religions
Article
Seeing as Worldmaking: Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock and
Yogācārin Epistemology in Late Ming China
Seung Hee Oh
Citation: Oh, Seung Hee. 2022.
Seeing as Worldmaking: Ten Views of
a Lingbi Rock and Yogācārin
Epistemology in Late Ming China.
Religions 13: 1182. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rel13121182
Academic Editor: Xiaohuan Zhao
Received: 3 November 2022
Accepted: 1 December 2022
Published: 2 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil‑
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Religions 2022, 13, 1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13121182
Department of History of Art and Architecture, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA;
oh_s@g.harvard.edu
Abstract: This paper examines Wu Bin’s (c. 1543–c. 1626) Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock (1610) from the
perspective of Buddhist epistemological notions in seventeenth‑century China. In studying a series
of gazes focusing on a single object—a stone with a very complex surface—my discussion posits an
act of excessive seeing as a process of making worlds. I take a theoretical cue from contemporane‑
ous intellectual discourses, especially those that flourished with the revival of Yogācāra Buddhism
in late Ming China. This paper will show how an art object comes into being in perceivable worlds
interconnected by the individual’s sensory experiences. My study aims to inquire into the role of
illusion as sensory experiences, phenomenological processes, and even notions of soteriological effi‑
cacy beyond formal artistic devices. To that end, this paper is the first attempt to situate Ten Views of
a Lingbi Rock alongside Buddhist thoughts and artmaking.
Keywords: Wu Bin; Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock; Yogacara Buddhism; Surangama Sutra; late Ming; epis‑
temology
1. Introduction
In 1610, the professional painter Wu Bin (c. 1543–c. 1626) completed a painting of
a stone after spending a month examining it. The commission for the painting was from
the prominent official, calligrapher, and collector Mi Wanzhong (1570–1628). Currently
known as Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, this scroll contains ten near‑life‑size renditions of one
particular stone that Mi acquired sometime between 1608 and 1610, meticulously captured
from ten different angles (Figure 1).1 The resultant painting attests to Wu Bin’s painstaking
painterly method by revealing schematic configurative lines and masterfully controlled ink
tonalities. Every stroke claims truth in reconstructing the object, and yet, at the same time,
delves ever further away from naïve realism into the realm of fantasy; while each step of
the process burgeons from an association with the rock, the total impression becomes one
of fiction rather than faithful representation. Such paradoxical status of the depicted stone
is incorporated with a real‑time process—observation.
Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, created during the late years of the Ming dynasty
(1368–1644), marks a significant moment in the history of Chinese painting by presenting a
moment in which the painterly quest for unobstructed vision becomes an object of critical
uncertainty, and hence inquiry, in and of material reality itself. Existing studies on Ten
Views of a Lingbi Rock, by and large, are built upon notions of the artist’s romantic authorial
subjectivity, fetishized eccentricity, and, most of all, the Eurocentric idea of realism.2 What
has been lost in the scholarly discussion is attention to objects related to sensory experience
and perception, both concerning the pictorial presentation and conceptual construction.3
This paper, therefore, proposes that Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock may be better under‑
stood with reference to questions about seventeenth‑century notions of reality and illusion,
informed by the tension between perceiving selves and perceived objects. In my discussion,
illusion will not be limited to its narrow association with verisimilitude, spatial illusionism,
or naturalistic mimesis within the European artistic tradition. My exploration of Ten Views
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 2 of 14

of a Lingbi Rock shall inquire into various dimensions of illusion as sensory experiences,
phenomenological processes, and even notions of soteriological efficacy in addition to for‑
mal artistic devices. In studying a series of gazes focusing on a single object—a stone with
a very complex surface—this paper posits an act of seeing as a process of making worlds.4 I
take a methodological cue from contemporaneous intellectual discourses, especially those
of Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics that flourished with the revival of Yogācāra
Buddhism in the late Ming period. This study will show how an art object comes
Religions 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW into
2 of 14
being in perceivable worlds interconnected by the individual’s experiences.5

Figure 1. Wu Bin, Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, 1610. Handscroll, ink on paper, (painting) 55.5 × 1150.0
Figure 1. Wu Bin, Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, 1610. Handscroll, ink on paper, (painting)
cm; (colophons) 55.5 × 1387.5 cm. Photo: Courtesy of Poly Art Museum, Beijing (Baoli yishu yan-
55.5 × 1150.0
jiuyuan, cm; (colophons) 55.5 × 1387.5 cm. Photo: Courtesy of Poly Art Museum, Beijing (Baoli
2020).
yishu yanjiuyuan 2020).
This paper, therefore, proposes that Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock may be better under-
1.1. Collective Views
stood with reference to questions about seventeenth-century notions of reality and illu-
sion,Ten Views of
informed byathe Lingbi Rock
tension consists
between of ten pictures
perceiving selves and of perceived
a rock, each paired
objects. In my with
dis-Mi
Wanzhong’s
cussion, illusion inscription,
will notand colophons
be limited to itswritten
narrow byassociation
Mi himselfwith and verisimilitude,
eleven others: Ming spatialdy‑
nasty elites Dong
illusionism, Qichang mimesis
or naturalistic (1555–1636), within Li the
Weizhen
European (1547–1626), Ye Xianggao
artistic tradition. (1559–1627),
My exploration
Chen
of Ten Jiru (1558–1639),
Views of a LingbiZouRockDiguang (1550–1626),
shall inquire into various Zhang Shiyi (1575–1633),
dimensions of illusionGao Chu (jin‑
as sensory
shi in 1598), Xing Tong (1551–1612), and Huang Ruheng
experiences, phenomenological processes, and even notions of soteriological efficacy (1558–1626); Manchu officials
in
Saying’a (1779–1857) and Qiying (1787–1858) in the Qing dynasty
addition to formal artistic devices. In studying a series of gazes focusing on a single ob- (1644–1912). With these
colophons,
ject—a stone thewith
painting
a very comprises a 27‑m‑longpaper
complex surface—this handscroll.
posits anNext
act oftoseeing
each “view”
as a processin the
scroll, Mi Wanzhong begins his inscriptions by clarifying
of making worlds. I take a methodological cue from contemporaneous intellectual dis-
4 the direction of the angle from
which
courses, theespecially
stone is viewed:
those of(1) a frontal
Buddhist view from the
epistemology andfront (2) a frontal
metaphysics thatview from the
flourished with rear
(3)
thea revival
frontal of view from the
Yogācāra left (4) ainfrontal
Buddhism the lateviewMingfrom the This
period. rightstudy
(5) a will
viewshowfromhow the front
an
left
art (6)
objecta view
comes from
intothe front
being right (7) a view
in perceivable worlds from the rear right
interconnected by(8)theaindividual’s
view from the expe- rear
left (9) a 5view of the bottom from the front (10) a view of the bottom from the rear.
riences.
In the scroll, the rock is meticulously inspected like a subject of scientific study, re‑
2.1. Collective
moved from itsViews
natural environment. Each inscription begins with the point of perspective
and then inventories
Ten Views of a Lingbi the measurement
Rock consists ofoften individual
pictures of features. For example,
a rock, each paired with theMi first
Wan- view
begins:
zhong’s inscription, and colophons written by Mi himself and eleven others: Ming dyn-
astyThis
elitesisDong Qichangfrontal
the straight (1555–1636), Li Weizhen
view from the front (1547–1626), Ye Xianggao
of the rock. The height (1559–1627),
of the
Chen Jiru (1558–1639), Zou Diguang (1550–1626), Zhang
middle peak is one chi seven cun, about two cun lower than the peak behind Shiyi (1575–1633), Gao Chuit.
(jinshi
Sevenin 1598), Xing the
cun from Tong (1551–1612),
top, there again and Huang
forms Ruheng
a small peak;(1558–1626); Manchu
there are over officials
ten small
Saying’a
craggy (1779–1857) and Qiying
peaks emerging above (1787–1858)
and belowinit. the. .Qing
. Eightdynasty (1644–1912).
cun below the left With
flankthese
of
colophons,
the mountain, another peak rises to six cun eight fen high, whose end is flat atinitsthe
the painting comprises a 27-m-long handscroll. Next to each “view”
scroll, Mi Wanzhong begins his inscriptions by clarifying the direction of the angle from
end and branches off into three.6
which the stone is viewed: (1) a frontal view from the front (2) a frontal view from the rear
(3) aThese
frontal inscriptions
view from makethe lefteach
(4) view penetrable
a frontal view from by fixing the (5)
the right direction
a viewof the gaze.
from Even
the front
within the given view, Mi Wanzhong examines and describes
left (6) a view from the front right (7) a view from the rear right (8) a view from the rearsmaller peaks from differ‑
ent
leftangles
(9) a view as forming myriad
of the bottom other
from theviews therein.
front (10) a view The textbottom
of the and imagefrom oftheeach
rear.view also
carefullyIn thedelineate how
scroll, the these
rock smaller partsinspected
is meticulously engage with likeeach otherof
a subject and condition
scientific their
study, re-vis‑
ibility.
movedMinute from itsdetails
naturalsimulated
environment. by theEach painting lure the
inscription eyes
begins close
with thetopoint
the painting
of perspectivesurface,
aand
stage thenof ainventories
particular thestone. In verbalizing
measurement the spectacle,
of individual Mi Wanzhong
features. For example, employs
the first stage
viewleft
begins:
and right to define the viewpoint, a common mode of writing for religious images in East
This is the straight frontal view from the front of the rock. The height of the
middle peak is one chi seven cun, about two cun lower than the peak behind it.
Seven cun from the top, there again forms a small peak; there are over ten small
craggy peaks emerging above and below it. …Eight cun below the left flank of
the mountain, another peak rises to six cun eight fen high, whose end is flat at its
end and branches off into three.6
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 3 of 14

