Kuan-yin

The Chinese Transformation of Avalokitesvara

Chün-fang Yü

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2001
• eBook ISBN: 9780231502757
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Chinese History

By far one of the most important objects of worship in the Buddhist traditions, the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara is regarded as the embodiment of compassion. He has been widely revered throughout the Buddhist countries of Asia since the early centuries of the Common Era. While he was closely identified with the royalty in South and Southeast Asia, and the Tibetans continue to this day to view the Dalai Lamas as his incarnations, in China he became a she—Kuan-yin, the "Goddess of Mercy"—and has a very different history. The causes and processes of this metamorphosis have perplexed Buddhist scholars for centuries.

In this groundbreaking, comprehensive study, Chün-fang Yü discusses this dramatic transformation of the (male) Indian bodhisattva Avalokitesvara into the (female) Chinese Kuan-yin—from a relatively minor figure in the Buddha's retinue to a universal savior and one of the most popular deities in Chinese religion.

Focusing on the various media through which the feminine Kuan-yin became constructed and domesticated in China, Yü thoroughly examines Buddhist scriptures, miracle stories, pilgrimages, popular literature, and monastic and local gazetteers—as well as the changing iconography reflected in Kuan-yin's images and artistic representations—to determine the role this material played in this amazing transformation. The book eloquently depicts the domestication of Kuan-yin as a case study of the indigenization of Buddhism in China and illuminates the ways this beloved deity has affected the lives of all Chinese people down the ages.

1

• • • • • • • • •

Introduction

Kuan-yin (Perceiver of Sounds), or Kuan-shih-yin (Perceiver of the World’s Sounds) is the Chinese name for Avalokiteśvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, who has been worshiped throughout the Buddhist world. In 1976 C. N. Tay published a long article on Kuan-yin with the subtitle, “The Cult of Half Asia,” because he dealt primarily with Chinese scriptural, literary, and historical references. A Chinese saying aptly describes the great popularity of this savior bodhisattva: “Everybody knows how to chant O-mi-t’o-fo [Amitābha], and every household worships Kuan-yin.” Under Chinese influence, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese have also used the same names (Kannon or Kanzeon in Japanese, Kwanse’um in Korean and Quan-am in Vietnamese). However, the cult of Avalokiteśvara is, of course, not limited to East Asia, but exists all throughout Asia.

The bodhisattva has also become well known in the United States and Europe, the combined result of feminism and the immigration of Buddhist teachers to the West. Although Buddhism was introduced to the United States in the nineteenth century (Fields 1986), political events in Asia since World War II greatly facilitated the religion’s westward movement. When China became Communist in 1949, many Chinese monks escaped to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States. Similarly, while most Tibetan lamas escaped to India, some came to the United States when Tibet was occupied by China in 1959. With the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 and the arrival of new immigrants from Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries since the 1980s, people in America have been exposed to many forms of Buddhism, as well as the different names and identities of the bodhisattva. Avalokiteśvara is present in all these Buddhist traditions. In addition, American feminist scholars have become interested in uncovering a goddess tradition—either in the West prior to the rise of patriarchal Christianity or in the deities of non-Western religious traditions.¹ In the latter case, Kuan-yin, together with Tārā, Kālī, and Durgā, are the favorite candidates for such citations. In light of these recent developments, Tay’s claim made about Kuan-yin more than twenty years ago is far too modest.

The contemporary focus on Kuan-yin as a great “goddess” is understandable, for this is how most East Asians see her. I was also first introduced to this deity as such by my maternal grandmother, as I described in the preface. Many blanc de Chine porcelain statues of Kuan-yin made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on display in museums (where many Westerners first encounter the deity) are also decidedly feminine. However, Avalokiteśvara has never been worshiped as a goddess in India, Tibet, Sri Lanka, or Southeast Asia. Nor indeed was Kuan-yin perceived to be feminine by the Chinese at first, for many paintings from Tun-huang dating to the tenth century clearly show him with moustaches.² The sexual transformation from the masculine Avalokiteśvara to the feminine Kuan-yin seems to be a unique Chinese phenomenon that deservedly has fascinated many scholars.

Despite my own initial obsession with this riddle, however, I have come to realize that this is not the only, albeit the most interesting, aspect of Avalokiteśvara worthy of our attention. Other characteristics of the bodhisattva are equally intriguing. For instance, why did Avalokiteśvara become so popular in the Buddhist world, whether countries were under the predominant influence of early Buddhism or the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhist traditions? Bodhisattvas are beings dedicated to the salvation of everyone; in carrying out this noble task, they choose to become buddhas instead of seeking personal nirvāṇa as arhats do. As such, they form new cultic objects for Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhists, while the early Buddhists only worship the historical Buddha, and use “bodhisattva” to refer only to the Buddha’s previous lives before his final enlightenment. Indeed, the early Buddhist belief in a very limited numbers of bodhisattvas, namely Śākyamuni Buddha in his previous existences and Maitreya, the Future Buddha, and the Mahāyāna belief in many bodhisattvas and the corresponding call for all people to give rise to bodhicitta (the thought for enlightenment spurring one onto the path of the bodhisattva) is one of the most significant differences between the two Buddhist traditions. If Avalokiteśvara is worshiped in all the Buddhist countries, what does this do to the received wisdom?

