video, 37:01, posted by ok888ok999, July 2, 2012, https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?v=tbuBjsm80s4 (39,483 views); and “Mile xiasheng cheng fo ji—​chaoqing donghua” 彌勒下生成佛記 –​ 超清 動畫 Buddha Pronounces the Sūtra of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Attainment of Buddhahood, YouTube video, 45:16, posted by gongzuo shi aoyou 工作室遨遊, https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?v=vkLhHoF_​H_​c (165,261 views); “Milepusa shangsheng jing 3D donghua” 彌勒菩薩上生經3D動畫 [Sutra of Maitreya bodhisattva’s ascent, 3D cartoon], Youku video, 37:01, posted by rerbin, http://​ v.youku.com/​v_​show/​id_​XMTA5ODM5NTYw.html?from=s1.8-​1-​1.2 (61,309 views) “Mile xiasheng cheng fo ji” 彌勒下生成佛記 [Record of Maitreya’s descent and attainment of Buddhahood], Youku video, 45:16, posted by 古小云, http://​v.youku.com/​v_​show/​id_​XNTMzNDIwMTI0.html?from=y1.2-​1-​100.3.1-​ 2.1-​1-​1-​0-​0 (141,000 views). 57. Unless otherwise noted, all information about the Bade Lodge derives from a field visit and interviews conducted in July 2014. Follow-​up work was conducted in the fall of 2016. 58. “Doushuai jingtu” 兜率淨土 [Tuṣita Pure Land], Fojiao bade cishi jushi lin 佛教八 德慈氏居士林, accessed May 18, 2016, 慈氏居士林.tw/​兜率淨土. 59. “Guanyu cishi” 關於慈氏 [About Maitreya], Fojiao bade cishi jushi lin 佛教八德 慈氏居士林, accessed July 7, 2014, http://​mywaterdd.com/​category/​關於慈氏. This website has since been shut down and the majority of the content migrated

8 72

278

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

to a new website. When the Lodge established this new site, it seems not to have felt the need to reiterate its orthodoxy so vehemently. 60. “Cishi men zhong bu she yi ren” 慈氏門中不捨一人 [In Maitreya’s gate, no one is left behind], Fojiao bade cishi jushi lin 佛教八德慈氏居士林, accessed May 18, 2016, 慈氏居士林.tw/​慈氏門中不捨一人. 61. For a thorough and succinct introduction to Yiguan dao, see Philip Clart, “Yiguan dao,” in Handbook of East Asian Religious Movements (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2017). 62. Li Shiyu 李世瑜, Xianzai huabei mimi zongjiao 現在華北祕密宗教 [Secret religions in contemporary north China] (Taipei:  Lantai chubanshe 蘭臺出版 社, 2007), 77–​79; Song Guangyu 宋光宇, Tiandao gouchen—​yiguandao diaocha baogao 天道鈎沉—​一貫道調查報告 [Studies in the Celestial Way—​a research report on Yiguandao] (Taipei:  Yuanyuo chubanshe 元祐出版社, 1983), 87–​89; Yiguandao yiwen jieda 一貫道疑問解答 [Resolving doubts about Yiguandao] (Qingdao: Jundechang yinshuaju 俊德昌印刷局, 1937), 9. 63. On Lu Zhongyi, see: J. E. E. Pettit, “The Many Faces of the Golden Sire: Books and Readers in the Early Yiguan Dao,” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 1 (2016): 35–​72. 64. Song, Tiandao gouchen, 44; Li, Xianzai huabei mimi zongjiao, 101; David K. Jordan and Daniel L. Overmyer, The Flying Phoenix: Aspects of Sectarianism in Taiwan (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1986), 214–​216; Thomas David DuBois, The Sacred Village: Social Change and Religious Life in Rural North China (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2005), 128–​131; Yiguandao yiwen jieda, 3. 65. Li, Xianzai beihua mimi zongjiao, 109–​111. 66. Ibid., 98–​ 100. On the issue of universalism, see Prasenjit Duara, “The Discourse of Civilization and Pan-​Asianism,” Journal of World History 12, no. 1 (2001): 99–​130. 67. DuBois, Sacred Village, 133–​138; Clart, “Yiguan dao.” 68. DuBois, Sacred Village, 141–​149. 69. The former faction still survives in Hong Kong and elsewhere but is dwarfed by the Sun faction and almost entirely unstudied. 70. Song, Tiandao gouchen, 10–​12. 71. Clart, “Yiguan dao”; Yunfeng Lu, The Transformation of Yiguan Dao in Taiwan:  Adapting to a Changing Religious Economy (Kanham, MD:  Lexington Books, 2008), 55–​61. 72. Lu, The Transformation of Yiguan Dao in Taiwan, 142–​146. See also Xu Liqing 許 理清 and Lin Meirong 林美容, “Yiguan dao de chuanbo moshi yu fenlie chutan: jian lun xingyi zu ji qi jixing danwei de fanzhan yu fenlie” 一貫道的傳播 模式與分裂初探: 兼論興毅組及其基興單位的發展與分裂 [An initial investigation of Yiguan dao’s mode of transmission and schisms: with discussion of the

9 72

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

279

development of schism of the Xingyi branch and its Jixing unit], Chengda lishi xuebao 成大歷史學報 39 (2010): 149–​176. 73. Lu, The Transformation of Yiguan dao in Taiwan, 100–​102. 74. Clart, “Yiguan dao.” 75. A Bright Light for a Dark Road, which was originally composed by a monk on the Mainland prior to 1949, was reprinted in 1973 and 1974, then again in 1986. True Account of the Heavenly Way was published in 1975 and reprinted in 1979 and 1983. How I  Escaped Yiguan Dao was first published a few years later in 1978 and reprinted in 1979, 1982, and 1985. 76. Song Guanyu, Tiandao gouchen, 25–​35. See also Wang Jianchuan, “Taiwan yiguan dao yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang,” 192. 77. Christian Jochim, “Popular Lay Sects and Confucianism:  A  Study Based on Yiguan Dao in Postwar Taiwan,” in The People and the Dao: New Studies in Honour of Daniel L. Overmyer, ed. Philip Clart and Paul Crowe (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumentica Serica, 2009), 88–​91; Clart, “Yiguan dao.” 78. Song Guangyu is one of the few to note the influence of reformist Buddhism on Yigun dao. Song Guangyu, “The Heavenly Way Transmits the Light:  The Yiguandao and Contemporary Society,” Chinese Studies in History 44 (2010-​2011): 90. 79. Ci Weizhong 慈惟中, Liming qian de shuguang: dui baiyang dizi de huyu 黎明前 的曙光: 對白陽弟子的呼籲 [Rays of light before the dawn: an appeal to white yang disciples] (Taichung: Cishi zazhi she 慈氏雜誌社, 1991), 1–​5. 80. Ibid., 62–​63. 81. Ibid., 8–​32 82. Unlike many other such works, it went through only one printing and cannot be found online. 83. Wang Jianchuan numbered him among the most influential contemporary teachers in 2000. Wang, “Taiwan yiguan dao yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang,” 195. Wang confirmed that this is still the case today. Wang Jianchuan 王見川, email to author, May 9, 2016. 84. Ci Wuyi 慈無依, Mile shouyuan—​datong shijie, renjian jingtu de zhenzheng shixian 彌勒收圓—​大同世界, 人間淨土的真正實現 [Maitreya’s harvest—​the true realization of grand unity and the pure land on earth] (Taipei: Ciguang chubanshe 慈光出版社, 1982), 1–​3. 85. Ibid., 23–​26. 86. Wang claims to be indifferent to Maitreya’s status as a Buddha, as claimed in Yiguan dao, or a bodhisattva, as claimed in Buddhism (ibid., 43–​45), but at other times he seems to commit to Maitreya’s bodhisattvahood (ibid., 51). 87. Ibid., 41–​43. 88. The living, the dead, and the gods. 89. Ibid., 83.

0 82

280

W o rl d s C l o sing an d Opening

90. Wang Ciguang 汪慈光 [Ci Wuyi 慈無依, psued.], “Mohou yi zhuo” 末後一著 [Final salvation], in Yiguan yishu 一貫義疏 [Exegesis on unity] (Taipei: Ciguang chuban she 慈光出版社, 1983), 245–​260. 91. For example, Wang, “Mohou yi zhuo,” 302. 92. Wang, Mile shouyuan, 40–​42 and 56–​61. 93. Wang, Mile shouyuan, 2–​3; and “Mohou yi zhuo,” 254. 94. Wang, Mile shouyuan, 2–​3. 95. Ibid., 34–​38. 96. Ibid., 3. 97. Ibid., 74–​78. 98. A fact that was not lost on everyone: Guo Wuwang 郭無妄, “Jiuchu jiamao xian fo zhi wei shengxun er ‘tian fo yuan youji’ ” 揪出假冒仙佛之偽聖訓2《天佛 院遊記》 [Exposing fraudulent revelations of the transcendents and Buddhas 2: “Record of travels in the heavenly Buddha halls”], Yiguan dao jiayin zhongxin 一貫道佳音中心 [Yiguan dao gospel center], accessed May 18, 2016, http://​ h5668.pixnet.net/​blog/​post/​30498001 -​ 揪出假冒仙佛之偽聖訓-​%3A-​2《天佛 院遊記》. 99. The Record is reproduced not only on Yiguan dao sites but also in online libraries of “morality books” (shanshu 善書) and the websites of spirit-​writing societies known as Phoenix Halls such as the Hall of the Great Way of Precious Virtue (Baode daodao yuan 寶德大道院) (http://​www.boder.idv.tw/​tfuuj.htm). The Record also seems to have been the inspiration for a spirit-​written text titled “Record of Journeys in the Maitreya Pure Land” (Mile jingtu youji 彌勒淨 土遊記). Yichi gongheng tang 懿敕拱衡堂, Mile jingtu youji 彌勒淨土遊記 [A record of travels in Maitreya’s pure land] (Fengyuan, Taiwan: Yichi Gongheng Tang, 1999). This work, widely reproduced online, is the work of the prominent spirit medium Yongbi 勇筆, who played a prominent role in attempts by Phoenix Halls in the 1970s and 1980s to resist absorption by Yiguan dao. Philip Clart, “The Phoenix and the Mother: The Interaction of Spirit Writing Cults and Popular Sects in Taiwan,” Journal of Chinese Religions 25 (1997): 1–​32. 100. Liu Xinde 劉心德 and Liu Xinyu 劉心玉, Yiguan weizhong 一貫維中 [Yiguan (dao) maintaining the center] (Zhonghe: Zhengyi Shanshu, 1995). 101. Ci Shengqiao 慈聲橋, Yiguandao dizi yingyou de renshi 一貫道弟子應有的認識 [Things Yiguan dao disciples should know] (Google books, D.u.). 102. “Mile jingtu de shusheng” 彌勒淨土的殊勝 [The excellences of Maitreya Pure Land], Daochang jiangti wangzhan 道場講題網站 [Temple lecture topics website], accessed May 19, 2016, https://​sites.google.com/​site/​taoclass/​05/​05-​60. 103. “Mile fuyin—​ mile jingtu shusheng 2009 nian 8 yue 24 ri” 彌勒福音-​-​-​-​-​ 彌勒淨土殊勝2009年8月24日 [The gospel of Maitreya—​ the excellences of Maitreya Pure Land, August 24, 2009], Jichu tianji 基礎天基 [The Jichu Tianji (Branch), accessed May 19, 2016, http://​tianji99.blogspot.com/​2009/​08/​

281

Reawakening Maitreya: Legacies Orthodox and Heterodox

281

blog-​post_​24.html; Lin Daxiong 林達雄, “Mile zhexue” 彌勒哲學 [Maitreyan philosophy], Jichu zhongshu meiguo quanzhen daoyuan 基礎忠恕美國全真道院 [Perfect Truth Temple of Jichu Zhongshu, USA], accessed May 19, 2016, http://​ www.greattao.org/​articles/​2004/​2004-​5-​1.htm. 104. “Guanyu xie jiangshi” 關於謝講師 [About lecturer Xie], Fengda shengming liyi gongsi 風達生命禮儀公司 [Fengda Life Ritual Co.], accessed May 1, 2015, http://​www.twksfba.org/​ee0179/​home.html; “Yiguan dao linzhong guanhuai” 一貫道臨終關懷 [Yiguan dao end-​of-​life care], Fengda shengming liyi gongsi 風 達生命禮儀公司 [Fengda Life Ritual Co.], accessed May 2, 2015, http://​www. twksfba.org/​ee0179/​page2.html. The web address was no longer accessible as of June 2016. 105. Wang Yuanshan 汪圓善, “Mile dadao de zongjiao xingtai” 彌勒大道的宗教型 態 [The religious feature (sic) of Maitreya Great Tao] (master’s thesis, Fu-​jen Catholic University, 2005), 48–​52. On the schism with Yiguan dao see also Xu and Lin, “Yiguan dao de chuanbo moshi yu fenlie chutan,”164. 106. I was able to make a brief visit in the fall of 2016. 107. Wang, “Mile dadao de zongjiao xingtai,” 54–​62. For a brief synopsis of current teachings, see Maitreya Great Way’s website: “Renshi women” 認識我們 [About us], Mile da dao 彌勒大道 [Maitreya Great Way], accessed July 16, 2015, http://​www.maitreya.org.tw. 108. When I asked one of the innumerable guides at their headquarters (a retired Guoyu 國語 teacher) whether Maitreya Great Way talked about the final cataclysm of the three periods as Yiguan dao does, she said no, although she did discuss the threat of environmental calamity. This is consonant with Maitreya Great Way’s embrace of environmentalism and identification of the Mother with Mother Nature. 109. Early editions, predating the split with Yiguan dao, were titled “Exegesis on Unity” (Yiguan yishu 一貫義疏). 110. This impression was confirmed by Wang Jianchuan, email to author, May 9, 2016. 111. For perspective, this is slightly larger than the total number of Christians. “2006 niandu guoji zongjiao ziyou baogao Taiwan bufen” 2006 年度國際宗教 自由報告 台灣部分 [2006 annual report on religious freedom, Taiwan section], American Institute in Taiwan, accessed May 13, 2015, http://​www.ait.org.tw/​zh/​ 2006-​irf-​taiwan.html; and Clart, “Yiguan dao.”

2 8

Conclusion Remembrances of Futures Past

chapters, I  have attempted to construct a history of the modern reinvention of the cult of Maitreya. Its roots, I argue, lie in Taixu’s deep involvement in radicalism. As a young man, Taixu did not merely read a few reformist and radical authors and flirt with the revolutionary movement in Guangzhou. Rather, he continued to be drawn to radicalism following the 1911 revolution, becoming a leader of the anarchist-​oriented “pure socialist” wing of the Chinese Socialist Party and eventually of the Socialist Party after it split from its parent organization. This occurred at the same time that he was beginning to formulate his own vision of Buddhist reform and had an important influence on it. During this time, he wrote several essays for the journals Social World and Conscience in which we can see him making a series of attempts to articulate a vision that is true to the hypergood of utopia that moved him in radicalism and to the hypergood of Buddhahood. Although his disillusionment with radicalism and his own disappointments and failures led him to abandon anarcho-​socialism as an articulated ideology, the moral framework embedded within it continued to orient him and his visions of a modern Buddhism. This continuing attraction of utopia drove the reinvention of the cult of Maitreya. Taixu found in the Three Essentials analogues to key components of the revolutionary utopian framework. The “Chapter on Knowing Reality” offered a supra-​scientific mode of knowledge that would change the world, and the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa provided a revolutionary, activist ethic that avoided secularization. This mode of knowledge and activist ethic, moreover, were at the same time oriented to the other hypergood of Buddhahood. The third essential, the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent, seems at first to have offered primarily a form of insurance. While enjoining ethical practice, the Sutra IN THE PRECEDING

2 8 3

Conclusion

283

guaranteed that relative neglect of more world-​transcending cultivation would not lead to losing one’s way on the path to Buddhahood. It appears that it was only later that this was combined with the ideal of the pure land on earth, a development perhaps inspired by the World Peace Maitreya Society. This brought with it a more comprehensive vision in which an activist pursuit of a better society in the present brought about not only the gradual perfection of the world but the advent of Maitreya. Practitioners would not only help to bring this about but also get to see this new world for themselves; having been reborn with Maitreya in Tushita, they would descend with him in the golden age of the future. As a movement, the Maitreya School developed in two phases before declining. The first phase, from 1924 to 1929, established the foundations. The cult at this time was relatively modest. Intellectually, it was closely identified with the popular Yogācāra school. Socially, it was the foundation of Taixu’s personal practice and devotion and acted as the house cult of his seminaries. There the central texts served as both the objects of study and the basis of liturgy and group cultivation, forming a key part of the habitus as a new monastic identity was being developed. The second phase, from 1929 to 1937, saw intellectual and social expansion and reorientation the cult. The Maitreya School came to be seen as comprising all of Buddhism, and pure land aspects came to the fore, renewing the old competition with Amitābha Pure Land. At the same time, it began to be propagated to a larger audience by a larger circle as Taixu and increasingly his students and associates disseminated the cult in a variety of media. They also sought to codify it in new canonical digests and ritual manuals and to institutionalize it by establishing lay associations and inscribing it upon the landscape. Beginning in 1937, however, a series of blows cut the cult’s development short. It first fell prey to the vicissitudes of history as World War II threw China into chaos and the death of Taixu deprived it of its most vigorous and enthusiastic proponent. Intellectually, Yinshun’s interpretation of the pure lands diffused the revolutionary utopian framework that Taixu had closely linked to Maitreya and disparaged those ideas and practices that most lent themselves to propagation. Politically and culturally the age of openness ended with the victory of the Communists on the Mainland and the retreat of the Nationalists to Taiwan. In both polities, the state laid exclusive claim to the project of remaking society and was suspicious of and hostile to alternative claims. In the People’s Republic of China, this resulted in Buddhism being tightly yoked to the state’s projects. In Taiwan, Buddhism enjoyed more freedom, but the climate of suspicion in the 1950s allowed Yinshun’s enemies to use references to radicalism in his writings to topple him with

