See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280946413

— “Chinese Chantings of the Names of Mañjuśrī: The Zhenshi ming jing 真實

名經 in Late Imperial and Modern China”, in V. Durand-Dastès (ed.),
Empreintes du Tantrisme en Chine et en Asie...

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 709

1 author:

Ester Bianchi
Università degli Studi di Perugia
33 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vinaya revival in modern and contemporary China View project

Sinosfere (http://sinosfere.com) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ester Bianchi on 17 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chinese Chantings of the Names of Mañjuśrī  :
The Zhenshi ming jing 真實名經 in Late Imperial
and Modern China*

Ester Bianchi
Università di Perugia, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Scienze Sociali,
Umane e della Formazione

誦彼殊勝真實名 是甚深義廣大義
無比大義勝柔軟 初善中善及後善
Chanting these supreme and authentic names
has both profound and vast meaning :
the incomparable great meaning is very gentle,
good in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.
[Taishō 1190.826c]

In the Tantra section of the Taishō edition of the Buddhist Canon,1 there
are four different translations of the well-known “Chanting of the Names
of Mañjuśrī” (Skr. Ārya-mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti, Tib. ‘Phags pa ’jam dpal
gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa),2 a fundamental text for late Indian

* I am very grateful to Martino Dibeltulo for his careful reading of my text and for
his precious suggestions.
1
  Taishō shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經, Tōkyō, 1924-1935  ; hereafter  : Taishō.
2
 Often simply given as Skr. (Mañjuśrī-)nāma-saṃgīti and Tib. mtshan brjod. This
important text is now extant in seven languages  : apart from the Sanskrit, Tibetan and
Chinese versions, also Tangut, Uighur, Mongolian and Manchu. According to canonical
catalogues, the Tibetan text was translated between the 10th and 11th century by Kamalagupta
and Rin chen bzang po (even if an earlier translation may have existed) and was later
revised by bLo gros brtan pa in the 13th century  ; in the Derge edition of the Tibetan
Buddhist Canon it is the first work of the Tantra section, preceding the Kālacakra cycle,
to which the text is strictly linked. A translation from the Tibetan and the Sanskrit is
provided in Alex Wayman, Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī. The Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti.
118 ester bianchi

Buddhism as well as for the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.3 Dating back to

the 6th or 7th century,4 it has been variously classified as a Supreme
Tantra or as a Yogatantra.5 The four Chinese translations were realized
during the Song and the Yuan dynasties and are believed to have been
very marginal works in the general context of contemporaneous Chinese
Buddhism.6 Their inclusion in canonical editions, however, seems to
show a certain degree of interest for them, at least for what concerned
imperial patronage. On the other hand, various reprints appearing

Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, London, Shambhala Publications, 1985 (also including Tibetan
and Sanskrit texts)  ; for a different translation from the Sanskrit, see Ronald M. Davidson,
“The Litany of Names of Mañjuśrī,” in Michel Strickmann (ed.), Tantric and Taoist
Studies. In Honor of R.A. Stein, Bruxelles, Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises,
1981, vol. 1, pp. 1-69 (also including a Sanskrit text resulting from the collation of the three
existing editions compared with Tibetan versions and commentaries)  ; on the date of the
introduction of the text into Tibet and of the first Tibetan translation, ibidem p. 13. For
another translation from the Tibetan, resulting from a comparison with the Sanskrit text, see
Alexander Berzin, “A Concert of Names of Manjushri,” 2004, in www.berzinarchives.com.
On the different Tibetan editions, see Giacomella Orofino, «  From Archaeological
­Discovery to Text Analysis. The Khor chags Monastery Findings and the Mañjuśrīnāma-
saṃgīti fragment  », in Discoveries in Western Tibet and Western Himalaya. Essays on
History, Literature, Archaeology and Art. Proceedings of the X Seminar of the Interna-
tional Association of Tibetan Studies, vol. 10/8. Leiden  : Brill, 2007, p. 85-128. For the
Mongol edition, see: Alice Sárközi, «  A 17th Century Mongol Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti
with Commentary  », in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 36, 1-3, 1982,
p. 449-468. For the Tangut edition, see Lin Yingjin 林英津, Xixia yu yi “Zhenshi ming
jing” shiwen yanjiu 西夏語譯《真實名經》釋文研究, Taibei, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Yuyan­
xue yanjiusuo, 2006 (this study provides a comparison with the Chinese version Taishō
1190 as well as some notes of comparison with other versions in different languages).
3
 As stated by Ronald M. Davidson, the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti “is perhaps the
most popular canonical ritual text this tradition [Vajrayāna] ever produced. Recited daily
by monks and laymen in India and Tibet, it was the object of numerous Sanskrit and
Tibetan commentaries, serving as the basis of multiple sādhana and maṇḍala cycles and
becoming one of the great stabilizing factors in the transmission of Indo-Tibetan Bud-
dhism” (R. M. Davidson, op. cit., p. 1).
4
 See A. Wayman, op. cit., p. 6  ; the author states that the 7th century is a more real-
istic date. R. M. Davidson (op. cit., p. 5) suggests a date around 700 A.D.
5
 On the place of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti in the classification of Tantras, see
R.M. Davidson, op. cit., p. 15.
6
 R. M. Davidson (op. cit., p. 29) observes that the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti “never
seems to have had an impact on Chinese Buddhism.”
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ119

throughout the 20th century, together with some recent new translations
and collated editions, testify the emergence of this specific practice
among Chinese devotees within the general trend towards Tibetan
Tantrism that took place in the years of the Republic and is still ongoing.
The present study provides a few preliminary remarks on the four Chinese
versions.7 It will then consider the revival of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti
in modern China.

Chinese Canonical Versions of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti

Four Chinese translations of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti are inserted in

the third section, devoted to tantric works, of the Taishō. They differ in
length and style from one another, and are listed according to what
appears to be a tentative chronological sequence  :
1. Fo shuo zui sheng miao Jixiang genben zhi zui shang mimi yiqie mingyi
sanmodi fen 佛說最勝妙吉祥根本智最上秘密一切名義三摩地分, trans-
lated during the Song by Shihu 施護 (Taishō 1187)  ;
2. Wenshu suo shuo zuisheng mingyi jing 文殊所說最勝名義經, translated
during the Song by Jinzongchi 金總持 (Taishō 1188)  ;
3. Fo shuo Wenshu pusa zui sheng zhenshi mingyi jing 佛說文殊菩薩最
勝真實名義經 (Taishō 1189), translated during the Yuan by Shaluoba
沙囉巴  ;
4. Sheng miao Jixiang zhenshi ming jing 聖妙吉祥真實名經 (Taishō 1190),
translated during the Yuan by Shizhi 釋智.