I can think of at least two reasons why the cult of Avalokiteśvara succeeded in taking root in so many countries in Asia. First of all, next to the Buddha, Avalokiteśvara was one of the few bodhisattvas whose cult enjoyed a continuous popularity in India. From the early centuries of the Common Era until Buddhism disappeared from India in the twelfth century, Avalokiteśvara retained the devotion of the faithful. New texts and new artistic forms developed with time. Because India was the homeland of Buddhism, the prominence of Avalokiteśvara there resulted in his being welcomed and accepted into other Buddhist countries. The second reason for the bodhisattva’s success outside of India was related to the very nature of Buddhism as a religion. Just as Buddhism coexisted with Vedic Brahmānism and Hinduism in India, it also did not try to replace the indigenous religions in the host countries where it was introduced. Called Lokeśvara (Lord of the World) in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Java; Lokanātha (Protector of the World) in Burma; Nātha Deviyō in Sri Lanka; and Chenresi (spyan-ras-gzigs, “One Who Sees with Eyes") in Tibet, Avalokiteśvara might not be identified by the same name, but all the South, Southeast, and East Asian Buddhist cultures have known and worshiped this bodhisattva.

Although the bodhisattva is the embodiment of compassion, cultures have made different choices in representing him/her. China and countries having historical and cultural connections with her, such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam identify Kuan-yin as the exemplar of wisdom for meditators and the “Goddess of Mercy,” who is particularly kind to women, while in Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Southeast Asia, Avalokiteśvara has been very much identified with royalty (Boisselier 1965, 1970; Chutiwongs 1984; Holt 1991; Kapstein 1992; Monnika 1996). The deification of kings, creation of talismanic images of deities, and the belief in the images’ empowerment of rulers were ideas prevalent in the Southeast Asian continent and archipelago. Stanley J. Tambiah (1982: 5–19) discusses such beliefs and the worship of both Hindu and Buddhist images in the Khmer kingdom of Cambodia, the Champa kingdom of Vietnam, and the kingdoms of Indonesia. For instance, King Bhavavarman II (r. mid-seventh century) of pre-Khmer period Cambodia took Lokeśvara or the Lord of the World as his personal deity and had the image made for worship. In the Champa kingdom of south Vietnam, the Indrapura kings (ca. 875–920 C.E.) were fervent devotees of Avalokiteśvara. King Indravarman II erected a temple in honor of the deity in 875 and named the building Śrī Lakṣmindralokeśvara, blending his own name with that of Avalokiteśvara (Howard 1996a:233).

All the Southeast Asian countries, with the exception of Burma, shared the ideology of the cult of the “divine king” (devarāja) in which the ruler was identified with a deity, Hindu or Buddhist. The most famous example is the construction of Angkor Wat, one of the largest stone temples in the world, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Cambodia. The Angkor Wat was regarded as a dwelling place for deities including the divine kings. The pantheon is a mixture of Hindu and Buddhist deities and deified kings, exemplified by the Devarāja. The cult of Lokeśvara reached its zenith under Jayavarman VII (r. 1181–ca. 1218) who built the Bayon temple complex at the center of the royal city Angkor Thom. He made Buddhism the state religion. At the Bayon there are large towers bearing huge faces that are believed to be images of the deified king in the form of Lokeśvara. Not only the king was identified with the bodhisattva, but his first wife, Queen Jayavajadevi, might be represented posthumously by a statue usually identified as Tārā, the bodhisattva’s attendant (Jessup and Zephir 1997:304; Bunnag 1984:161; Zwalf 1985:176).

Similarly, Avalokiteśvara was worshiped as the guardian deity of the country by the Ceylonese rulers since the fifteenth century and the Javanese kings in the pre-Islamic thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. In Tibet, Avalokiteśvara is worshiped as the patron deity of the country, and the most famous ruler, King Srong-bstan sgam-po (d. 649) and the Dalai Lama are believed to be the incarnations of Avalokiteśvara. The Pai people in Yünnan who founded the Nan-chao and Ta-li kingdoms, corresponding to the Chinese T’ang (618–906) and Sung (960–1279) dynasties, held similar beliefs. Known as A-ts’o-yeh Kuan-yin, the bodhisattva was worshiped as the founding father of the country and guardian deity of the ruling house (Yü 1991; Howard 1996a). The Pai shared Avalokiteśvara’s royal symbolism with the neighboring countries with whom they had active interaction. Indeed, as represented by later Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna sūtras, Avalokiteśvara is a cosmic figure, creator and savior of all beings and all worlds. The royal symbolism came quite naturally in a context with no pre-existing or competing symbolism.