4 8 2

284

C o nclusi o n

whisper campaigns and secret accusations, which had a chilling effect on the cult. Only in recent decades has a revival been possible as reform and openness in the People’s Republic and democratization in Taiwan took hold. In China, limited openings for initiative and the interventions of state agencies have led well-​placed endeavors to flourish while others have struggled. Xuedou shan cannily leveraged state agencies’ interest in tourism as a driver of development to greatly expand, while recasting the cult form as a “culture” suitable to the age of the “harmonious society” and the “Chinese dream.” The more direct approach of the Maitreya Study Associations, in contrast, foundered due to a lack of opportunity. Meanwhile, in Taiwan, full liberalization has allowed a more robust revival in which Maitreyan visions of a world perfected reverberated from reformist Buddhism to Yiguan dao and back again, becoming a significant strain of Taiwanese religion. In the 1980s, reformist Maitreyan thought provided a way for certain Yiguan dao thinkers to draw on alternative sources of authority, moderate their traditions’ apocalypticism, and respond to Buddhist criticism. In the process, they took up the basic moral frameworks that lay behind it and articulated them within a Maternist theology. This has grown even more prominent in Maitreya Great Way, Yiguan dao’s largest offshoot. While some remained within the salvationist tradition and borrowed from Buddhism, Changzhao simply abandoned the former for the latter, founding the first island-​wide Maitreyan organization. Although his Maitreyanism was afterlife-​focused and disengaged, his follower Zhong Mengzheng has spread a Yinshun-​inflected theology through his Maitreya Lodge as he attempts to build the pure land on earth by transforming individual lives in community. The Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, on the other hand, pursues a high-​tech, hands-​off approach that focuses on Internet-​based outreach supported by a small monastic community. At a minimum, I  hope that this account will put to rest the notion that Taixu and the reform movement can be unproblematically characterized as disenchanted and deritualized. Far from wanting to eliminate celestial Buddhas and bodhisattvas and seeking only to establish a pure land on earth, Taixu and at least some of his followers were in fact quite devout and sought to ensure their own salvation through rebirth in a paradisiacal pure land, through, among other things, regular ritual practice. Moreover, this was not a “throwback” or “concession” to lingering premodern concerns but an integral part of their vision of a modern Buddhism. Maitreyan texts provided a means to work flexibly in the world, earning entry to the Tuṣita pure land in the process, while the myth of Maitreya provided the means to imagine a Buddhist ideal society at the end of history, reenchanting secular narratives

2 8 5

Conclusion

285

of progress. Rather than turning away from the received tradition, they were deeply engaged with its values and debates and sought to build their new cult from elements and models provided by the past. I hope that my account of the cult of Maitreya has also contributed to recent efforts to place modern Chinese Buddhism more firmly in historical context by scholars including Brooks Jessup, Rongdao Lai, Gregory Adam Scott, and Erik Hammerstrom, as well as Raoul Birnbaum. Despite the calls of young Buddhist radicals in the Republic for “monks to come down off the mountain” (heshang xia shan 和尚下山) and enter society, Buddhism has never been apart from society. In the past research was too often guided by abstract notions of modernity and treated the particulars of secular history as mere backdrop. Yet if modernity, as Taylor and others have argued, is not unitary, then we must carefully attend to what forms or strands of modernity are present and relevant. It matters that Taixu joined a loose anarcho-​socialist movement as a young man, as opposed to being recruited into a Marxist communist party or enrolling in a missionary college. Further efforts to situate developments in modern Chinese Buddhism in particular times and places will add significant nuance to our understanding of the Republican period. Conversely, I  believe that this study also further demonstrates how the study of Chinese history can be enriched by greater attention to Buddhism and other indigenous religions. Although this is beginning to change, religion has typically been seen by historians of this period as peripheral, at best, to the central narrative of revolution.1 I believe the cult of Maitreya gives us a taste of what can be recovered when we look on religion as a vital area of cultural production in China’s age of openness rather than as a backwater being left behind by the currents of history. Furthermore, the case of the Maitreya School complicates the centrality of revolution to understanding the period in interesting ways. It suggests that rather than the exclusive property of the Nationalists, Communists, May Fourth intellectuals, or any of the others that claimed to be its standard-​bearers, revolution was more pervasive and more multifarious in its permutations than has thus far been appreciated. In a similar vein, this monograph contributes to the growing awareness of the importance of attending to the interactions between Buddhism and other Chinese religious traditions, particularly the redemptive societies and their contemporary descendants. Even though in the Republic many Buddhists were concerned as never before to define orthodoxy and differentiate their religion from others, especially those that might be deemed “superstitious” or legally ambiguous, the boundaries remained porous at best. Taixu’s vision of Maitreya Pure Land influenced the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society in his own day and has played an essential role in the recent evolution of Yiguan dao and

6 82

286

C o nclusi o n

Maitreya Great Way. At the same time, the very factors that led some adherents of Yiguan dao to adopt Maitreya Pure Land led others to abandon the Way of Unity entirely in favor of Buddhism, bringing with them new evangelical techniques and enthusiasm. Developments in each are important to the other. The present study also suggests that greater understanding of Buddhism in postretrocession Taiwan is much needed. It is needed first simply for its intrinsic interest. Yinshun, for instance, is woefully understudied in Western academia relative to his importance. Yet it is also important to our understanding of the Republican period. Figures and developments on Taiwan have shaped our understanding of the preceding era profoundly. The works of Yinshun, Dongchu, and others have been a primary point of entry for a consideration of the Republic for decades. I believe that the case of Maitreya illustrates some of the problems with this. We must begin to see these works as interested scholarship. As great as their merits are, they must be contextualized in the agendas of their authors and the power struggles of the 1950s. We need to emulate, albeit on a far smaller scale, the work of earlier scholars who critiqued and went beyond the Japanese sectarian scholarship that had once provided the primary lens through which Chinese Buddhism was understood. We must question the simple lineages drawn from Taixu to Yinshun to Chengyen, Sheng Yen, and Xingyun that makes one form of contemporary Humanistic Buddhism the implicit telos of many narratives. Finally, I  hope that my work here has developed a theoretical approach through which we can view the interaction of modernity and Buddhism and indeed other Asian religions as well. I argue that this approach allows us to see Buddhists as not merely defensively “adapting to meet the challenge of modernity” but participating actively, even eagerly, in the formulation of alternative modernities. Focusing on the attractive power of modernity allows us to investigate why individuals wanted to be modern while also allowing us to keep in focus why they still wanted to Buddhist. This book has focused on only two moral frameworks of the no doubt several that might be identified as circulating in Republican China, but I hope that my interpretation of their convergence and realignment in the new cult of Maitreya suggests ways in which Buddhism and other religions can be integral to Asian modernities just as Taylor has argued monotheism is to Western modernity.

Note 1. Little or no attention is paid to indigenous religious traditions (with the exception of the Taipings), for instance, by any of the major surveys of the period that

8 2 7

Conclusion

287

I am aware of. See, for example, Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 6th ed. (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000); James E.  Sheridan, China in Disintegration: The Republican Era in Chinese History 1912–​1949 (New York: Free Press, 1975); and Peter Zarrow, China in War and Revolution 1895–​ 1949 (London: Routledge, 2005). Even the multivolume Cambridge History of China, which dutifully includes chapters on religion for almost every era, includes nothing on indigenous religions (again, except the Taipings) from the Qing onward. Denis Twitchett and John K., Fairbank, eds., The Cambridge History of China (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978–​2002).

82

9 82

A PPENDIX  A

Taixu’s Lectures on Maitreyan Texts and Topics to 1937

Topic

Date

Place

“Chapter on Knowing Reality”

September 1, 1922

Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies

Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa

Spring 1924

Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies

Ascent Sutra

Spring 1924

Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies

Ascent Sutra

February 10, 1929

Paris

“Chapter on Knowing Reality”

November 7, 1929

First Normal (Di yi shifan 第一 師範) in Changsha

“Chapter on Knowing Reality”

December 1, 1929

Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies

Maitreya Sutras

March 13, 1930

Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies

Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa

October 1, 1930

Wenshu Cloister (Wenshu yuan 文殊院), Chengdu

Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa

Noverber 27, 1931

Chongqing Buddhist Studies Society (Foxue she 佛學社)

Ascent Sutra

October 19, 1931

Ci’en Monastery (Ci’en si慈恩 寺), Xi’an

Ascent Sutra

July 8, 1932

Right Faith Society, Hankou

Ascent Sutra

November, 1933

Lingyin Monastery (Lingyin si 靈隱寺) (continued)

0 9 2

290

Appendix A

Topic

Date

Place

How to take part in the January 1, 1934 Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower

Jinxian Monastery (Jinxian si 金仙寺) Cibei 慈北 near Ningbo

Ascent Sutra

February 1, 1934

Xuedou Monastery

Ascent Sutra

November 7, 1935

Zhongta Monastery (Zhongta si 中塔寺), Fenghua, Zhejiang

Ascent Sutra

December 7, 1935

Hong Kong Lay Society

Descent Sutra

December 30, 1935 to January 1, 1936

Hong Kong Jushilin

How to give rise to January 5, 1936 bodhi-​mind and cultivate bodhisattva practices without retrogressing

Bodhi Grove, Guangzhou

The Descent Sutra

January 18, 1936

Shantou 汕頭, Guangzhou

The Descent Sutra

January 24, 1936

Guangzhou Lay Society

Ascent and Descent Sutras

April 1, 1936

Xuedou Monastery

The Descent Sutra

July 21, 1936

Right Faith Society, Hankou

291

A PPENDIX  B

Articles on the Maitreya School, 1922–​1937

Author

Title

Date

Journal

Taixu

“Notes on [Master Taixu’s] Lecture on the Chapter on Reality of Bodhisattva Grounds [Section] of the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra” (Yuqie shidi lun pusa di zhenshi yi pin qinwen ji 瑜 伽師地論菩薩地真實義品親聞記)

November 1922

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” (Cizong san yao xu 慈宗三要序)

January 1924

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” (Cizong san yao xu 慈宗三要序) [reprint]

March 1924

Voice of the Buddha (Foyin 佛音)

Nenghai 能海

“Verse Summary of the Bodhisattva Precepts” (Pusa jie shesong 菩薩戒攝頌)

February 1931

Haichaoyin

Jingyan 淨嚴

“Preface on the origin of the bodhisattva Prātimokṣa (with rites for recitation, outlined text, and chart)” (Pusa jieben (songyi hehui biaojie) he kan yuanqi xu 菩薩戒本(誦儀科會 表解)合刊緣起序)

February 1931

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“An Explanation of the Title of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa” (Yuqie pusa jieben shi mingti 瑜伽菩薩戒本釋名題)

April 1931

Haichaoyin

(continued)

9 2

292

Appendix B

Author

Title

Date

Journal

Jingyan 淨嚴

“Systematic Chart of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa of the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” (Cizong san yao yuqie pusa jieben tongxi biao 慈宗三要瑜伽菩薩戒本統 系表)

April 1931

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“Record of a Lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa with Preface” (Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu bing xu 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄并序)

April 1931

Sichuan Buddhism Monthly (Sichuan fojiao yuekan 四川佛 教月刊)

Taixu

“Record of a Lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa” (Yuqie pusa jieben jiang lu 瑜伽 菩薩戒本講錄)

May 1931 to July 1932

Sichuan Buddhism Monthly

Taixu

“Record of a Lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa” (Yuqie pusa jieben jiangyan lu 瑜伽菩薩戒本講演錄) [reprint]

June 1932

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“A Lecture on the Essentials of the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on the Contemplation of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ascent to Tushita Heaven” (Foshuo guan mile pusa shangsheng doushuaituo tian jing jiangyao 佛說觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率陀天經講要)

December 1932

Haichaoyin

Huijue 會覺

“A Record of a Lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa” (Yuqie pusa jieben jianglu 瑜伽菩薩戒本講錄)

January 1933

Right Faith (Zhengxin 正 信)

Taixu

“Essential Canon of the Maitreya School” [compiled at] the Maitreya School Shrine (Cizong yaozang mulu 慈宗壇的慈宗要藏)

February 1933

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“The Daily Rites Necessary for Members of the Right Faith Society” (Zhengxin huiyuan mei ri bi xiu zhi changke 正信會員每日必修 之常課)

July 1933

Right Faith

Taixu

“How to Attend the Three Assemblies of the Dragon Flower Tree” (Zenyang fu longhua san hui 怎樣赴龍華三會)

March 1934

Haichaoyin

Daoping 道屏

“On Rebirth in Tuṣita” (Wangsheng doushuai lun 往生兜率論)

March 1934

Right Faith

Daming 達明

“Research on Rebirth in the Pure Land and Ascent to Tuṣita” (Wangsheng jingtu yu shang sheng doushuai zhi yanjiu 往生淨土與 上生兜率之研究)

July 1934

Right Faith

9 23

Appendix B

293

Author

Title

Date

Journal

Zhang Shenghui 張 聖慧

“On the Last Lunar Month of 1934 in Solitary Retreat in Guizhou, Wuchang [I]‌Practiced the Fundamental Rites of Consciousness-​ only Contemplation Delineated by the Great Master Taixu and Glimpsed the Marvel of the Unobstructed Interpenetration of the Three Essentials, Whereupon Based on the Import of the ‘Chapter on Knowing Reality,’ the Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa, and the Sutra of Maitreya’s Ascent, [I] Used the Rising, Falling, Level, and Whole Tones to Weave Them into Thirty Simple Verses” (Min ershi san nian la yue zai wuchang guizhou zhong duju yi shi xiuxi taixu dashi suo guiding zhi weishiguan benyi po jue jing xing guo san rongtong wu ai zhi miao yuan yi zhenshi yi pin pusa jieben ji mile shang sheng jing zhi yong shang xia ping quan yun lian cheng sanshi jue jin zhi 民二十三年臘月在武昌歸 舟中獨居一室修習太虛大師所規定之唯識觀 本儀頗覺境行果三融通無礙之妙爰依真實義 品菩薩戒本及彌勒上生經之義用上下平全韻 聯成三十絕謹質)

February 1935

Haichaoyin

Fazun 法尊

“Explanation of the Chapter on Bodhisattva Precepts” (Pusa jie pin shi 菩薩戒品釋)

March 1935 to July 1935

Haichaoyin

Mingxing 明 性

“Comparative Research on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa and the Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa” (Yuqie pusa jieben yu fanwang pusa jieben bijiao zhi yanjiu 瑜伽菩薩戒本與梵網菩薩戒本比較之 研究)

October 1935

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“How to Arouse Bodhi-​Mind and Cultivate the Practices of the Bodhisattva without Retrogressing” (Ruhe fa putixin xiu pusa xing er bu tui 如何發菩提心修菩薩行而不退)

March 1936

Haichaoyin

Taixu

“Lecture on the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s Descent and Achievement of Buddhahood” (Fo shuo mile xiasheng cheng fo jing jiangyao 佛說彌勒下生成佛經講要)

March 1936

Haichaoyin

Tanxuan 談玄

“Maitreya Pure Land and Amitābha Pure Land” (Mile jingtu yu mituo jingtu 彌勒淨土 與彌陀淨土)

March 1936 and April 1936

Jingtu zong yuekan 淨土宗 月刊 (continued)

9 42

294

Appendix B

Author

Title

Date

Journal

Taixu

“A Comparative Examination of Tuṣita Pure Land and the Pure Lands of the Ten Directions” (Doushuai jingtu yu shifang jingtu zhi biguan 兜率淨土與十方淨土之比 觀)

June 1936

Haichaoyin

Hu Zheng 湖徵

“Maitreya Pure Land and Amitābha Pure Land”(Mile jingtu yu mituo jingtu 彌勒淨土 與彌陀淨土)

October 1936

Renjian jue 人 間覺

Changxing 常惺

“The Origins of the Publication in One Volume of the Sutra Spoken by the Buddha on the Complete Extinction of the Dharma and the Sutra on Maitreya’s Achievement of Buddhahood” (Fo shuo fa miejin jing ji mile cheng fo jing heyin yuanqi 佛說法滅盡經及 彌勒成佛經合印緣起)

November 1936

Foxue banyuekan 佛 學半月刊

Tanxuan 談玄

“A Perspective on Tushita Pure Land that Fuses Exoteric and Esoteric” (Xian mi rongtong doushuai jingtu guan 顯密融通兜 率淨土觀)

January 1937

Haichaoyin

Nianxi 念西

“Record of the Causes and Conditions of the Great Affairs of Maitreya Buddha” (Mile fo dashi yinyuan ji 彌勒佛大事因緣記)

January 1937

Fohaideng 佛 海燈

Nianxi 念西

“Scriptural History of Maitreya Tathāgata” (Mile jiaoshiguan 彌勒教史觀)

January 1937

Haichaoyin

Tanxuan 談玄

“History of Translation of Sacred Scripture of Tuṣita” (Doushuai shengdian fanyi shi 兜率 聖典翻譯史)

February 1937

Haichaoyin

Fazun 法尊

“Maitreyan Cultivation in the Tibetan Tradition” (Xizang chuan mile xiufa 西藏傳 彌勒修法)

February 1937

Haichaoyin

Hu Zheng 湖徵

“Maitreya Pure Land and Amitābha Pure Land” (Mile jingtu yu mituo jingtu 彌勒淨土 與彌陀淨土) [reprint]

June 1937

Fojiao jikan 佛 教季刊

9 25

A PPENDIX  C

Timeline of the Maitreya School and Related Events

1890 1904 1906 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 April 1911 October 1911 November 1911 January 1912 January 1912 April 1912 December 1912 May 1913 July 1913 October 1914 June 1915 February 1917 December 1919 September 1922

Taixu born. Taixu ordained. Paris group of Chinese anarchists founded. Yinshun born. Tokyo group of Chinese anarchists founded. Taixu meets Huashan and Qiyun, encountering reformist and radical thought. Taixu enrolls in Yang Wenhui’s Jetavava Hermitage. Taixu travels to Guangzhou, where he becomes radicalized. Huanghuagang Uprising. Wuchang Uprising. Chinese Socialist Party established. Taixu joins shortly thereafter. Republic of China inaugurated. The Uproar at Jinshan. Social World begins its five-​issue print run. The Socialist Party established. Conscience begins its two-​issue print run. The Second Revolution is launched and World War I begins. Taixu enters seclusion on Putuo shan. Taixu begins his study of the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra. Taixu leaves seclusion. Haichaoyin begins publication. Wuchang Seminary opens.