The first text of the list, Taishō 1187, was composed in 1002 by Dānapāla
(Ch. Shihu),8 an Indian monk from Oḍḍyāna who arrived in the imperial

7
 These preliminary remarks will be further developed by myself and Fabian Sanders
within a research which will aim at analysing Chinese canonical translations of the Mañ-
juśrī-nāma-saṃgīti in comparing them to the Tibetan and Sanskrit texts. We presented the
first results of this comparison at the XVIth Conference of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies (Jinshan, Taiwan), 20-25 June 2011) with a paper titled: “Mañjuśrī-
nāma-samgīti between China and Tibet”.
8
 Dānapāla (d. 1018) was first bestowed the title of Great Master of Manifested Teach-
ing (Xianjiao dashi 顯教大師) by Emperor Taizong 太宗, later received the official title of
120 ester bianchi

capital Kaifeng in 980 and soon became Chief Translator at the newly
founded and state-supported Institute for Canonical Translation.9 With
more than one hundred works attributed to him, Shihu stands out as the
most productive of the Indian translators during the Song and as one of
the most productive translators in the whole history of Buddhism in
China. As it was with most of the Song translations, his version of the
Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti was based on a Sanskrit text  ; beginning with the
Chongning zang 崇寧藏 (1080-), it was included in all subsequent editions
of the Chinese Buddhist Canon edited in imperial times as well as in
most of the modern canonical editions.
Jinzongchi, the main author of Taishō 1188, is described in the colo-
phon of the text as an Indian monk, while other sources describe him as
a Tangut. According to Ruth W. Dunnell, he was part of a team of Indian
and Central Asian monks who arrived in Kaifeng between 1027 and
1028, after having settled in the Xixia Empire for a time, and who were
thus comprehensively known as Xixia men  ; in China, they were assigned
to the Institute for the Transmission of the Dharma and served as official

Acting Chief Minister of the Court of Imperial Entertainment (Shi Guangluqing 試光祿卿)
and finally was given the posthumous title of Illustrious and Enlightened (Mingwu 名悟)  ;
see Charles D. Orzech, “Looking for Bhairava  : Exploring the Circulation of Esoteric
Texts Produced by the Song Institute for Canonical Translation,” in Pacific World  : Journal
of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, Third Series, 8, 2006, pp. 139-166 (here pp. 140 passim),
Jan Yun-hua, “Buddhist Relations between India and Sung China. Part II,” in History of
Religions, 6, 2, 1966, pp. 135-168 (here pp. 147-148 and 155), Tansen Sen, “The Revival
and Failure of Buddhist Translations During the Song Dynasty,” in T’oung Pao, 88, 2002,
pp. 27-80 (here pp. 34-35 and 44-46)  ; for a list of Dānapāla’s translations, see Zhou Shujia
周叔迦, “Song Yuan Ming Qing yijing tu ji” 宋元明清譯經圖紀, in Zhou Shujia Foxue
lunzhu ji 周叔迦佛學論著集, Beijing, Zhonghua shuju, 1991, pp. 582-604 (here pp. 589-
594)  ; around forty of Dānapāla’s translations are specifically tantric works (see Lü Jianfu
呂建福, Zhongguo mijiao shi 中國密教史, Beijing, Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe,
1995, p. 448).
9
 Dānapāla, Devaśāntika (Ch. Tianxizai 天息災), Dharmadeva (Ch. Fatian 法天) and
Fahu 法護 formed a group of four Indian monks acting in the role of Main Translators
at the Institute for Translations of Sūtra (Yijing yuan 譯經院), later renamed Institute for
the Transmission of the Dharma (Chuanfa yuan 傳法院), and which remained active from
982 to 1082. On the official translation of Buddhist texts during the Song dynasty, see Jan
Yun-hua, op. cit., C. D. Orzech, op. cit., and Tansen Sen, op. cit.
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ121

translators.10 It should be noted that Jinzongchi was still reported to be

actively translating in 1113.11 Therefore, his translation of the Mañjuśrī-
nāma-saṃgīti was composed at least three decades after Shihu’s version
had been presented at court. It was included for the first time in a canon-
ical compilation in the Jin sponsored Zhaocheng jin zang 趙城金藏
(1148-), but it was not inserted in either the Southern Song edition Zifu
zang 資福藏 (1175-) nor in the Yuan dynasty’s Puning zang 普寧藏
(1278-), while it reappeared in the Ming and Qing Canons.
Taishō 1189 is penned by Shaluoba (1259-1314), probably a trans­
literation for the Tibetan Shes rab dpal.12 A variety of historical sources

10
  See Ruth W. Dunnell, The Great State of White and High  : Buddhism and State For-
mation in Eleventh-Century Xia, Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press, 1996, pp. 31-32.
Instead, Jinzongchi is given as a Tangut by Zhou Shujia, op. cit., p. 597.
11
 See R. W. Dunnell, op. cit., p. 32  ; Dunnell reputes that “this datum does not invite
confidence” (ibidem, p. 190).
12
 See Shen Weirong and Wang Liping, “Background Books and Book’s Background.
Images of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism in Chinese Literature,” in M. Esposito (ed.), op.
cit., pp. 267-300 (here  : p. 290). According to Herbert Franke, who considered Shaluoba
a Tangut, his Tibetan name was Ses-rab dpal ; see Herbert Franke, «  Sha-lo-pa (1259-
1314), a Tangut Buddhist monk in Yüan China  », in Gert Naundorf, Karl-Heinz Pohl,
Hans-Hermann Schmidt eds., Religion und Philosophie in Ostasien, Festschrift für Hans
Steininger zum 65. Geburstag. Wuurzburg: Könighausen & Neumann, 1985, p. 201-222.
Wang Qilong 王啟龍 differently transliterates Shes rab pa  ; see Wang Qilong, “Shaluoba
yishi kao shu” 沙羅巴譯師考述, in Xizang yanjiu 西藏研究, 3, 1997, pp. 62-68, reedited
with an English translation in Wang Qilong 王啟龍, “On Sha-luo-pa (1259-1314)  : The
Buddhist Translator of the Yuan Dinasty – Yuandai Fojing yishi Shaluoba (1259-1314)
kao” 元代佛經譯師沙羅巴 (1259-1314) 考, in Pumen xuebao 普門學報, 12, 2002, pp. 1-42.
Wang observes that historical sources and other materials mentioning Shaluoba give dif-
ferent information about his place of birth and ethnic identity  ; the author examines a
variety of Chinese and Tibetan sources and concludes that Shaluoba was probably a Tibetan
from a small place named Jining, near Qinzhou, on the border between contemporary
Gansu and Shaanxi. He came from an old family of translators, during his youth studied
at Sa skya in Tibet and then moved to Dadu (Beijing), where he pursued his Buddhist
studies and also acted as a translator for ’Phags pa and the Emperor himself. It is worth
mentioning that at the age of 37, Shaluoba was appointed by the Emperor to the Nanjiang
region, in order to rectify the degeneration of the Buddhist saṅgha in South China.
On Shaluoba, also see Zhou Shujia, op. cit., p. 599. On the corruption of the Tibetan admin-
istration and of Buddhist monks in South China, with particular reference to the pillaging
of Song tombs, see Paul Demiéville, “Les tombeaus des Song méridionaux,” in Bulletin
122 ester bianchi

informs us that he was a tonsure disciple and successively a collaborator

of the imperial preceptor ’Phags pa, the renowned advisor and spiritual
guide of Qubilai khan of the Yuan dynasty.13 Shaluoba is said to have
been well versed in “the languages of various countries,” and was offi-
cially charged by the Emperor to translate Buddhist scriptures.14 As Lü
Cheng 呂澂 pointed out, Shaluoba translated his version of the Mañ-
juśrī-nāma-saṃgīti around 1308, after Taishō 1190 had already been
included in the Buddhist Canon  : “He was dissatisfied with Shizhi’s
translation and so issued a new Wenshu zui sheng zhenshi ming yi jing
文殊最勝真實名義經, consulting the Sanskrit text, correcting terms and
verses, and giving it an elegant written form.”15 Apart for the Puning
zang, this version was not included in either of the other Buddhist Can-
ons edited in imperial China.
Shizhi (a possible Chinese rendition for Sa skya ye shes), the author
of Taishō 1190 (hereafter  : Zhenshi ming jing), according to the colophon
was a Tibetan Chief Translator,16 both versed in exoteric and esoteric
teachings.17 He probably based his translation on a Tibetan text, even if

