Because the political realm is all-encompassing in traditional China, and Buddhism had to reconcile itself to this challenge, the transformation of Maitreya to the Messiah who will bring heaven to this world through revolution is suggestive. In this process of cultural assimilation, eventually Maitreya had been changed from a world renouncer to a world
25 齊宣王問曰：“湯放桀，武王伐紂，有諸？”孟子對曰：“於傳有之。”
曰：“臣弒其君可乎？”曰：“賊仁者謂之賊，賊義者謂之殘，殘賊之人謂之 一夫。聞誅一夫紂矣，未聞弒 君也。” 《孟子》梁惠王下。
conqueror in China. This process is understandable in terms of the ultimate concerns of its followers, as Maitreya is believed to descend to this world to relieve the oppressed from their sufferings. One might argue that the cult of Maitreya had been politicized in China. However, this is justifiable, since the true liberation can only come from the revolution within a Chinese context. Revolution in the foreseeable future will bring the true Heaven to this human world. This is why so many revolutionaries in the history of China use the cult of Maitreya as well as that of other Messianic cults, notably Manichaeism, to propagate an apocalyptic message (see, esp. Wu, 1986:382-418; Shigematsu: 1931, 1936, 1940-44; Mou, 1990; Ch’en 1964:434-5; Overmyer:1976). In China, the Maitreya yet-to-come will be the real Cakkavattin in this world
26.
T h e E m p i r e o f M i n g （ 明 ） ( 1 3 8 6 - 1 6 4 4 ) , a s a r g u e d convincingly by Wu ( loc. cit.), is reminiscent of the Manichaeistic cult (in Chinese: Ming-chiao 明 教 , “the cult of light”). Among the revolutionaries in late Yüan (1260-1368), who were busy in competing with one another for the future Messiah, the Pai-lien (白蓮 White Lotus)
26 It is interesting to point out that though usually the rendering on the word Cakkavattin (or in Sanskrit Cakravartin) is 轉輪王 in Chinese, the king of wheel-turner, In Chiu chin i cheng pao hsin lu:（Taishō ,31:837） and again in Fo shuo Mi-le ta ch’eng fo ching: （Taishō ,14:429）, it is translated as the sage-king of wheel-turner 轉輪聖王. The rending of cakravarti-rājya in Wu lian sho ching: 278 is also 轉輪聖王.
cult worshipped both Maitreya and Mani. 27 The Ming founder, Chu Yüan-chang had a close relationship with this cult (Wu: loc. cit.). His final ascent as the Emperor of the Middle Kingdom could not be achieved without the backup of the whole Messianic movement of his time. 28(Wu: loc. cit.)
Why did people join the rebellion to become the followers of Maitreya?
What will happen with the advent of the Future Buddha? In one of the Buddhist texts concerning Maitreyavyākara a (the prophecy of Maitreya), there is a scene, which is typical among the Maitreya texts, depicting the ideal society as the following:
Later, when Maitreya Tathāgata, an Arahant who has attained samyakso boddhi, rises in this world, Jambudvīpa is spatial, ornamented and pure. There are no thorns, valleys and hills. It is flat and moist and the ground is covered by golden sand. There are clean ponds, thriving forests, well-known flowers, and auspicious grasses
27 As pointed out by Lin (1997:53-55), the cult of Maitreya here is tinged by Manichaeism. The future Buddha is often portrayed as a Mani-like figure full of light and power. The land of bliss becomes a place illuminated by the light from different luminaries.
28 “Chu Yüan-chang…had formerly been a novice monk and in the chaotic years which marked the end of Mongol rule in China, had joined a rebel group led by Han tung, whose grandfather was a member of the White Lotus Society. Han Shan-tung himself prophesied that in the midst of the present turmoil an enlightened ruler would appear to prepare for the return of the Maitreya from Tushita Heaven. He proclaimed himself the Major Enlightened Ruler (Ta ming wang) but was later killed in battle. His son Han Lin-erh assumed the title of the Minor Enlightened Ruler ( Shiao ming wang). He in turn was killed by Chu who took over command of the group and eventually gained the throne. “ (Lieu, 1985:260)
everywhere and the multitudes of treasure reflect each other to make [the land] very lovely and pleasant. Everyone has compassionate heart and practices ten good deeds. Owing to the cultivation of good deeds, they live in blissful content to a great age. The men and women are crowded. Towns and villages are neighboring one another and are within the flying distance of domestic fowls. The cultivated crops have seven harvests and they fructify spontaneously without being plowed. 29
Although at the present time, Maitreya dwells in the Tu itabhavana in heaven, he will descend to this world to save all sentient being from suffering. Once he is born into this world, he will bring about a miraculous change in our lives. Through his infinite compassion, the misery that afflicts the world will surely be totally wiped out. “Awaiting
29「次後，彌勒如來應正等覺出現世間時，贍部洲廣博嚴淨，無諸荊棘、谿
谷、堆埠；平正潤澤金沙覆地。處處皆有清池茂林，名花瑞草，及眾寶聚更相 輝映，甚可愛樂。人皆慈心修行十善。以修善故壽命長遠，豐樂安隱。士女殷 稠，城邑鄰次，雞飛相及。所營農稼，一種七穫。自然成實，不須耘耨。」
《大阿羅漢難提蜜多羅所說法住記》in Taishō, 49: 13c. It has to be remarked that the text cited here is a Mahāyāna Sūtra which is different from the Nikāya passage that we explored earlier in terms of depiction of the whole scene. The ideal of Arahant is highly explicit in the previous discussion since the individual enlightenment is considered to be the final goal. The emphasis here is more on universal peace and prosperity rather than detachment. Again, the ideal of Bodhisattva might play a role in it as the future Buddha is regarded to be a merciful Maitreya which is different from that of a passionless Arahant . For the more elaborate idyllic scenes in the world to come, cf. Fo shuo Mi-le ta ch’eng fo ching. It seems that Mahāyāna transformation of the future Buddha has become the catalysis inextricably linked with Confucian concept of future mandatory of heaven. We cannot elaborate on this matter here because of different concern. However, this is a grave issue which merits careful scrutiny.