6 9 2

296

Appendix C

February 1924 1926 February 1926 August 1926 1927 April 1927 September 1927 July 1928

August 1928 February 1929 1930 October 1930 November 1930 January 1931 Summer 1931 January 1932 September 1932 October 1932 December 1932 1933 1933

February 1935 November 1935 Early 1936 February 1937

Taixu writes the “Preface to the Three Essentials.” The Maitreya Society, later renamed World Peace Maitreya Society, founded in Shanghai. Taixu undertakes seven-​day Maitreyan retreat to pass the Lunar New Year. “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” published. The Northern Expedition unifies China under the Nationalists. Taixu becomes abbot of Nanputuo Monastery and president of the Minnan Seminary. Chiang Kai-​shek receives Taixu at Xuedou shan. World Peace Maitreya Society displays World Peace Maitreya model. Taixu contacts the Society to request pamphlets and images for trip to West. Taixu’s trip to the West begins. Plans for World Peace Maitreya scrapped. Taixu lectures on the Ascent Sutra at the establishment of les amis du Bouddhisme. Zhang Tianran and Sun Suzhen marry and are declared by oracle the eighteenth patriarchs of Yiguan dao. Taixu lectures on and transmits the Yoga Bodhisattva precepts in Chengdu. Taixu delivers “On Creating a Pure Land on Earth.” Jingyan et al. publish their edition of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa. The Chinese Buddhist Association is established. Taixu ends up losing a power struggle to control the organization. Right Faith begins publication. The Sino-​Tibetan Institute opens. Taixu invited by Chiang Kai-​shek to take up abbotship of Xuedou shan. Xiamen Maitreya Study Association founded. Three Maitreyan ritual texts produced. Taixu’s Lecture on the Essentials of the Ascent Sutra published with Changxing’s preface proposing Xuedou shan as a fifth Buddhist sacred mountain. Tongcheng Maitreya Study Association founded. Wind of Virtue Dharma Society formed. Wind of Virtue Dharma Society publishes its spirit-​written texts on Maitreya Pure Land. Special issue of Haichaoyin on Tuṣita Pure Land appears. Taixu passes the Lunar New Year in a seven-​day Maitreyan retreat.

9 2 7

Appendix C July 1937 1945 August 1945 March 1947 September 1947 July 1948 1949 1949 April 1950 1951 1953 1954 1954 1957 1966 April 1975 1978 1981 1982 1985 1986 1987 July 1987 1987 1987 1991 1995 2000 2000 2000

297

War of Resistance against the Japanese begins. Taixu completes work on his autobiography. Japan surrenders. Taixu dies of a stroke. Zhang Tianran dies. Yinshun completes work on The Complete Writings of Master Taixu. The People’s Republic of China established on the Mainland, while the Nationalists retreat to Taiwan. Yinshun publishes An Outline of the Dharma in Hong Kong. Yinshun completes work on The Annalistic Biography of Master Taixu. Yinshun comes to Taiwan to become abbot of Shandao Temple and publishes the New Treatise on Pure Land. Yinshun’s New Treatise on Pure Land and Casual Discussion of Buddha-​Recollection burned in Taichung. An Outline of the Dharma banned by the Nationalist government. Sun Suzhen comes to Taiwan. Yinshun surrenders the abbotship of Shandao Temple. The Cultural Revolution begins. Sun Suzhen dies. Reform and openness begins in the People’s Republic of China. Religious policy loosens gradually and unevenly. Wang Ciguang 汪慈光 publishes Exegesis on Unity (Yiguan yishu 一貫一疏). Wang Ciguang anf Wang Haode 王好德 begin establishing Light of Kindness Lecture Halls. Changzhao 常照 leaves Yiguan dao for Buddhism. Zhong Mengzheng 鐘孟正 takes refuge with Changzhao. Yiguan dao legalized. Martial law lifted in Taiwan. Restoration begins at Xuedou shan. Wang Haode establishes Heaven’s Favor Maitreya Hall. Changzhao begins establishing Maitreya Lecture Halls. Yizang becomes abbot of Xuedou. Mingyi establishes the Hunan Maitreya Study Association. Faming Temple established. Wang Haode’s Great Way of Former Heaven becomes Maitreya Great Way. He dies the same year and is succeeded by Wang Ciguang and Yan Miaoru.

9 82

298

2001 2003 2007 2008 2008 2010

Appendix C Taiwan Maitreya Study Association established and begins online outreach. Faming Monastery is dedicated to the Maitreya School. Changzhao dies. Work completed on Daci shan. Xuedou shan completes work on its monumental Maitreya image and holds first culture festival. The Maitreya Lay Buddhist Lodge established in Bade, Taiwan.

Note. This timeline is largely limited to those events discussed in the book. Readers interested in a more complete timeline of Taixu’s career should consult Hong Jinlian 洪金蓮, Taixu dashi fojiao xiandaihua zhi yanjiu 太虛大師佛教現代化之研究 [Master Taixu’s modernization of Buddhism] (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe 東初出版社, 1995), 367–​393. In the interest of consicion, Chinese characters have been omitted. They may be found in the main text.

92

Bibliography

Primary Sources Bianzhe 編者. “Duiyu zhongguo shehui dang di er ci lianhehui ganyan” 對於中國 社會黨第二次聯合會感言 [Ruminations on the Second General Assembly of the Chinese Socialist Party]. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 5 (November 1912): 57–​62. Buping 不平. “Jinri zhi senglü chujia bu chujia pingdeng bu pingdeng xu jinqian zhi zuie” 今日之僧侶出家不出家平等不平等胥金錢之罪惡 [Whether the monks of today leave home or not, are equal or not, is all the evil of money]. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 1 (April 1912): 23–​24. “Changzhao fashi jianjie” 常照法師簡介 [Introduction to Master Changzhao]. Daci shan mile daochang 大慈山彌勒道場 [Daci shan Maitreya sanctuary]. Accessed November 28, 2016. www.dts.org.tw/​master.htm. Ci Shengqiao 慈聲橋. Yiguandao dizi yingyou de renshi 一貫道弟子應有的認識 [Things Yiguan dao disciples should know]. Google books. D.u. Ci Weizhong 慈惟中. Liming qian de shuguang: dui baiyang dizi de huyu 黎明前的曙 光: 對白陽弟子的呼籲 [Rays of light before the dawn: an appeal to white yang disciples]. Taichung: Cishi zazhi she 慈氏雜誌社, 1991. Ci yuan sheng guang 慈源聖光 [Kindly springs, sagely radiance]. Fenghua, China: Fenghua city government [?]. 2014. Cide 慈德. “Cizong, mile famen ke you lidai chuancheng de zushi” 慈宗, 彌勒法門 可有歷代傳承的組師 [A possible patriarchate for the transmission across the ages of the Maitreya School and Maitreya Dharma-​gate]. In Cizong baojian 慈宗 寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School]. Vol. 6. Taipei: Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007. —​—​—​. “He wei cizong” 何謂慈宗 [What is the Maitreya School?]. In Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School]. Vol. 6. Taipei:  Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007.

03

300

Bibliography

—​—​—​. “Cizong mile famen de xingshuai, liuchuan, yu fuxing jianshi” 慈宗彌勒 法門的興衰、流傳與復興簡史[A brief history of the rise and fall, transmission, and revival of the Maitreya School and Maitreya Gate]. Posha shan mile pusa daochang 波沙山彌勒菩薩道場 [Posha shan, sanctuary of Maitreya bodhisattva]. Accessed May 18, 2016. http://​www.pss.org.tw/​mbr/​world_​detail.asp?id=926. “Cishi men zhong bu she yi ren” 慈氏門中不捨一人 [In Maitreya’s gate, no one is left behind]. Fojiao bade cishi jushi lin 佛教八德慈氏居士林. Accessed May 18, 2016, 慈氏居士林.tw/​慈氏門中不捨一人 Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School]. Taipei:  Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007. Changzhao 常照. “Wangsheng mituo jingtu, doushuai jingtu xiuchi nanyi bijiao” 往生彌陀淨土、兜率淨土修持難易比較 [Comparing the ease of rebirth in Amitābha’s pure land vs. Maitreya’s pure land]. Daci shan mile daochang 大慈山 彌勒道場 [Daci shan Maitreya sanctuary]. Accessed March 24, 2016. http://​maitreya.sun.net.tw/​sutra/​book12.htm Chanjing 禪敬 et al. Fojiao cizong bi bei ke song ben 佛教慈宗必備課誦本 [Essential breviary of the Buddhist Maitreya School]. Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會, 2007. Chou Hsiang-​kuang, ed. T’ai-​Hsü: His Life and Teachings. Allahabad: Indo-​Chinese Literature Publications, 1957. “Chuang hui yuanqi” 創會緣起 [Conditions for the founding of the association]. Posha shan mile pusa daochang 波沙山彌勒菩薩道場 [Posha shan, sanctuary of Maitreya bodhisattva]. Accessed March 24, 2016, http://​www.pss.org.tw/​mbr/​ 05htmlbody.asp?id=5A01. Dao’an 道安. “Wo yu dashi” 我與大師 [The Master and I]. In Taixu dashi linian jinian zhuanji 太虛大師歷年紀念文專輯 [Special collection of memorials for Master Taixu over the years], 114–​124. Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台 灣慈宗學會, 2005. Daxiong pusa 大雄菩薩. Mile daochang gaiyao 彌勒道場概要 [Essentials of Maitreya’s sanctuary]. Shanghai: Defeng fahui 德風法會, 1936. Defeng fahui zhuceji deng wenjian 德風法會註冊記等文件 [Registration records, etc. of the Wind of Virtue Dharma Society]. Shanghai Municipal Archives. Dongchu東初. “Nanputuo you ji” 南普陀遊記 [Travel notes from Nanputuo]. In Xiamen nanputuo si zhi 廈門南普陀寺志 [Gazetteer of Xiamen’s Nanputuo Monastery], edited by Yu yu 虞愚 and Jichen寄塵, 172–​ 178. Yangzhou, China: Jiangsu guangling guji keyin she 江蘇廣陵古籍刻印社, 1996. “Doushuai jingtu” 兜率淨土 [Tuṣita Pure Land]. Fojiao bade cishi jushi lin 佛教八德 慈氏居士林. Accessed May 18, 2016, 慈氏居士林.tw/​兜率淨土. Duyun 渡雲. “Shannan xinnü changbai mile: shanghai faxian huanxi dao” 善男信女 崇拜彌勒: 上海發現「歡喜道」 [Good men, faithful women, worship Maitreya! Shanghai discovers the “way of happiness”]. Xingguang 星光 September 5, 1946: 6.

301

Bibliography

301

Fahua yun hua mile jingtu fangbian du ren jing 法華蘊化彌勒淨土方便度人經 [The sutra manifest from concealment within the Lotus on the expedient deliverance of people through Maitreya’s pure land]. Shanghai: Defeng fahui 德風法 會, 1936. Fenghua shi xuedou si mile dafo shoujian weiyuanhui 奉化市雪竇寺彌勒大佛籌建 委員會. Renjian mile 人間彌勒. Fenghua, China: 2008. Ge Maochun 葛懋春, Jiang Jun 蔣俊, Li Xingzhi 李興芝. Wuzhengfuzhuyi sixiang ziliao xuan 無政府主義思想資料選 [Selected materials on anarchist thought]. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe 北京大學出版社, 1984. Guan mile shangsheng jing san jing tong ben 觀彌勒上生經三經同本 [Sutra on the contemplation of Maitreya’s ascent: three sutra collection]. Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 1993. “Guanyu cishi” 關於慈氏 [About Maitreya]. Fojiao bade cishi jushi lin 佛教八德慈氏 居士林. http://​mywaterdd.com/​category/​關於慈氏. Accessed July 7, 2014. “Guanyu xie jiangshi” 關於謝講師 [About lecturer Xie]. Fengda shengming liyi gongsi 風達生命禮儀公司 [Fengda Life Ritual Co.] Accessed May 1, 2015, http://​www. twksfba.org/​ee0179/​home.html. Guo Wuwang 郭無妄. “Jiuchu jiamao xian fo zhi wei shengxun er ‘tian fo yuan youji’ ” 揪出假冒仙佛之偽聖訓2《天佛院遊記》 [Exposing fraudulent revelations of the transcendents and Buddhas 2:  “Record of travels in the heavenly Buddha halls”]. Yiguan dao jiayin zhongxin 一貫道佳音中心 [Yiguan dao gospel center]. Accessed May 18, 2016. http://​h5668.pixnet.net/​blog/​post/​30498001 -​ 揪出假冒仙佛之偽聖訓-​%3A-​2《天佛院遊記》 He Jianbo 何劍波 and Shi Yizang 釋怡藏. Ciyuan shengguang: 2014 Zhongguo (fenghua) xuedoushan mile wenhuajie kaimu shengdian 慈源聖光: 2014中國(奉化)雪竇 山彌勒文化節開幕盛典 [Kindly springs, sagely radiance: opening ceremony of the 2014 Maitreya Culture Festival of Xuedou shan (Fenghua) China]. Directed by Xu Qiang 徐強, Shi Weixiang 釋惟祥, and Fu Na 傅娜. Shanghai: Xingkuo wenhua chuanbo 星括文化傳播, 2014. DVD. Huang Xianian 黃夏年, et al. Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng 民國佛教期刊文 獻集成 [Grand compendium of Republican-​era Buddhist periodicals and documents]. Beijing: Quan guo tushuguan wenxian suowei fuzhi zhongxin 全國圖書 館文獻縮微複製中心, 2006. —​—​—​. Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng bubian 民國佛教期刊文獻集成補編 [Supplement to the grand compendium of Republican-​era Buddhist periodicals and documents]. Beijing: Quan guo tushuguan wenxian suowei fuzhi zhongxin 全國圖書館文獻縮微複製中心, 2008. —​—​—​. Minguo fojiao qikan wenxian jicheng sanbian 民國佛教期刊文獻集成三編 [Third collection of the grand compendium of Republican-​era Buddhist periodicals and documents]. Beijing:  Quan guo tushuguan wenxian suowei fuzhi zhongxin 全國圖書館文獻縮微複製中心, 2013.