Asia, thereby elevating the status of the stone to a subject of worship. The depicted stone
stands almost as an icon and as a mirror, reflecting our gazes (Marion 1995, pp. 10–12).
The repetitive act of measuring is one of the unprecedented aspects of Ten Views of
a Lingbi Rock. Mi Wanzhong’s thoroughgoing documentation allows us to estimate the
rock’s height as one chi nine cun five fen, which is about 63.7 centimeters. The one depicted
in the painting is smaller, measuring approximately 51 centimeters high. Wu Bin precisely
scaled down the size so that the eyes under the guidance of painstaking measurement can
do the computation to complete the stone’s actual overall form. This process is somewhat
analogous to current‑day photogrammetry.7 On the other hand, Mi Wanzhong shifts his
writing mode from a descriptive one to an expressive one. Once his statement on Wu Bin’s
painting process is concluded, Mi Wanzhong suddenly starts to negate the corporeality of
the stone itself. Then, almost like the picture of Dorian Gray in the eponymous novel by
Oscar Wilde, Mi Wanzhong says that the painting seems to be transformed into the rock.
Throughout Mi’s close visual perception of his Lingbi rock and the painting, the stone
itself ceased to exist as a material entity, while the painting took over the rock’s materiality.
After presenting grandiloquent descriptions of the rock, suddenly, Mi clears his mind and
concludes the colophon by measuring the stone again and counting the peaks as if the
precise measurement was the only way to endorse the rock’s presence.
In his colophon, Mi Wanzhong recounts how Wu Bin endeavored to transfer his fixed
gaze onto paper. After examining the rock for a month, Wu proceeded to complete the ten
views as follows:
[Wu] examined it so thoroughly from morning to night that his consciousness
merged with it. Then, taking up a piece of old paper, he first painted it from the
front and back, but he was not done with his painting. He continued portraying
the left and right sides, but the painting was still not finished yet. He went around
the stone and portrayed the front, back, left, and right sides diagonally. With the
bottom from the front and from the back, [Wu completed] ten views in all.8
Striking in Mi Wanzhong’s testimony is that Wu Bin literally “exhausted his skill” in
completing the scroll with the tenth aspect of the stone. The unique texture with white
veins and twisting morphology in the painting can be compared to the entry on the Lingbi
rock, a limestone from the Lingbi township in Anhui Province, in the reputable
compendium Stone Catalogue of Cloudy Forest by the Song dynasty polymath Du Wan (ac‑
tive ca. 1130) (Du Wan, shang:1a–2a).9
As Mi Wanzhong’s words suggest, the number ten was not randomly chosen. Yet ten
views far exceed what Du Wan considered the ideal number of views for the finest Lingbi
rock. In most cases, Du writes, they have one or two displayable sides (mian, literally
meaning face), sometimes three, but one or two out of a hundred pieces of them have
four.10 Even the tall, awe‑inspiring ones owned by the famous Mr. Zhang of Lingbi had
two or three views, but one of those was often covered with condensed mud and had to face
the wall when displayed. Mi Wanzhong’s Lingbi with ten clear views, despite its smaller
size, must have been beyond Du Wan’s imagination. Notwithstanding Mi Wanzhong’s
effort to underline the significance of having ten views, recent studies on Ten Views of a
Lingbi Rock suggest that the painting initially contained eight views and only later were two
more views added (Zhu 2017, p. 106). Such understanding comes from a misreading of an
account by Mi Wanzhong’s acquaintance Zhang Nai (1572–1630). In an account composed
to praise his friend with the surname Fan and courtesy name Darenzi, Zhang Nai recalls a
gathering at Mi Wanzhong’s residence with several other people (Zhang Nai, 11:47b–48b).
Zhang describes a painting of a “spiritual rock (lingshi)”, which consists of eight views. As
the guest named Yang He (?–1635) in the gathering said it should have ten views, the poet
Long Ying (1560–1622) inscribed “not‑not real rock (feifei shi)” as if “he was going through
ten views with a single brush stroke.”11
Zhang Nai never identified who painted the “spiritual rock”, which could be a generic
nomenclature of odd‑looking decorative rocks and must be distinguished from the specific
 (Zhang Nai, 11:47b–48b). Zhang describes a painting of a “spiritual rock (lingshi)”, which
consists of eight views. As the guest named Yang He (?–1635) in the gathering said it
should have ten views, the poet Long Ying (1560–1622) inscribed “not-not real rock (feifei
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 4 of 14
shi)” as if “he was going through ten views with a single brush stroke.”11
Zhang Nai never identified who painted the “spiritual rock”, which could be a ge-
neric nomenclature of odd-looking decorative rocks and must be distinguished from the
type of rock,
specific typeLingbi.
of rock,Nor did he
Lingbi. Norindicate
did he that Longthat
indicate Ying
Longadded
Ying two moretwo
added pictures
more in addi‑
pictures
tion to his inscription.
in addition When only
to his inscription. When the names
only of the poet
the names of theand
poetcalligrapher are given,
and calligrapher what
are given,
was
what added
was to the scroll
added to thewas more
scroll likely
was more to be a piece
likely of acalligraphy
to be that corresponded
piece of calligraphy that corre-to
the existing eight pictures. Furthermore, it should be noted that Wu
sponded to the existing eight pictures. Furthermore, it should be noted that Wu Bin cre- Bin created multi‑
ple
atedpaintings
multipleofpaintings
rock in Mi of Wanzhong’s collection.12collection.
rock in Mi Wanzhong’s The painting ofpainting
12 The a spiritual
of rock men‑
a spiritual
tioned by Zhang by
rock mentioned Nai couldNai
Zhang be could
one ofbe those
one paintings. Above all,
of those paintings. Ten all,
Above Views
TenofViews
a Lingbi
of a
Rock
Lingbiitself
Rock hardly
itself supports the claim
hardly supports thethat
claimthethat
painting originally
the painting had eight
originally hadviews. None
eight views.
of the colophons
None mentions
of the colophons such a such
mentions possibility, while the
a possibility, paper
while the and
paper inkwork are consistent
and inkwork are con-
throughout the ten views. Moreover, the painting process upon
sistent throughout the ten views. Moreover, the painting process upon which Mi elabo-which Mi elaborates in
his colophon implies that the scroll contained ten images at the time of its
rates in his colophon implies that the scroll contained ten images at the time of its produc- production. The
location
tion. Theoflocation
Wu Bin’s of signature
Wu Bin’s in the lastin
signature view
the of
lastthe stone
view (Figure
of the stone2)(Figure
also suggests
2) also that
sug-
he marked
gests themarked
that he completion of his painting
the completion of hisnot with the
painting noteighth view,
with the but with
eighth view,the
buttenth,
with en‑
the
graving his subjectivity at that point. Looking at the stone, Mi Wanzhong
tenth, engraving his subjectivity at that point. Looking at the stone, Mi Wanzhong writes, writes, should
stop with
should thewith
stop tenththe
view.
tenth view.

Figure2.2. Wu
Figure Wu Bin,
Bin, Ten
Ten Views
Views of
of aa Lingbi
Lingbi Rock
Rock (detail),
(detail), the
the tenth
tenth view
view with
with the
the painter’s
painter’s signature.
signature.
Photo: Courtesy of Poly Art Museum, Beijing (Baoli yishu yanjiuyuan 2020).
Photo: Courtesy of Poly Art Museum, Beijing (Baoli yishu yanjiuyuan 2020).

