![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This article offers an historical repositioning of an unusually rich early seventeenth-century autobiographical letter written by the Donglin 東林 partisan Wang Yuanhan 王元翰 (1565–1633). The letter is religiously complex, yet historians have previously focused only on a single short excerpt listing the names of eighteen monks and officials to argue that Buddhist activity flourished in Beijing circa 1600. To the contrary, the greater historical value of this letter resides in its depictions of religious desire, vision of self-cultivation, and critical judgments imparted by an impassioned Buddhist and unremitting Donglin remonstrator. Through examination of Wang’s political and spiritual biography and actual evidence that the network he conjures was more aspirational than real, this article concludes that we need to rethink earlier scholarly depictions of the Donglin as anti-Buddhist, distinguish between being critical and being anti-Buddhist, and reflect on the use of lists in an age of scholarly attention to networks.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the many persons who heard talks on this material and/or offered me useful advice on issues of translation and presentation including Natasha Heller, Barend ter Haar, Daniel Stevenson, Steven Heine, Lincoln Tsui, Li Zhongda, Jiani Chen, Ruxin Yang, and Bernhard Fuehrer, who invited me to present this material at SOAS; Barbara Ambros kindly arranged for me to share a draft copy with a select group of scholars and graduate students, including Richard Jaffe and Daniel Burton-Rose who both offered useful advice.
Notes on the contributor
Jennifer Eichman 艾靜文 received her Ph.D. from Princeton University in 2005. She is a Research Associate at the Centre of Buddhist Studies SOAS. Her primary area of expertise is late Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) Chinese Buddhist traditions and her current research projects encompass four main areas of inquiry: Religious Literacy; Female Buddhist Practice; Elite Conceptions of the Three Teachings; and Yangming Confucian Discourse.
Notes
1 In the DMB, Charles O. Hucker puts Wang’s death in 1622. However, his funeral epitaphs written by Qian Qianyi 銭謙益 and Liu Zongzhou 劉宗周 respectively both place his death in 1633. Goodrich L. Carrington and Chaoying Fang, eds., Dictionary of Ming Biography 1368–1644, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 329.
2 Other than the title and layout, the two extant collections of Wang’s works are exactly the same, including his letter to Yeyu. Wang Yuanhan, “Yu Yeyu seng 與野愚僧,” Ningcui ji 凝翠集, in Congshu jicheng xubian 叢書集成續編, vol. 147 (reprint, Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1989), 153–155; Wang Yuanhan, Wang Jianyi quanji 王諫議全集, in Siku weishou shu jikan 四庫未收書輯刊 series 5, vol. 25 (1800s edition; reprint, Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2000), 153–155.
3 Numerous scholarly works too exhaustive to list here cite the names in this letter section as evidence of the flourishing of late sixteenth-century Buddhist activity, and comment neither on the letter nor on Wang Yuanhan. See, for example, Timothy Brook, Praying for Power: Buddhism and the Formation of Gentry Society in Late-Ming China (Cambridge, MA: Council on East Asian Studies Harvard University and Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1993), 56, 340n3. For Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese references see Shih Chian-yi 釋見一, Hanyue Fazang zhi chanfa yanjiu 漢月法藏之禪法研究 (Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2000), 27; Fan Jialing 范佳玲, Zibo dashi shengping ji qi sixiang yanjiu 紫柏大師生平及其思想硏究 (Taipei: Fagu wenhua shiye gufen youxian gongsi, 2001), 69; Pan Guiming 潘桂明, Zhongguo jushi Fojiao shi 中國居士佛教史 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2000), 759; Qiu Minjie 邱敏捷, Canchan yu nianfo: Wanming Yuan Hongdao de Fojiao sixiang 參禪與念佛: 晚明袁宏道的佛教思想, ed. Jiang Canteng 江燦騰, in Zongjiao wenhua congshu 宗教文化叢書 3 (Taipei: Shangding wenhua chubanshe, 1993), 26–27; Yang Guozhen 楊國楨, Chen Zhiping 陳支平, Mingshi xinbian 明史新編, ed. Fu Yiling 傅衣凌 (1993; reprint, Taipei: Zhi shufang chubanshe, 2003), 429; Zhang Yonggang 張永剛, “Wan Ming ‘kuangchan’ yundong yu Gonganpai de xingshuai 晚明 “狂禪” 運動與公安派的興衰,” Kunming Ligong Daxue xuebao 昆明理工大學學報 4 (2008): 55. As one Taiwanese scholar put it recently, this excerpt is so well known it no longer needs an introduction.
