Imperial Tibetan Buddhist Statues under the Yongle and Xuande Reigns of the Ming Dynasty

Luo Wenhua Translated by Guoying Stacy Zhang

Pensive Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara

Nanjing or Beijing, China Yongle period (1403–1424)

Pensive Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara; Imperial Workshop, Nanjing or Beijing; Ming dynasty, Yongle period (1403–1424); gilt brass; height 8½ in. (21.5 cm); Potala Palace, Lhasa; photograph by Luo Wenhua

Summary

Although the Ming dynasty expelled the Mongols from China, the early Ming emperors continued the Mongol practice of patronizing Tibetan Buddhism and producing its art. Art historian Luo Wenhua tells the story of a bronze statue of Avalokiteshvara, from its iconographic roots in ancient India and its forging in Chinese court workshops, to its present home in the Potala Palace in Lhasa. Gifts of imperial images like this one would inspire later generations of Tibetan artists.

Key Terms

Amitabha

Amitabha is an important buddha in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Amitabha is often said to dwell in Sukhavati, meaning “endowed with bliss,” a pure land in the distant west where humans hope to be reborn. In the Five Buddha Family system of Vajrayana Buddhism, Amitabha is the Buddha of the Lotus family, colored red, and associated with the direction West.

Geluk

The Geluk are the most recent of the major “Later Diffusion” traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Founded on the teachings of Tsongkhapa (1357–1419 CE) and his students, the Geluk are known for their emphasis on monastic discipline and the scholastic study of Mahayana philosophy, especially Madhyamaka. In the seventeenth century the Geluk supporting the Dalai Lamas became the largest and most powerful Buddhist tradition in both Tibet and Mongolia, where city-sized Geluk monasteries and their satellites proliferated widely. For long periods, Geluk monks effectively ruled both countries in dual-rulership or priest-patron political systems. A follower of the Geluk is called a Gelukpa.

iconography

In the Himalayan context, iconography refers to the forms found in religious images, especially the attributes of deities: body color, number of arms and legs, hand gestures, poses, implements, and retinue. Often these attributes are specified in ritual texts (sadhanas), which artists are expected to follow faithfully.

Kagyu

The Kagyu are a major Later Diffusion tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The Kagyu trace their lineages back to the Mahasiddhas, the great tantric masters of medieval India. The Kagyu are known for their yogic practices, as well as the teaching of Mahamudra, or the “Great Seal.” The Kagyu tradition includes many different branches, such as the Karma, Drukpa, Drigung, Tselpa, Pakmodru, and others. The most influential leaders of the Karma Kagyu are the Karmapas, a tulku lineage associated with that Kagyu branch. In Bhutan, the Drukpa Kagyu tradition serves as the state religion. A follower of the Kagyu is called a Kagyupa.

Sakya

Sakya is the name of a monastery and of a major tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that originated there during the Later Diffusion of Buddhism. Sakya Monastery was the seat of power during Sakya-Mongol rule in Tibet (1260–1350s), founded on the priest-patron relationship. Notable Sakya figures include Sakya Pandita (1182–1251), who played an instrumental role in establishing Tibetan relations with the Mongols; Drogon Chogyel Pakpa (1234-1280), who served as Qubilai Khan’s imperial preceptor and invented the Pakpa Script; and Buton (1290–1364), who compiled the Tibetan Canon. The Sakya are particularly known for their Lamdre teachings. In the 1350s, Pakmodru replaced the Sakya political prominence.