Nevertheless,Zhang
Nevertheless, ZhangNai’sNai’swriting
writingshould
should not not be
be disregarded
disregarded as as itit affords
affords aa spring‑
spring-
boardto
board tounderstanding
understandingthe theseventeenth‑century
seventeenth-centurynotion notionofofseeing.
seeing.In Inthe
thelatter
latterhalf
halfofofhis
his
account,Zhang
account, Zhangstates
statesthat
thatthe
therock
rockheheperceives
perceivesisisaaview viewfrom
fromhis hisconsciousness.
consciousness.What What
hesees
he seesisisnot
notthe
the truth,
truth, hehe writes,
writes, just
just like
like aa lamp
lamp that
that causes
causes constant
constant changes
changes of of light
light
andshadow
and shadow(Zhang
(ZhangNai, Nai,11:48a–b).
11:48a–b). Then
Then he he laments
laments that
that one
one cannot
cannot see see every
everypossible
possible
viewof
view ofMount
MountLu—aLu—afamous
famousliterary
literarytrope
tropefromfromSu SuShi’s
Shi’s(1037–1101)
(1037–1101)celebrated
celebratedquatrainquatrain
Written
Writtenonon the
the Xilin Temple Wall (Grant (Grant 1994,
1994,p.p.1).1). Both
Both thethe impossibility
impossibility of seeing
of seeing the
the true
true
faceface of Mount
of Mount Lu described
Lu described in thein the
poem poem andand Zhang
Zhang Nai’s
Nai’s phrase
phrase about
about a view
a view fromfromhis
his consciousness
consciousness allude
allude to the
to the same same source.
source. It isItBuddhist
is Buddhist epistemology
epistemology expounded
expounded in thein
the Śūraṅgama
Śūraṅgama Sūtra,
Sūtra, whichwhich Su Shi
Su Shi andand
laterlater writers
writers enjoyed
enjoyed citing
citing (Grant
(Grant 1994, 1994, p. 29),
p. 29), and
and which,
which, by bythethe
latelate sixteenth
sixteenth century,had
century, hadbecome
becomethe themost
most widely
widely read Buddhist
Buddhist text text
(Araki 1984, pp. 245–74). Along with its exceptional quality of literary
(Araki 1984, pp. 245–74). Along with its exceptional quality of literary composition, the composition, the
meditative
meditativemethods
methodsof oftaming
tamingsensory
sensoryorgans
organsand andthethe soteriological
soteriological role
role of of illusion
illusion intro‑
intro-
duced
ducedin inthe
thesutra
sutrafascinated
fascinatedlate lateMing
Mingintellectuals
intellectualsand andartists (Lo2016,
artists(Lo 2016,pp. pp.107–51;
107–51;Ryor Ryor
2019,
2019,pp.
pp.244–66).
244–66).
The well‑educated scholar, Zhang Nai, would not miss this intellectual trend, and it
is from the Śūraṅgama Sūtra that he borrowed the metaphor of the lamp. In the pertinent
passage, the Buddha admonishes Ānanda for relying on external factors for seeing because
immediate visual perception is not true seeing but an ever‑transient lamplight (SLYJ, T
945.19:109b). A lamp, like the sun and the moon, refers to a source of light that conditions
the visibility of perceivable objects. Ānanda defends himself by claiming that ordinary
people see various objects by relying on the light from the sun, the moon, and lamps, and
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 5 of 14

this is what they mean by “seeing” because without these sources of light, they would not
be able to see (SLYJ, T 945.19:113a). Then, the Buddha begins his lecture on why he should
employ the power of his vision to the fullest extent to see everything in the universe clearly
without depending on a lamp and distinguish them from himself (SLYJ, T 945.19:111b).
The increasing awareness of such Buddhist epistemology flourished together with the
mid‑sixteenth‑century revival of Yogācāra Buddhism, a Buddhist philosophy tradition that
values the study of cognition, perception, and consciousness (Brewster 2018, pp. 117–70;
Chu 2010, pp. 5–26; Struve 2019, pp. 99–103). Although the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, with its apoc‑
ryphal origin, is not traditionally associated with Yogācāra Buddhism, late Ming commen‑
tators utilized Yogācāra doctrines to annotate the sutra, as well as other Mahāyāna texts.
Accordingly, the storehouse consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), the critical element in Yogācārin
metaphysics, and the Mahāyāna Buddhist idea of the embryo of Buddhahood (tathāgata‑
garbha), a primary exegesis in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, arose as underpinning concepts in a
wide range of Buddhist writings and practices in the late sixteenth century. Notably, the
Four Eminent Monks of the Wanli period (1572–1620), Hanshan Deqing (1546–1623), Zibo
Zhenke (1543–1603), Yunqi Zhuhong (1535–1615), and Ouyi Zhixu (1599–1655) had a mu‑
tual fascination with doctrines across different Buddhist schools, Yogācāra, and tathāgata‑
garbha, despite their individual distinctness and sectarian foundations in Chan or Pure
Land (Chu 2010, p. 16).13
The pan‑sectarian syncretism points to another important philosophical shift. The
late Ming period marked a change in intellectual currents involving the discourses led
by Yangming School of Mind scholars who emphasized the Mind (xin) in explaining the
world. By the early seventeenth century, epistemological interest in the relation between
seeing and knowing came to include questions about the metaphysical implications of in‑
vestigating Things (wu). In reevaluating Things in the lower level of the hierarchy among
beings, they noted that perceiving Things perceived as images can be manifestations of
their Mind (Bian 2020, p. 78). Under such intellectual currents, some comparable concepts
in late Ming Buddhism and Yangming Confucianism catalyzed inter‑religious dynamics.
As William Chu points out, the newly revived Yogācāra tradition paralleled the concept
of consciousness with the Mind in tathāgatagarbha thought, which could be posited as the
Mind in the Yangming Confucianist context (Chu 2010, pp. 6–8, 15–16). The emphasis on
the physical world as a projection of the Mind was one on which Yangming Confucianists
and syncretic‑minded Buddhists could agree.
Obsessions with appreciating rocks came at the end of the sixteenth century when
the ability to observe and characterize material objects began to serve as a precondition for
understanding the physical world.14 The urge for in‑depth visual experiences followed
amateur interest in horticulture, medicine, mineralogy, and herbology. Empirical impulse
had long been in Chinese intellectual spheres, but the late Ming thinkers pushed it further
to question the nature of their reality consisting of a perceiving self and perceived things,
either in the Confucian or Buddhist senses, or both. The Confucian scholar Luo Wenying
(active early 17th century) wrote in a preface to a herbological text that when one sees
things as Things, images, vegetal roots, or dim appearances, all these are nothing but the
manifestations of his own Nature (xing) (Bian 2020, p. 75). This understanding of human
perception resonates with the Buddhist view of the material world that every perceived
object is the manifestation of the Mind, as mentioned earlier. The soteriological undertone,
however, marks the difference between the two thoughts. In the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the
Buddha says one needs to carefully observe everything as much as possible to realize that
all are objects of one’s perception (SLYJ, T 945.19:111b). Therein lies a challenge in which
sentient beings cannot easily distinguish illusoriness because perceivable phenomena and
reality constantly redefine one another. Hanshan Deqing, the eminent commentator of the
Śūraṅgama Sūtra in the Yogācārin context, annotates this phrase that objects one sees here
are just dust (chen) floating in the sensory fields (Hanshan Deqing, X 279.12:547c). They
are visible because the storehouse consciousness, which is accumulated impressions and
experiences from sense data, illuminates these clouds of dust. Realizing that what is visible
 Buddha says one needs to carefully observe everything as much as possible to realize that
all are objects of one’s perception (SLYJ, T 945.19:111b). Therein lies a challenge in which
sentient beings cannot easily distinguish illusoriness because perceivable phenomena and
reality constantly redefine one another. Hanshan Deqing, the eminent commentator of the
Śūraṅgama Sūtra in the Yogācārin context, annotates this phrase that objects one sees here
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 are just dust (chen) floating in the sensory fields (Hanshan Deqing, X 279.12:547c).6They of 14
are visible because the storehouse consciousness, which is accumulated impressions and
experiences from sense data, illuminates these clouds of dust. Realizing that what is visi-
isble
justis motes
just motes of requires
of dust dust requires a meditative
a meditative practice
practice thatlead
that may may lead
one oneultimate
to the to the ultimate
reality
reality beyond sensory
beyond sensory perception. perception.