4 Chen Yuan ended his citation of the letter in mid-sentence, inserting the character yi 矣 as a final ending particle. Most scholars would likely surmise from this that the letter had been cited in full. Chen Yuan, Mingji Qian-Dian Fojiao kao 明季滇黔佛教考 (1940; reprint, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962), 129–130.
5 Readers who prefer an unbroken reading of the letter may refer to the integral text in Appendix 2.
6 I am referring in part to Clifford Geertz’s highly influential idea of “thick description” which prompted a generation of scholars to reclaim the larger symbolic significance of seemingly simple scenes and anecdotes. See Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Perseus Books, 1973), 3–32. I am not, however, proposing a return to the limits of this technique, which, when misused, substitutes the seminal anecdote thickly unpacked for a broader consideration of other materials. For a fruitful analysis of types of lists and listing techniques see Robert Belknap, “The Literary List: A Survey of Its Uses and Deployments,” Literary Imagination: The Review of the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics 2, no.1 (2000): 35–54; see also David Bloome and Stephanie Power Carter, “Lists in Reading Education Reform,” Theory Into Practice 40, no. 3 (2001): 150–157.
7 Robert Belknap, “The Literary List,” 35.
8 Wang Yuanhan was accused of misusing funds and stealing from government storehouses while on an inspection tour. Both Qian Qianyi and Liu Zongzhou found the charges preposterous. However, the emperor ignored both sides and neglected to launch an investigation. Qian Qianyi, “Gu gongke you jishizhong Lin’an Wang jun mubiao 故工科右給事中臨安王君墓表,” in Muzhai chuxue ji 牧齋初學集, fascicle 66.1, in Qian Muzhai quanji 錢牧齋全集 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2003), 3: 1525–1526; Liu Zongzhou, “Jianyi dafu yuanren kejishizhong Juzhou Wang gong muzhiming 諫議大夫原任科给事中聚洲王公墓志銘,” in Liu Zongzhou quanji 劉宗周全集, ed. Wu Guang 吳光, vol. 4 (Hangzhou: Zhejiang guji chubanshe, 2007), 192–193.
9 Scholars attribute the broad use of this term to the enemies of Gu Xiancheng and Ye Xianggao 葉向高 (1559–1627), who singled it out after one of their epistolary exchanges was inadvertently made public. However, despite the negative connotation, if not downright immorality, of forming “factions,” the accused did not shy away from adopting the term for themselves. For more on Gu Xiancheng and the Donglin Academy, see the works of Willard Peterson, Heinrich Busch, and Charles O. Hucker. Peterson’s discussion is the more nuanced of the three. This topic is ripe for a re-evaluation of the major players and those surrounding them. Heinrich Busch, “The Tung-lin Academy and Its Political and Philosophical Significance,” Monumenta Serica 14 (1949–1955): 1–163; Willard J. Peterson, “Confucian Learning in Late Ming Thought,” in The Cambridge History of China, Volume Eight: The Ming Dynasty, Part Two: 1368–1644, ed. Denis C. Twitchett and Frederick W. Mote (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 750, 754–759; Charles O. Hucker, “The Tung-lin Movement of the Late Ming Period,” in Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. John K. Fairbank (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 132–162.
10 See the description of this in Qian Qianyi, “Wang jun mubiao,” 1525.
11 Li was promoted to Grand Secretary in 1607 and thereafter attacked incessantly; he immediately requested a reprieve from service, yet was ignored. Wang petitioned vigorously against Li Tingji and Wang Xijue 王鍚爵 (1534–1610), among others. Liu Zongzhou wrote that Wang attacked Li by claiming that, “Tingji did not have the knowledge of an official, the talent of an official, or the magnanimity of an official.” Unsparing in his criticism, Wang memorialized that Li was “fundamentally a completely useless inferior person” (本一無用小人原為) and much worse. Wang Yuanhan, Wei fen cao 未焚草, 2 fascicles, in Tianjin Tushuguan guben miji congshu 天津圖書館孤本秘籍叢書 (1611; reprint, Beijing: Zhonghua Quanguo tushuguan wenxian suowei fuzhi zhongxin, 1999), juan xia, 72. Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 193.
12 For a description of Shen Yiguan’s more positive contributions, including his defeat of Japanese pirates, see Kenneth Swope, A Dragon’s Head and a Serpent’s Tail: Ming China and the First Great East Asian War, 1592–1598 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2009), 190, 261, 262, 285, 352n137. Charles O. Hucker wrote that Shen Yiguan was considered flagrant and vicious, and accused of treachery, avarice, and taking bribes. And for this, he was driven out by those later labeled the Donglin. Given how many petitions were submitted before retirement was granted, these battles must have been excruciatingly painful all round. Li Tingji petitioned the court 120 times, while his detractors continued writing damning memorials. Charles O. Hucker, “The Tung-lin Movement of the Late Ming Period,” 141, 147, 160.