0 23

302

Bibliography

Huiguang 慧廣. Mile jingtu zhenyi chanshu 彌勒淨土真義闡述 [An exposition of the true meaning of Maitreya Pure Land]. Taipei: Yuanming chuban 圓明出版, 1992. —​—​—​, ed. Mile jingtu xiuchi lu 彌勒淨土修持錄 [A record of the cultivation of Maitreya Pure Land]. 2nd ed. Kaohsiung:  Jietuo dao chubanshe 解脫道出版 社, 1998. Jiang 江. “Tongshan she” 同善社 [Fellowship of Goodness]. Shenbao 申報, February 6, 1922. Jingkong 淨空. “Jingkong lao fashi: mile ye shi nianfo famen? Weihe you xie fashi renwei qiu sheng mile jingtu jianglai hui tuizhuan?” 淨空老法師:  彌勒也是 念佛法門? 為何有些法師認為求生彌勒淨土將來會退轉? [Venerable Master Jingkong: Is Maitreya also a Buddha-​recitation Dharma-​gate? Why do some masters believe that if one seeks rebirth in Maitreya’s pure land one will retrogress?]. YouTube video, 7:50. Posted by wystube48, August 15, 2012. https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?v=K55oran6-​UA. —​—​—​. “Mile jingtu menkan gao, bu ru zhixin qiu mituo”‘ 彌勒淨土門檻高 不 如志心求彌陀 [The threshold for Maitreya’s pure land is high; better to resolve to seek rebirth with Maitreya]. YouTube video, 5:23. Posted by Jingkong fashi zhuanji wang 淨空法師專集網, June 3, 2013. https://​www.youtube.com/​ watch?v=ANqC1n1ppwE. Jingyan 淨嚴. Yuqie pusa jieben (songyi hehui biaojie) he kan 菩薩戒本(誦儀科會表 解)合刊 [Bodhisattva prātimokṣa (with rites for recitation, divided text, and annotation)]. Beijing: Zhongyang kejing yuan 中央刻經院, 1931. Juexing 覺醒. Qingjing guotu: fojiao jingtu guan 清淨國土:佛教淨土觀 [Lands of purity: the Buddhist view of pure lands]. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗 教文化出版社, 2003. Lian Gezi 蓮歌子. Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [The sutra of Maitreya’s descent]. Zhonghe, Taiwan: Duo shi jie 多識界, 2001. “2006 niandu guoji zongjiao ziyou baogao Taiwan bufen” 2006 年度國際宗教自 由報告 台灣部分 [2006 annual report on religious freedom, Taiwan section]. American Institute in Taiwan. Accessed May 13, 2015, http://​www.ait.org.tw/​ zh/​2006-​irf-​taiwan.html. Liao Yuepeng 廖閱鵬. Jingtu sanxi zhi yanjiu 淨土三系之研究 [Research on the three systems of pure land]. Kaohsiung: Foguang chubanshe 佛光出版社, 1989. Lin Daxiong 林達雄. “Mile zhexue” 彌勒哲學 [Maitreyan philosophy]. Jichu zhongshu meiguo quanzhen daoyuan 基礎忠恕美國全真道院 [Perfect Truth Temple of Jichu Zhongshu, USA]. Accessed May 19, 2016. http://​www.greattao.org/​articles/​2004/​2004-​5-​1.htm. Liu Shifu 劉師復. “Zhengfu yu shehui dang” 政府與社會黨 [The government and the socialist parties]. Huiming lu 晦鳴錄 no. 2 (August 27, 1913): 1–​4. —​—​—​. Shifu wencun 師復文存 [The collected writings of Shifu]. Shanghai: Shanghai shudian上海書店, 1989.

0 3

Bibliography

303

Liu Xinde 劉心德 and Liu Xinyu 劉心玉. Yiguan weizhong 一貫維中 [Yiguan (dao) maintaining the center]. Zhonghe: Zhengyi Shanshu, 1995. Lü Cheng 呂澂. “Yuqie pusa jieben jiemo jiangyao” 瑜伽菩薩戒本羯磨講要 [Lecture on the essentials of the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa Karma]. In Xueyuan wu ke jing lun jiangyao 學院五科經論講要 [Lectures on the essentials of the five sutras and treatises of the Academy]. Xizhi 汐止, Taiwan: Daqian 大千, 2003. “Mile fuyin—​ mile jingtu shusheng 2009 nian 8 yue 24 ri” 彌勒福音—​ 彌勒淨土殊勝2009年8月24日 [The gospel of Maitreya—​ the excellences of Maitreya Pure Land, August 24,  2009]. Jichu tianji 基礎天基 [The Jichu Tianji (Branch)]. Accessed May 19, 2016, http://​tianji99.blogspot.com/​2009/​08/​blog-​ post_​24.html “Mile jingtu de shusheng” 彌勒淨土的殊勝 [The excellences of Maitreya Pure Land]. Daochang jiangti wangzhan 道場講題網站 [Temple lecture topics website]. Accessed May 19, 2016, https://​sites.google.com/​site/​taoclass/​05/​05-​60. “Mile jiu zhuan jiapu” 彌勒九轉家譜 [Genealogy of the ninth incarnation of Maitreya]. In Jindai zhongguo minjian zongjiao jingjuan wenxian 近代中國民間宗 教經卷文獻 [Scriptures and documents of modern Chinese popular religions], edited by Wang Jianchaun 王見川 and Fan Chunwu 范純武, vol. 3, 423–​467. Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 2015. Mile wenhua wang 彌勒文化網 [Maitreyan culture net]. http://​www.milewh.com/​ Index.html. Accessed December 9, 2009. “Mile xiaorong keju: zhongguo mile hui zhenlie moxing, hua gange wei yubo, heping yongjiu keqi” 彌勒笑容可掬:  中國彌勒會陳列模型, 化干戈為玉帛, 和平 永久可期 [Maitreya’s beaming smile: The Maitreya Society of China displays a model, shield and spear to be turned into jade and silk, lasting peace expected]. Shenbao 申報, July 3, 1928. Mingyi 明夷 [Xinzhao 心照, pseud.]. “Cizong xuehui hunan sheng fenhui yuanqi” 慈宗學會胡南省分會緣起 [Origins of the Hunan branch of the Maitreya Study Association]. In Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School. Vol. 2. Taipei: Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007. —​—— ​ ​. “Hunan cizong xuehui zhangcheng” 湖南慈宗學會章程 [Hunan Maitreya Study Association charter]. In Cizong baojian 慈宗寶鑑 [Precious mirror of the Maitreya School] Vol. 2. Taipei:  Taiwan Maitreya Study Association, 2007. Mingyi 明夷 [Xinzhao Buxuan 心照不宣, pseud.]. “Jianli cizong xuehui zonghui jihua 建立慈宗學會總會計畫 [Plan for the establishment of a General Association of Maitreya Study Associations]. Accessed September 8, 2007, article.hongxiu.com/​ a/​2004-​2-​2/​303770.shtml. Peng Huilong 彭迴龍. “Huilong zunshi pudu yulu” 迴龍師尊普度語錄 [Reverend teacher Huilong’s recorded sayings on universal salvation]. In Jindai zhongguo minjian zongjiao jingjuan wenxian 近代中國民間宗教經卷文獻 [Scriptures and

0 43

304

Bibliography

documents of modern Chinese popular religions], edited by Wang Jianchaun 王見川 and Fan Chunwu 范純武, Vol. 2, 479–​531. Taipei:  Xinwenfeng 新文 豐, 2015. “Posha shan zhi” 波沙山誌 [Posha shan gazetteer]. Posha shan mile pusa daochang 波沙山彌勒菩薩道場 [Posha shan, sanctuary of Maitreya bodhisattva]. Accessed May 18, 2016, http://​www.pss.org.tw/​mbr/​2A01list.asp. “Renshi women” 認識我們 [About us], Mile da dao 彌勒大道 [Maitreya Great Way]. Accessed July 16, 2015, http://​www.maitreya.org.tw. Shehui dang ren 社會黨人. “San wu zhuyi zhi yanjiu” 三無主義之研究 [Research on the three no’s]. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 5 (November 1912): 7–​12. Shengyan 聖嚴. Fagu quanji 法鼓全集 [The complete collection of Dharma Drum]. CD-​ROM, version 1.0. Fagu wenhua zhongxin 法鼓文化中心, 2007. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏. “Zai taixu dashi yuanji liushi zhounian jinianhui shang de jianghua” 在太虛大師圓寂60周年紀念會上的講話 [Talk given at the conference commemorating the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence]. In Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝: 紀念太虛大師示 寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], edited by Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, 456–​459. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2008. —​—​—​, ed. Fenghua xikou xuedou zisheng chansi 奉化溪口雪竇資聖禪寺 [The Zisheng Chan Monastery of Xuedou (shan) in Xikou, Fenghua]. n.d. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, eds. Mile baodian 彌勒寶典 [Precious collection of Maitreya]. Fenghua: Xuedou chansi 雪竇禪寺, 2008. “Shijie heping mile hui choubei huiyi” 世界和平彌勒會籌備會議 [World Peace Maitreya Society planning meeting]. Shenbao 申報, July 29, 1929. “Shijie heping mile hui jinwen” 世界和平彌勒會近聞 [Recent news from the World Peace Maitreya Society]. Shenbao 申報, August 17, 1928. Taixu 太虛. “Guang hun po shuo” 廣魂魄說 [Broad discourse on the hun and po (souls)]. Pt. 1. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 3 (1912): 14–​15. —​—​—​. “Guang hun po shuo” 廣魂魄說 [Broad discourse on the hun and po (souls)]. Pt. 2. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 4 (1912): 16–​17. —​—​—​. “Guang hun po shuo” 廣魂魄說 [Broad discourse on the hun and po (souls)]. Pt. 3. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 5 (1912): 15–​17. —​—​—​. “Jun pin fu qianshuo: yi pingdeng jiaoyu wei shouxu, yi gongchanzhuyi wei mudi” 均貪富淺言:  以平等教育為手續, 以共產主義為目的 [A cursory discussion of the equalization of wealth: equal education as method; communism as goal]. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 2 (1912): 4–​16. —​—​—​. “Shehui dang yu zhongguo shehui dang zhi bamian guan” 社會黨與中 國社會黨之八面觀 [A comprehensive view of the Socialist Party and Chinese Socialist Party]. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 5 (1912): 34–​57. Taixu 太虛 [Lewu 樂無, pseud.]. “Shijie zhi san da zui’e” 世界之三大罪惡 [The three great evils of the world]. Pt. 1. Liangxin 良心 no. 1 (1913): 7–​15.

0 35

Bibliography

305

—​—​—​. “Shijie zhi san da zui’e” 世界之三大罪惡 [The three great evils of the world]. Pt. 2. Liangxin 良心 no. 2 (1913): 1–​8. —​—​—​. “Wu shen lun” 無神論 [On atheism]. Liangxin 良心 no. 2 (1913): 9–​19. Wang Ciguang 汪慈光 [Ci Wuyi 慈無依, psued.]. Mile shouyuan—​datong shijie, renjian jingtu de zhenzheng shixian 彌勒收圓—​大同世界, 人間淨土的真正實現 [Maitreya’s harvest—​the true realization of grand unity and the pure land on earth]. Taipei: Ciguang chubanshe 慈光出版社, 1982. —​—​—​. “Mohou yi zhuo” 末後一著 [Final salvation]. In Yiguan yishu 一貫義疏 [Exegesis on unity]. Taichung: Ciguang chuban she 慈光出版社, 1983. Weiyi 葦一. “Taixu dashi shiji tongyan” 太虛大師示寂慟言 [A lament on the quiescence of Master Taixu]. Taiwan fojiao 台灣佛教 1, no. 1 (7/​1947): 13–​15. Xing li ti shi 性理題釋 [Topical explanations of nature and principle]. Shantou 汕頭, Jundechang yinshuaju俊德昌印刷局(?), 1937. Xingyun 星雲. “Cong xianshi de shijie shuo dao fojiao lixiang de shijie” 從現實的世 界說到佛教理想的世界 [From the real world to the ideal worlds of Buddhism]. In Xingyun dashi yanjiang ji 星雲大師演講集 [Collected lectures of Master Xingyun]. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Foguang chubanshe 佛光出版社, 1979. Xuedou shan fojiao mingshan jianshe gongzuo huibao 雪竇山佛教名山建設工作匯報 [Work report on establishing Xuedou shan as a famous Buddhist mountain]. Fenghua, China: 2015. Xuedou si zhi bianzuan weiyuan hui 雪竇寺志編纂委員會. Xuedou si zhi 雪竇寺志 [Xuedou temple gazateer]. Ningbo, China: Ningbo chubanshe 寧波出版社, 2011. Xuyin 絮因. “Jile shijie” 極樂世界 [Land of Bliss]. Pt. 1. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 1 (April 1912): 70–​74. —​—​—​. “Jile shijie” 極樂世界 [Land of Bliss]. Pt. 2. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 2 (May 1912): 76–​78. —​—​—​. “Jile shijie” 極樂世界 [Land of Bliss]. Pt. 3. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 3 (June 1912): 64–​67. —​—​—​. “Jile shijie” 極樂世界 [Land of Bliss]. Pt. 4. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 4 (July 1912): 67–​70. —​—​—​. “Jile shijie tici” 極樂世界題詞 [Inscription on the Land of Bliss], Shehui shijie 社會世界, no. 1 (April 1912): 77. “Yange” 沿革 [Historical development]. Daci shan mile daochang 大慈山彌勒道場 [Da Tzu Shan Maitreya Monastery (sic). Accessed November 28, 2009, www.dts. org.tw/​history.htm. Ye Wuhua 業露華, Foshuo mile shangsheng xiasheng jing 佛說彌勒上生下生經 [The sutras spoken by the Buddha on Maitreya’s ascent and descent]. Kaohsiung: Foguang 佛光, 1998. Yichi gongheng tang 懿敕拱衡堂. Mile jingtu youji 彌勒淨土遊記 [A record of travels in Maitreya’s pure land]. Fengyuan, Taiwan: Yichi Gongheng Tang, 1999. “Yiguan dao linzhong guanhuai” 一貫道臨終關懷 [Yiguan dao end-​of-​life care]. Fengda shengming liyi gongsi 風達生命禮儀公司 [Fengda Life Ritual Co.]. Accessed May 2, 2015. http://​www.twksfba.org/​ee0179/​page2.html.

0 63

306

Bibliography

Yiguan dao yiwen jieda 一貫道疑問解答 [Resolving doubts about Yiguandao]. Qingdao: Jundechang yinshuaju 俊德昌印刷局, 1937. Yinshun 印順. “Namo danglai xiasheng mile fo” 南無當來下生彌勒佛 [Homage to Maitreya, the Buddha to come]. Haichaoyin 海潮音 35, no. 3 (1954) 19–​21. —​—​—​. The Way to Buddhahood, translated by Wing H. Yeung. Somerville, MA: Wisdom, 1998. —​—​—​, ed. Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書 [Complete writings of Master Taixu]. Taipei: Shandao si 善導寺, 1998. —​—​—​. Yinshun fashi foxue zhuzuo ji 印順法師佛學著作集 [Master Yinshun Corpus]. CD-​ROM, version 4.0. Yinshun wenjiao jijinhui 印順文教基金會, 2006. —​—​—​, ed. Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書 [Collected works of Master Taixu]. In Yinshun fashi foxue zhuzuo ji 印順法師佛學著作集 [Master Yinshun Corpus]. CD-​ROM, version 4.0. Yinshun wenjiao jijinhui 印順文教基金會, 2006. Yu yu 虞愚 and Jichen 寄塵, ed. Xiamen nanputuo si zhi 廈門南普陀寺志 [Gazetteer of Xiamen’s Nanputuo Monastery]. Yangzhou, China:  Jiangsu guangling guji keyin she 江蘇廣陵古籍刻印社, 1996. Yueji 月基. “Zhuinian taixu dashi” 追念大虛大師 [Comemorating Master Taixu]. In Taixu dashi linian jinian zhuanji 太虛大師歷年紀念文專輯 [Special collection of memorials for Master Taixu over the years], 125–​130. Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會, 2005. Yuexi 月西. “Zheng jue hong fa yi dai zongshi” 正覺弘法一代宗師 [The eminent Master of a generation who, rightly awakened, spread the Dharma]. In Taixu dashi linian jinian zhuanji 太虛大師歷年紀念文專輯 [Special collection of memorials for Master Taixu over the years], 302–​308. Zhonghe 中和, Taiwan: Taiwan cizong xuehui 台灣慈宗學會, 2005. Zhang Zhenxi 張震西. “Zhu shehui shijie” 祝社會世界 [A celebration of Social World]. Shehui shijie 社會世界 no. 2 (May 1912): 1–​3. Zhuo Zunhong 桌遵宏 and Hou Kunhong 侯坤宏. Chengyi fashi fangtan lu 成一 法師訪談錄 [The Reminiscences of Master Cherng-​yi (sic)]. Taipei:  Sanmin 三 民, 2007. —​—​—​. Taiwan fojiao yi jiazi: Wu laoze xiangsheng fangtan lu 台灣佛教一甲子:吳老擇 先生訪談錄 [The sixty years development of Buddhism in Taiwan, 1943–​2002: The reminiscences of Mr. Wu Lao Tzer (sic)]. Taipei: Guoshiguan 國史館, 2009.