1.2.
2.2.Seeing
Seeingas asWorldmaking
Worldmaking
As a devoted
As a devoted Buddhist praised
Buddhist by Hanshan
praised Deqing (Hanshan
by Hanshan Deqing Deqing,
(Hanshan X 1456.73:736c),
Deqing, X
Wu
1456.73:736c), Wu Bin was also familiar with the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and theethos
Bin was also familiar with the Śūra ṅgama Sūtra and the contemporary on sense‑
contemporary
perception shaped by Yogācārin phenomenology. 15 Around 1600, Wu Bin created an Bin
al‑
ethos on sense-perception shaped by Yogācārin phenomenology. 15 Around 1600, Wu
bum
createdtitledan Twenty‑five
album titledDharma Gateways
Twenty-five Dharma of Perfect
Gateways Wisdom fromWisdom
of Perfect the Śūra ṅgama
from theSūtra.
ŚūraṅgamaThe
album
Sūtra. Theconsists
album of twenty‑five leaves, eachleaves,
consists of twenty-five depictingeacharhats,
depictingbodhisattvas, and a buddha,
arhats, bodhisattvas, and
a buddha,
and and two inscriptions
two inscriptions written by Chen writtenJiruby in Chen
1620 andJiruDong
in 1620 and Dong
Qichang 16
Qichang
in 1621. Theintwenty‑
1621.16
five
Thedharma
twenty-five gateways
dharma refer to meditative
gateways refer to methods
meditativethat concentrate
methods that onconcentrate
six sense objects,
on six
six sense
sense organs,
objects, sixsix consciousnesses,
sense and seven elements
organs, six consciousnesses, to reach
and seven enlightenment
elements to reach(SLYJ,
enlight- T
945.19:130a–131b). Among them, theAmong
enment (SLYJ, T 945.19:130a–131b). gatewaythem, that resonates
the gateway with what
that Wu Binwith
resonates did with
what
the
WuLingbi
Bin did rockwithis Upaniṣ
the Lingbiad’srock
contemplation
is Upaniṣad’s upon visible objects
contemplation (sechen,
upon literally
visible objects meaning
(sechen,
colorful dust) (Figure
literally meaning colorful dust) (Figure 3). This method alludes to a fifth-century of
3). This method alludes to a fifth‑century early chan practice vi‑
early
sualizing a decaying body, famously known as “white bone
chan practice of visualizing a decaying body, famously known as “white bone contempla- contemplation” (Greene 2021,
pp. 84–87). 17 When presenting his
tion” (Greene 2021, pp. 84–87).17 method to reach enlightenment,
When presenting his method to Upaniṣ
reachad explains that
enlightenment,
he has gazed
Upaniṣad at bones
explains until
that theygazed
he has turn to dust, disperse
at bones until they into
turnspace, and disperse
to dust, vanish. Visible ob‑
into space,
jects
and as he had
vanish. perceived
Visible objects them
as heno hadlonger exist, them
perceived but “their wondrousness
no longer was revealed
exist, but “their wondrous- to
him everywhere (SLYJ, T 945.19:125c).” Wu Bin’s visualization
ness was revealed to him everywhere (SLYJ, T 945.19:125c).” Wu Bin’s visualization of of Upaniṣ a d captures this
meditative
Upaniṣad capturesprocess that this leads to enlightenment.
meditative process that In the to
leads painting, Upaniṣad
enlightenment. Incalmly gazes
the painting,
down
Upaniṣad at a small
calmlyskeleton
gazes downexpressing
at a smallrespect to him.
skeleton The relationship
expressing respect tobetween
him. The the see‑er
relation-
and
shipthe seen inthe
between Wu Bin’sand
see-er painting
the seenis markedly
in Wu Bin’s different
painting from one in another
is markedly differentdepiction
from one of
Upaniṣ
in anotherad made by Fuof
depiction Kun (active 17th
Upaniṣad madecentury)
by Fu Kun in 1627
(active 2016,century)
(Lo 17th pp. 140–42).
in 1627 In Fu
(LoKun’s
2016,
version,
pp. 140–42).Upaniṣ InaFud gazes
Kun’satversion,
scattered bones. The
Upaniṣad gazeslength of time Upaniṣ
at scattered bones.aThe
d spentlengthobserving
of time
them is suggested by the grass growing through the skeleton’s
Upaniṣad spent observing them is suggested by the grass growing through the skeleton’s eye sockets. While Fu Kun
underscores
eye sockets.the process
While of decaying,
Fu Kun underscoresWu Bin thepresents
processthe of “wondrousness”
decaying, Wu Bin revealed
presents uponthe
Upaniṣ a d’s enlightenment—a living skeleton wearing
“wondrousness” revealed upon Upaniṣad’s enlightenment—a living skeleton wearing a gauzy robe, whose initial forma
had
gauzybeen disappeared
robe, whose initialbut form
remained visible
had been to him.
disappeared but remained visible to him.

Figure 3. Wu Bin, “Upaniṣad” from Twenty‑five Dharma Gateways of Perfect Wisdom, ca. 1600. Album
leaf, ink and color on silk, 62.3 × 35.3 cm. Photo: Courtesy of National Palace Museum, Taipei.

As Mi Wanzhong indicated in his colophon to Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, how Wu Bin
chose to visually experience the stone was to “examine (guan)”. In the same piece of his
writing, Mi also acknowledges that the true aspect of his rock can be grasped only by the
Mind, a sentiment reminiscent of Su Shi’s reflections on Mount Lu. But Ten Views of a Lingbi
Rock does not stop at acknowledging the limit of bodily perception. Whereas the eleventh‑
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 7 of 14

century poet internalized his inability of true seeing by gazing inward instead of projecting
outward, Wu Bin and Mi Wanzhong challenge the limit by pushing the boundaries at full
force. The scroll invites the onlookers to leap into the sensorium to materialize their op‑
tical experiences. When one reaches close to the level of seeing that which “transcends
all external conditioning forces”, there will be the truth (Grant 1994, p. 30). The process
of illusion built from an excessive seeing in Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock may demonstrate
how one’s fixated gaze onto a single visible object works as a gateway. Consequently, the
scroll exhausts all possible operations that involve the optic faculty—observing, painting,
measuring, describing, and, to that end, presenting itself as a perpetuating enumeration of
illusion and reality, or, in other words, visible things and truth beyond visibility. To that
end, even after the physical rock disintegrates, its “wondrousness” would remain perceiv‑
able to enlightened minds.
The exploratory role of registering one’s optic faculty onto the stone and the painting
scroll suggests that the implication of the number ten to illustrate the stone is not just about
excessiveness. Visually, a diagram of a head from eleven different angles in the Pictorial
Compendium of the Three Powers published in 1609 might have been a source of inspiration
(Wang Qi, renshi 4:29a–30a). The diagram proceeds as “one‑tenth view”, “two‑tenth view”,
and so forth and ends with the “rear view” following the “ten‑tenth view (front view)”, a
total of eleven views (Figure 4). Nevertheless, each picture in the table was to model a sin‑
gle piece of portraiture, not to unpack all eleven of them onto a handscroll. The Buddhist
numerical implication about the number ten may explain why Wu Bin chose to present ten
views. The metaphor of the number ten harks back to the Mahāyāna idea of the “ten such‑
like aspects of reality (ten tathāta; shi rushi)” elaborated in the Lotus Sūtra (Miaofa lianhuajing,
T 262.9:5c), which inspired the Tiantai concept of ten realms of reality (ten dharmadhātu; shi
fajie) (Mohe zhiguan, T 1911.46:5b).18 The cosmological overtone of the number ten is in‑
corporated with the epistemological context in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. The sutra teaches that
those free from impediments caused by sense organs, faculties, consciousnesses, and mate‑
rial elements will see everything from ten directions with penetrating accuracy and clarity
(SLYJ, T 945.19:109b–119b). More specifically, ten directions account for the four cardinal
directions, their four intermediate directions, the top, and the bottom. Wu Bin followed
the first eight directions but chose two sides of the bottom instead of one seen from the top.
Such a decision was perhaps to overcome the limitations of the eye faculty. In Buddhist
epistemology, especially that illustrated in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the eye faculty is incom‑
plete because it fails to perceive two corners of the subject’s back (SLYJ, T 945.19:122c).
When a rock stands as a perceived object, its bottom is inconceivable in plain sight. The
clear‑cut, flat bottom also suggests that the depicted rock was initially the topmost part of a
bigger piece of rock, consisting of multiple peaks, thus the rarest. To capture the rare piece
of rock from angles that no one else can easily see, Wu Bin dared to remove it from the
pedestal, flipped, observed, painted, and even inscribed his signature—“Wu Bin writes
(Wu Bin xie)”—as if it were permanently engraved on a deep, dark cavity at the bottom
of the stone (Figure 2).19 In this unassuming signature, Wu Bin registers his capacity to
see this object comprehensively. Through this signature in the tenth view, the metaphoric
number ten further underscores the potential to see the true nature of all existence and
manifestations.
Religions
Religions2022,
2022,13,
13,1182
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of 14
14