de l’École française d’Extrême Orient, 25, 1925, pp. 458-467  ; Herbert Franke, “Señ-ge.
Das Leben eines uigurischen Staatsbeamten zur Zeit Chubilai’s,” in Sinica, 17, 1942,
pp. 90-113, and “Tibetans in Yüan China,” in John D. Langlois (ed.), China under Mongol
Rule, Princeton University Press, 1987, reprinted in Herbet Franke, China under Mongol
Rule, Aldershot (Hampshire) - Brookfield (Vt.), Variorum, 1994, pp. 296-328 (here  : pp. 321-
325)  ; Rob Linrothe, “The Commissioner’s Commissions  : Late-Thirteenth-Century
Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist Art in Hangzhou under the Mongols,” in M. T. Kapstein (ed.),
op. cit., pp. 73-96 (here  : pp. 73-74).
13
 On bLo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1280), better known as ’Phags pa, “the Saint,” see
Luciano Petech, “Religious Leader. ’P’ags-pa (1235-1280),” in Hok-lam Chan et alii
(eds.), In the Service of the Khan. Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yüan Period
(1200-1300), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 1993, pp. 646-654.
14
 Shaluoba’s translations handed down to us are Taishō 925, 926, 976, 1189 and 1417.
15
  Lü Cheng 呂澂, Han Zang Fojiao guanxi shiliao ji 漢藏佛教關係史料集, Chengdu,
Huaxi xiehe daxue, 1942, p. VI. Note that Lü mentions the Hongfa 弘法 edition of the
Buddhist Canon (1277-), but I could not verify this data  ; the Zhenshi ming jing was
instead inserted for sure in the Qisha zang 磧砂藏 (ca 1231-1322).
16
 Tufan yi zhu 土番譯主  ; Tufan 土番 is a transliteration for bod, the “self-designation
of the Tibetans,” and is one of the main terms used in Chinese sources to refer to Tibet
and Tibetans. See H. Franke, “Tibetans in Yüan China,” op. cit., p. 296.
17
 The text reads  : jiang jing lü lun xi mijiao 講經律論習密教, literarily “who expounded
sūtra, vinaya and śāstra, and practiced Tantrism.” We do not know much more about this
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ123

it can be assumed that he also had access to a Sanskrit text.18 Despite

the little renown of this master, his work was destined to be the most
influential of the four versions. Its inclusion in the Qisha zang 磧砂藏19
seems to have favoured its circulation already during the Yuan dynasty,
as suggested by the fact that both Baochang 寶昌 and Huizhuang 慧幢
quote the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti citing passages taken from the Zhenshi
ming jing.20 But the main cause of its fortune may be found in the preface
of the Yongle bei zang 永樂北藏 (1410-) edition  ;21 penned by the Wen
文 Emperor himself (Ming Taizong 明太宗, Yongle 永樂 era), through
textual citations it highly praises the outcomes deriving from this text,
which is said to “increase merit and wisdom, eliminate defilements,
liberate from mistakes, terminate afflictions and dissolve harmful
obstructions,” also encouraging “people to be good” and to behave as

monk  ; note that his name is given as Shi Zhihui 釋智慧 by Zhou Shujia, op. cit., p. 600.
Zhihui 智慧 is also the name that appears in the colophon of some additional materials
added to the Zhengshi ming jing in the Ming and Taisho editions of the Buddhist canon.
On this issue, also see Lü J., op. cit., p. 539.
18
 This is suggested by Lin Chong’an 林崇安, Sheng miao Jixiang zhenshi ming jing
guangshi 聖妙吉祥真實名經廣釋, Gaoxiong, Diting wenhua shiye, 2001, p. 4.
19
 See note 15.
20
  Lü C. (op. cit., p. 5) observes that in the Dasheng yaodao miji 大乘要道密集, both
the Jieshi daoguo zhu nan ji 解釋道果逐難記 by Baochang and the Dashouyin pei jiao
yaomen 大手印配教要門 by Huizhuang cite verses taken from Shizhi’s translation of the
Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti. On the Dasheng yaodao miji, a collection of eighty-three tantric
works mostly dating back to Yuan times, also see Chen Qingying 陳慶英, “Dasheng
yaodao miji yu Xixia wangchao de Zangchuan Fojiao” 《大乘要道密集》與西夏王朝的藏
傳佛教, in Zhongguo zangxue 中國藏學, 3, 2003, pp. 94-106, and Shen Weirong 沈微榮,
“Dasheng yaodao miji yu Xixia, Yuanchao suo chuan Xizang mifa. Dasheng yaodao miji
xilie yanjiu daolun” 《大乘要道密集》與西夏、元朝所傳西藏密法。《大乘要道密集》系列研究
導論, in Zhonghua Foxue xuebao 中華佛學學報 - Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, 20, 2007,
pp. 251-303.
21
 Printed in Beijing, the northern Ming edition of the Buddhist Canon was officially
commissioned during the Yongle era, and was completed in 1440/1441. Note that the
Zhenshi ming jing had also been included in the Nanjing or southern Ming edition (Yongle
nan zang 永樂南藏, 1412-)  ; a Qing time reproduction of the latter (1551), comprising a
copy of the Zhenshi ming jing, is presently preserved at the rare editions department of
Beijing National Library (at the time I visited the library, in August 2009, it was going to
be digitalized and it could not be consulted).
124 ester bianchi

“loyal officials and dutiful sons.”22 The Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti by

Shizhi was inserted in all Ming, Qing and modern editions of the Buddhist
Canon. The Tibetan text, preceded by Yongle’s preface, was published as
an autonomous text during the Ming dynasty, as it emerges from a “tiny
and exquisite” copy dated 1411 and still preserved at the Beijing National
Library.23 As for the Qing dynasty, the publication of a three-lingual text
apparently dating back to the 18th century is of great interest. It consists
of 34 pages and has a refined decorated binding in traditional Tibetan
style  : it is written in three rows and has the Sanskrit verses at the top,
Tibetan script in the centre and Chinese characters (written from left to
right so as in Sanskrit and Tibetan conventions) in the lower part. Also
in this case, the Chinese text follows Shizhi’s Zhenshi ming jing.24
In order to compare the four Chinese versions, it becomes necessary
to give an outline of the contents of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti. This
very short work, only consisting of 167 hymns or gāthās and some mantras,
was originally not divided into chapters. Commentators, however, split
it into thirteen separate sections using a chapter subdivision technique that
is also to be partially found in two of the Chinese translations.25 Following

22
  Yongle bei zang 永樂北藏, vol. 73, pp. 839-875. Note that Emperor Ming Taizong
wrote prefaces also for other four tantric works  ; see Lü J., op. cit., p. 543. For the con-
nections of this Emperor (also known as Chengzu 成祖) with Tibetan Buddhism, particularly
see Elliot Sperling, “The 5th Karma-pa and Some Aspects of the Relationship Between
Tibet and the Early Ming,” in Michael Aris, Aung San Suu Kyi (eds.), Tibetan Studies in
Honor of Hugh Richerdson, Warminster, Aris and Phillips, 1980, pp. 280-289.
23
  Shengmiao Jixiang zhenshi ming jing 聖妙吉祥真實名經, Beijing, Yongle 9th year
(1411), mentioned in Zheng Xianlan 鄭賢蘭, “Canlan de wenhua, xuanli de guibao  :
Guotu cang shaoshu minzu wenxian jianjie” 燦爛的文化絢麗的瑰寶—國圖藏少數民族文獻
簡介, in Wenjin liushang 文津流觴, 3, 2002 (www.nlc.gov.cn).
24
 I was not able to trace and consult this precious edition at Beijing’s National Library.
The information available to me comes from the description and partial reproduction of
the text in the catalogue of the exhibition “Treasures from the World’s Great Libraries”
held at the National Library of Australia, Camberra, December 2001-February 2002.
25
 Following Alex Wayman (op. cit.), these chapters are  : 1) Asking for instructions  ;
2) The reply  ; 3) Surveying the six families  ; 4) Abhisambodhi sequence of the net of
illusion  ; 5) The great maṇḍala of Vajradhātu  ; 6) Pure Dharmadhātu wisdom  ; 7) Praising
the mirrorlike wisdom  ; 8) Discriminative wisdom  ; 9) Sameness wisdom  ; 10) Proce-
dure-of-duty wisdom  ; 11) Praise of the five Tathāgata  ; 12) Exhibition of mantra  ; 13) The
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ125