the future Buddha” carries strong Messianic overtones. The paradise depicted above, as a land of lasting peace and enormous affluence must be deeply attractive to the people who are in anguish over tyranny. The idyllic scene must catch the attention of the people under constant turmoil.
The message brought here surely will console people immensely in their misery. After all, the gospel that Maitreya will spread in this world is to relieve people of the burden of life. The prospect of a land of dreams surely will give comfort to the suffering souls. It is little wonder that the revolutionaries can draw besieged hearts together for the sacred cause of justice by using the name of Maitreya here. They are all waiting for the advent of the Maitreya. Commenting on above passage, Wu said:
This is the imagined Buddhist paradise, and it is also the ideal world for which the peasants are longing…The followers of the Pai-lien cult had the political ambition, yet they were lacking the ultimate goal which could be attractive to the peasants. The prophecy of the descent of Maitreya Buddha had been spread nearly one thousand years[in China]
and was well known by the peasants. [For them] the meaning of Maitreya is equivalent to the Savior. The followers of the Pai-lien cult use this legend…propagating that Maitreya already descended as sovereign of the mundane world. His mission was to set all the suffering peasants now free. The peasants who had been besieged by the tyranny and heavy levy of an alien race [the Mongol], on hearing the advent of the Savior who would make not only their “cultivated
crops have seven harvests” but also that their “crops fructify spontaneously without being plowed”, of course believed [it]
wholeheartedly and altogether joined to pursue this ideal paradise.
30(Wu, op. cit.: 113)
VII. Conclusion
Buddhism in China has a long history and there are many fascinating subjects that could be brought up concerning the cultural interaction between it and Chinese tradition. Confucianism has contributed to the transformation of the otherworldly message of the descent of Maitreya into a worldly revolutionary ideology. The early “desacralization” (to borrow an expression from Eliade) of political order in Brahmanism and Buddhism is in contrast to the supremacy of “political culture “ in China.
Mencius helped to make this political culture into a moral persuasion which sanctified revolution.31 Ming is an example to show how this transformation takes place.
30「這是佛教徒所幻想的極樂國，也是農民所渴望的理想世界、、、白蓮教徒
有政治的目的，可是缺少一個為農民們所注意的最後目標。彌勒佛的下生預言 已經流傳了快一千年了，為農民所熟知，其意義即等於救世主。白蓮教徒就利 用這傳說，強合為一，宣傳彌勒已降生為塵世主宰，其使命即為解除現在農民 身受一切之疾苦。農民久困於異族統治下之苛政重斂，一聽有能使他們 ”所營 農稼，一種七穫 ”，並且是 ”自然成實，不須耘耨 ”的救世主來，自然死心塌地 的信仰，一致加入去追求這理想的樂園了。」
31 Nattier (1988:31-1), cited Seidel (1969) arguing that Taoist messianism has made possible for Buddhist myth to be assimilated into a here and now version of Maitreya cult in China. The crux is: Does popular Taoism offer any “revolution” ideology anticipating the imminence of liberation? Seidel contended that the concept of
Often the categories which we might take for granted in one cultural tradition, has to be used very cautiously within the context of another tradition. In China, the realm of religion, as defined in the Christian sense, might not be the ultimate concern; politics is. If political order is considered to be all-important, how should we define this type of
“political culture” from an indigenous perspective? If “religion” is not taken as the encompassing value, how do we make sense of “the realm of religion” and how does it relate to political culture in China? These are momentous issues related to the transformation of Maitreya in China that one has to ponder upon.