Figure4.4.Facial
Figure Facialangles
anglesforfor portraiture
portraiture from
from Pictorial
Pictorial Compendium
Compendium of theofThree
the Three Powers,
Powers, 1609. 1609. Wood-
Woodblock
block prints on paper. Photo: Courtesy of München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.
prints on paper. Photo: Courtesy of München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

WuBin’s
Wu Bin’scontemporaries
contemporariesdid didnotnotregard
regardthe theseeming
seeming bizarreness
bizarreness ininhishis paintings
paintings as as
a
a mere
mere reflection
reflection of the of the painter’s
painter’s eccentric
eccentric personality
personality or meaningless
or meaningless imagination.
imagination. In-
Instead,
stead,
they they appreciated
appreciated it as theitmaterialization
as the materialization of the transcendental
of the transcendental vision ofvision of the awak-
the awakened one.
The eminent scholar‑official Gu Qiyuan (1565–1628) probes the complex process ofprocess
ened one. The eminent scholar-official Gu Qiyuan (1565–1628) probes the complex truth‑
of truth-making
making illusion caused illusion bycaused by thebetween
the collision collisionthe between
object the andobject
the Mind,and thein theMind, in the
colophon
hecolophon
wrote afterhe wrote
Wu Bin’s afterFive WuHundred
Bin’s Five Hundred
Arhats, Arhats, consecrated
consecrated in the QixiainTemple, the Qixia Temple,
Nanjing. 20
Nanjing.
This 20
colophon Thiswascolophon
writtenwas written intoresponse
in response Wu Bin’storequest Wu Bin’s to request
record what to record what he
he dreamed
dreamed
before beforethe
creating creating
painting. the Although
painting. extremely
Although extremelylengthy, part lengthy,
of Gupart of Gucolophon
Qiyuan’s Qiyuan’s
iscolophon is worth discussing
worth discussing here: here:
AAmonk
monknamed namedWujie Wujiefrom fromSichuan
Sichuancame cameto tosee
seethethemaster
master[Wu [WuBin], Bin],soliciting
soliciting
paintings of the Five Hundred Arhats from Wu Bin, to have it as a dharmatreas-
paintings of the Five Hundred Arhats from Wu Bin, to have it as a dharma trea‑
ure at
sure at Mount
Mount Ming Ming [in [in Sichuan].
Sichuan]. As As WuWu Bin Bin silently
silently rejected
rejected [the[therequest]
request]at atthat
that
moment,the
moment, themonkmonkwrote wroteaagāthā gāthāandandleft.
left.After
Aftertentendays,
days,Wu WuBin Binfellfellasleep
asleepand and
had a sudden dream, in which the monk leads
had a sudden dream, in which the monk leads the crowd to venerate the Bud‑ the crowd to venerate the Bud-
dha. When
dha. When Wu Wu Bin Bin alsoalso joined
joined thethe prayer,
prayer, therethere waswas aa thunderous
thunderous sound soundand and
earthquake. Strange creatures with wings were
earthquake. Strange creatures with wings were brimming in the sky, with the brimming in the sky, with the
monkstaring
monk staringdown downfrom fromthe theplatform,
platform,the theVajra
Vajra guardian,
guardian, and
and Vināyaka.
Vināyaka. Eve-
Every‑
ryone
one revealed
revealed different
different forms forms
withwith
bizarrebizarre garments.
garments. When WhenWu BinWupanicked
Bin panicked and
and wanted
wanted to runto run there
away, away,was there wassound
a loud a loud sound“You
saying: saying: “You
cannot cannot
return return
until you
untildepict
fully you fully depict our appearances.”
our appearances.” Then Wu BinThen asked Wu forBin asked
a brush and forpainted
a brush and
them.
painted them. Suddenly there was a troop [of guardians]
Suddenly there was a troop [of guardians] with blades as if they were trying to with blades as if they
were
cut Wu trying
Bin’sto cut Wu Bin’s
hair. Bin wokehair. upWuand Binpainted
woke upthe and Fivepainted
Hundredthe FiveArhatsHundred
from
his heart.from
Arhats Because these paintings
his heart. Because these are from what he
paintings aresaw fromin his
what dream,he saw there
in arehis
winged
dream, guardians.
there are winged . . . Wu Bin believes…Wu
guardians. all phenomena
Bin believes ariseallfrom the mind,arise
phenomena [all
causes]
from the start
mind,from [allthe dream;
causes] nevertheless,
start from the dream; one cannot verify orone
nevertheless, refer to theverify
cannot past
dreams.
or refer to [Thus]
the pastHe askeddreams. me[Thus]
to record it.
He asked me to record it.
One
Onehears
hearsthis thisstory
storyand andmay maydoubt
doubtthat thatititisisallallfiction.
fiction.Then ThenI Isay sayititisisnot.
not.In In
this dream, there are six afflictions and four conditions.
this dream, there are six afflictions and four conditions. In essence, [the dream] In essence, [the dream]
returns
returnsto tothe
theperception,
perception,and andthere
thereisisaacause cause[of [ofall allphenomena].
phenomena]. [When [Whenone one
wants
wantsto] to]follow
followcognitive
cognitivefacultiesfacultiesand andtheir
theirsense
senseobjects
objectsand andrunsruns like
like aa disor‑
disor-
dered
deredwheel,
wheel,then then[he/she
[he/shewould] would]waste wastebreath
breathbecause
becauseof ofhabituated
habituatedtendencies
tendencies
concealed
concealedin inthe therepository.
repository. The The perception
perception changes changes incessantly;
incessantly; what what really
really fol‑
fol-
lows is the only enlightened
lows is the only enlightened mind. mind.
Today,
Today,people
peopledo donot
notcomprehend
comprehendthe theessence
essenceofofconsciousness.
consciousness.They Theyfollow
followthe the
false
false reputation of being awakened from the dream. …There is a dreambecause
reputation of being awakened from the dream. . . . There is a dream because
of
ofaadream;
dream;aadream dreamisiscalled calledaadreamdreambecausebecausethere thereisisan anawakening.
awakening.What Whatisis
manifest in the dream is the shadow of the awakened
manifest in the dream is the shadow of the awakened status. What you ponder status. What you ponder
during
duringthe theawakened
awakenedstatus statusisisthethecognitive
cognitiveobject objectininthe thedream. . Water essen‑
dream.. .…Water essen-
tially
tially becomes salty as it flows into the sea, so do sense objects when theycome
becomes salty as it flows into the sea, so do sense objects when they come
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 9 of 14