Tibetan Buddhism

Historically, Tibetan Buddhism refers to those Buddhist traditions that use Tibetan as a ritual language. It is practiced in Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, Ladakh, and among certain groups in Nepal, China, and Russia and has an international following. Buddhism was introduced to Tibet in two waves, first when rulers of the Tibetan Empire (seventh to ninth centuries CE), embraced the Buddhist faith as their state religion, and during the second diffusion (late tenth through thirteenth centuries), when monks and translators brought in Buddhist culture from India, Nepal, and Central Asia. As a result, the entire Buddhist canon was translated into Tibetan, and monasteries grew to become centers of intellectual, cultural, and political power. From the end of the twelfth century, Tibetans were exporting their own Buddhist traditions abroad. Tibetan Buddhism integrates Mahayana teachings with the esoteric practices of Vajrayana, and includes those developed in Tibet, such as Dzogchen, as well as indigenous Tibetan religious practices focused on local gods. Historically major traditions of Tibetan Buddhism are Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Geluk.

Ming Dynasty

The Ming dynasty was a Chinese state that existed from 1368 to 1644 CE. The Ming founder, Zhu Yuanzhang (1328–1398), led an army that defeated the Yuan dynasty of the Mongol Empire and restored ethnic Chinese rule in China. Unlike the Mongols before them or the Qing dynasty after them the Ming never seriously attempted to rule the Tibetan regions, preferring instead to manage border affairs by granting titles and trading rights to friendly Tibetan monks and secular leaders. Nevertheless, several early Ming emperors had close personal relations with Tibetan lamas, and relations of trade and cultural interchange flourished between Chinese and Tibetan regions.

Avalokiteshvara

Avalokiteshvara, an embodiment of compassion, is a powerful bodhisattva, worshiped all across the Buddhist world. Avalokiteshvara is part of the very origin myth of the Tibetan people, and seen as the protector deity of Tibet. Many Tibetans believe that the emperor Songtsen Gampo, the Karmapas, and Dalai Lamas are all emanations of Avalokiteshvara. A special Avalokiteshvara image, the Pakpa Lokeshvara, is enshrined at the Potala Palace in Lhasa. In India and Tibet, Avalokiteshvara is understood as male, while in East Asian Buddhism, Avalokiteshvara is often thought of as female, and is known by the Chinese name Guanyin. Avalokiteshvara is recognizable in the Tibetan tradition by the lotus he holds, the image of Buddha Amitabha in his crown, and antelope skin over his shoulder.

There is no doubt that the making of Tibetan Buddhist statues at the Ming court was inspired by the preceding . Under the rule of Qubilai Khubilai Khan (1215–1294), the Nepalese artist Anige came to Beijing, on the recommendation of the Imperial Preceptor Pakpa, bringing authentic Himalayan imagery and techniques. This revitalizing art tradition was called fanxiang (Indian Images) and was further adopted by the Ming court. The Ming dynasty established its capital in Nanjing along the Yangtze River, while Beijing bolstered the northern frontier to keep residual Mongol forces on the defensive. During the reign of the first Ming emperor Zhu Yuanzhang (r. 1368–1398), Tibetan Buddhist statues do not seem to have been manufactured or circulated at the court. His fourth son Zhu Di was enthroned as a prince in Beijing in 1380, supervising military affairs in the north with a series of impressive achievements. In 1402 Zhu Di captured Nanjing with his troops and usurped the emperor’s throne from his nephew. He was proclaimed Ming Chengzu and assumed the reign name Yongle (r. 1402–1424). It was from his reign until his grandson Xuande’s reign (1426–1435) that and its arts gained favor at court. Owing to his extensive stay in the north, Zhu Di had a deep understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. He invited Dezhin Shekpa (1384–1415), the fifth “Black Hat” of the tradition; Kunga Tashi Gyeltsen (1349–1425), head of the tradition; and Shakya Yeshe, disciple of Tsongkhapa (1357–1419) who was the founder of the tradition, to Nanjing, and conferred on the first two respectively the titles of Dharma King of Great Treasure (Rinchen chogyel) and Dharma King of Great Vehicle (Tekchen chogyel). Shakya Yeshe was titled Dharma King of Great Compassion (Jamchen chogyel) in 1434 under Xuande’s reign. At the request of Zhu Di, Dezhin Shekpa performed deliverance rituals for the emperor’s deceased parents in Nanjing, which lasted for more than twenty days, and he also promulgated Tibetan Buddhist teachings among local followers. Moreover, Zhu Di commissioned the production of —the Buddhist canon in Tibetan translation—in woodblock printing, which was the first complete block-printed edition of Kangyur in Tibetan history (fig. 2). He also ordered exquisite bronze statues (figs. 1 and 3), embroidered as well as painted (figs. 4 and 5), and ritual implements to bestow on Tibetan hierarchs at court or imperial monasteries, and frequently sent eunuch envoys to distribute imperial gifts among monasteries around Tibet. To date, large numbers of gifts from the Ming court are still preserved in monasteries of various scales in Tibet, such as this pensive statue, now in the Potala Palace in .