this partition, chapters first to five consist of Vajrapāṇi’s request to

receive the teaching, of Buddha Śākyamuni’s reply, and of a first set of
mantras. The list of the ‘names’ is concentrated in chapters five to ten.
In spite of what could be inferred by the title, these are not to be consid-
ered epithets of the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī himself, referring instead to his
“characters.”26 The list is followed by a devotional homage, a number of
extra mantras and a few lines of final verses in the last three chapters.27
Moreover, some Sanskrit and Tibetan editions insert six cycles of praises
between the eleventh and twelfth chapters  ; these prose passages are pro-
bably later additions to the main text and are conceived as an ode to the
practice of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti.28
All the Chinese texts present the original 167 hymns as well as the six
praises  ; Shihu and Jinzongchi’s texts are divided into two juan 卷, while
Shaluoba and Shizhi’s versions are composed of only one juan. In addition,
Shizhi’s Zhenshi ming jing is followed by other mantras and hymns, notably
including the “Hymn of the 108 names of Mañjuśrī” (Wenshushili yibaiba
ming zan 文殊師利一百八名贊) and the “Five-syllable heart mantra of (Ara-
pacana) Mañjuśrī” (Wenshu pusa wuzi xin zhou 文殊菩薩五字心咒).29

summing up. Shihu (Taishō 1187) does not divide the text into chapters, with the only
exception of chapter eight  ; Jinzongchi (Taishō 1188) has no chapter subdivision  ; Shaluoba
(Taishō 1189) unites chapters one to three, then giving a brief description of the contents at
the end of each of the following chapters, except for chapter twelve  ; Shizhi (Taishō 1190)
does not indicate chapters one to four and chapters eleven to twelve, thus only giving a brief
summary of contents of the chapters dedicated to the names of Mañjuśrī.
26
 A. Wayman, op. cit., pp. 8-9. In other words, “… these names are not what Mañjuśrī
is called, in the sense of the grammatical vocative, but rather in the nominative, as the
commentator Smṛti explains, intending, ‘You, Mañjuśrī, are’ thus and thus” (ibidem, p. 37).
27
 According to R. M. Davidson (op. cit., p. 3), verses 1-24 and the final mantra and
verses (i.e. chapters first to five and twelve to thirteen of the commentaries) are later
additions to a earliest stratum (verses 26-162), which “represents a basic meditative form
complete with devotional homage in the final five verses.”
28
 For an English translation of the six cycles of praises, see A. Wayman, op. cit.,
pp. 42-46, and R. M. Davidson, op. cit., pp. 39-44. Note that, among the Chinese versions,
only Shaluoba separates the six praises from one another through titles put at the end of
each of them.
29
  Taishō 1190, respectively pp. 832b22-833a24 and 834a09-27. These additional texts
follow the translation of the Zhenshi ming jing at least in the northern Ming Canon and
126 ester bianchi

In regards to metric choices, Shizhi’s verses, being composed in seven

syllables each, are modelled on the Tibetan and Sanskrit originals, while
the other texts are composed by five-character verses, a characteristic of
traditional Chinese literary style.30 Moreover, Shizhi and Shaluoba are
very strict in giving the same length to single gāthās, choosing a four-
verse pattern for each of them.31 On the other hand, Shihu and Jinzongchi
do not seem to care too much about the metric subdivision of the original
text  : even if both display a predominance of four verses for each hymn,
in Jinzongchi variations to this pattern are far from being exceptional  ;
as for Shihu, he often also uses eight (and even five or seven) verses for
each hymn, thus disregarding the gāthā division whenever a broader
space for his translation was required.
It is also worth mentioning that the Tibetan translation is a faithful ren-
dition of the original, revealing a strict adherence also to the order of lines
in the Sanskrit text,32 while the Chinese versions tend to move lines up and
down within single gāthās (this being particularly true for Shihu and
Jinzongchi). In addition, they often do not translate all single words lit-
erally and at times seem to misunderstand the original meaning of the
text. This emerges already from the very incipit, which I first quote from
Alex Wayman’s translation from the Sanskrit  :33 “Now Vajradhara, śrīmat
[glorious], supreme tamer of / those hard to tame, the hero, victorious /

in the Taishō. According to Lü Jianfu, they were already included in the Qisha zang (Lü J.
op. cit., p. 539).
30
 As an exception to this rule, Shihu in two points uses a seven-syllable verse (gāthās
158-162 and 163-167  : Taishō 1187, respectively pp. 812b15-24 and 814b12-21). As for
Jinzongchi, it should be noted that he translated hymns 163-167 in prose (Taishō 1188,
pp. 809c28-810a10).
31
 The only exception in Shizhi is gāthā 76, which is composed of five verses (Taishō
1190, p. 828b08).
32
 According to Alex Wayman (op. cit., p. 38), only verse 15 in the first chapter of the
Tibetan version presents a different order of lines if compared to the Sanskrit text, with
the first and second lines reversed.
33
 A. Wayman, op. cit., p. 57. The Sanskrit text reads  : “atha vajradharaḥ śrīmān dur­
dāntadamakaḥ paraḥ / trilokavijayī vīro guhyarāṭ kuliśeśvaraḥ” (ibidem). For a different
English translation, see R. M. Davidson, op. cit., p. 18.
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ127

over the three worlds, lord of secrets, the / adamantine lord... .” The four
Chinese translations read as follows  :34
1)  Taishō 1187 (Shihu)  :
爾時大吉祥 最勝金剛手 At that time, greatly glorious, / supreme Vajrapaṇi,35
具一切功德 能調難調者 possessing all virtues, / capable to tame those
hard to tame,
三界中最勝 最尊大無畏 most victorious in the three worlds, / most
revered great fearless one,
諸祕密部中 自在為主宰 among all secrets, / sovereign (you) are the lord...

2)  Taishō 1188 (Jinzongchi)  :

金剛掌菩薩 降伏諸魔眾 Vajradhara Bodhisattva, / tamer of all maras,
身湧遍三界 祕密王自在 the body pouring36 over the three worlds, / lord
sovereign of secrets...

3)  Taishō 1189 (Shaluoba)  :

吉祥持金剛 能調難調伏 Glorious Vajradhara, / capable to tame those
hard to tame,
勇猛勝三界 自在祕密主 hero, vanquisher of the three worlds / sovereign,
lord of secrets...

4) Taishō 1190 (Shizhi)  :

復次吉祥持金剛 And again, glorious Vajradhara,
難調伏中勝調伏 supreme tamer among those hard to tame,
勇猛超出三界內 hero who transcends the three worlds,
自在金剛密中勝 lord vajra, vanquisher of secrets...