into the Mind. How can we ordinary beings know that Wenzhong’s dream bears
fruits as illusory objects, and the painting by Wenzhong is real? The real is not
the real; the illusion is not an illusion. Thus, no matter the material appearance
on paper is exquisitely painted, I am afraid it is so muted that it is difficult to dis‑
cern. . . . It is because Wenzhong has long planted good seeds and stored them
in depth [of his consciousness] as pure perception. Thus, he can truly investigate
the realm of the numinous, in quiet acquiescence with the sage lineage of patri‑
archs, and also assisted by [the actions in] his past lives, he finally reaps a good
fruit (Gu Qiyuan, “Record of the Painting of Dreaming Five Hundred Arhats”,
in Ge Yinliang 1607, 4:23b–25b).
As far as Gu Qiyuan is concerned, Wu Bin’s ability to see and to paint is not simply ex‑
traordinary. It is a pure or even enlightened form of a perception that emerges from seeds
accumulated in the past and present and deposited in the storehouse of his consciousness
(Lusthaus 2002, pp. 512–13). When these seeds bear fruit in the form of experience in the
next life, they divide the world into phenomena and the physical body; the distinction
between the two is an illusion. In this context, the painter’s act of distinguishing the per‑
ceiving subject and the perceived object through excessive looking may engender illusion.
The Śūraṅgama Sūtra likens this process to staring at objects until the eyes become so tired
that they see flowers in the sky. The significance lies in the attempt to push one’s sense
faculty to the extreme until it creates an illusion and, to that end, a clearly perceivable ma‑
terial world.21 When one realizes the nature of illusion as reflections of our experiences,
behaviors, cognitions, and desires deposited in storehouse consciousness, the perception
of ultimate reality occurs. As Lynn Struve suggests, in the late Ming, the soteriological pro‑
gram of dream visions was no longer limited to eminent monks but considered attainable
by ordinary minds (Struve 2019, p. 101). Gu Qiyuan believed Wu Bin had grasped this
process of enlightenment and obtained a transcendental vision, which could envisage the
world indiscernible to eyes of others.
Regarding the interfusion of otherworldly spectacles and what one may call realism in
Wu Bin’s paintings, James Cahill proposed a possible influence from the newly imported
European pictures (Cahill 1982, pp. 70–94). Chinese viewers, Cahill claimed, considered
illusionistic engravings from the West as super‑real images of unverifiable visions because
they “had no way of knowing where visual reporting ended and fantasy began (Cahill
1982, p. 98).” Cahill’s pitch is certainly appealing when we limit the meaning of illusion—
“fantasy” in Cahill’s word—within pictorial illusionism as generated by mimetic repre‑
sentational methods. In fact, Wu Bin’s possible exposure to European artworks is only
circumstantial because many works by Wu Bin precede the circulation of the Jesuit illus‑
trated books, such as Jerome Nadal’s (1507–1580) Evangelicae Historiae Imagines.22 Nadal’s
illustrated gospel entered China around 1606 and was translated into Chinese by the Je‑
suit missionary Giulio Aleni (1582–1649) in 1637. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that Wu
Bin’s residence in Nanjing briefly overlapped with the Jesuits arrival to the southern capi‑
tal of the Ming dynasty. What should be noted here is not the potential European “impact”
on seventeenth‑century Chinese painting but the religio‑philosophical discourses on per‑
ception that shaped the intellectual landscape proximate to the painter and his audiences.
Nanjing and other cultural centers of China in the dawn of the seventeenth century were
perhaps the rendezvous of the two emerging interests in embodying optical experiences,
which can be further explored in later studies from a comparative perspective.

2. Conclusions
Once Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock became a spectacle, the scroll was exhibited nationwide
in the two capitals—Beijing and Nanjing, travelling all the way to the southernmost Fujian
province in the following five years. Some of the colophon writers saw the stone; for others,
the painting substituted for the presence of the stone. Regardless of whether they saw
the stone in person or not, all writers confirmed the presence of the tridimensional stone
once they optically experienced the bidimensional representation. Such an effect of make‑
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 10 of 14

believe would be possible because Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, as an image, has the capacity to
appear to the viewers as if it came into being without their effort by virtue of its ontological
autonomy (Morgan 2018, p. 63).23 These temporally and spatially diverse acts of looking
and beliefs in the existence of the rock came to be accumulated and assembled on the flat
surface of an art object.24 In this way, the Lingbi stone exists in the interrelated sensory
spheres experienced by different ocular faculties. Within this shared world, even when
the vision of one of the onlookers ceases through death, the presence of the stone would
remain in the minds of those living. Mi Wanzhong writes at the end of his inscription to
the tenth view, “Since we have portrayed the ten views, the act of looking must stop here,
but the mind will perpetuate to cease only at infinity.”
The late Ming collecting culture reflects the practices of self‑fashioning through con‑
sumerism and materialism, as many scholars have already discussed.25 What has not been
noted in this context is that the collectible rocks and paintings or catalogues of them were
not merely commodities as objects of aesthetic pleasure. The appreciation of collectibles,
“wanshang”, literally meaning playing and appreciating, elicited playing with scale, num‑
bers, various sensory experiences, and even ontological questions. Meticulous documen‑
tation of intensive optical experiences constructed the authenticity of the perceived things,
which could be a version of personal reality. The quasi‑realistic depiction of the rock that
Wu Bin achieved, I suggest, cannot simply be reduced to pictorial illusionism. Ten Views of
Lingbi Rock triggers an impulse to see beyond “what is nonetheless already there” (Barthes
1981, p. 55).
Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock attests to seventeenth‑century perceptual engagement that
brought an art object into being. Sensory experiences—particularly optical ones—and
questions about the reality of perceivable things were involved in this process of mak‑
ing Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock a work of art in presence. Creators and beholders of the
object sought answers from Buddhist epistemological ideas, as this paper probed. One
may ask, then, if Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock is a “Buddhist” painting? As Raoul Brinbaum
points out, through visual media, seventeenth‑century elites with strong Buddhist commit‑
ments would articulate concerns directly important to them from Buddhist perspectives
(Birnbaum 2016, p. 94). Wu Bin’s social status as a professional painter did not deter him
from becoming a scholarly lay Buddhist. Lavishing support from his major patrons, ever‑
growing lay Buddhist communities, and the proliferation of publications in the late Ming
might have provided him with intellectual resources to join the conversation using his own
painterly language.

Funding: This research was funded by the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies Graduate Student
Associates Research Fund.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professors Eugene Wang, Yukio
Lippit, Melissa McCormick, and Jinah Kim for advising and encouraging me to pursue this study.
Thanks should also go to my colleague Isabel McWilliams, who has patiently been reviewing count‑
less versions of my study for many years. Lastly, I would like to extend my thanks to the two anony‑
mous reviewers whose insights have significantly contributed to polishing my manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Notes
1 Ten Views of a Lingbi rock became known to the world through an auction sale in 1989 (Sotheby’s 1989, p. 43). The painting was
formerly in a private collection in New York until it was sold at an auction held at Poly Art Museum in Beijing in October 2020.
For the first article focusing on Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, see (Hu 1998, pp. 65–81). The advent of a discourse on the “late‑Ming
sensibility”, a literary framework that refers to blurred borderlines between reality and illusion circa 1600, has elevated the
strangeness and eccentricity of the scroll and authors since the 1990s. See (Zeitlin 1993, p. 7), (Zeitlin 1999, pp. 40–47). Recent
essays on Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock follow the “late‑Ming sensibility” framework, material culture, and late Ming fascination
with eccentricity and individuality. See (Huang and Jia 2012, pp. 62–67), (Bloom 2019). I am grateful to Phillip for sharing his
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 11 of 14