13 Qian Qianyi, “Wang jun mubiao,” 1526.
14 Both Liu Zongzhou’s lengthy, entombed epitaph inscription (muzhiming) and Qian Qianyi’s much shorter stele epitaph (mubiao) weave their own denunciations of anti-Donglin factions into their depiction of Wang Yuanhan and his activities. There are seven biographies of Wang Yuanhan, which range from the extensive to the very brief; all are listed in the index to the Biographical Collections of the Ming Dynasty and/or are reprinted in Wang Yuanhan’s collected works. A more extensive analysis of these biographies and discrepancies in versions, particularly of the biography written by the impeached Donglin advocate Ni Yuanlu 倪元璐 (1593–1644) cannot be fully entertained here. Ni Yuanlu, “Wang Jianyi zhuan 王諫議傳,” in Wang Jianyi quanji, 55–59; and in Ni Yuanlu, Hongbao yingben 鴻寶應本, in Lidai huajia shi wenji 歷代畫家詩文集 (1642; reprint, Taipei: Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 1970), 223–227. For the full list see the index to Mingdai zhuanji congkan 明代傳記叢刊, ed. Zhou Junfu 周駿富 (Taipei: Mingwen shuju, 1991). For Ni Yuanlu, see Ying Zhang, Confucian Image Politics: Masculine Morality in Seventeenth-Century China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2016), 44, 150–151.
15 Wang favored Shen Yiguan’s sworn enemy, Shen Li 沈鯉 (1531–1615), yet Wang could not keep him from being dismissed. After all, Wang was not the sole person memorializing the throne. Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 192–193; Qian Qianyi, “Wang jun mubiao,” 1526.
16 In 1604, before he was forced into retirement, Liu Zongzhou memorialized against Shen Yiguan, and thus, he was surely appreciative of Wang Yuanhan’s efforts. However, evidence that the two were more than just year-mates is thin. Seven years passed before Wang’s descendants asked Liu to write the funeral epitaph and handed him Wang’s “career biography” xingzhuang 行狀 written by Fan Fengyi 范風翼 (n.d.). Zhou does refer to Wang as “my friend” 吾友 in a praise poem written in 1638 for a portrait of Wang (297), and he claims they met in Zhejiang. Nonetheless, much of the epitaph is given over to Liu’s own feelings about the anti-Donglin factions and the injustices of the past two decades—a perspective that united them in spirit if not close friendship. Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 192–193. I would like to thank Alexei Ditter for pointing out that muzhiming were often used as a public means to settle old scores both familial and political.
17 For the first three definitions and discussion see John Dardess, Blood and History in China: The Donglin Faction and its Repression, 1620–1627 (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2002), 1. For an insightful discussion of identity formation and how to understand the Donglin, given its elusive definition, see Ying Zhang, Confucian Image Politics, 28–29.
18 In a corrective to the tendency by Hucker, Busch, et al., to favor Donglin claims, John Dardess and other scholars have been careful not to portray the anti-Donglin as less moral or unequivocally evil and have distanced themselves from the incessant march of Donglin accusations. Dardess characterizes the Donglin as those committed to an absolute moral certitude, but with a fuzzy vision of their ultimate goal. John Dardess, Blood and History, 4–8.
19 For further references see Charles O. Hucker “The Tung-lin Movement,” 145, and Heinrich Busch, “The Tung-lin Academy,” 1–163.
20 Although Miller’s assertion opens up new possibilities, it is not backed by much evidence. Harry Miller, State versus Gentry in Late Ming Dynasty China, 1572–1644 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 98.
21 See also Sun Qiuke 孫秋克, “Cong Wang Yuanhan shi sishou tan qi yu Donglingdang zhi guanxi 從王元翰詩四首探其與東林黨之關係,” Yuejiang xuekan 閲江學刊 2013, no. 6: 106–111.
22 Wang’s usage of shiyou 師友 may be more inspirational than the usual definition, “a term for a teacher with whom one had a friend-like relationship.” Anna Shields, One Who Knows Me: Friendship and Literary Culture in Mid-Tang China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2015), 36–37.
23 The source of Liu’s quotations is undocumented. Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 195.
24 Wang is drawing on a complex allusion from the story of Chang Hong 萇弘 (d. 492 BCE) who remained utterly loyal to the court despite being aggrieved. Three years after his death, Chang Hong’s blood turned into jade. See “Waiwu 外物,” in Zhuangzi yinde 莊子引得, Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series 20 (Taipei: Distributed by Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center, 1966), 73.
25 Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 196.