34
  Respectively  : Taishō 1187, p. 808a22-a24  ; Taishō 1188, p. 814c09-09  ; Taishō 1189,
p. 820a20-21  ; and Taishō 1190, p. 826b25-26. The English translation from the Chinese
is mine.
35
 For Vajradhara being a “mild image” of Vajrapaṇi in early tantric texts or being a
name of Vajrapaṇi “in his office of interlocutor,” see R. M. Davidson, op. cit., p. 18  ; it should
be noted that later “the two figures were to go their own way, Vajradhara becoming the
Adhibuddha” (ibidem). Chijingang 持金剛 (Vajradhara) and Jingangshou 金剛手 (Vajra­
paṇi), or other variants, are often intended as interchangeable synonyms in Chinese.
36
 Character yong 湧 (“to pour, surge”) is here most probably a misprint for yong 勇
(“hero”).
128 ester bianchi

As for mantric syllables, our authors often chose different characters to

transliterate them, as can be seen from the following two sets of mantras  :37
1) Skr./Tib.  : a ā i ī u ū e ai o au aṃ aḥ
Taishō 1187 (Shihu)  : 阿阿壹翳嗢污伊愛烏奧暗惡
Taishō 1188 (Jinzongchi)  : 遏阿壹翳嗢汙伊愛鄔奧暗噁
Taishō 1189 (Shaluoba)  : 阿阿壹醫嗢污伊愛烏奧暗惡
Taishō 1190 (Shizhi)  : 啞阿依倚烏鄔[ 口* 英][ 口* 哀] 阿嗃[ 口*(( 起- 巳+
欠)-走+亢)]啞

2)  Skr./Tib.  : oṃ sarvadharmābhāvasvabhāvaviśuddhāvajra (cakṣu) a ā aṃ aḥ

Taishō 1187  : 唵薩哩[口*縛]達哩摩婆[口*縛]莎婆[口*縛]尾秫提達哩摩作
芻阿阿暗惡
Taishō 1188  : 唵薩哩[口*縛]達哩摩阿婆[口*縛]娑[口*縛]婆[口*縛]尾秫馱
[口*縛]惹囉遏阿暗噁
Taishō 1189  : 唵薩哩[口*縛]達哩摩阿婆[口*縛]娑[口*縛]婆[口*縛]尾秫馱
[口*縛]日羅遏阿暗噁
Taishō 1190  : 唵薩末捺麻啞末瓦娑末瓦比熟捺末日囉啞啞[口*江]啊

In spite of some slight differences, there is substantial consistency between

the mantras in Shihu and those in Jinzongchi and Shaluoba. This suggests
that the later translators took a close eye on Shihu’s text and, whenever
possible, adopted his choices.38 On the other hand, in transliterating man-
tras Shizhi seems to have disregarded former translations.

The Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti in 20th Century China

In 1937, Haichaoyin 海潮音 published a photostatic reproduction of the

first pages of a three-lingual edition of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti that

37
 The two sets of mantras are respectively included in the forth and in the twelfth
chapters of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti  ; for the original Sanskrit text, see A. Wayman, op.
cit., pp. 66 and 114. The Chinese sets of mantra are taken from the electronic texts edited by
the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association (www.cbeta.org), thus following CBETA’s
graphic conventions (instructions on the reading of characters have though been omitted).
See Taishō 1187, pp. 808c27 and 814b01-02  ; Taishō 1188, pp. 815a24 and 819c20-21  ;
Taishō 1189, pp. 825b28-825c01 and 820c13-14  ; and Taishō 1190, pp. 827a17 and 832a09.
38
 It should though be mentioned that in other cases Shaluoba’s text completely differs
from the Song versions.
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ129

appears to be a copy of the Qing text cited above.39 The review does not
mention the name of the editor, nor does it give any information about
the circumstances that brought to this publication. And yet, its appear-
ance in the pages of the well-known Chinese Buddhist periodical is of
great importance, and reminds us of the “fever for Tibet” that was taking
place in Chinese Buddhist milieus of the Republican period.40
Among the most representative personalities of this new trend of Chi-
nese Buddhists towards Tibetan Buddhism, master Nenghai 能海 stands
out for the amount of his translations from the Tibetan (around sixty
texts, mainly on tantric topics) as well as for the foundation in Mainland
China of monastic communities modelled on the dge lugs pa monasteries
he personally visited in Khams and Lhasa.41 Given the centrality of the
Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti in the monastic curricula of such milieus, and
considering the links connecting this practice to the Arapacana maṇḍala
and to the Vajrabhairava maṇḍala,42 Nenghai’s two main yi dams, it was

  “Han Fan Zang santiwen zhenshi ming jing” 漢梵藏三體文真實名經, in Haichaoyin

39

海潮音, 18, 2, 1937, p. 8.

40
 For the increasing interest for Tibetan Buddhism among Chinese devotees during
the 20th century, particularly see the related contributions included in the two recent works
edited by Monica Esposito (Images of Tibet in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Paris, Ecole
française d’Extreme-Orient, 2008) and by Matthew T. Kapstein (Buddhism Between Tibet
and China, Boston, Wisdom Publications, 2009). Also see my “The Tantric Rebirth
Movement in Modern China. Esoteric Buddhism re-vivified by the Japanese and Tibetan
Traditions,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica, 57, 1, 2004, pp. 31-54  ;
Mei Jingxuan 梅靜軒, “Minguo yilai de han Zang Fojiao guanxi (1912-1949)  : Yi Han
Zang jiaoliyuan wei zhongxin de tantao” 民國以來的漢藏佛教關係 (1912-1949)─以漢藏教
理院為中心的探討, in Zhonghua Foxue yanjiu 中華佛學研究, 2, 1998, pp. 251-288, and
“Minguo zaoqi xianmi Fojiao chongtu de tantao” 民國早期顯密佛教衝突的探討, in Zhong­
hua Foxue yanjiu, 3, 1999, pp. 251-270  ; Fabienne Jagou, Le 9e Panchen Lama (1883-
1937). Enjeu des relations sino-tibétaines, Paris, École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004  ;
Gray Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China, New York, Columbia
University Press, 2004  ; and Françoise Wang-Toutain, “Quand les maîtres chinois s’éveil-
lent au bouddhisme tibétain. Fazun  : le Xuanzang des temps modernes,” in Bulletin de
l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 87, 2, 2000, pp. 707-727.
41
 On this master see my “The ‘Chinese Lama’ Nenghai (1886-1967)  : Doctrinal Tradi-
tion and Teaching Strategies of a Gelukpa Master in Republican China,” in M. T. Kapstein
(ed.), op. cit., pp. 295-346.
42
 See A. Wayman, op. cit., p. 23.
130 ester bianchi

then very natural for him to give a prominent position to our text. We know
that it was the first tantric text to be bestowed on him by Khang gsar rin
po che, his future root master, when he had just arrived in Lhasa  : “At the
beginning, he joined others asking the bla ma for the transmission of the
Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti, and afterwards he would reach him whenever
he was going to preach on the scriptures.”43 The first monastery that Neng-
hai founded in China was Chengdu’s Jincisi 金慈寺 (1938). He organized
it into five separate ‘departments’, emulating the great monastic colleges
of Tibet. The study and practice of the Zhenshi ming jing became central
to the Hall for Vinaya Studies, which was reserved to ‘lower acolytes’,
and to the Institute for the Translation of Scriptures, established in 1945
and devoted to the training of a team of monks translators. Language
classes in this department also involved the memorization of exoteric and
esoteric Tibetan works, including the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti.44 The Jin-
cisi had also a print workshop that published a booklet of the Zhenshi
ming jing based on the copy preserved in the northern Ming Canon that
included Shizhi’s text, Ming Taizong’s preface and other related mate-
rials.45 The only difference consisted in the characters transliterating
mantras, which were emendated so as to enable practitioners to cor-
rectly recite them according to the Tibetan pronunciation.46 As for the
importance Nenghai attached to the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti, Zhimin 智敏
informs us that after 1960, while establishing his community on Mount