It is clear that Kuan-yin did not have to become a goddess. Why then in China was the bodhisattva not connected with royalty? Was it because the Chinese royal ideology and symbolism were already established before the introduction of Buddhism and thus did not allow similar developments in China? The Chinese emperor received his legitimation through the Mandate of Heaven, which was first formulated in the Chou dynasty (1122–256 B.C.E.). He was the Son of Heaven and formed a triad with Heaven and Earth. All of these ideas were further refined in the Han dynasty (206 B.C.E.–220 C.E.). The Confucian ideology dominated the Chinese understanding of royalty throughout China’s imperial history. Although periodically, individual rulers might use Buddhist ideas to legitimize their rules, their efforts were limited and did not last long. For instance, the Northern Wei emperor Wen-cheng (r. 453–465) had five Buddha caves carved at Yün-kang, each Buddha representing a prior emperor, thus symbolizing his desire to create a theocracy. The female Emperor Wu Tse-t’ien (r. 684–704) claimed to be Maitreya and Emperor Ch’ien-lung (cr. 1736–1765) Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva (Forte 1976; Farquhar 1978). But except for the case of the late nineteenth-century Ch’ing Empress Dowager Tz’u-hsi’s dressing up as Kuan-yin for amusement and dramatic effect, I do not know of any ruling emperor who claimed to be the incarnation of Kuan-yin.

The idea of Kuan-yin—a compassionate universal savior who responds to anyone’s cry for help regardless of class, gender, or even moral qualifications— was an idea unfamiliar to the Chinese. This was a new deity who not only could bring spiritual enlightenment, but also save one from worldly difficulties and grant one material satisfactions as well as a “good death” and postmortem salvation. No native god or goddess in China prior to the arrival of Kuan-yin possessed all these abilities. Moreover, although there were goddesses in China before the appearance of Kuan-yin, none of them seemed to have enjoyed lasting and continuously active cults. There was thus a religious vacuum in China that Kuan-yin could conveniently and comfortably fill.

In examining the reasons why the Chinese people accepted Buddhism during the Han, Eric Zürcher made the observation that, “In spite of occasional (and surprisingly rare) terminological borrowings from Confucian and Taoist lore, the most striking aspect of Han Buddhism is its novelty. The view that Buddhism was accepted because it, in certain ways, accorded with indigenous traditions must be rejected: Buddhism was attractive not because it sounded familiar, but because it was something basically new” (1991:291). What he says about Han Buddhism as the “exotic alternative” is equally applicable here. Chinese people became attracted to Kuan-yin not because he/she bore any resemblance to any indigenous deity, but precisely because none of them was like him/her. Once Kuan-yin was accepted, however, the bodhisattva, just like Buddhism in general, was perceived and understood in a way molded by Chinese culture. The Chinese transformation of Kuan-yin can be regarded as a case study for the Chinese transformation of Buddhism. A culture may be attracted by the exotic, but it cannot resist changing the strange to the familiar. In a sense, what Edward Said says about one culture’s treatment of another is relevant here: “It is perfectly natural for the human mind to resist the assault on it of untreated strangeness; therefore cultures have always inclined to impose complete transformations on other cultures, receiving these other cultures not as they are but as, for the benefit of the receiver, they ought to be” (1978:67).

Buddhism thus supplied the necessary symbols and ideals to the host countries. In accommodating itself to the different religious and cultural traditions in the various Asian countries, new and different forms of Buddhism developed. In the case of Sino-Japanese Buddhism, the creation of T’ien-t’ai (Tendai), Hua-yen (Kegon), Pure Land (Jōdo), and Ch’a...

Table of contents

• Cover 
• Half title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents 
• Preface
• List of Maps
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Scriptural Sources for the Cult of Kuan-yin
• 3. Indigenous Chinese Scriptures and the Cult of Kuan-yin
• 4. Miracle Tales and the Domestication of Kuan-yin
• 5. Divine Monks and the Domestication of Kuan-yin
• 6. Indigenous Iconographies and the Domestication of Kuan-yin
• 7. The Ritual of Great Compassion Repentance and the Domestication of the Thousand-handed and Thousand-eyed Kuan-yin in the Sung
• 8. Princess Miao-shan and the Feminization of Kuan-yin
• 9. P’u-t’o Shan: Pilgrimage and the Creation of the Chinese Potalaka
• 10. Feminine Forms of Kuan-yin in Late Imperial China
• 11. Venerable Mother: Kuan-yin and Sectarian Religions in Late Imperial China
• 12. Conclusion
• Appendixes
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Glossary and Index