S ec o n d a r y S o u r c e s i n   E n g l i s h Ashiwa, Yoshiko. “Positioning Religion in Modernity: State and Buddhism in China.” In Making Religion, Making the State:  The Politics of Religion in Modern China, edited by Yoshiko Ashiwa and David L. Wank, 43–​73. Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press, 2009. Ashiwa, Yoshiko, and David L. Wank. “Making Religion, Making the State in Modern China: An Introductory Essay.” In Making Religion, Making the State: The Politics

0 37

Bibliography

307

of Religion in Modern China, edited by Yoshiko Ashiwa and David L. Wank, 1–​21. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009. —​—​—​, eds. Making Religion, Making the State:  The Politics of Religion in Modern China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009. Aviv, Eyal. “The Root the Nourishes the Branches: The Role of the Yogācārabhūmi in 20th-​Century Chinese Scholastic Buddhism.” In The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners:  The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, edited by Ulrich Timme Kragh, 1078–​1091. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. Bauer, Wolfgang. China and the Search for Happiness:  Recurring Themes in Four Thousand Years of Chinese Cultural History. New York: Seabury Press, 1976. Bianchi, Ester. “The ‘Chinese Lama’ Nenghai (1886–​1967): Doctrinal Tradition and Teaching Strategies of a Gelugpa Master in Republican China.” In Buddhism Between Tibet and China, edited by Matthew T. Kapstein, 295–​323 Somerville, MA: Wisdom, 2009. Bielefeldt, Carl. “Chang-​ Lu Tsung-​ Tse’s Tso-​ Ch’an I  and the ‘Secret’ of Zen Meditation.” In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, 129–​161. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986. Bingenheimer, Marcus. “Chinese Buddhism Unbound—​Rebuilding and Redefining Chinese Buddhism on Taiwan.” In Buddhism in Global Perspective, edited by Kalpakam Sankarnarayan, 122–​146. Mumbai: Somaiya Publications, 2003. —​—​—​. “Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian Fojiao and the Contribution of Venerable Yinshun to Chinese Buddhist Modernism.” In Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism:  Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen, and Lori Meeks. Hualien, Taiwan: Tzu Chi University Press, 2007. —​—​—​. “Yinshun.” Digital Dictionary of Buddhism. Acessed April 4, 2017, http://​ www.buddhism-​dict.net/​cgi-​bin/​xpr-​ddb.pl?q=印順. Birnbaum, Raoul. “Buddhist China at the Century’s Turn.” The China Quarterly 174, (2003): 451–​467. —​—​—​. “Master Hongyi Looks Back: A Modern Man Becomes a Monk in Twentieth-​ Century China.” In Buddhism in the Modern World:  Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, edited by Steven Heine and Charles Prebish, 75–​124. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Blackburn, Anne. Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth-​ Century Lankan Monastic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Bond, George D. The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition, Reinterpretation and Response. Columbia: South Carolina University Press, 1988. Boorman, Howard L., ed. Biographical Dictionary of Republican China. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967–​1979. Bosco, Joseph. “Yiguan Dao: ‘Heterodoxy’ and Popular Religion in Taiwan.” In The Other Taiwan:  1945 to the Present, edited by Murray A. Rubinstein, 423–​444. Armonk, NY: M. E.Sharpe, 1994.

0 83

308

Bibliography

Bruntz, Courtney. “Tours, Temples, and Technology—​ a 21st Century Chinese Buddhism.” Paper presented at Buddhist Tourism in Asia: Sacred Sites within Global Networks, Corvallis, OR, April 9–​10, 2016. Callahan, Paul E. “T’ai-​ Hsü and the New Buddhist Movement.” Harvard University: Papers on China no. 6 (1952): 149–​188. Chan Sin-​wai. Buddhism in Late Ch’ing Political Thought. Hong Kong:  Chinese University Press, 1985. Chandler, Stuart. Establishing a Pure Land on Earth: The Foguang Buddhist Perspective on Modernization and Globalization. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press 2004. Chang, Hao. Chinese Intell​ectuals in Crisis: Search for Order and Meaning (1890–​1911). Taipei: Southern Materials, 1987. Chen, Bing. “Reflections on the Revival of Yogācāra in Modern Chinese Buddhism,” translated by Justin R. Ritzinger. In The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners:  The Buddhist Yogācārabhūmi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet, edited by Ulrich Timme Kragh, 1054–​1076. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. Chu, William. “Bodhisattva Precepts in the Ming Society:  Factors Behind Their Success and Propagation.” Journal of Buddhism Ethics 13 (2006). http://​blogs. dickinson.edu/​buddhistethics/​files/​2010/​04/​chu-​article.pdf. Chu, William P. “A Buddha-​Shaped Hole: Yinshun’s (1906–​2005) Critical Buddhology and the Theological Crisis in Modern Chinese Buddhism.” University of California-​Los Angeles, 2006. Clart, Philip. “Yiguan dao.” In Handbook of East Asian Religious Movements. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2017. Dikötter, Frank. The Age of Openness:  China before Mao. Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2008. Dirlik, Arif. Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press 1991. Duara, Prasenjit. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. —​—​—​. “The Discourse of Civilization and Pan-​Asianism.” Journal of World History 12, no. 1 (2001): 99–​130. DuBois, Thomas David. The Sacred Village: Social Change and Religious Life in Rural North China. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. “Multiple Modernities.” Daedalus 129, no. 1 (2000): 1–​29. Fairbank, John K., and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978–​2002. Faure, Bernard. The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/​Zen Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. Finkelstein, David M. Washington’s Taiwan Dilemma, 1949–​1950: From Abandonment to Salvation. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2014.

0 93

Bibliography

309

Furth, Charlotte. “The Sage as Rebel: The Inner World of Chang Ping-​Lin.” In The Limits of Change: Essays on Conservative Alternatives in Republican China, edited by Charlotte Furth, 113–​150. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. —​ —​ —​ . “Intellectual Change:  From the Reform Movement to the May Fourth Movement, 1895–​1920.” In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank, 322–​405. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Gaaster, Michael. Chinese Intellectuals and the Revolution of 1911: The Birth of Modern Chinese Radicalism. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969. Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar, ed. Alternative Modernities. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2001. Goehlert, Robert. “Tolstoy and Anarchism.” Journal of Religious Thought 38, no. 1 (1981): 54–​61. Gombrich, Richard, and Gananath Obeyesekere. Buddhism Transformed:  Religious Change in Sri Lanka. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Goodell, Eric. “Taixu’s Youth and Years of Romantic Idealism, 1890–​1914.” Chung-​ Hwa Buddhist Journal no. 21 (2008): 77–​121. —​ —​ —​ . “Taixu’s (1890–​ 1947) Creation of Humanistic Buddhism.” PhD Diss. University of Virginia, 2012. Goossaert, Vincent. “1898: The Beginning of the End for Chinese Religion?” Journal of Asian Studies 65, no. 2 (2006): 307–​336. —​—​—​. “Republican Church Engineering:  The National Relgious Associations in 1912 China.” In Chinese Religiosities: Afflictions of Modernity and State Formation, edited by Mayfair Mei-​hua Yang, 209–​232. Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2008. Goossaert, Vincent, and David A. Palmer. The Religious Question in Modern China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Hammerstrom, Erik J. “Early Twentieth-​Century Buddhist Microbiology and Shifts in Chinese Buddhism’s ‘Actual Canon.’” Theology and Science 10, no. 1 (2012): 3–​18. —​—​—​. “The Heart-​of-​Mind Method:  Legitimating a New Buddhist Movement in 1930s China.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 17, no. 2 (2013): 5–​23. —​—​—​. The Science of Chinese Buddhism:  Early Twentieth-​ Century Engagements. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. —​—​—​. “Buddhism and the Modern Epistemic Space.” In Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, edited by Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup, 79–​110. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. Han Yongun. Selected Writings of Han Yongun: From Social Darwinism to “Socialism with a Buddhist Face.” Translated by Vladimir Tikhonov and Owen Miller. Kent, UK: Global Oriental, 2008. Heine, Steven, and Charles S. Prebish. Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

031

310

Bibliography

Ho, Jacqueline. “The Practice of Yin Shun’s Ren Jian Fo Jiao: A Case Study of Fu Yan College, Dharma Drum Mountain and Tzu Chi Buddhist Compassion Relief.” University of Calgary, 2008. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terrence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. The Rise of Modern China. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Huang, C. Julia. Charisma and Compassion:  Cheng Yen and the Buddhist Tzu Chi Movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Ichikawa, Hakugen. “The Problem of Buddhist Socialism in Japan.” Japanese Religions 6, no. 3 (1970): 15. Ishikawa, Rikizan. “The Social Response of Buddhists to the Modernization of Japan:  The Contrasting Lives of Two Soto Zen Monks.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 25, no. 1–​2 (1998): 87–​115. Jessup, James Brooks. “The Householder Elite Buddhist Activism in Shanghai, 1920–​1956.” PhD Diss. University of California, Berkeley, 2010. Jessup, J. Brooks. “Beyond Ideological Conflict: Political Incorporation of Buddhist Youth in the Early PRC.” Frontiers of History in China 7, no. 4 (2012): 551–​581. Ji, Zhe. “Buddhism and the State:  The New Relationship.” China Perspectives 55 (2004): 2–​12. —​ —​ —​ . “Buddhism in the Reform Era:  A  Secularized Revival?” In Religion in Contemporary China: Revitalization and Innovation, edited by Adam Yuet Chau, 32–​52. London: Routledge 2011. Jochim, Christian. “Popular Lay Sects and Confucianism: A Study Based on Yiguan Dao in Postwar Taiwan.” In The People and the Dao:  New Studies in Honour of Daniel L.  Overmyer, edited by Philip Clart and Paul Crowe, 83–​ 107. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumentica Serica, 2009. Jones, Charles. Buddhism in Taiwan:  Religion and the State, 1660–​ 1990. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press 1999. Jones, Charles B. “Buddhism and Marxism in Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu’s Religious Socialism and Its Legacy in Modern Times.” Journal of Global Buddhism 1 (2000): 82–​111. —​—​—​. “Transitions in the Practice and Defense of Pure Land Buddhism.” In Buddhism in the Modern World:  Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, edited by Steven Heine and Charles Prebish, 125–​ 142. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2003. Jordan, David K., and Daniel L. Overmyer. The Flying Phoenix: Aspects of Sectarianism in Taiwan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. Jorgenson, John. “Indra’s Network:  Zhang Taiyan’s Sino-​ Japanese Personal Networks and the Rise of Yogācāra in Modern China.” In Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China, edited by John Makeham, 64–​ 99. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014,

31

Bibliography

311

Kang Youwei. Da Tong Shu: The One-​World Philosophy of K’ang Yu-​Wei. Translated by Laurence G. Thompson. London: Allen & Unwin, 1958. Ketelaar, James Edward. Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan:  Buddhism and its Persecution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. Kiely, Jan. “The Communist Dismantling of Temple and Monastic Buddhism in Suzhou.” In Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, edited by Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup, 216–​253. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. Kitagawa, Joseph M. “The Career of Maitreya, with Special Reference to Japan.” History of Religions 21, no. 2 (1981): 107–​125. Krebs, Edward S. Shifu, Soul of Chinese Anarchism. New York: Rowan & Littlefield, 1998. Kwok, David W. Y. Scientism in Chinese Thought, 1900–​1950. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965. Kwong, Luke S.  K. T’an Ssu-​T’ung, 1865-​1898:  Life and Thought of a Reformer. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1996. Ladwig, Patrice, and James Mark Shields. “Introduction.” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 187–​204. Lai, Lei Kuan Rongdao. “Praying for the Republic:  Buddhist Education, Student-​ Monks, and Citizenship in Modern China (1911–​ 1949).” PhD Diss. McGill University, 2013. Lai, Whalen W. “Seno’o Giro and the Dilemma of Modern Buddhism: Leftist Prophet of the Lotus Sutra.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 11, no. 1 (1984): 7–​42. —​—​—​. “The Origins of Ming Buddhist Schism.” In Heterodoxy in Late Imperial China, edited by Kwang-​Ching Liu and Richard Shek, 109–​135. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2004. Laliberté, André. “Religious Change and Democratization in Postwar Taiwan: Mainstream Buddhist Organizations and the Kuomintang, 1947–​ 1996.” In Religion in Modern Taiwan: Tradition and Innovation in a Changing Society, edited by Philip Clart and Charles B. Jones, 158–​185. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press 2003. —​—​—​. The Politics of Buddhist Organizations in Taiwan: 1989–​2003: Safeguarding the Faith, Building a Pure Land, Helping the Poor. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004. —​—​—​. “The Regulation of Religious Affairs in Taiwan:  From State Control to Laisser-​faire?” Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 38, no. 2 (2009): 53–​83. Large, Stephen S. “Buddhism and Political Renovation in Prewar Japan: The Case of Akamatsu Katsumaro.” Journal of Japanese Studies 9, no. 1 (1983): 33–​66. —​—​—​. “Buddhism, Socialism, and Protest in Prewar Japan: The Career of Seno’o Giro.” Modern Asian Studies 21, no. 1 (1987): 153–​171. Lee, Leo Ou-​fan. Shanghai Modern: The Flowering of a New Urban Culture in China 1930–​1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

231

312

Bibliography

Lee, Mabel. “Chang Ping-​Lin’s Concept of Self and Society: Questions of Constancy and Continuity after the 1911 Revolution.” In Zhonghua minguo chuqi lishi yantaohui lunwenju 1912–​1917 中華民國初期歷史研討會 [Conference on the Early History of the Republic of China 1912–​1917], 593–​630. Taibei: Institute of Modern History of the Academica Sinica, 1983. Lee, Yu-​Min. “The Maitreya Cult and Its Art in Early China.” PhD Diss. Ohio State University, 1983. Levering, Miriam, ed. Rethinking Scripture:  Essays from a Comparative Perspective. Albany: SUNY Press, 1989. Li, Yu-​chen. “In Pursuit of Buddhahood: Yinshun and Buddhist Studies in Postwar Taiwan.” In Development and Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen, and Lori Meeks. Hualien, Taiwan: Tzu Chi University Press, 2007. Li Yuhang. “Oneself as a Female Deity: Representations of Empress Dowager Cixi as Guanyin.” Nan Nü 14 (2012): 75–​118. Li Zehou. “Zhang Taiyan as a Revolutionary and a Thinker.” In The 1911 Revolution: A Retrospective after 70 Years. Beijing: New World Press, 1983. Lopez, Donald S. Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Lu, Yunfeng. The Transformation of Yiguan Dao in Taiwan: Adapting to a Changing Religious Economy. Kanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984. MacQueen, Graeme. “Inspired Speech in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism II.” Religion 11, no. 4 (1981): 303–​319. —​—​—​. “Inspired Speech in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism II.” Religion 12, no. 1 (1982): 49–​65. Madsen, Richard. Democracy’s Dharma:  Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Makeham, John, ed. Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Metraux, Daniel A. “The Soka Gakkai: Buddhism and the Creation of a Harmonious and Peaceful Society.” In Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, edited by Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King, 365–​400. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. Murthy, Viren. “Equality as Reification: Zhang Taiyan’s Yogācāra Reading of Zhuangzi in the Context of Global Modernity.” In Transforming Consciousness:  Yogācāra Thought in Modern China, edited by John Makeham, 123–​145. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2014.

31

Bibliography

313

Nattier, Jan. “The Meanings of the Maitreya Myth:  A  Typological Analysis.” In Maitreya, the Future Buddha, edited by Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre, 23–​47. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. —​—​—​. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1991. Nedostup, Rebecca. Superstitious Regimes: Religion and the Politics of Chinese Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2009. Ng, William Yau-​nang. “Yin Shun’s Interpretations of the Pure Land.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34, no. 1 (2007): 25–​47. Obeyesekere, Gananath. “Religious Symbolism and Poltical Change in Ceylon.” Modern Ceylon Studies 1, no. 1 (1970): 43–​63. Overmyer, Daniel L. “Folk-​Buddhist Religion: Creation and Eschatology in Medieval China.” History of Religions 12, no. 1 (1972): 42–​70. —​ —​ —​ . “Messenger, Savior, and Revolutionary:  Maitreya in Popular Chinese Religious Literature of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Maitreya, the Future Buddha, edited by Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre, 110–​134. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. —​—​—​. “Religion in China Today:  Introduction.” The China Quarterly 174 (2003): 307–​316. Ownby, David. “Redemptive Societies in the Twentieth Century.” In Modern Chinese Religion II: 1850–​2015, edited by Vincent Goossaert, Jan Kiely, and Jon Lagerway, 685–​727. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2015. Pacey, Scott. “From Taixu to Shengyan:  Legitimising Modern Buddhism in China and Taiwan.” PhD Diss. Australian National University, 2011. Pettit, J. E. E. “The Many Faces of the Golden Sire: Books and Readers in the Early Yiguan Dao.” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 1 (2016): 35–​72. Pittman, Don A. Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism:  Taixu’s Reforms. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001. Powers, John. “Yogācāra:  Indian Buddhist Origins.” In Transforming Consciousness: Yogācāra Thought in Modern China, edited by John Makeham, 41–​63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Prothero, Stephen. The White Buddhist:  The Asian Odyssey of Henry Steel Olcott. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996. Queen, Christopher S., and Sallie B. King, eds. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. Ramaswamy, Sumathi. “The Goddess and the Nation:  Subterfuges of Antiquity, the Cunning of Modernity.” In The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, edited by Gavin Flood, 551–​568. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Rambelli, Fabio. Zen Anarchism: The Egalitarian Dharma of Uchiyama Gudō. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Buddhist Studies and BDK America, 2013.