43
 See Dingzhi 定智 et al. (eds.), Nenghai shangshi zhuan 能海上師傳, Shanghai, Shang-
hai Foxue shuju, 1996, p. 10.
44
 See Dingzhi et al. (eds.), op. cit., pp. 81 and 84.
45
 For a recent reprint, see Sibi Wenshu shengmiao jixiang zhenbao ming jing 四臂文
殊聖妙吉祥真寶名經, Handi da bore zong xiuxue yanjiu, Shuangyashan, 2005.
46
  Canonical transliterations of mantras referred to an ancient reading of Chinese char-
acters which was no more in use in modern times. It should be noted that Nenghai used
to refer to the Sichuanese pronunciation of characters to render the Tibetan sounds of
mantra syllables. As pointed out by Gray Tuttle, also in the Misheng fahai 密乘法海, a
Chinese language collection of Tibetan Buddhist materials edited in 1930, the Sichuan
dialect was the basis for Chinese transliterations, thus showing that it was probably written
for a local audience  ; see Gray Tuttle, “Translating Buddhism from Tibetan to Chinese in
Early-Twentieth-Century China (1931-1951),” in M. T. Kapstein (ed.), op. cit., pp. 241-279
(here  : p. 242).
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ131

Wutai, “(the master) would praise over and over the Zhenshi ming jing,
urging all his disciples to make it a rule to chant it, and advising them
to recite it four times every day, so as to quickly develop wisdom.”47
In contemporary times, Jincisi’s block prints are still used to reedit the
text for the daily services in many of Nenghai’s extant monastic commu-
nities, such as the Shijingsi 石經寺 and the Zhaojuesi 昭覺寺 in Sichuan
Province, the Duobaojiangsi 多寶講寺 in Zhejiang, and the Jixiangsi 吉
祥寺 on Mount Wutai. In many of these monasteries the text is also a
topic of study  : for instance, Qingding 清定, former abbot of the Zhaojuesi
and principal heir of Nenghai, in the 1980s used to preach on the Mañjuśrī-
nāma-saṃgīti during the three month summer retreats.48 Nowadays the
same practice is carried out by Zhimin during the study sessions he reg-
ularly holds in Duobaojiangsi. It should also be mentioned that Renxiang
仁祥, one of Nenghai’s last disciples now living on the outskirts of
­Beijing, only refers to the exoteric tradition of his master and transmits
to his devotees the Zhenshi ming jing as the highest teaching of the
so-called “prajñā school” (banruo/bore zong 般若宗).49
As for other modern editions, the most outstanding work is probably
the three-lingual text produced in 1985 by the Vajrayāna Esoteric Society
(Jingangsheng xuehui 金剛乘學會) of Taiwan  ; the editor was the founder
of the Buddhist society himself, the rnying ma master Guru Lau Yui-chi
(Liu Ruizhi 劉銳之), who had been repeatedly advised to publish such a
work by his own master, the well-known dBud ’joms, known in China

47
 See Qingding 清定, Longlian 隆蓮, Zhaotong 昭通 et. al. (ed.), Nenghai shangshi
yonghuai lu 能海上師詠懷錄, Shanghai, Shanghai Foxue shuju, 1997, p. 45.
48
 See Miaochang 妙常, Ji Chengdu Zhaojuesi fangzhang Qingding shangshi de jiayan
yixing 記成都昭覺寺方丈清定上師的嘉言懿行, Wenzhou, 1984, in http  ://bbs.heshang.net.
49
 The Zhenshi ming jing is periodically reprinted both by the Zhaojuesi and the Shi-
jingsi. The text I dispose of, Sibi Wenshu shengmiao jixiang zhenbao ming jing, op. cit.,
opens up with an image of Four-armed Mañjuśrī and includes the whole Jincisi’s edition  ;
it was published by the Handi da bore zong 漢地大般若宗 (Great prajñā school in Han
China), the community headed by Renxiang in Dayuan. On the form of the Bodhisattva
displayed in this text, see Marie-Thérèse De Mallmann, Etude Iconographique sur Mañjuśrī,
Paris, Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient («  Publications de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-
Orient  », LV), 1964, pp. 52-53 and 66.
132 ester bianchi

as Dunzhu 敦珠 rin po che.50 The text is conceived in the same manner

as the Qing copy seen above, with Sanskrit at the top, Tibetan in the
centre and Chinese in the lower part, but has different and more varied
images inside as well as more dedications to deities. The text follows
Shizhi’s Zhenshi ming jing only as far as verses are concerned, while the
prose passages are omitted. Moreover, it has been slightly revised in a
few parts, it presents shorter instructions and titles directly translated
from the Tibetan, and uses different Chinese characters to transliterate
mantras.51
The Zhenshi ming jing, often introduced by explanatory notes, is also
displayed in various Buddhist websites on behalf of the increasing num-
ber of Tibetan Buddhist practitioners among Chinese speakers. Some of
the texts are transcriptions of lessons held by Buddhist masters at reli-
gious events.52 The choice of Shizhi’s text in most of these editions is

50
 For the Vajrayāna Society, Guru Lau and the role of dBud ’joms in Taiwan, see Yao
Lixiang, “The Development and Evolution of Tibetan Buddhism in Taiwan,” in M. Espos-
ito (ed.), op. cit., pp. 579-609 (here pp. 584 and 589-90). As for dBud ’joms and Guru
Lau’s activities in Hong Kong, see Henry C. H. Shiu, “Tibetan Buddhism in Hong Kong.
The polarity of two trends of practice,” in M. Esposito (ed.), op. cit., pp. 551-577 (here
pp. 557-561). On the spreading of Tibetan Buddhism in Taiwan, also see Yao Lixiang 姚
麗香, “Zangchuan Fojiao zai Taiwan fazhan de chubu yanjiu” 藏傳佛教在台灣發展的初步研
究, in Foxue yanjiu zhongxin xuebao 佛學研究中心學報, 5, 2000, pp. 313-339, and Abraham
Zablocki, “The Taiwanese Connection  : Politics, Piety, and Patronage in Transnational
Tibetan Buddhism,” in M. T. Kapstein (ed.), op. cit., pp. 379-414. For dBud ’joms rin po che
(1904-1987), see the recently issued biography by Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche
(ed.), Light of Fearless Indestructible Wisdom  : The Life and Legacy of His Holiness
Dudjom Rinpoche, Ithaca (NY), Snow Lion, 2008.
51
  Liu Ruizhi 劉銳之 (ed.), Fan Han Zang wen hebi shengmiao jixiang zhenshi ming
jing 梵藏漢合璧聖妙吉祥真實名經, Taizhong, Misheng chubanshe, 1990 (second edition).
The Tibetan title was written by dBud ’joms rinpoche, who sponsored the publication and
is mentioned in the editorial notes for having “examined and approved” it  ; it should
though be noted that dBud ’joms did not know Chinese, even if he had many Chinese
followers. For this information, I am very grateful to Prof. M. T. Kapstein (private com-
munication, November 2009).
52
 Shizhi’s text of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti is widely reedited in various Buddhist
websites  ; see for instance www.fofaseng.cn and www.bfnn.org. The following sites
deserve a particular mention  : Yemohe 耶摩訶 or Emaho (http  ://home.educities.edu.tw/
emaho) offers a bilingual edition, which displays the Derge Tibetan text above and
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ133

probably due to its higher popularity connected with its imperial preface.
Furthermore, it may have also been due to its stylistic features. As a
matter of fact, the seven-syllable verses of the Zhenshi ming jing allow
practitioners to recite it in accordance to Tibetan chanting rhythm, which
would be more difficult with the five-syllable versions. In any event,
as will be shown below, it should be noted that at least in one case there
is evidence of the recognition of a higher accuracy of Shaluoba’s trans-
lation.53
Recently, new translations have also been produced. One good exam-
ple is the work by Tan Xiyong 談錫永, a Chinese rnying ma master
presently living in Canada, who, together with Feng Weiqiang 馮偉強,
published a new collated Chinese edition of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti
resulting from a comparison between five Sanskrit texts and the four
Chinese canonical versions. In the long explanatory notes that follow the
translation, Tan takes into account Tibetan and Chinese related literature.54