conference paper with me in 2019. For more introductory essays, see (Flacks 2017) and (Baoli yishu yanjiuyuan 2020). (Flacks
2017) contains transcriptions and translations of the inscriptions and colophons, which require the reader’s discretion.
2 In the 1960s, Wu Bin was introduced to the American audience as one of the “fantastic and bizarre masters” of a “frustrated and
restless generation.” (Cahill 1967, pp. 28–32). For the discussion on the Cold War discursive component that shaped the notion
of eccentricity in the East Asian art studies, see (Lippit 2020, pp. 34–43). For further discussions on Wu Bin’s eccentricity and
originality, see (Cahill 1972, pp. 637–98). In a similar context, (Burnett 1995); (Burnett 2006, pp. 2–15); (Burnett 2013, pp. 221–90).
For Wu Bin as a lay Buddhist painter, see (Chen 2013, pp. 251–78); (Pawlowski 2019). For a special exhibition that introduced
Wu Bin’s works as strange and eccentric, see (He and He and Chen 2012). For Cahill’s hypothesis on Wu Bin’s possible exposure
to European pictures, see (Cahill 1982, pp. 95–98). A similar perspective is also found in (Fong 1996, pp. 406–7).
3 John Hay’s discussion on the painterly practice of “seemingly objectified observation” motivated the onset of my research. (Hay
1992, pp. 4‑1–4‑22).
4 My methodology is inspired by the mechanism of “seeing as making” proposed by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison in their
remarkable study on the history of scientific objectivity. (Daston and Galison 2007, pp. 363–416).
5 I regard an art object, Wu Bin’s painting in this case, as a “thing” that is different from a Thing (wu), which can be the Lingbi rock
itself, in the Chinese context (Lau 1967, pp. 353–57). The idea of an object as an entity coming into being comes from Heidegger’s
exposition on characteristics of Being as substantiality, materiality, and side‑by‑side‑ness. (Heidegger 2010).
6 The original text is from Mi Wanzhong’s colophon to Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, written in 1610. All translations in this article are
mine unless noted otherwise. An alternate translation for this phrase is found in (Lynn 2017, p. 18).
7 Arnold Chang has introduced that the former owner of Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock, in fact, created a 3D model of the rock based
on the painting. See (Chang 2020).
8 For an alternate translation, see (Lynn 2017, p. 54). But Lynn interprets the process of painting by reading that Wu Bin left some
parts unfinished and went back to finish those later.
9 For partial English translation, see (Schafer 1961, pp. 50–51); (Campbell and Hardie 2020, pp. 106–7). For additional descriptions
of Lingbi published in English, see (Scogin 1997, pp. 37–55).
10 Du writes that even tall, awe‑inspiring ones owned by famous Mr. Zhang of Lingbi had two or three views, but one of those
was often covered with condensed mud and had to face the wall when displayed (Du Wan, shang:1b).
11 In Zhu’s essay, “feifei shi” is translated as “Not Not Rock.” I use my own translation as “not‑not real rock” to clarify its meaning,
which is “a real rock that exists.” The connection between Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock and the name “not‑not real rock (feifei shi)”
requires reassessment. Many scholars have associated this name with Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock since Mi’s Zhan Garden was
known to have the famous “not‑not real rock” displayed. However, the description of the “not‑not real rock” at Zhan Garden
written by the biographer Sun Chengze differs from that in Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock. See (Sun Chengze, 65:17b).
12 There were more paintings by Wu Bin documenting Mi Wanzhong’s rocks. The Korean scholar‑official Bak Jiwon (1737–1805)
once met a dealer in Beijing selling a corpus of Wu Bin’s paintings that depict various rocks from Mi Wanzhong’s collections. The
batch included pictures of a Lingbi, square platform rock, Ying stone, Chouchi stone, Yan stone, not‑not‑real rock, blue stone, and
a yellow stone, Bak writes (Bak Jiwon, p. 254). There was also an illustrated document of Mi Wanzhong’s collection of twenty‑
five Lingyan stones, which refer to multicolored, small, pebble‑like agate made from the unique geology of the area around
Liuhe near Nanjing. The Nanjing‑native writer Xu Zemian’s Records on the Illustrations of Lingyan Stones notes that there were
corresponding pictures to the eighteen entries that document their colors and patterns with poetic names of individual stones
(Xu Zimian in GJTSJC, 8.shibu:45a–49b). For another account about Mi Wanzhong’s Lingyan stone collection and its pictorial
catalogue, see (Sun Guomi in GJTSJC, 20.shibu: 45a–51b).
13 For detailed discussion on Hanshan Deqing’s life and scholarship, see (Hsu 1979); for his syncretic thoughts on Yogācāra and
tathāgatagarbha, see (Chen 2001) and (Cui 2001). For a summary of Hanshan Deqing’s commentaries on Daoist texts from the
Yogācārin metaphysical perspective, see (Struve 2019, pp. 93–97). For Yunqi Zhuhong, see (Yü 1981). For Ouyi Zhixu’s practices
and writings focusing on karmic redistributions, see (McGuire 2014).
14 For Chinese rock appreciation, among many, see (Hay 1985; Mowry 1997). For various ways of seeing in understanding the
physical world in the late Ming period, see (Nappi, pp. 38–41).
15 As a lay practitioner, Mi Wanzhong participated in major Buddhist enterprises around Beijing and built private temples on his
estates. For further discussions, see (Zhang 2016; Huang 2014).
16 For further discussions on this painting album, see (Chen 2002). For possible reidentification of some deities in the album, see
(Lo 2016).
17 The method of contemplating upon “dust”, as sensory and cognitive objects, had been elaborated in early Chinese Yogācāra text,
such as the “Method for the Contemplation of Dust as Empty (Chenkong guanmen)” from the Haneda Dunhuang manuscripts. For
further discussion on this Dunhuang manuscript, see (Greene 2017). I thank the reviewer who recommended me to historically
contextualize this visualization method.
18 I am deeply indebted to the reviewer who kindly offered me this reference. The “ten suchlike aspects of reality” indicate char‑
acteristics (xiang), nature (xing), substance (ti), efficacy (li), function (yong or zuo), causes (yin), conditions (yuan), effects (guo),
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 12 of 14

retributions (bao), and the totality of all nine suchnesses. The ten realms refer to the realms of hell denizens, hungry ghosts,
animals, demigods, humans, celestial divinities, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas and buddhas.
19 Lynn reads the signature as “Wu Bin Wenzhong” (Lynn 2017, p. 27). Wenzhong is Wu Bin’s courtesy name.
20 One of the scrolls is currently housed in the National Palace Museum, Taipei.
21 Sense faculties refer to sendriyaḥ kāyaḥ (yougenshen); perceivable material world is bhājanaloka (qishi jian). This epistemological
process is probed in the Śūraṃgama Sūtra. See also (Cheng weishi lun T 1585.31:10a; Zongjing lu T 2016.48:565a).
22 For newly imported European pictures in late Ming China and the Chinese version of Evangelicae Historiae Imagines translated
by Gulio Aleni, see (Mateo 2010; Chen 2009; Lippiello and Malek 1997).
23 I am sincerely grateful to the reviewer for recommending David Morgan’s scholarship.
24 See (Goodman 1978, p. 8). A similar process is observed in the Yogācārin metaphysics in which collective sensory experiences
are materialized and formulated as substance of things (Brewster 2018, p. 158).
25 To name a few among many, (Li 2022; Clunas 2004).

References
Primary Sources
Bak Jiwon 朴趾源. Yeora ilgi 熱河日記.
Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論. In Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku
渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Issaikyō kankōkai, 1924–1932 (hereafter T). 1585.
Da foding rulai miyin xiuzheng liaoyi zhupusa wanxing shoulengyan jing (SLYJ) 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經. T. 945.
Du Wan 杜綰. Yunlin shipu 雲林石譜.
Ge Yinliang 葛寅亮. Jinling fancha zhi 金陵梵刹志.
Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清. Hanshan laoren mengyou ji 憨山老人夢遊集. In Manji Shinsan Dainihon Zokuzōkyō 卍新纂大日本續藏經.
Edited by Kawamura Kōshō 河村照孝. Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai, 1975–1989 (hereafter X). 1456.
Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清. Lengyan jing tongyi 楞嚴經通議. X 279.
Miaofa lianhuajing 妙法蓮華經. T 262.
Mohe zhiguan 摩訶止觀. T 1911.
Sun Chengze 孫承澤. Chunmingmeng yulu 春明夢餘錄.
Sun Guomi 孫國敉. Lingyan shishuo 靈巖石說. In Gujin tushu jicheng fangyu huibian kunyu dian (GJTSJC) 古今圖書集成方輿彙編坤輿典.
Wang Qi 王圻. Sancai tuhui 三才圖會.
Xu Zimian 胥自勉. Lingyan shizi tushuo 靈巖石子圖說. In GJTSJC.
Zhang Nai 張鼐. Baori tang chuji 寳日堂初集.
Zongjing lu 宗鏡録. T 2016.

Secondary Sources
Araki, Kengo 荒木見悟. 1984. Yōmeigaku no kaiten to Bukkyō 陽明学の開展と仏教. Tokyo: Kenbun shuppan.
Barthes, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida. Translated by Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bian, He. 2020. Know Your Remedies: Pharmacy and Culture in Early Modern China. Princeton: University Press.
Birnbaum, Raoul. 2016. When Is a ‘Chinese Landscape Painting’ Also a ‘Chinese Buddhist Painting’?: Approaches to the Works of
Kuncan (1612–1673) and Other Enigmas. In 17th‑Century Chinese Paintings from the Tsao Family Collection. Edited by Stephen
Little. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, pp. 94–129.
Baoli yishu yanjiuyuan 保利藝術研究院編. 2020. Yanhe qizi: Wu Bin “shimian lingbi tujuan” tezhan 岩壑奇姿: 吳彬” 十面靈璧圖卷” 特展.
Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe.
Bloom, Phillip E. 2019. Medium and Materiality in Wu Bin’s Ten Views of a Lingbi Stone. Unpublished conference paper for the
Association of Asian Studies.
Brewster, Ernest Billings. 2018. What Is Our Shared Sensory World?: Ming Dynasty Debates on Yogācāra versus Huayan Doctrines.
Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 31: 117–170.
Burnett, Katharine P. 1995. The Landscapes of Wu Bin (c.1543–c.1626) and a Seventeenth‑Century Discourse of Originality. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Burnett, Katharine P. 2006. Travel and Transformation: Wu Bin’s Enjoying Scenery along the Min River. Oriental Art L: 2–15.
Burnett, Katharine P. 2013. Dimensions of Originality: Essays on Seventeenth‑Century Chinese Art Theory and Criticism. Hong Kong: The
Chinese University Press, pp. 221–90.
Cahill, James. 1967. Fantastics and Eccentrics in Chinese Painting. New York: Asia Society.
Cahill, James. 1972. Wu Pin and His Landscape Painting. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chinese Paintings. Taipei:
National Palace Museum, pp. 637–98.
Cahill, James. 1982. The Compelling Image: Nature and Style in Seventeenth‑Century Chinese Painting. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 13 of 14