Fig. 2

A Case of Tibetan Kangyur; Nanjing, Imperial Workshop; 1410 (eighth year of Yongle reign); paper, woodblock printing; covers 28 5/8 × 10 3/8 in. (72.8 × 26.4 cm), leaves 27 3/8 × 9 5/8 in. (69.5 × 24.3 cm); Gor Monastery, Yajing County, Sichuan Province; photograph by Luo Wenhua

Fig. 3

Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, and Vajrapani; Imperial Workshop, Nanjing or Beijing; Yongle period (r. 1403–1424); gilt brass; height ca. 8½ in. (21.5 cm); Potala Palace, Lhasa; photograph by Luo Wenhua

Fig. 4

Raktayamari; Imperial Workshop, South China; Ming Yongle period (1403–1424); silk embroidery; 11 × 7 ft. (3.35 × 2.13 m); Private collection; photograph provided by Long Museum, Shanghai

Fig. 5

Arhat, possibly Vanavasa; Imperial Workshop, Nanjing or Beijing; Yongle period (r. 1403–1424); ink, pigments, and gold on silk; 31¼ × 22¼ in. (79.2 × 56.5 cm); Robert Rosenkranz Collection; photograph courtesy Robert Rosenkranz Collection

Unique Iconography

This bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara is an exemplar of Ming imperial statues (fig. 1). The top of the pedestal, in front of the figure’s legs, is inscribed with the six-character Yongle mark “Da Ming Yong le nian shi.” Cast in brass with smooth gilt surfaces and a polished finish, the figure wears a five-leaf crown. An effigy of is attached to the front of the high chignon, which is one of the identifiable features of Avalokiteshvara. The figure has a bare torso, wears a lower garment ( ), and is adorned with necklaces and jewels around the chest and the girdle. The rendering of the petals on the lotus pedestal is meticulous and orderly. The upper body sways to its right with exaggerated movement, while the head inclines toward the left, resting on the bent left wrist. The bodhisattva is seated in the royal ease posture (rajalilasana), left leg bent vertically and right leg horizontally, left elbow propped up by the left knee, right hand held in gesture of (dhyanamudra). The dynamic yet well-balanced body posture exudes the mastery of craftsmanship. We know of two other Ming Yongle-period statues of pensive bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. Others, however, do not bear the effigy of Amitabha, and therefore their identification is debated (fig. 6). It has been suggested that the particular gesture of this object is a variant form of pensive gesture, but it does not have the common characteristic of index finger pointing to the cheek.

Fig. 6.

