The two principal Chinese masters within the “Movement of Tantric Rebirth” (Ch. mijiao fuxing yundong) in modern China were the monks Nenghai and Fazun, both representatives of the Gelukpa tradition and both authors of dozens of works and translations. While Fazun’s activities in China mainly focused on the teaching and translation of exoteric works, Nenghai also devoted himself to tantric doctrines and believed it necessary to integrate them within the framework of monastic communities on the model of the great Tibetan monasteries. Nenghai was convinced that, in the period of the latter Dharma, only Chan Buddhism and the tantras offered possible ways to spiritual realization. Chan, he believed, was much too elitist to address the needs of his time, and he thus decided to study Tibetan Vajrayana teachings and spread them among Chinese people, ultimately translating and composing more than fifty works on various tantric subjects. Nenghai visited Tibet several times, initially staying in Kham (1926–1927) and then moving up to the Lhasa valley (1928–1932 and 1940–1941). At the Drepung monastery he studied under Khangsar (Ch. Kangsa) Rinpoché, who bestowed on him a tantric transmission belonging to the “Supreme Vajrayana lineage of Yamantaka-Vajrabhairava” (Ch. Daweide wushang micheng fatong). Afterward, once Nenghai had returned to Chinese territory, he founded seven monasteries in line with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, some of which are still active in contemporary times. In these monasteries, his disciples could apply themselves to whatever teachings he transmitted to them. Nenghai’s disciples commonly addressed him as Shangshi (Tib. bla-ma) and as the Chinese lama (Ch. Hanzu lama). This identifies him with the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism (Ch. Zangchuan Fojiao), and, in fact, he is often described not only as the twenty-ninth master within Khangsar Rinpoché’s lineage, but as a representative of the forty-fourth generation of the Linji branch of Chan Buddhism within the Chinese tradition (Ch. Hanchuan Fojiao). Nenghai’s works and teaching activities, in which Tibetan doctrines stand next to typically Chinese doctrines, reflect a clear intention to infuse the Chinese Buddhist environment with Tibetan Buddhist practice. Nenghai legitimately belonged to a specific Tibetan doctrinal tradition, although he integrated it with methodological and doctrinal trends different from the ones he encountered in Tibet. With this in mind, the main objectives in this study are, first, to clarify the Tibetan influences characterizing his approach and to advance an interpretation of them. In order to understand Nenghai’s innovative position both within the Chinese Buddhist environment of his time and within the Gelukpa school he aimed to represent, it is necessary to construct an in-depth portrait of Nenghai’s doctrinal tradition (including notes on his Tibetan and tantric lineages, his personal biography, and his literary production). This will allow for a greater analysis of Nenghai’s teaching strategies, comparing them with the works and activities of Fazun, while noting the Chinese influences that are recognizable in Nenghai’s exoteric and tantric writings as well as in the organization of his monastic communities.
The “Chinese Lama” Nenghai (1886-1967): Doctrinal Tradition and Teaching Strategies of a Gelukpa Master in Republican China
BIANCHI, Ester
2009
Abstract
The two principal Chinese masters within the “Movement of Tantric Rebirth” (Ch. mijiao fuxing yundong) in modern China were the monks Nenghai and Fazun, both representatives of the Gelukpa tradition and both authors of dozens of works and translations. While Fazun’s activities in China mainly focused on the teaching and translation of exoteric works, Nenghai also devoted himself to tantric doctrines and believed it necessary to integrate them within the framework of monastic communities on the model of the great Tibetan monasteries. Nenghai was convinced that, in the period of the latter Dharma, only Chan Buddhism and the tantras offered possible ways to spiritual realization. Chan, he believed, was much too elitist to address the needs of his time, and he thus decided to study Tibetan Vajrayana teachings and spread them among Chinese people, ultimately translating and composing more than fifty works on various tantric subjects. Nenghai visited Tibet several times, initially staying in Kham (1926–1927) and then moving up to the Lhasa valley (1928–1932 and 1940–1941). At the Drepung monastery he studied under Khangsar (Ch. Kangsa) Rinpoché, who bestowed on him a tantric transmission belonging to the “Supreme Vajrayana lineage of Yamantaka-Vajrabhairava” (Ch. Daweide wushang micheng fatong). Afterward, once Nenghai had returned to Chinese territory, he founded seven monasteries in line with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, some of which are still active in contemporary times. In these monasteries, his disciples could apply themselves to whatever teachings he transmitted to them. Nenghai’s disciples commonly addressed him as Shangshi (Tib. bla-ma) and as the Chinese lama (Ch. Hanzu lama). This identifies him with the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism (Ch. Zangchuan Fojiao), and, in fact, he is often described not only as the twenty-ninth master within Khangsar Rinpoché’s lineage, but as a representative of the forty-fourth generation of the Linji branch of Chan Buddhism within the Chinese tradition (Ch. Hanchuan Fojiao). Nenghai’s works and teaching activities, in which Tibetan doctrines stand next to typically Chinese doctrines, reflect a clear intention to infuse the Chinese Buddhist environment with Tibetan Buddhist practice. Nenghai legitimately belonged to a specific Tibetan doctrinal tradition, although he integrated it with methodological and doctrinal trends different from the ones he encountered in Tibet. With this in mind, the main objectives in this study are, first, to clarify the Tibetan influences characterizing his approach and to advance an interpretation of them. In order to understand Nenghai’s innovative position both within the Chinese Buddhist environment of his time and within the Gelukpa school he aimed to represent, it is necessary to construct an in-depth portrait of Nenghai’s doctrinal tradition (including notes on his Tibetan and tantric lineages, his personal biography, and his literary production). This will allow for a greater analysis of Nenghai’s teaching strategies, comparing them with the works and activities of Fazun, while noting the Chinese influences that are recognizable in Nenghai’s exoteric and tantric writings as well as in the organization of his monastic communities.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