Campbell, Duncan, and Alison Hardie, eds. 2020. The Dumbarton Oaks Anthology of Chinese Garden Literature. Washington, DC: Dum‑
barton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Chang, Arnold. 2020. Wu Bin’s ’Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock’: Rediscovering a Masterpiece That Was Never Actually Lost, Curator Conversa‑
tion, Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach, FL, USA.
Chen, Hui‑Hung. 2009. Chinese Perception of European Perspective: A Jesuit Case in the Seventeenth Century. The Seventeenth
Century 24: 97–128. [CrossRef]
Chen, Songbo 陳松柏. 2001. Hanshan Chanxue zhi yanjiu—yi zixing wei zhongxin 憨山禪學之研究— 以自性為中心. Dashuxiang:
Foguangshan wenjiao jijinhui.
Chen, Yunru. 2002. Wu Bin <Hua Lengyan ershiwu yuantong ce> yanjiu 畫楞嚴廿五圓通佛像研究. Guoli Taiwan Daxue meishushi
yanjiu jikan 13: 167–199.
Chen, Yunru 陳韻如. 2013. Qihuan zhenru: Shilun Wu Bin de jushi shenfen yu qi huafeng 奇幻真如: 試論吳彬的居士身分與其畫風.
Zhongzheng hanxue yanjiu 21: 251–78.
Chu, William. 2010. The Timing of Yogācāra Resurgence in the Ming Dynasty. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
33: 5–26.
Clunas, Craig. 2004. Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i
Press.
Cui, Sen 崔森. 2001. Hanshan sixiang yanjiu 憨山思想研究. Dashuxiang: Foguangshan wenjiao jijinhui.
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Flacks, Marcus. 2017. Crags and Ravines Make a Marvellous View: A Study of Wu Bin’s Unique 17th Century Scroll Painting “Ten Views of a
Lingbi Rock”. London: Sylph Editions.
Fong, Wen C. 1996. The Expanding Literati Culture. In Possessing the Past: Treasures from the National Palace Museum, Taipei. Edited by
Wen C. Fong and James C. Y. Watt. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Goodman, Nelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett PubCo.
Grant, Beata. 1994. Mount Lu Revisited: Buddhism in the Life and Writings of Su Shih. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Greene, Eric M. 2017. The Dust Contemplation: A Study and Translation of a Newly Discovered Chinese Yogācāra Meditation Treatise
from the Haneda Dunhuang Manuscripts of the Kyo‑U Library. The Eastern Buddhist 48: 1–50.
Greene, Eric M. 2021. Chan before Chan: Meditation, Repentance, and Visionary Experience in Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of
Hawai�i Press.
Hay, John. 1985. Kernels of Energy, Bones of Earth: The Rock in Chinese Art. New York: China House Gallery, China Institute in America.
Hay, John. 1992. Subject, Nature, and Representation in Early Seventeenth‑Century China. In Proceedings of the Tung Ch’i‑ch’ang
International Symposium. Edited by Wai‑ching Ho. Kansas City: The Lowell Press, pp. 4‑1–4‑22.
He, Chuanxin 何傳馨, and Yunru Chen. 2012. Zhuangqi guaifei renjian: Wu Bin de huihua shijie 狀奇怪非人間: 吳彬的繪畫世界. Taipei:
National Palace Museum.
Heidegger, Martin. 2010. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hsu, Sung‑peng. 1979. A Buddhist Leader in Ming China: The Life and Thought of Han‑Shan Te‑Ch’ing. University Park, Pennsylvania
State: University Press.
Hu, Philip K. 1998. Porträt eines Steins‑Worte und Bilder auf einer Querrolle von Wu Bin und Mi Wanzhong. In Wege ins Paradies
Oder die Liebe zum Stein in China. Zurich: Museum Rietberg, pp. 65–81.
Huang, Wei 黃薇. 2014. Mi Wanzhong ji qi dingzao ciqi yanjiu 米万钟及其订造瓷器研究. Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 174: 134–46.
Huang, Xiao 黄晓, and Jun Jia 贾珺. 2012. Wu Bin Shimian lingbi tu yu Mi Wanzhong feifeishi yanjiu 吴彬《十面灵璧图》与米万钟非非
石研究. Zhuangshi 232: 62–67.
Lau, Din Cheuk. 1967. A Note on ‘Ke Wu’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 30: 353–57.
[CrossRef]
Li, Wai‑yee. 2022. The Promise and Peril of Things: Literature and Material Culture in Late Imperial China. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Lippit, Yukio. 2020. From Kisō to Kijin: Reconsidering Eccentricity in Edo Painting. Orientations 51: 34–43.
Lippiello, Tiziana, and Roman Malek. 1997. Scholar from the West: Giulio Aleni S.J. (1582–1649) and the Dialogue between Christianity and
China. Brescia: Fondazione civiltà bresciana. Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica Institute.
Lo, Hui‑Chi. 2016. Shifting Identities in Wu Bin’s Album of the Twenty‑Five Dharma‑Gates of Perfect Wisdom. Archives of Asian Art
66: 107–151. [CrossRef]
Lusthaus, Dan. 2002. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism and the Ch�eng Wei‑Shih Lun. New
York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Lynn, Richard John. 2017. Translating a Scroll: Wu Bin’s Paintings of Mi Wanzhong’s Fantastic Rock. In Crags and Ravines Make a
Marvelous View: A Study of Wu Bin’s Unique 17th Century Scroll Painting “Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock”. Edited by Marcus Flacks.
London: Sylph Editions, pp. 16–91.
Marion, Jean‑Luc. 1995. God without Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mateo, José Eugenio Borao. 2010. La versión china de la obra ilustrada de Jerónimo Nadal Evangelicae Historiae Imagines. Revista
Goya 330: 16–33.
McGuire, Beverley Foulks. 2014. Living Karma: The Religious Practices of Ouyi Zhixu. New York: Columbia University Press.
Religions 2022, 13, 1182 14 of 14

Morgan, David. 2018. Images at Work: The Material Culture of Enchantment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mowry, Robert D., ed. 1997. Worlds within Worlds: The Richard Rosenblum Collection of Chinese Scholars’ Rocks. Cambridge: Harvard
University Art Museums.
Nappi, Carla. The Monkey and the Inkpot: Natural History and Its Transformations in Early Modern China. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Pawlowski, Anna. 2019. Sanctified Commodities: The Buddhist Paintings of Wu Bin (c. 1540–1626) and the Late Ming Buddhist
Revival. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ryor, Kathleen. 2019. Style as Substance: Literary Ink Painting and Buddhist Practice in Late Ming Dynasty China. In Domestic
Devotions in the Early Modern World. Edited by Marco Faini and Alessia Meneghin. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 244–66.
Schafer, Edward H. 1961. Tu Wan’s “Stone Catalogue of Cloudy Forest”: A Commentary and Synopsis. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer‑
sity of California Press.
Scogin, Hugh T., Jr. 1997. A Note on Lingbi. In Worlds within Worlds: The Richard Rosenblum Collection of Chinese Scholars’ Rocks. Edited
by Robert D. Mowry. Cambridge: Harvard University Art Museums.
Sotheby’s. 1989. Catalogue of Chinese Painting. New York: Sotheby’s.
Struve, Lynn A. 2019. The Dreaming Mind and the End of the Ming World. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Yü, Chün‑fang. 1981. The Renewal of Buddhism in China: Chu‑Hung and the Late Ming Synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zeitlin, Judith T. 1993. Historian of the Strange: Pu Songling and the Chinese Classical Tale. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zeitlin, Judith T. 1999. The Secret Life of Rocks: Objects and Collectors in the Ming and Qing Imagination. Orientations 30: 40–47.
Zhang, Dewei. 2016. Where the Two Worlds Met: Spreading a Buddhist Canon in Wanli (1573–1620) China. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 26: 487–508. [CrossRef]
Zhu, Liangzhi. 2017. Wu Bin’s Picture Scroll: Lingbi Rock in Ten Views. In Crags and Ravines Make a Marvelous View: A Study of
Wu Bin’s Unique 17th Century Scroll Painting “Ten Views of a Lingbi Rock”. Edited by Marcus Flacks. London: Sylph Editions,
pp. 102–111.