Shizhi’s text below  ; in the site of the Ningmaba Zhigong jingxu Foxuehui 寧瑪巴智噶經
續佛學會 (http  ://nyngmapa.myweb.hinet.net), the text is explained verse by verse by the
rnying ma master Zhigong 直貢 rin po che  ; finally, the Fojiao yujia shi Lin Yutang boshi
guanfang wangzhan 佛教瑜伽士林鈺堂博士官方網站 (www.yogichen.org/gurulin), the web-
site of Lin Yutang 林鈺堂, a disciple of the well-known Yogi Chen or Chen Jianmin 陳健
民, includes instructions for the practice of the Zhenshi ming jing. On Yogi Chen, see Chen
Bing, “The Tantric Revival and Its Reception in Modern China,” in M. Esposito, op. cit.,
pp. 387-427 (here p. 406). In regards to transcriptions of preaching sessions on the Mañ-
juśrī-nāma-saṃgīti, I shall also mention the book by Zhang Shizong 張世宗 (Jiujing
chaoyue de yi yan  : “Shengmiao jixiang zhenshi ming jing” jiangshi 究竟超越的一眼
─《聖妙吉祥真實名經》講釋, Taibei, Fa’er, 1992), which is based on a lesson held by the
author, a renowned lay Buddhist master, on Mount Wutai.
53
 Renqin Quezha 仁欽卻札 (tr.), Sheng song miao jixiang ming (Song bojiafan miao
jixiang zhihui satuo sheng yi ming) 聖誦妙吉祥名 (誦薄伽梵妙吉祥智慧薩埵勝義名), pub-
lished in March 2008 in http  ://xy.tibetcul.com  ; also see www.gelu.org.
54
 Tan Xiyong 談錫永, Feng Weiqiang 馮偉強, “Sheng miao Jixiang zhenshi ming jing”
fanben yi jiao《聖妙吉祥真實名經》梵本譯校, Taibei, Quan Fo wenhua, 2008. This text is
the first of a series of three volumes  : the second one is a translation of Candragomin,
Vimalamitra and Candrabhadrakîrti’s commentaries (Tan Xiyong 談錫永, Feng Weiqiang
馮偉強, Huang Jilin 黃基林 (eds.), Sheng miao jixiang zhenshi ming jing shilun san zhong
聖妙吉祥真實名經釋論三種. Taibei  : Quanfo wenhua, 2011), and the third one will be a
comparison between the Chinese and Sanskrit versions and between the Chinese and
Tibetan versions of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti.
134 ester bianchi

Moreover, Lin Chong’an’s 林崇安 translation from the Tibetan of Can-

dragomin’s (Ch. Yueguan 月官, Tib. btsun pa zla ba) commentary can
also be regarded in the light of this new trend  ;55 it includes a new ver-
sion of Shizhi’s Zhenshi ming jing, which the author heavily emendated
according to the Tibetan text. The most evident changes regard mantra
syllables, which are mostly newly transliterated, as it was the case with
other modern Chinese editions.56 A similar task has been undertaken by
Renqin Quezhan 仁欽卻札 in his new translation from the Sanskrit, which
is cited in various dge lugs pa websites  ; interesting enough, the author
also considered Shaluoba’s work, that according to him is the canonical
version closest to the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts.57

Final Remarks

Scholars disagree on the role and impact of the Buddhist translations

produced during the Song dynasty, which, according to some, did not
respond to the needs and interests of the time, while others point to a
certain circulations of the new texts also outside the imperial court which
sponsored them.58 Nevertheless, it is still fair to sustain that Tantrism was

55
 Alex Wayman suggests that this Candragomin is not the eminent Buddhist gram-
marian of the 6th century  ; instead, he believes more probable that the author of the
commentary on the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti might be “the one who wrote the commentary
in the cycle of the ‘Twenty-one Praises of Tāra,’ probably in the 8th century” (A. Wayman,
op. cit., p. 5).
56
 See Lin Chong’an, op. cit. Lin Chong’an teaches Buddhist studies at various Bud-
dhist institutions in Taiwan, namely at Faguang 法光’s, Yuanguang 圓光’s and Zhonghua/
Chung Hwa 中華’s Institutes of Buddhist Studies.
57
 Renqin Quezha (tr.), op. cit. In the introductory notes the author explains that his
translation is based on the Sanskrit text to be found in A. Wayman, op. cit.  ; he further
admits that it was his intention to use seven-character verses as in Shizhi’s version, but
that he had to change to a five-character pattern because otherwise he would have
employed an excessive number of redundant words.
58
 Ran Yunhua 冉雲華 pointed out in 1966 that there was a “limited influence of the
Sung translations of Buddhist texts on the Chinese Saṅgha,” one of the main reasons being
that “monks of different sects were interested only in the basic scriptures of their own
sects, and, in many cases, gave more attention to their Chinese patriarchs’ commentaries
than to translated canons” (Jan Yun-hua, op. cit., pp. 139-140). His thesis, which was
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ135

far from being a salient aspect of contemporaneous Chinese Buddhism  ;59

thus, the predominance of esoteric texts among the new Song translations
can be regarded as a major cause for their complete or partial “failure.”
In other words these texts – and among them the two versions of the
Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti – were probably in most cases good literary
enterprises with little if any influence on Buddhist devotees.
As it is well known, the situation changed in China during the Yuan
dynasty, a time when Tibetan Buddhism was elevated to the role of
State religion and was patronized by the imperial court.60 Without over-
emphasizing the impact of tantric practices on the Chinese Saṅgha, which

previously generally accepted by scholars, has been partially revised in 2002 by Tansen
Sen, who focuses on the role these texts had in diplomatic relations, still believing that
“most of the new translations and contents” were “obsolete in China” and that they
“failed to circulate among the Song Buddhist community” (Tansen Sen, op. cit., pp. 31
and 66). On the other hand, Charles D. Orzech in a recent study states that “the scriptures
translated under imperial patronage in the Northern Song did have an impact in China”
and demonstrates that some of the new translations and of the teachings and iconography
they represented had some circulation (C. D. Orzech, op. cit., p. 139).
59
 It should though be noted that Tantrism did not completely disappear from late
imperial China  ; on the contrary, some of its practices, rites and iconography mingled
within the framework of Chinese Buddhism. On this issue see Michel Strickmann,
Mantras et Mandarins. Le bouddhisme tantrique en Chine, Paris, Gallimard, 1996, par-
ticularly pp. 44 passim. For two different evaluations of the general role of Tantrism in
China, see Charles D. Orzech, “The ‘Great Teaching of Yoga’, the Chinese Appropriation
of Tantras, and the Question of Esoteric Buddhism,” in Journal of Chinese Religions, 34,
2006, pp. 68-71, and Robert H. Sharf, Appendix 1 “On Esoteric Buddhism in China,” in
Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism, Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press, 2002,
pp. 267-268.
60
 For the role of Tibetan Buddhism during the Yuan dynasty, see Jiunn Yih Chang,
A Study of the Relationship Between Mongol Yuan Dynasty and the Tibetan Sa-skya Sect,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1984  ; H. Franke, op. cit., and “Tan-pa, a Tibetan
Lama at the court of the Great Khans,” in Mario Sabattini (ed.), Orientalia Venetiana.
Volume in onore di Lionello Lanciotti, Firenze, Leo S. Olschki, 1984, pp. 157-180  ;
R. Linrothe, op. cit.  ; Shen Weirong, “Tibetan Tantric Buddhism at the Court of the Great
Mongol Khans  : Sa skya pandita and ‘Phags pa’s works in Chinese during Yuan Period,”
in H. Futaki, B. Oyunbilig (eds.), Questiones Mongolorum Disputatae  : Journal of the
Association for International Studies of Mongolian Culture, Tokyo, 2005, pp. 61-89. For
a general survey, also see Paul Demiéville, “La situation religieuse en Chine au temps de
Marco Polo,” in Choix d’Études Sinologiques, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1973, pp. 193-236, and
136 ester bianchi