Leaving political order aside, Chinese tradition has been deeply enriched by Indian culture through Buddhism (Wright, 1990). In the end, Buddhism became one of the three teachings in China. To be sure, the Chinese have transformed Buddhism to a certain extent, but it is equally important to bear in mind that Buddhism has also transformed Chinese culture into a new sense of identity which is difficult to image without the contribution of Buddhism. 32 Above all, Chinese rendering of Tripi aka
Mandate of Heaven might be the common thought of “pre-Confucian politico-religious tradition.” (ibid: 246). However, it is only in Confucianism that one finds the revolution ideology connected with Mandate of Heaven.
32 Kitagawa’s comments: “Admittedly, Buddhism exerted tremendous influence on various aspects of art and culture in China, and it made strong imprints on the philosophical dimensions of Confucianism and Taoism as well…Yet, the ethos of the socio-political fabric of China was consistently dominated by what might be loosely termed the Confucian tradition and not by Buddhism. “ (Kitagawa, 1980:97-98)
affords adequate testimony of the Chinese quest for a new religious understanding and experience.
Abbreviations
AB = Aitareya Brāhma a DN = Dīgha Nikāya.
RV = g Veda
ŚB = Śatapatha Brāhma a SBE = Sacred Books of the East.
Sn = Suttanipāta
Bibliography
Abe, Takeo. 安部健夫 1956, “Chūgokujin no ten-ka kan ren” 《中國人 の 天 下 觀 念 》 ( T’ien-Hsia Conception of Chinese) Kyoto:
University of Dōchisha.
Das Aitareya Brāhma a . 1879. Ed. T. Aufrecht. Bonn. Repr. 1975.
Hildesheim.
A p ’ i t a m o c h ü s h e l u n 《 阿 毗 達 磨 俱 舍 論 》 (Abhidhar makośabhā ya) trans. by Hsüng Tsang 玄奘, in Taishō, 29: 1-159.
Chang, K. C. 1983. Art, Myth, and Ritual. The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Ch’en Kenneth. 1964. Buddhism in China. A Historical Survey.
Princeton: University of Princeton Press.
Chiu chin I cheng pao hsin lun 《 究 竟 一 乘 寶 性 論 》 (Ratnagotravibhāgaśastra) trans. by Ratnamati 勒那摩提, in Taishō, 31: 813-846.
Chu Hsi 朱 熹 (1130-1200) 1952. Ssu-shu-chi-chu 《 四 書 集 注 》 (Collected Commentaries on the Four Books) Reprinted. Taipei:
Shih-cheih shi chü.
Collins, Stevens. 1993. “ The Discourse of What is Primary (Aggañña-Sutta), An Annotated Translation.” Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 21: 301-393.
Coomaraswamy, A. 1942. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Dīgha Nikāya. 1890-1911. 3 vols. Eds. T. W. Rhys Davids and J. E.
Carpenter. London: Pali Text Society.
Dumézil, G. 1988. Mitra-Varuna. Trans. by Coltman, D. New York:
Zone Books.
Dumont, Louis. 1962. “ The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India.”
Contribution to Indian Society, no. 4: 38-77.
1986. Essays on Individualism. Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eggeling, J. trans. 1882-1990. Śatapatha Brāhma a (SBE, 12, 26, 41, 43, 44). Repr. 1963. Delhi: Motolal Barnarsidass.
Fo shuo Mi-le ta ch’eng fo ching. 《佛說彌勒大成佛經》(Sūtra on Maitreya becoming the Buddha) Trans. by Kumārajīva. In Taishō, 14: 428-435.
Gokhale, B. G. 1966. “Early Buddhist Kinship.” In The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 26, no. 1: 15-22.
Gombrich, R. F. 1992. “The Buddha’s Book of Genesis?” in Indo-Iranian Journal, 35: 159-178.
Heesterman, J. C. 1978. “ The Conundrum of the King’s Authority.” In Kingship and Authority in South Asia. Ed. by J. F. Richards, pp. 60-5.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
1979. “Power and Authority in Indian Tradition.“ in Traditions and Politics in South Asia. Ed. by R. J.
More, pp. Delhi: Vikas
1989. “King and Warrior.” In History and Anthropology, vol. 4. Part 2: 97-122.
Hsu and Linduff, 1988. Western Chou Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hu, Hou-hsüan. 胡厚宣 1982. “Chong shih ‘Yü I-Jen’ wen-ti” 「重釋余 一人問題 」(“I, the One Person” reinterpreted) in his Ku-wen-tzu ywn-chiu lun-wen-chi 《古文字研究論文集》pp. 13-32. Szechwan University Press.
Hubert et Mauss, 1964. Sacrifice: Its Nature and Functions. Trans. by W.