431

314

Bibliography

Ritzinger Justin R. “Dependent Co-​evolution: Kropotkin’s Theory of Mutual Aid and Its Appropriation by Chinese Buddhists.” Chung-​Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 89–​112. —​ —​ —​ . “If We Build It, He Will Come:  Hope, Eschatology and the Modern Reinvention of Maitreya in China.” In Hope, a Form of Delusion? 207–​228. Sankt Ottilien, Germany: EOS, 2013. —​—​—​. “The Awakening of Faith in Anarchism: A Forgotten Chapter in the Chinese Buddhist Encounter with Modernity.” Politics, Religion & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 224–​243. —​—​—​. “Maitreya’s IT Guy.” In Figures of Buddhist Modernity in Asia, edited by Jeffrey Samuels, Justin Thomas McDaniel, and Mark Rowe, 78–​80. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2017. Sadakata, Akira. Buddhist Cosmology:  Philosophy and Origins, translated by Gaynor Sekimori. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 1997. Sarkisyanz, E. Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965. Scalapino, Robert A., and George T. Yu. “Socialism in Early Republican China:  From Ideas to Movement.” In Zhonghua minguo chuqi lishi yantaohui lunwenju 中華民國初期歷史研討會 [Conference on the Early History of the Republic of China], 308–​318. Taibei:  Institute of Modern History of the Academica Sinica, 1983. Schwartz, Benjamin. “The Limits of ‘Tradition’ and ‘Modernity’ as Categories of Explanation.” Daedelus 101, no. 2 (1972): 71–​88. Scott, Gregory Adam. “Conversion by the Book:  Buddhist Print Culture in Early Republican China.” PhD Diss. Columbia University, 2013. —​—​—​. “A Revolution of Ink: Chinese Buddhist Periodicals in the Early Republic.” In Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, edited by Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup, 111–​140. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. —​—​—​. The Digital Catalogue of Chinese Buddhism http://​bib.buddhiststudies.net/​ item/​1098.html. Shahar, Meir. Crazy Ji:  Chinese Religion and Popular Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1998. Shek, Richard. “Ethics and Polity:  The Heterodoxy of Buddhism, Maitreyanism, and the Early White Lotus.” In Heterodoxy in Late Imperial China, edited by Liu Kwang-​Ching and Richard Shek, 73–​108. Honolulu:  University of Hawai’i Press, 2004. Sheridan, James E. China in Disintegration:  The Republican Era in Chinese History 1912–​1949. New York: Free Press, 1975. Shields, James Mark. “A Blueprint for Buddhist Revolution: The Radical Buddhism of Seno’o Girō (1889–​1961) and the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 39, no. 2 (2012): 333–​351.

351

Bibliography

315

—​—​—​. “Liberation as Revolutionary Praxis:  Rethinking Buddhist Materialism.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 20 (2013): 461–​499. —​—​—​. “Zen and the Art of Treason: Radical Buddhism in the Meiji Era (1868–​1912) Japan,” Politics, Religion, & Ideology 15, no. 2 (2014): 205–​223. Singer, Peter. Marx: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Snodgrass, Judith. Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, & the Columbian Exposition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Song, Guangyu. “The Heavenly Way Transmits the Light:  The Yiguandao and Contemporary Society.” Chinese Studies in History 44 (2010–​2011): 76–​90. Sponberg, Alan. “Meditation in Fa-​Hsiang Buddhism.” In Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, edited by Peter N. Gregory, 15–​43. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘I Press, 1986. Sponberg, Alan, and Helen Hardacre, eds. Maitreya, the Future Buddha. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Sullivan, Brenton. “Blood and Teardrops:  The Life and Travels of Venerable Fazun.” In Buddhists:  Understanding Buddhism through the Lives of Practitioners, edited by Todd Lewis, 296–​304. Chichester and Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2014. Tarocco, Francesca. The Cultural Practices of Modern Chinese Buddhism: Attuning the Dharma. London: Routledge, 2005. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self:  The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1989. —​—​—​. “Two Theories of Modernity.” In Alternative Modernities, edited by Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar, 172–​196. Durham, NC and London:  Duke University Press, 2001. —​—​—​. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Ter Haar, Barend J. The White Lotus Teachings in Chinese Religious History. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1992. Tien, Po-​yao. “A Modern Buddhist Monk-​Reformer in China: The Life and Thought of Yinshun.” California Institute of Integral Studies, 1995. Tikhonov, Vladimir, and Owen Miller. “Introduction.” In Selected Writings of Han Yongun: From Social Darwinism to “Socialism with a Buddhist Face,” 1–​29. Kent, UK: Global Oriental, 2008. Travagnin, Stefania. “Master Yinshun and the Pure Land Thought: A Doctrinal Gap between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, no. 3 (2004): 271–​328. Tuttle, Gray. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Wang Chien-​ch’uan 王見川. “Spirit Writing Groups in Modern China (1840–​ 1937): Textual Production, Public Teaching, and Charity,” translated by Vincent

631

316

Bibliography

Goossaert. In Modern Chinese Religion II:  1850–​ 2015, edited by Vincent Goossaert, Jan Kiely, and Jon Lagerway, 651–​684. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2015. Wang Hui. “Zhang Taiyan’s Concept of the Individual and Modern Chinese Identity.” In Becoming Chinese: Passages to Modernity and Beyond, edited by Wen-​hsin Yeh, 231–​259. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Wank, David. “Institutionalizing Modern ‘Religion’ In China’s Buddhism: Political Phases of a Local Revival.” In Making Religion, Making the State: The Politics of Religion in Modern China, edited by Yoshiko Ashiwa and David L. Wank, 126–​ 150. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009. Ward, Colin. Anarchism:  A  Very Short Introduction. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2004. Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. —​—​—​. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New  York:  Routledge Classics 2001. Welch, Holmes. The Buddhist Revival in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. —​—​—​. Buddhism under Mao. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Wong, Young-​tsu. Search for Modern Nationalism: Zhang Binglin and Revolutionary China 1869–​1936. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989. Xue Yu. Buddhism, War, and Nationalism:  Chinese Monks in the Struggle against Japanese Aggressions, 1931–​1945 London: Routledge, 2005. —​—​—​. “Buddhist Contribution to the Socialist Tranformation of Buddhism in China: Activities of Ven. Juzan during 1949–​1953.” Journal of Global Buddhism 10 (2009): 217–​253. —​—​—​. “Buddhist Efforts for the Reconciliation of Buddhism and Marxism in the Early Years of the People’s Republic of China.” In Recovering Buddhism in Modern China, edited by Jan Kiely and J. Brooks Jessup, 177–​215. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. Yang, Fenggang. “The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China.” The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006): 93–​122. Yang, Fenggang, and Dedong Wei. “The Bailin Buddhist Temple: Thriving Under Communism.” In State, Market, and Religions in Chinese Societies, edited by Fenggang Yang and Joseph B Tamney, 63–​86. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005. Yang, Mayfair Mei-​hua, ed. Chinese Religiosities:  Afflictions of Modernity and State Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Yu, Jimmy. “Revisiting the Notion of Zong:  Contextualizing the Dharma Drum Lineage of Modern Chan Buddhism.” Chung-​Hwa Buddhist Journal 26 (2013): 113–​151. Zarrow, Peter. Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture. New  York:  Columbia University Press 1990. —​—​—​. China in War and Revolution 1895–​1949. London: Routledge, 2005. Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.

371

Bibliography

317

S ec o n d a r y S o u r c e s i n   A s i a n L a n g uages Beijing tushuguan 北京圖書館. Minguo shiqi zong shumu (1911–​1949) 民國時期 總書目(1911–​1949) [Comprehensive catalogue of Republican-​era books (1911–​ 1949)]. Beijing: Shumu wenxian chubanshe 書目文獻出版社, 1986. Cai Huiming 蔡惠明. “Mile jingtu yu renjian jingtu” 彌勒淨土與人間淨土 [Maitreya Pure Land and the pure land on earth]. Fayin 法音 53, no. 1 (1989): 23. Chen Bing 陳兵 and Deng Zimei 鄧子美. Ershi shiji zhongguo fojiao 二十世紀中國佛 教 [Chinese Buddhism in the 20th century]. Taipei: Xiandai chan 現代禪, 2003. Chen Yongge 陳永革. Renjian chaoyin—​taixu dashi zhuan 人間潮音—​太虛大師 傳 [The sound of the tide in the human realm:  a biography of Master Taixu]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang renmin chubanshe 浙江人民出版社, 2003. Deng Zimei 鄧子美. Chuantong fojiao yu zhongguo jindaihua: bainian wenhua chongzhuang yu jiaoliu 傳統佛教與中國近代化—​百年文化衝撞與交流 [Traditional Buddhism and Chinese modernization:  a century of cultural conflict and interchange]. Shanghai:  Donghua shifan daxue chubanshe 東華師範大學出版 社, 1996. —​—​—​. Taixu dashi quanzhuan 太虛大師全傳 [A complete biography of Master Taixu]. Hsintien 新店, Taiwan: Huiming wenhua 慧明文化, 2002. Deng Zimei 鄧子美, and Chen Weihua 陳衛華. Hui xia yi dai xin seng—​taixu dashi zhuan 麾下一代新僧-​-太 ​ 虚大師傳 [Standard bearer for a generation of new monks: a biography of Master Taixu]. Xining 西甯: Qinghai renmin chubanshe 青海人民出版社, 1999. Deng Zimei 鄧子美 and Ding Lu 丁露. “Cong mile pusa dao taixu pusa: jian lun dashi renjian fojiao sixiang fazhan mailuo” 從彌勒菩薩到太虛菩薩: 兼論大師 人間佛教思想發展脈絡 [From Maitreya Bodhisattva to Taixu Bodhisattva: with a discussion of the context of the development of the master Human Realm Buddhism thought]. In Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝:  紀念太虛大師示寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], edited by Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, 160–​173. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2008. Gong Jun 龔雋 and Lai Yueshan 賴岳山. “ ‘Taixu dang’an’ yi:  Taixu fashi yu minchu (1912–​1913) zhengdang” “太虛檔案”一:太虛法師與民初 (1912–​1913) 政黨 [Taixu archival materials one:  Master Taixu and early Republican (1912–​1913) political parties]. Hanyu foxue pinglun 漢語佛學評論 4 (2014): 5–​34. Guo Peng 郭朋. Taixu dashi sixiang yanjiu 太虛大師思想研究 [Research on Master Taixu’s thought]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe 中國社會科學出 版社, 1997. He Jianming 何建明. “Luelun zhongguo jindai de mile xinyang he mile guan” 略 論中國近代的彌勒信仰與彌勒觀 [A brief discussion on modern Chinese Maitreyan belief and Maitreyan contemplation]. Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究10 (2001). http://​www.chinabuddhism.com.cn/​a/​fxyj/​2001/​200110f38.htm.

831

318

Bibliography

Hong Jinlian 洪金蓮. Taixu dashi fojiao xiandaihua zhi yanjiu 太虛大師佛教現代化 之研究 [Master Taixu’s modernization of Buddhism]. Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe 東初出版社, 1995. Hou Kunhong 候坤宏. “1930 Niandai de fojiao yu zhengzhi:  taixu fashi he jiang jieshi” 1930 年代的佛教與政治:太虛法師和蔣介石 [Buddhism and politics in the 1930’s: Master Taixu and Chiang Kai-​Shek]. Sichuan shifan daxue xuebao (shehuikexueban) 四川師範大學學報(社會科學版) 33, no. 5 (2006): 126–​128. Hu Shunping 胡順萍. “Mile jingtu famen yu xianjin zhi yiyi” 彌勒淨土法門於現 今之意義 [The meaning of the practice of Maitreya Pure Land in the present]. Zhexue zazhi 哲學雜誌 no. 28 (1999): 188–​202. Jiang Canteng 江燦騰. “Taiwan dangdai jingtu sixiang de xin dongxiang: sixiangshi de tantao” 台灣當代淨土思想的新動向:思想史的探討 [A new direction in contemporary Taiwan pure land thought: a study in intellectual history]. Dongfang zongjiao yanjiu 東方宗教研究 2 (1988): 163–​184. —​—​—​. Taixu dashi qianzhuan (1890–​1927) 太虛大師前傳 (1890–​1927) [The early life of Master Taixu (1890–​1927)]. Taipei: Xinwenfeng 新文豐, 1993. —​—​—​. Zhongguo jindai fojiao sixiang de zhengbian yu fazhan 中國近代佛教思想 的諍辯與發展 [Controversies and developments in modern Buddhist thought]. Taipei: Nantian 南天, 1998. Jiang Jun 蔣俊. “Taixu fashi yu ‘fojiao shehuizhuyi’ ” 太虛與“佛教社會主義” [Master Taixu and ‘Buddhist Socialism’]. Shandong daxue xuebao 山東大學學報, no. 2 (1991): 79–​85. Kong Simeng 孔思孟 and Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉. “Wanqing shidai Jiugongdao yanjiu” 晚清時代九宮道研究 [Research on late-​Qing period Jiugong dao]. Minjian zongjiao 民間宗教 3 (1997): 1–​25. Li Guangliang 李廣良. Fofa Yu Ziyou 佛法與自由 [Buddhism and freedom]. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2008. Li Mingyou 李明友. “Taixu lun renjian jingtu de jianshe” 太虛論人間淨土的建設 [Taixu on the establishment of the pure land on earth]. Zhonghua wenhua luntan 中華文化論壇 no. 3 (2000): 104–​109. Li Shaobing 李少兵. “Zheng yan xun bian—​minguo shiqi fojiao gexin pai lun shehui yu shehuizhuyi’ 徵言尋變—​民國時期佛教革新派論社會與社會主義 [Testing words and seeking change—​republican-​era reformers discussions of society and socialism]. Beijing keji daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 北京科技大學學報(社會 科學版) 16, no. 2 (2000): 37–​42. Li Shiyu 李世瑜. Xianzai huabei mimi zongjiao 現在華北祕密宗教 [Secret religions in contemporary north China]. Taipei: Lantai chubanshe 蘭臺出版社, 2007. Li Xiangping 李向平, Taikyo oshō shukyō kōkyō interi ka?—​ gendai chugoku bukkyō no sezokuka tokuchō 太虚和尚:宗教型公共インテリか?—​—​ 現代中国仏教の世俗化特徴 [The monk Taixu: a religious public intellectual?—​a

931

Bibliography

319

feature of the secularization of modern Chinese Buddhism], translated by Niu Litao 牛黎濤, Bukkyō bunka gakkai kiyō 仏文化学会紀要 no. 13 (2004), 1–​17. Ling Haicheng 凌海成. Zhongguo fojiao 中國佛教 [Buddhism in China]. Beijing: Wuzhou chuanbo chubanshe 五洲傳播出版社, 2004. Liu Hanlong 劉漢龍. Zhongguo fojiao gaige zhi fu: taixu dashi zhuan 中國佛教改革 之父:太虛大師傳 [The father of the Chinese Buddhist reformation: a biography of Master Taixu]. Kaohsiung: Foguang 佛光, 2003. Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉. Minguo huidaomen 民國會道門 [Sects and societies of the Republic], Vol. 5 of Zhongguo mimi shehui 中國秘密社會. Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe 福建人民出版社, 2002. Luo Tongbing 羅同兵. “Taixu hongyang doushuai jingtu de zhiqu” 太虛弘揚兜率淨 土的旨趣 [The purport of Taixu’s promotion of Tushita Pure Land]. Shehui kexue yanjiu 社會科學研究 no. 4 (2002): 68–​70. —​—​—​. Taixu dui zhongguo fojiao xiandaihua daolu de jueze 太虛對中國佛教現代化 道路的抉擇 [Taixu’s choices on the road toward Chinese Buddhist modernization]. Chengdu: Bashu Shushe 巴蜀書社, 2003. Ma Tianxiang 麻天祥. 20 Shiji Zhongguo Foxue Wenti 20世紀中國佛學問題 [The problems of 20th-​century Chinese Buddhism]. Rev. ed. Wuhan:  Wuhan daxue chubanshe 武漢大學出版社, 2007. Mao Bingyue 毛炳岳. “Fenghua xuedou si chunqiu” 奉化雪竇寺春秋 [The annals of Xuedou Monastery in Fenghua]. Fayin 法音 45, no. 5 (1988): 41. Pu Wenqi 濮文起. Zhongguo minjian mimi zongjiao 中國民間秘密宗教 [Secret popular religions of China]. Taipei: Nantian 南天, 1996. Shenghui 聖輝, ed. Minnan foxue yuan (1925–​2005) 閩南佛學院 (1925–​2005) [The Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies (1925–​2005)]. Xiamen: Minnan foxue yuan 閩南佛學院, 2005. Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, eds. Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝: 紀念太虛大師示寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence]. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文 化出版社 2008. Song Guangyu 宋光宇. Tiandao gouchen—​yiguandao diaocha baogao 天道鈎沉—​ 一貫道調查報告 [Studies in the Celestial Way—​a research report on Yiguandao]. Taipei: Yuanyuo chubanshe 元祐出版社, 1983. Wang Jianchuan 王見川. “Taiwan yiguandao yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang” 台灣 一貫道研究的回顧與展望 [A retrospective and prospective look at research on Yiguandao in Taiwan]. In Taiwan de minjian zongjiao yu Xinyang 台灣的民間宗 教與信仰 [Taiwan popular religion and beliefs], by Wang Jianchuan 王見川 and Li Shiwei 李世偉, 181–​210. Luzhou, Taiwan: Boyang wenhua chuban 博揚文化 出版, 2000.