Pensive Avalokiteshvara; Imperial Workshop, Nanjing or Beijing; Yongle period (r. 1403–1424); gilt brass; height 8½ in. (21.5 cm); Norbulingka Collection; photograph by Luo Wenhua

Sculptures of pensive Avalokiteshvara could be found in ancient northwestern India (figs. 7 and 8). The of the pensive bodhisattva was introduced from India to China between the third and fourth centuries. It became popular in Chinese Buddhist art, and the form of pensive Avalokiteshvara eventually came into being. The iconography of pensive bodhisattva, by contrast, is hardly found in Tibetan art, let alone its association with Avalokiteshvara. In the Chinese tradition, the pensive bodhisattva is usually interpreted as depicting Prince Siddhartha Gautama, founder of , contemplating the meaning of life under a tree, usually seated in the ardhaparyankaasana posture (sitting with left leg dangling and bent right leg on the base or on the left knee), with his head tilted slightly to the right and his right index finger pointing to his face. These features can be clearly seen in a pensive bodhisattva on the back of a white stone produced in 547 and excavated in Hebei Province (fig. 9). The pensive Avalokiteshvara statue of the Yongle period, however, is seated in the royal ease posture, with the left cheek resting on the left wrist, instead of the usual composition with the right index pointing to the right cheek.

Fig. 7

Pensive Avalokiteshvara; Gandhara; 2nd–3rd century; gray schist; height 30 7/8 in. (78.5 cm); Hirayama Ikuo Silk Road Museum Collections; 105086; image courtesy Hirayama Ikuo Silkroad Museum

Fig. 8

Pensive Avalokiteshvara; Swat; 7th century; brass; height 6 7/8 in. (17.5 cm); Palace Museum; g187473; image courtesy Palace Museum

Fig. 9

Pensive Avalokiteshvara on the back of a Maitreya statue; Yecheng, Hebei Province; 547; bas-relief, white stone; height 32 3/8 in. (82.3 cm); Yecheng Museum; photograph by Luo Wenhua; excavated in Yecheng site, Beiwu Village, Lingzhang County, Hebei Province, 2012

These unique features must have synthesized other, currently unknown iconographies of that time. It has been argued, for example, that the Avalokiteshvara in the royal ease posture with the pensive could be Chintamani Avalokiteshvara in China (fig. 10). In Chinese art, however, the prevalent forms of Chintamanichakra Avalokiteshvara include four arms or six arms instead of just two. Note also that the left hand of the pensive Avalokiteshvara is bent in a rather unnatural manner, which possibly betrays the lack of experience and knowledge of human anatomy of the Chinese artisans at the Ming court. Further features of the pensive Avalokiteshvara iconography are the two lotus flowers emanating from the pedestal, one on each side of the figure, and blossoming directly above its shoulders.

Avalokiteshvara seated in the Maharajajila posture; China; ca. 10th–13th century; Song dynasty (960–1279); limestone; height approx. 39 3/8 in. (100 cm); Musée des Arts Asiatiques-Guimet, Paris, EO2444; photograph by Michel Urtado; © RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY

Artistic Style

The style of imperial Tibetan Buddhist statues under the Yongle and Xuande periods is eclectic. The quintessential Yongle and Xuande style includes wheel-shaped earrings, the necklace and ornamentation patterns, the folds of the dhoti, and the double lotus pedestal with round beaded borders, all very much standardized. The material of gilt brass is also characteristic of Ming imperial statues, which differs from Himalayan and Indian traditions, in which most brass statues are not gilded. Moreover, Ming imperial statues feature delicate details, elegant lines, finely polished surfaces, and bright , but are not embellished with gems, in accordance with the artistry and aesthetics of the Ming imperial workshops. At the same time, they also borrow from Nepalese and Tibetan art traditions, with characteristics such as the wide shoulders, slender waist, supple posture, and gentle facial expression.

The Wider Impact of Yongle Sculpture

The Buddhist statues of the Yongle and Xuande periods depicting Tibetan Buddhist images had a profound impact. They established new traditions for Chinese sculpture of the fifteenth century and later, particularly in North China. Moreover, in areas of present-day Tibet, Qinghai, Yunnan, and western Sichuan, local artisans continue to emulate both the form and the style of Ming imperial statues.