D. Halls. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kangle, R. P. 1986. The Kau ilya Arthaśāstra. 3 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Keightley, D. N. 1978. “The Religious Commitment: Shang Theology and the Genesis of Chinese Political Culture.” In History of Religions, 17: 211-224.
Kitagawa, J. 1980. “Buddhism and Social Change-An Historical Perspective” in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula, eds.
Balasooriya et al. pp. 84-102. London: Gordon Fraser/ Vimamsa: Sri Lanka.
Lau, D. C. 1970. Trans. Mencius, Penguin Classics.
Lévi, S. 1898. La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Brāhma as. Paris:
Ernest Leroux.
Lieu, Samuel, 1985. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. A Historical Survey. Manchester University Press.
Lin, Wushu, 林悟殊 1997. Mo-ni-chiao chi ch’i tong chien《摩尼教及 其 東 漸 》(Manichaeism and Its Eastward Expansion) Revised Edition. Taipei: Shushin Books.
Lingat, R. 1989. Royautés Bouddhiques. Aśoka et la fonction royale a Ceylan. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Lüders, Heinrich, 1951. Varu a 1: Varu a und die Wasser. Göttinggen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Mou, Jun-sun 牟潤孫 1990. “Sung-tai chih Mo-ni-chiao” 宋代之摩尼教 ( Manichaeism in Sung Period) in his Chu-shih-chai tsong-kao 《注史 齋叢稿》pp. 94-116. Taipei: Commercial Press.
Nattier, Jan. 1988. “The Meaning of the Maitreya Myth: A Typological Analysis” in Maitreya, the Future Buddha, eds Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardcare, pp:23-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oertal, H. 1994. Kleine Schriften. Teil 1. Eds. H. Hettrich and T. Oberlies.
Stuttagart: Franz Steiner.
Oldenberg, Herman. 1919. Vorwissenschaftliche Wissenschaft. Die Weltanschauung der Brāhmana-Texts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Reprecht.
1988. The Religion of the Veda. Trans. by S. B.
Shrotri. Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidass.
Overmyer, Daniel. 1976. Folk Buddhist Religion, Dissenting Sects in Late Traditional China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Reyolds, Frank. 1972. “The Two Wheels of Dhamma: A Study of Early Buddhism” in The Two Wheels of Dhamma; Essays on the Theravada Tradition in India and Ceylon. pp. 6-30. Ed. B. L. Smith. Penn:
American Academy of Religion.
Die Hymen des Rigveda. 2 vols. 1877. Ed. Th. Aufrecht. Bonn 1877.
(Reprinted Wiesbaden 1968.)
The Śatapatha Brāhma a in the Mādhyasina Śākhā. 1885. Ed. A. Weber.
Berlin/ London. Repr. 1964. Benares.
Schmidt, H. 1968. B haspati und Indra. Untersuchungen zur vedischen Mythologie und Kulturgeschichte. Wiesbaden : Otto Harrassowitz.
Schwartz, Benjamin. 1968. “The Chinese Perception of World Order, Past and Present.” In Fairbank, J. K. ed., The Chinese World Order, Traditional China’s Foreign Relations. pp. 276-288. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Seidel, Anna. 1969. “The Perfect Ruler in Early Taoist Messianism.” In History of Religions, 9: 216-247.
Shigematsu, Shunshō 重松俊章. 1931. “Tō Sō jidai no Miroku kyōhi.”
“唐宋時代の彌勒教匪” (The Maitreya Cultic Bandits during the T’ang and Sung Periods.) Shien 《史淵》, 3: 68-103.
1936. “Tō Sō jidai no Manikyō to makyō mondai.” “ 唐宋時代の末尼教と魔教問題” (On the problem of Manichaeism and demon-cults during the T’ang and Sung Periods.” Shien 《史淵》12: 85-143.
1941-44. “Sō Gen jidai no kōkingun to Gen matsu no Miroku Byakuren kyōhi ni tsuite.” “宋元時代の紅 軍と元末の彌勒白蓮教匪について.” ( The Red Turbans during the Sung and Yüan Periods, and the Maitreya and White Lotus Cultic Bandits at the end of the Yüan.” Shien 《史淵》, 24: 79-90 (1940);
26:137-154 (1941); 28: 107-126 (1942); 32: 81-123. (1944).
Suttanipāta 1881. Eds. D. Anderson and H, Smith. London: Pali Text Society.
Ta a lo han nan t’i mi to lo so shuo fa chu chi 《大阿羅漢難提蜜多羅所 說法住記》([Ārya]nandimitrāvadāna). Trans. By 玄奘, in Taishō, 49:
12-14.
Tambiah, S. J. 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer. A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand against a Historical Background.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1987. The Buddhist Conception of King and its Manifestation in South and Southeast Asia. Kuala Lumpur:
University of Malaya.
1989. “King Mahāsammata: The First King in the
1989. “King Mahāsammata: The First King in the