0 23

320

Bibliography

—​—​—​. “Qingmo-​minchu Wutaishan de puji ji qi jiaotuan”清末民初五台山的普濟 及其教團 [Wutai shan’s Puji and his religious organizations in the late Qing and early Republic]. In Hanren zongjiao, minjian xinyang yu yuyanshu de tansuo 漢人宗教、民間信仰與預言書的探索 [Investigations in Han Chinese religion, popular beliefs, and prophetic books], 127–​169. Taipei: Boyang wenhua 柏楊文 化, 2008. Wang Lixin 王麗心. “Rensheng fojiao, renjian fojiao, renjian jingtu: qiantan taixu dashi renjian fojiao zhi cidi”人生佛教, 人間佛教, 人間淨土:  淺談太虛大師 人間佛教之次第 [Human Life Buddhism, Human Realm Buddhism, and the pure land on earth: a cursory discussion of the stages of master Taixu’s Human Realm Buddhism]. In Chaoyin yonghui:  jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝:  紀念太虛大師示寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], edited by Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, 244–​249. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社 2008. Wang Yuanshan 汪圓善. “Mile dadao de zongjiao xingtai” 彌勒大道的宗教型態 [The religious feature (sic) of Maitreya Great Tao]. Master’s thesis: Fu-​jen Catholic University, 2005. Wang Yuexi 王月曦. “Budai heshang yu mile daochang” 布袋和尚與彌勒道場 [The monk Budai and Maitreya’s sanctuary]. In Budai heshang yu mile wenhua 布袋和 尚與彌勒文化 [The monk Budai and Maitreyan culture]. Edited by He Jinsong 何勁松, 203–​224. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2003. Xu Liqing 許理清 and Lin Meirong 林美容, “Yiguan dao de chuanbo moshi yu fenlie chutan: jian lun xingyi zu ji qi jixing danwei de fazhan yu fenlie” 一貫道的傳播 模式與分裂初探: 兼論興毅組及其基興單位的發展與分裂 [An initial investigation of Yiguan dao’s mode of transmission and schisms: with discussion of the development of schism of the Xingyi branch and its Jixing unit]. Chengda lishi xuebao 成大歷史學報 39 (2010): 149–​176. Xu Xinmin 徐新民. “Diyu wenhua dui taixu, yinshun fojiao sixiang de yingxiang” 地 域文化對太虛,印順佛教思想的影像 [The influence of local culture on Taixu and Yinshun’s Buddhist thought], in Chaoyin yonghui: jinian taixu dashi shiji liushi zhounian wenji 潮音永輝: 紀念太虛大師示寂60周年文集 [The sound of the tide forever resplendent: essays in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of master Taixu’s quiescence], edited by Shi Yizang 釋怡藏 and Wen Jinyu 溫金玉, 405–​ 411. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2008. Xu Youchun 徐友春, ed. Minguo renwu da cidian 民國人物大辭典 [Great dictionary of Republican-​era figures]. Rev. ed. Shijiazhuang石家莊: Hebei renmin chubanshe 河北人民出版社, 2007. Xuming 續明. “Taixu dashi shengping shiji.” In Lengyan jing shelun yu yanjiu 楞嚴經 攝論與研究 [Collected essays and research on the “Śūraṃgama sūtra”], by Taixu 太虛. Taipei: Zhonghua 中華, 1969.

321

Bibliography

321

Yang Huinan 楊惠南. “Chensi zai longhua shu xia—​mile jingtu de shengshu” 沈思在龍華樹下—​彌勒淨土的殊勝 [Contemplating under the Dragon Flower Tree—​the excellences of Maitreya Pure Land]. Faguang 法光 no. 49 (1983). —​—​—​. “Han yi fojing zhong de mile xinyang—​yi mile shang, xia jing wei zhu de yanjiu” 漢譯佛經中的彌勒信仰-​-以 ​ 彌勒上,下經為主的研究 [Maitreya belief in the Chinese sutras—​research focused on the “ascent” and “descent sutras”]. Wenshi zhe xue bao 文史哲學報 no. 35 (1987): 119–​181. —​—​—​. “Dangdai Taiwan fojiao ‘chushi’ xingge de fenxi” 當代台灣佛教”出世”性 格的分析 [An analysis of the “otherworldly” character of contemporary Taiwan Buddhism]. Dongfang zongjiao yanjiu 東方宗教研究 1 (1990): 317–​343. Yu Lingbo 于凌波. Zhongguo jin xiandai fojiao renwu zhi 中國進現代佛教人物志 [Buddhist figures of modern and contemporary China]. Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 1995. —​—​—​. Xiandai fojiao renwu cidian 現代佛教人物辭典 [Dictionary of modern Buddhist figures]. Sanchong 三重, Taiwan: Foguang 佛光 2004.

23

2 3

Index

Amitābha, 125, 232 recitation of the name of, 18n2, 123, 125, 150–​151n35, 232 substituted for that of Maitreya, 116, 130 See also Amitābha Pure Land; Sukhāvatī Amitābha Pure Land, 201 reformist views of, 123–​124, 194 superiority of, 13, 125–​126, 128, 228, 253 and Yinshun, 225, 228, 231, 232–​233 anarchism, 11–​12, 33–​36, 61, 98n12, 282 and the pure socialists, 50, 51–​53 and Taixu’s early thought, 42–​43, 56, 57, 59, 72–​98, 98n6 values of in Maitreya School, 171–​201, 226–​227, 232, 235 See also anarchists; socialism; Socialist Party; Zhang Taiyan anarchists, 32–​33, 45–​46, 58, 118, 119 and Buddhism, 45–​46, 50–​51 rightward turn of, 61, 120, 200–​201 See also anarchism; Socialist Party; Zhang Taiyan anarcho-​socialism. See anarchism Annalistic Biography of Master Taixu, the (Taixu dashi nianpu

太虛大師年普), 28, 58, 62n4, 105–​107, 224, 237n26 apocalypticism. See eschatology Ascent Sutra, the (Shangsheng jing 上生經), 13, 122, 126, 131–​132, 218, 248 animated version, 256, 277n54 lectures on, 123, 134, 140, 144, 218, 220 in seminaries, 115, 116, 154n59, 155n62, 155n65, 215 Taixu’s commentary on, 125, 126, 136–​137, 144 in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 109–​ 110, 111, 112–​113, 129, 132, 187–​201 See also Three Essentials of the Maitreya School, the Autobiography of Master Taixu, the (Taixu zizhuan 太虛自傳), 41, 43, 44, 47, 57, 58, 62n3 narrative agenda of, 27–​28 reliability of, 61–​62n2 Bade Maitreya Lay Buddhist Lodge (Bade cishi jushilin 八德慈氏居士林), 257–​260, 269, 271, 277–​278n59, 284 Bingenheimer, Marcus, 224

2 4 3

324

Index

Birnbaum, Raoul, 17, 242n98, 285 bodhisattva ideal and anarchism, 36, 52, 79, 80, 96 in the Maitreya School, 173, 180–​181, 182–​183, 228–​229 bodhisattva path, 119 in the Maitreya School, 132, 173, 174, 179–​182, 186–​187, 190, 198–​200 and Taixu’s radical thought, 85–​87 in Yinshun’s thought, 225, 228–​229, 230, 249, 283 Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa (Fanwang pusa jieben 梵網菩薩戒本), 116, 138, 182, 183, 185 “Broad Discourse on the Hun and Po [Souls], A” (Guang hun po shuo 廣魂魄說), 74, 88–​90, 94–​95, 180 Budai 布袋, 115, 139, 163n147, 219, 219, 246 and Xuedou shan, 144, 246, 248, 275n29 Buddhahood, 85–​86, 87, 88, 119, 188, 249 as hypergood, 11 in the cult of Maitreya, 15, 171, 200, 229, 246, 254, 282 in Taixu’s radical thought, 73, 96–​97 Buddhist Books (Foxue shuju 佛學書局), 136–​137, 164n169 Buddhist New Youth (Fohua xin qingnian 佛化新青年), 109, 117, 141, 149n21, 168n201 “canon, actual,” 116, 137, 217, 246, 246 Changxing 常惺, 125, 137, 144, 145 Changzhao 常照, 252–​254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 269, 271, 284

“Chapter on Knowing Reality,” the (Zhenshi yi pin 真實義品), 38, 134, 141–​142, 173, 226, 248, 255 and self-​cultivation, 132, 139, 154–​155n60, 202n18 in seminaries, 116, 155n62, 155n68 in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 109–​111, 113, 122, 173–​182, 199–​200, 282 charity. See social engagement Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論, 110, 127, 173 Chiang Kai-​shek, 118, 119–​120, 157n82, 220 Chinese Communist Party, 157n81, 215, 261, 283. See also People’s Republic of China Chinese Socialist Party (Zhongguo shehui dang 中國社會黨), 46–​47, 48, 49–​52, 53, 58, 63n8 Christianity, 6, 8–​9 Protestantism, 3, 4, 5, 20n17 Ci Wuyi 慈無依. See Wang Ciguang Cide 慈德, 251, 254–​257, 271, 276n46 Cihang 慈航, 115, 142, 153n45, 219, 222, 232, 242n94 Cizong san yao. See Three Essentials of the Maitreya School, the communism, 76, 79, 87, 98n12 Marxist, 33, 76, 98n12, 195, 221. see also Chinese Communist Party; Marx, Karl; People’s Republic of China Complete Writings of Master Taixu, the (Taixu dashi quanshu 太虛大師全書), 16, 19n9, 28, 62n4, 72, 224 Conscience (Liangxin 良心) (periodical), 57, 58, 72, 74, 81, 282 “Cursory Discussion of the Equalization of Wealth, A” (Jun pin fu qianshuo 均貧富淺說), 74, 75–​80, 96, 187, 195–​196

2 35

Index Daci shan 大慈山, 252–​254, 257, 259, 271 Darwinism, 179, 180, 184, 195, 196, 197 Datong. See utopia Daxing 大醒, 135, 143, 145, 153n48, 169n214, 214, 223 Defeng fahui. See Wind of Virtue Dharma Society demythologization. See secularization Deng Zimei 鄧子美, 6 Descent Sutra, the (Xiasheng jing 下生經), 13, 134, 137, 192–​193, 197–​198, 218, 219 in seminary curricula, 155n62 Dharmapala, 3, 42 Dikötter, Frank, 7, 18, 21n29, 63n10, 70n158 Dirlik, Arif, 28, 33, 35, 50, 67n78, 86 disenchantment. See secularization Dongchu 東初, 169n213, 223, 286 Dunhuang 敦煌, 111, 171 eight precepts assemblies (baguan zhaijie fahui 八關齋戒法會), 252–​253, 254, 255 “Equalization of Wealth, The.” See “Cursory Discussion of the Equalization of Wealth, A” eschatology, 126, 193–​194, 197, 217, 209n128, 284 Christian, 209n136 in Maitreya Great Way, 268, 269, 270, 281n108 in redemptive societies and salvationist movements, 112, 150n35, 217 in Yiguan dao, 261, 263, 264, 265–​266, 269, 270 Esoteric Buddhism, 113–​114, 116, 127–​129, 138, 139

325

evolution Kropotkinite, 179, 180–​181 social, 94, 95, 96, 192, 193–​194, 198–​199 Fafang 法舫, 135, 220 Faxiang. See Yogācāra Fazun 法尊, 129, 135, 139, 153n48, 218, 222 Fellowship of Goodness (Tongshan she 同善社), 113, 150–​151n35, 274n22 Goodell, Eric, 5, 63n8, 65n55,  66n67 Goossaert, Vincent, 5–​6 habitus, 9, 117, 283 Haichaoyin 海潮音, 108, 116, 135, 148n16, 222, 237n26 circulation of, 137–​138 special issues of, 129, 139–​140, 218 Hammerstrom, Erik, 17, 255, 285 He Jianming 何建明, 106, 147n6, 159n103, 163n147 heterodoxy and heterodox groups, 15, 217, 236n20, 268–​269 distinguishing the Maitreya School from, 126, 193, 194, 198, 208n111 See also redemptive societies and salvationist movements Huijue 會覺, 115, 116, 154–​155n60, 218, 219, 220–​221 lecture on the Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa by, 134–​135, 138, 140, 184, 205n65 Human Life Buddhism (rensheng fojiao 人生佛教), 156n76, 191–​192, 249, 253, 255 in scholarship, 5, 6, 106 Taixu’s definition of, 119 See also Human Realm Buddhism

6 23

326

Index

Human Realm Buddhism (renjian fojiao 人間佛教), 5, 139–​140, 185, 203n35, 244, 253 versus Human Life Buddhism, 224 Human Vehicle (ren sheng 人乘), 108, 119 Humanistic Buddhism, 230, 245, 267, 286. See also Human Life Buddhism; Human Realm Buddhism “Humanistic Science” (Renshengguan de kexue 人生觀的科學), 109, 175, 176, 177, 180 Hypergoods, 8–​10, 18. See also Buddhahood; moral frameworks; utopia

Jinshan, Uproar at (Jinshan danao 金山大鬧), 47–​49, 51, 54, 68n106–​107, 68n110 Jiugong dao. See Way of the Nine Palaces

iconography. See images images, 139–​140, 142, 143, 157n89, 163n147, 256 monumental, 246–​247, 268 preference for princely form in, 139–​140, 169n213 See also portraiture; World Peace Maitreya Inner Court, the. See Tuṣita

Lai, Rongdao, 17, 48, 108, 117, 285 lay societies. See Bade Maitreya Lay Buddhist Lodge; Maitreya Study Associations; Right Faith Society Lee, Leo Ou-​fan, 7 Liangxin. See Conscience Lin Yide, 林義德. See Cide lineage. See patriarchate liturgies, 1, 129–​133, 140, 162n134, 205n73, 216, 250, 255, 283 Liu Sifu 劉思復. See Shifu Lu Zhongwei 陸仲偉, 150n35, 151n36 Luo Tongbing 羅同兵, 6, 106

Japanese Buddhism, 4, 11, 110, 111–​112, 129, 171, 215 Jessup, Brooks, 17, 220, 285 Jiang Canteng 江燦騰 on Taixu, 44, 62n4, 62n8, 66n74, 68n107, 117 on Yinshun, 225, 229, 232–​233, 242n99 Jiang Jun 蔣俊, 73, 100n43 Jiang Kanghu 江亢虎, 46, 68n105, 98n13 “Jianshe renjian jingtu lun.” See “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” Jingtu xin lun. See New Treatise on Pure Land

Kang Youwei 康有為, 30–​31, 32, 34, 40, 94, 209n136 KMT. See Nationalists Krebs, Edward, 28, 50, 53, 67n78, 68n107, 71n174 Kong Simeng 孔思孟, 151–​152n36 Kropotkin, Peter, 33, 36, 42, 57, 60, 85, 141. See also mutual aid Kuiji 窺基, 14, 110, 111, 123, 132, 146, 255

Ma Tianxiang 馬天祥, 19n8 Maitreya as author of Yogācāra treatises, 23n53, 174, 182, 201n2 as Buddha of the future, 13, 122, 127, 145 as embodiment of futurity, 131 as exemplar, 132 in the Fellowship of Goodness, 150n35 as heir of Śākyamuni, 127, 131 in heterodoxy, 14, 198

237

Index in Human Realm Buddhism, 140 as lord of Tuṣita, 13, 122, 139, 145 in Maitreya Great Way, 268 as master of Yogācāra, 14, 122, 139, 145, 163n147, 197 in redemptive societies and salvationist movements, 15, 112–​113, 217 as a symbol of peace, 120–​122, 128–​129 in the Way of the Nine Palaces, 151n36 in Yiguan dao, 238n45, 242n102, 263, 264, 266–​267, 279n86 in Yinshun’s thought, 228–​229 See also Budai; images; recitation of Maitreya’s name; Taixu Maitreya culture (Mile wenhua 彌勒文化), 248, 249 Maitreya Great Way (Mile da dao 彌勒大道), 264, 267–​269, 270–​271, 281n108, 281n111, 284, 285–​286. See also Wang Ciguang Maitreya Pure Land (Mile jingtu 彌勒淨土), 190–​198, 249, 253–​260, 270–​271, 285–​286 origin of the term, 112 superiority of, 110, 122–​126, 138, 194, 225, 257–​258 in Yiguan dao, 265–​267 in Yinshun’s thought, 225–​230 See also Tuṣita Pure Land; Tuṣita: and pure land on earth Maitreya School (Cizong 慈宗) as an all-​inclusive teaching, 126–​129, 131–​132, 283 essential canon of, 126–​127, 136, 141–​142, 159n110 as a form of pure land, 123–​125, 218, 283 as a form of Yogācāra, 110–​111, 113, 120, 138–​139, 197, 283

327

founding of, 109–​113 occlusion of, 105–​106 and its resemblance to Yiguan dao, 217, 223, 233, 242–​243n103, 253, 258, 277–​278n59 responses to, 124–​126, 146, 163n147, 230–​232, 253, 258, 264–​269 role of Taixu’s students and associates in, 124, 134–​135, 138, 145–​146, 219 shift in development of, 120–​122, 197–​198 subsumption of Yogācāra by, 123–​124, 127 Taixu’s importance to, 115, 133, 145–​146, 213, 219 theology of, 171–​201 versus Maitreya Pure Land in Yinshun’s thought, 226, 230, 241n84 Maitreya School Institute (Cizong xue yuan 慈宗學院), 216 Maitreya spirit (Mile jingshen 彌勒精神), 229, 230, 241n83, 248, 274n19 Maitreya Study Associations (Cizong xuehui 慈宗學會), 141–​143, 145 People’s Republic, 250–​252, 270, 271, 284 Taiwan, 254–​257, 259, 269, 271, 284 interactions with groups in the People’s Republic, 250–​251, 256, 274n24 Tongcheng, 142, 108n205, 108n207, 215 Xiamen, 127, 131, 134, 136, 141–​142, 168n201, 215 See also  Yu Yu Marx, Karl, 42, 76, 98n12, 98n13 Marxism. See communism May Fourth, 107, 109, 118, 285