Footnotes

Heather Stoddard, Early Sino-Tibetan Art, 2nd ed. (Bangkok: Orchid Press, 1975), 16–22, 50–58, 65–97; Hisashi Sato 佐藤长, “Eight Ecclesiastical Kings Appointed by Ming Emperors,” in Studies on the Mediaeval History of Tibet (Kyto: Dohosha, 1986), 173–208; James C.Y. Watt and Denise Patry Leidy, Defining Yongle: Imperial Art in Early Fifteenth-Century China, Exhibition catalog (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005), 92, pl. 37; Zhang Runping 张润平, Su Hang 苏航, and Luo Zhao 罗炤, eds., Xitian Fozi Yuanliu Lu: Wenxian Yu Chubu Yanjiu 西天佛子源流录：文献与初步研究 [The Biography of Buddha’s Son of the Western Heaven: The Literature and a Preliminary Study] (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2012), 248–49.

大明永樂年施, “bestowed in the Yongle era of the great Ming.”

The other statues: One without effigy of Amitabha is preserved in Norbulingka, Lhasa, Tibet; see Ulric von Schroeder, “Nepal: Licchavi Period; Wood Carvings of the Jokhang of Lhasa,” in Buddhist Sculptures in Tibet, vol. 1 (Hong Kong: Visual Dharma Publications, 2001), 407–31, 2:1270–1271, pl. 353C (Prabhāketu). One with effigy of Amitabha is in the National Museum, Beijing, the same as the one in Potala Palace; see China Cultural Heritage Information and Consulting Center, ed., Zhongguo Zangchuan Fojiao Jintong Zaoxiang Yishu 中国藏传佛教金铜造像艺术 [Tibetan Buddhist Bronze Statue Art in China] (Beijing: Renmin meishu chubanshe, 2002), 2:338–339, pl. 153. Another with effigy of Amitabha was originally in Tuyet Nguyet Collection, Hong Kong (Arts of Asia, September–October 1994, cover illustration) and was sold at Sotheby’s Hong Kong, October 7, 2010, lot 2143. A fourth without effigy of Amitabha was sold at Nagel Auctions, Stuttgart, May 21, 2004, no. 747. See Michael Henss, Buddhist Art in Tibet: New Insights on Ancient Treasures; A Study of Paintings and Sculptures from 8th to 18th Century (Ulm: Fabri Verlag, 2008), 1–80, 215–16, figs. 39–40.

Ulric von Schroeder, “Nepal: Licchavi Period; Wood Carvings of the Jokhang of Lhasa,” in Buddhist Sculptures in Tibet, vol. 1 (Hong Kong: Visual Dharma Publications, 2001), 407–31, 2:1270–1271, suggests the bodhisattiva without effigy of Amitabha “probably formed part of a group flanking an image of Pranidhanamati, with a mirror-like image of Shantendriya flanking the other side.” See also Blanche Christine Olschak and Geshé Thupten Wangyal, Mystic Art of Ancient Tibet (London: Allen and Unwin, 1973), 150–51; Cangkya Rolpal Dorje, ed., Sanbai Foxiangji 三百佛像集 [Three Hundred Icons] (Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, 1994), pls. 52, 222.

Akira Miyaji 宮治昭, Indo Bukkyō bijutsu shironインド仏教美術史論 [Essays on Buddhist art history in India] (Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Bijutsu Shuppan, 2010), 102–11.

Yixi 一西, ed., Foyun: Zaoxiang Yishu Jicui 佛韵: 造像艺术集粹 / The Art of Buddhist Sculpture (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013), 210–11; Michael Henss, Buddhist Art in Tibet: New Insights on Ancient Treasures; A Study of Paintings and Sculptures from 8th to 18th Century (Ulm: Fabri Verlag, 2008), 216, fig. 41.

Chandra L. Reedy, Himalayan Bronzes: Technology, Style, and Choices (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1997).

Luo Wenhua 罗文华, “Yongxuan zaoxiang kao 永宣造像考 [Key issues in Yongle and Xuande sculptures],” Forbidden City 5 (2014): 29–56.