remained mostly indifferent if not hostile towards them, given the cen-
trality of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti in the sa skya pa tradition and con-
sidering the great influence of this school on the Mongolian court, it
becomes probable that the two Yuan versions of the text had also a
practical scope. This seems to be confirmed by the adherence of Shizhi’s
text to the metrical features of the Tibetan and Sanskrit texts, which
could be regarded as a way to facilitate chanting. Although Shaluoba
readopted a five-syllable meter, a verse structure considered to be more
elegant in literary Chinese, his new translation also suggests a religious
interest by the author, who composed it because of his dissatisfaction
towards Shizhi’s text.
Recent studies tend to emphasize the continuity of imperial patronage
for Tibetan Buddhism also during the Ming dynasty.61 As for the Qing,
there is enough evidence to sustain that the support granted to Tibetan
Buddhism was determined not only by political choices but also by the
Emperors’ genuine faith in tantric rituals and practices, with a predomi-
nance of those belonging to the dge lugs pa tradition.62 Nevertheless, at

Luciano Petech, Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yüan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan
History, Roma, IsMEO, 1990.
61
 Particularly see Hoong Teik Toh, Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China, Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Harvard University, 2004  ; for the role of Tibetan Buddhism during the Ming, also
see E. Sperling, op. cit., and “Tibetan Buddhism, Perceived and Imagined, along the
Ming-Era Sino-Tibetan Frontier,” in M. T. Kapstein, op. cit., pp. 155-180.
62
 For the role of Tibetan Buddhism during the Qing dynasty, see Patricia Berger,
Empire of Emptiness  : Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China, Honolulu,
University of Hawai’i Press, 2003  ; Elisabeth Benard, “The Qianlong Emperor and
Tibetan Buddhism,” in James A. Millward et al. (ed.), New Qing Imperial History : The
Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde, London, Routledge Curzon, 2004,
pp. 123-135  ; David Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing
Empire,” in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 38, 1, 1978, pp. 5-34  ; Ishihama Yumiko,
“The Image of Chi’en-lung’s Kingship as seen from the World of Tibetan Buddhism,” in
Acta Asiatica  : Bulletin of the Institute of Eastern Culture, 88, 2005, pp. 49-64  ; Natalie
Köhle, “Why did the Kangxi Emperor go to Wutai Shan  ? Patronage, pilgrimage, and the
Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court,” in Late Imperial China, 29, 2, 2008,
pp. 73-119  ; Paul Nietupski, “The ‘Reverend Chinese’ (Gyanakpa tsang) at Labrang Mon-
astery,” in M. T. Kapstein (ed.), op. cit., pp. 181-213  ; Wang Xiangyun  : “The Qing Court’s
Tibet Connection  : Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor,” in Harvard
 chinese chantings of the names of maÑjuŚrĪ137

the present state of this research, it is not possible to determine whether

the Chinese version of the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti was ever chanted
­during the last two dynasties, even if the publication of a three-lingual
edition suggests that this might be true at least for the early Manchu
reign. This would not be surprising, considering that the Qianlong 乾隆
Emperor, as it had been for Qubilai khan, was considered to be a mani-
festation of Mañjuśrī, a Bodhisattva who had been closely associated
with China at least since the Tang dynasty.63
In any case, the existence of such translations among canonical works
was to be considered providential by those Chinese who, during the 20th
century, devoted themselves to the study, practice and spreading of
Tibetan Buddhism in Mainland China. I have elsewhere maintained that
Nenghai had assumed a kind of ‘eclectic’ attitude in his task to transmit
Tibetan practices, as he did not refrain from resorting to teachings, meth-
ods and texts that were already available in Chinese  ;64 this is particularly
true for exoteric teachings, but it can also be asserted in regards to certain
tantric works, and above all to the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti. The text of
the Zhenshi ming jing became – together with other works Nenghai directly
translated from the Tibetan – a major text for practice in his monasteries.
In more recent years, following the new wave of enthusiastic interest for
Tibetan Buddhism among Chinese practitioners, the Mañjuśrī-nā-
ma-saṃgīti is having a revival both in the People’s Republic of China

Journal of Asiatic Studies, 60, 1, 2000, pp. 125-163  ; and Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Bud-
dhism at the Court of Qing. The Life and Work of lCang-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje (1717-
1786), Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1995. This issue is also treated in Pamela
K. Crossley, A Translucent Mirror  : History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999, and in Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors  :
A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions, Berkeley, University of California Press,
1998.
63
 The idea that Manchu Emperors were manifestations of Mañjuśrī dates back to the
16th and 17th centuries (on this issue, particularly see D. Farquhar, op. cit.)  ; as for the
association of Mañjuśrī with China, see Raoul Birnbaum, Studies on the Mysteries of
Mañjuśrī  : A Group of East Asian Mandalas and their Traditional Symbolism, Boulder,
Society for the Study of Chinese Religions, 1983, and Étienne Lamotte, “Mañjuśrī,” in
T’oung Pao, 48, 1-3, 1960, pp. 1-96 (here particularly pp. 54-84).
64
 See E. Bianchi, “The ‘Chinese Lama’ Nenghai,” op. cit., pp. 322-323.
 138 ester bianchi

and in Taiwan, as clearly shown by the number of its re-editions and of

new translations, as well as by the unprecedented appearance of com-
mentary notes and instructions in Chinese language, a result of the will
of contemporary Buddhist masters to supply their devotees with more
reliable texts and other related materials.
In conclusion, even if we can consider that the Mañjuśrī-nāma-saṃgīti
might have been object of religious practice at least during the Mongol and
Manchu rules, probably it remained mostly unconnected with Chinese
Buddhists during imperial times.65 On the other hand, judging from the
recent widespread adoption of the old and new materials mentioned
above in Chinese dge lugs pa and rnying ma pa milieus, it becomes
reasonable to state that the “Chanting of the names of Mañjuśrī” has
nowadays definitely ceased to be “autre” in China.

65
 It should be noted that there is evidence of the existence of a certain number of
Chinese practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism both inside and outside the imperial court during
the Qing dynasty, though it is not possible to speak of a broad Han people’s conversion  ;
see N. Köhle, op. cit., p. 103, P. Nietupski, op. cit., pp. 193-196, and my “Protecting
Beijing. The Tibetan Image of Yamāntaka-Vajrabhairava in Late Imperial and Republican
China,” in M. Esposito, op. cit., pp. 329-356 (here  : p. 349). The same can be asserted in
regards to the Yuan dynasty (see for instance Shen W. and Wang L., op. cit., pp. 290-291)
and, as shown by the study of Hoong Teik Toh, this appears to be true also for the Ming
dynasty, even if to a lesser degree (H.T. Toh, op. cit., quoted in N. Köhle, op. cit., p. 103).
On this issue, see also Isabelle Charleux, «  Les “lamas” vus de Chine: fascination et
répulsion  », in Extrême-Orient Extrême-Occident 24, 2002, p. 133-151.

View publication stats