2 8 3

328

Index

McMahan, David, 4, 20n16 Mile da dao. See Maitreya Great Way Mingyi 明夷, 250–​251, 255, 256, 270 Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies (Minnan foxueyuan 閩南佛學院), 130, 134, 142, 154–​155n60, 223 modernity, 12, 17, 18, 19n10, 20n16, 285–​286 pull model of, 7–​11, 285 push models of, 2–​6, 285 Western, 7–​9, 18 moral frameworks, 221, 230, 249–​250, 271, 282, 284 and modernities, 8–​11, 21n39, 286 and redemptive societies, 112 in Taixu’s radical thought, 73–​74, 75, 84, 96 in Yiguan dao and Maitreya Great Way, 265, 268 See also Buddhahood; Hypergoods; revolutionary utopia; utopia Moru 默如, 134, 141, 232 mutual aid, 36, 203n35, 204n54, 234 in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 180, 182, 183–​184, 196, 199 in Taixu’s radical thought, 93, 94, 95 in Yinshun’s thought, 227 Nationalists and the anarchists, 61, 118, 119, 200–​201 and Buddhism in the Republic, 118, 128, 134, 214–​215, 222–​223 and Buddhism in Taiwan, 231, 233–​234, 244, 283–​284 and redemptive societies, 150n35, 208n111 and Yiguan dao, 261–​262, 263 Nattier, Jan, 14, 23n51 Nenghai 能海, 128–​129 Neo-​Confucianism, 64n28

New Culture (xin wenhua 新文化), 107, 108, 109, 197, 209n132 New Treatise on Pure Land (Jingtu xin lun 淨土新論), 223, 225, 227, 230–​232, 234, 253 Nianxi 念西, 138, 139, 216 Nonretrogression (bu tuizhuan 不退轉), 112, 117, 124–​125, 162n134, 189–​190, 192, 198, 200 Yinshun’s view of, 227–​228 “On Atheism” (Wu shen lun 無神論), 57, 74, 88, 90–​95, 194 “On Establishing a Pure Land on Earth” (Jianshe renjian jingtu lun 建設人間淨土論), 188, 192, 195–​197, 201 date of, 156n78 “On the Hun and Po Souls.” See “Broad Discourse on the Hun and Po [Souls], A” orthodoxy, 131, 193, 258, 285. See also heterodoxy and heterodox groups Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無, 108, 111, 136 Ownby, David, 150n35 Palmer, David, 5–​6 patriarchate of the Fellowship of Goodness,  151n35 of the Maitreya School, 218, 255, 273n8, 276n49 of Yiguan dao, 242n102, 260–​261, 262–​263 People’s Republic of China, 17, 269–​270, 271–​272 Buddhism in the contemporary, 244–​245, 275n38, 284 impact of the early religious policy of, 220–​222, 234, 261–​262, 274n24, 283

9 23

Index See also Maitreya Study Associations; Xuedou shan Pittman, Donald, 5, 63n8, 66n67, 66n76, 156n78, 195, 196 portraiture, 114–​115, 153n44–​46, 219 precepts. See Brahma’s Net Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa; Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa; Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts “Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School” (Cizong san yao xu 慈宗三要序), 109–​110, 113, 122–​123, 126–​127, 173, 189 publication of, 117, 136, 138, 141 progress, 47, 107 in anarchism, 34, 35, 36, 39 in Kang Youwei and Tan Sitong’s thought, 31–​32 in the Maitreya School, 178, 192, 193–​194, 198–​199, 284–​285 in Taixu’s radical thought, 78, 85, 92, 94, 95 in Yiguan dao and Maitreya Great Way, 265–​266, 268, 269, 270 propagation, 106, 133–​141, 145, 197, 221, 283 through advertisements, 136–​137, 140, 167n189 through the Internet, 250–​251, 256–​257, 260, 270, 271 through lectures, 1, 133–​135, 145, 216, 218, 248, 252 through publishing, 135–​140, 145, 216, 249, 256 through ritual, 135, 252–​253 through television, 252 Protestant Buddhism, 3 publishing. See propagation pure land on earth (renjian jingtu 人間淨土), 119, 221, 234, 245, 284

329

in contemporary Maitreyan groups, 249, 250, 253, 255, 258, 259 precursors in Taixu’s radical thought, 87, 91 scholarly treatments of, 6, 19n8, 106, 209n120 in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 122, 145, 192–​199, 227, 230, 258, 282 in Yiguan dao and Maitreya Great Way, 264–​265, 268 in Yinshun’s thought, 226–​227, 228, 230 See also Tuṣita Pure Land. See Amitābha Pure Land pure lands, reality of, 181–​89, 206n83, 220 pure socialists. See Socialist Party radicalism. See anarchism; socialism; Socialist Party recitation of Maitreya’s name, 124, 125, 130, 132, 134, 191, 192 exhortations to the, 135, 140 in monastic and seminary life, 1, 115–​116, 154n58, 215, 216, 248 at Taixu’s deathbed, 218 in Yiguan dao, 238n45, 261, 267 Yinshun’s view of, 230 redemptive societies and salvationist movements, 15, 118, 139, 274n22, 285. See also Fellowship of Goodness; Maitreya; Maitreya Great Way; Way of the Nine Palaces; Wind of Virtue Dharma Society; Yiguan dao “Renshengguan de kexue.” See “Humanistic Science” revolution, 285 anarchist views of, 36, 53 and the Maitreya School, 173, 178–​182, 185, 187, 199, 200–​201, 282

0 3

330

Index

revolution (cont.) in Taixu’s radical thought, 73, 75, 76, 78–​80, 86, 91, 94, 95–​97, 98n6 Zhang Taiyan and Buddhism’s relation to, 38–​39 See also revolutionary utopia; Taixu Revolutionary Alliance (Tongmeng hui 同盟會), 28, 32, 37, 43, 116, 219 revolutionary utopia, 16, 18, 61, 97–​98, 117, 282–​283 definition of, 11–​12 Yinshun’s diffusion of, 213, 230, 234, 283 retreats, 143, 166–​167n188, 216, 248 in seminaries, 116, 130–​131, 140, 154–​155n60 Taixu’s, 113 Right Faith (Zhengxin 正信) (periodical), 126, 135, 137–​138, 140–​141, 142 circulation of, 137–​138 Right Faith Society (Zhengxin hui 正信會), 108, 135, 140–​141, 145, 217 ritual, 106, 128–​129, 135, 218, 248, 257, 258–​259, 284 mandalas for, 130–​131 in seminaries, 115–​116, 117, 145 and the Three Essentials, 176–​177, 182, 186, 190–​191, 205n73 See also eight precepts assemblies; liturgies salvationist religion. See redemptive societies and salvationist movements science, 12, 31, 36, 119, 196 and modernity, 3, 7 reformist embrace of, 5, 6, 10

in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 132, 185, 188, 196, 199–​200, 202n19, 282 in Taixu’s commentary on the “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” 173, 175, 178, 180–​181 in Taixu’s radical thought, 85, 97, 100n47 Scott, Gregory Adam, 17, 148n16, 285 sectarian movements. See redemptive societies and salvationist movements secularization, 187, 190, 200, 209n130, 245, 248, 282 demythologization and disenchantment, 105, 188, 284 in modernization theory, 1, 2–​3, 4, 6 seminaries, 5, 115–​118, 119, 155n62, 185, 216–​217, 283 importance of, 117 See also Maitreya School Institute; Minnan Institute of Buddhist Studies; Sino-​Tibetan Doctrinal Institute; Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies Shangsheng jing. See Ascent Sutra, the Sheng Yen 聖嚴, 230, 241n86, 258, 286 Shifu 師復, 43, 46, 50, 54, 58, 60, 88 and Taixu, 59, 67n78, 71n83 Sino-​Tibetan Doctrinal Institute (Hanzang jiaoli yuan 漢藏教理院), 117, 128, 154n58, 215–​216, 222 social engagement, 4, 225, 254 charity, 5, 56, 142, 190, 204n48, 250, 258 Daci shan’s lack of, 253 and non-​Maitreyan Humanistic Buddhism, 230 social service, 108, 135, 167n188, 187

331

Index work in the world, 110, 186, 187, 190, 191, 198, 230 Social World (Shehui shijie 社會世界), 50–​51, 57, 72 socialism, 11–​12, 57, 71, 171, 90, 187 and Buddhism, 11, 73, 185 relationship of anarchism to, 33, 50 in Taixu’s radical thought, 75, 80, 89–​91, 94 See also anarchism; Chinese Socialist Party; Socialist Party Socialist Party (Shehui dang 社會黨), 50–​53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 282 Sound of the Sea Tide. See Haichaoyin Sukhāvatī, 18n2, 97, 225, 232 and utopia, 87, 209n127 See also Tuṣita Sun Yat-​sen, 32, 45, 47, 56, 58, 119–​120 superstition, 38, 84, 107, 118, 285 Taiwan, 11, 17, 239n50 Buddhism in martial-​law era, 222–​223, 231, 233–​234, 283 Buddhism in post-​martial-​law era, 244, 245–​246, 284 See also Nationalists Taixu 太虛 death of, 218–​219, 234, 283 early life and education of, 39 early involvement in Buddhist reform, 41, 47–​49, 54–​57 identification with Maitreya, 114–​115, 143–​145, 219 involvement in revolution and radicalism, 40–​44, 47, 49–​53, 57, 58–​61 Maitreyan theology of, 109–​110, 113–​114, 122–​124, 126–​127, 171–​201 and the Nationalists, 27–​28, 119–​120, 185, 215, 219 pen names of, 57, 69n126

331

personal piety and practice, 113–​115, 169n213, 218 postwar activity, 217–​218 radical thought of, 72–​98 radical writings of, 28, 62n6 relics of, 274n24 rightward shift of, 119–​120, 201 sangha reform of, 107–​108 scholarly treatment of, 1–​2, 4–​6, 27–​29, 62–​63n8, 72–​73, 105–​106, 194–​195, 286 seclusion of, 59–​61, 111, 145 trip to the West by, 122, 157n88, 157n89 turn away from radicalism by, 57–​61, 71n171 wartime activities of, 215–​216 Yinshun and the legacy of, 223–​225, 229–​230 Taixu dashi nianpu. See Annalistic Biography of Master Taixu Taixu zizhuan. See Autobiography of Master Taixu Tan Sitong 譚嗣同, 31–​32, 40, 101n71 Tarocco, Francesca, 7 Taylor, Charles, 4, 7–​10, 18, 21n32, 285, 286. See also hypergoods; moral frameworks Three Essentials of the Maitreya School, the (Cizong san yao 慈宗三要), 127, 138–​139, 142, 146, 216, 265, 282 relationship among, 122, 173, 199, 230 selection of, 109–​113 use of in ritual, 131–​132 See also Ascent Sutra; “Chapter on Knowing Reality”; “Preface to the Three Essentials of the Maitreya School”; Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa

2 3

332

Index

Three Essentials of the Maitreya School (book), 117, 136 “Three Great Evils of the World, The” (Shijie zhi san da zui’e 世界之三大罪惡), 74, 80–​88, 91, 96, 268 echoes of in the Maitreya School, 178, 195, 197 Tibetan Buddhism. See Esoteric Buddhism Tolstoy, Leo, 33, 99n40, 101n62 Tongshan she. See Fellowship of Goodness tradition, 3, 9, 10, 17 reinvented, 106, 146, 285 Tuṣita (Doushuai 兜率), 116, 122 origin of interest in, 111–​112 rebirth in, 129, 145, 188–​190, 220, 259 of particular individuals, 14, 111, 114, 216, 218 and the pure land on earth, 250, 255, 258, 270, 283, 284 in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 192, 194, 198 in Yinshun’s thought, 227, 229 in Yiguan dao, 264, 265 and ritual, 1, 115, 130, 132, 190, 192, 216, 267 versus rebirth in Sukhāvatī, 112, 122–​126, 135, 140, 253 status as a pure land, 112, 122 See also Maitreya; nonretrogression; Tuṣita Pure Land Tuṣita Hall (Doushuaituo yuan 兜率陀院) (Xiamen), 141, 143–​144, 145, 169n213 Tuṣita Pure Land (Doushuai jingtu 兜率淨土), 137, 216, 218 special issue of Haichaoyin on, 129, 139

See also Maitreya Pure Land; pure land on earth; Tuṣita uproar at Jinshan. See Jinshan, uproar at utopia, 107, 113, 121–​122 in anarchism, 34–​35, 39, 51, 57, 196 datong, metaphysical, 34, 89–​90, 94–​95 as hypergood, 11–​12, 15 in the cult of Maitreya, 171, 200, 229, 246, 254, 282 in Taixu’s radical thought, 73, 96–​97 in Yiguan dao, 266 in Maitreya Great Way, 268 Qing reformers’ visions of, 31–​32 in Taixu’s radical thought, 73–​97 in Yiguan dao, 265–​266 See also pure land on earth; Uttarakuru Uttarakuru (Yudanyue zhou 鬱單越洲), 77–​78, 80, 195–​197, 226, 231 Wang Ciguang 汪慈光, 264–​267, 268–​270, 279n83, 279n86 Wang Hui 汪輝, 37–​38 Wang Jianchuan 王見川, 151–​152n36, 242–​243n103, 279n83 Way of the Nine Palaces (Jiugong dao 九宮道), 113, 151–​152n36 War of Resistance against the Japanese, 214–​217, 234, 261, 283 Way of Unity. See Yiguan dao Weishi. See Yogācāra Welch, Holmes, 2, 5, 63n8, 68n106, 117, 220, 244 western pure land. See Sukhāvatī White Lotus (Bailian jiao 白蓮教), 113

3

Index Wind of Virtue Dharma Society (Defeng fahui 德風法會), 125–​126, 158n102, 198, 208n111, 285 World Peace Maitreya (Shijie heping mile 世界和平彌勒), 120–​122 World Peace Maitreya Society (Shijie heping mile hui 世界和平彌勒會), 120–​122, 198, 283 World War I, 60 World War II. See War of Resistance against the Japanese Wu Zhihui 吳稚暉, 33, 34, 45, 61, 196, 200–​201 Wuchang Institute of Buddhist Studies (Wuchang foxue yuan 武昌佛學會), 109, 115–​118, 128, 141, 214 Xiasheng jing. See Descent Sutra, the Xingyun 星雲, 222, 230, 241n83, 258, 264, 286 Xuanzang 玄奘, 14, 111, 124, 139, 146, 255 Maitreyan verse of, 130, 132, 162n34 as translator of Maitreyan texts, 174, 182 Xue Yu 學愚, 214, 216 Xuedou shan 雪竇山, 1, 119, 134, 214, 215, 217 in the contemporary People’s Republic, 246–​250, 251, 269–​270, 271, 274n24, 284 as a fifth great Buddhist mountain, 125, 144–​145, 247, 249, 269 Yang Huinan 楊惠南, 233 Yang Wenhui 楊文會, 42, 110 Yiguan dao 一貫道, 260–​269, 278n69, 281n111 Buddhist criticism of, 208n111, 279n75

333

and Maitreya Pure Land, 252, 264–​267, 269, 270–​271, 280n99, 284, 285–​286 proscriptions and suppressions, 221, 233, 261–​262 See also Maitreya School Yinguang 印光, 108, 163n147, 232, 242n96 Yinshun 印順, 73, 223, 239n53, 241n86, 258, 269, 286 and the Annalistic Biography of Master Taixu, 105–​106 and the Complete Writings of Master Taixu, 19n9, 28, 72 Maitreyan thought of, 213, 225–​230, 283 pure land thought of and its reception, 225–​228, 230–​232, 235, 242n99 and Taixu, 223–​225 Yizang 怡藏, 246–​247, 250, 251, 255, 274n24, 276n49 Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa (Yuqie pusa jieben 瑜伽菩薩戒本), 122, 138, 140, 146, 204n48, 216, 255 and inherent sins, 184–​185, 204n55, 216–​217 in liturgy, 132–​133, 137, 142, 205n73 in seminaries, 115–​116, 134, 155n62, 215, 283 in Taixu’s Maitreyan theology, 109–​111, 113–​114, 182–​187, 199–​200, 282 version of, 149n22 in Yinshun’s Maitreyan thought, 226, 230 See also Three Essentials of the Maitreya School; Yoga bodhisattva precepts Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts (Yuqie pusa jie 瑜伽菩薩戒), 39, 128–​129, 135, 248, 250, 255. See also Yoga Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa

4 3

334

Index

Yogācāra (Weishi 唯識), 107, 124, 142, 202n19, 203n30, 255 early twentieth-​century interest in, 37–​39, 111, 145, 163n147, 217 in Taixu’s thought, 89–​90, 95, 132 in Yinshun’s thought, 226 and Zhang Taiyan, 37–​39, 90 See also Kuiji; Maitreya; Maitreya School; Xuanzang; Yogācārabhūmi-​śāstra Yogācārabhūmi-​śāstra (Yuqie shidi lun 瑜伽師地論), 14, 109, 110–​111, 179, 226 in seminary curricula, 155n62,  155n65 and Zhang Taiyan, 37, 38–​39 See also “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” the; Yoga Bodhisattva

Prātimokṣa; Yoga Bodhisattva Precepts Yu Yu 虞愚, 141, 203n35, 222 Yuanying 圓瑛, 20n18, 214, 217, 236n20 Zarrow, Peter, 28, 45, 50, 60–​61, 64n28, 65n47 Zhang Binglin 章炳麟. See Zhang Taiyan Zhang Taiyan 章太炎, 37–​39, 65n46, 65n47, 110, 141 and Taixu, 40, 43, 59, 90, 101n74, 108, 185 Zhenshi yi pin. See “Chapter on Knowing Reality,” the Zhifeng 芝峰, 135, 214, 222 Zhong Mengzheng 鐘孟正, 257–​260, 269, 271, 284

35

6 3

37

8 3

9 3

4 03