26 Liu wrote that during the great merit evaluations of 1611, two figures in the Ministry of Personnel, Sun Peiyang 孫丕揚 (1532–1614) and Cao Yubian 曹于汴 (1558–1634), used Wang to attack others. Incidents such as these only inflamed his detractors, engendered even greater hatred towards him from the anti-Donglin faction, and in Liu’s opinion, kept Wang from ever holding office again. Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 196.
27 Charles O. Hucker’s claim that Wang simply returned to Yunnan in 1609 is inaccurate. Charles O. Hucker, Dictionary of Ming Biography, 329.
28 Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 192–197.
29 Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 192–197; Qian Qianyi, “Wang jun mubiao,” 1525.
30 Wang traveled to Mount Emei 峨眉山 and to the Southern Marchmount 南岳, two places dotted with Daoist temples, hence he surely passed by such venues or even stopped to rest. However, his travelogues focus on Buddhist sites, bodhisattvas, and worship. In the course of touring famous sites at Mount Putuo, Wang stopped at the Mei Fu Hermitage 梅福菴, a vacated site associated with Daoist alchemical practices (liandan 煉丹). Wang Yuanhan, “Putuo youji 菩陀遊記,” Wenji 53–58, in Wang Jianyi quanji, 130–132. For references to Mei Fu and pilgrimage to Mount Putuo, see Marcus Bingenheimer, Island of Guanyin: Mount Putuo and Its Gazetteers (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), 71–73. For one small reference to Wang’s pilgrimage, see Ishino Kazuharu 石野一晴, “Fudaraku san no junreiji—Sekkōshō Fuda san ni okeru nanajū seiki zenban no kudokuhi o megutte 補陀落山の巡礼路—浙江省普陀山における17世紀前半の功徳,” Higashi Ajia bunka kōshō kenkyū 東アジア文化交涉研究, no. 3 (2010): 143–159.
31 Wang Yuanhan, “Putuo youji,” 132.
32 Both Ni Yuanlu and Liu Zongzhou indicate that this post was in Zhuxi. Ni Yuanlu, “Wang Jianyi zhuan,” Wang Jianyi quanji, 55; Liu Zongzhou, “Wang gong muzhiming,” 192.
33 Wang did travel extensively as documented by both himself and others. See, for example, the 1628 preface by Yao Ximeng 姚希孟 (1579–1636) written for the publication of Wang’s travels, Yao Ximeng “Shanhai ji xu 山海記序” in Wang jianyi quanji, 8–9.
34 Mengxing 猛醒, literally a violent or fierce awakening. This term is used in Buddhist literature to describe a moment of enlightenment of much greater intensity than a mere minor flash.
35 After his awakening, Wang bowed before an image or statue of the bodhisattva Guanyin. Circa 1626, when Wang made his pilgrimage to Mount Putuo, he again worshipped before a statue of Guanyin. Wang Yuanhan, “Putuo youji,” Wenji 文集 54, Wang Jianyi quanji, 130.
36 Here, Wang Yuanhan is making a general reference to Chan gongan 公案 (public case) literature of the late Song dynasty and not referring to specific texts by the Caodong monks, Wansong Xingxiu 萬松行秀 (1166–1246) and Hongzhi Zhengjue 宏智正覺 (1091–1157). The latter monk was also called Jue of Tiantong—hence the name above. The reader should be aware that Wansong wrote a text evaluating Hongzhi’s verse commentaries on other gongan: Wansong Laoren pingchang Tiantong Jue Heshang songgu Congrong an lu 萬松老人評唱天童覺和尙頌古從容庵錄) (T no. 2004). For this title translation and other information, see Charles Muller and Griffith Foulk, “Congrong lu 從容錄,” in Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (accessed 1.24.2016, http://buddhism-dict.net/ddb). See also Morten Schlütter, “The Record of Hongzhi and the Recorded Sayings Literature of Song-Dynasty Chan,” in The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts, ed. Steven Heine and Dale S. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 181–205.
37 Ni Yuanlu’s biography states that Wang had an awakening (wu 悟) after a fish hit the leaf and that “from then on his writing greatly improved (由此詩文大進).” Ni Yuanlu does not, however, call Wang’s awakening Buddhist. Ni Yuanlu, “Wang Jianyi zhuan,” in Wang Jianyi quanji, 55.
38 By the late Ming, 1,700 had become a standard trope in reference to Chan gongan irrespective of the actual number.
39 For extended discussion and examples of this, see Jennifer Eichman, A Late Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship: Spiritual Ambitions, Intellectual Debates, and Epistolary Connections (Leiden: Brill, 2016), chapter 7.
40 The term Wang employs here, kezhe 磕着, literally to knock into, or bump up against has a specific Chan connotation, denoting some level of spiritual breakthrough or realization.
41 Brook incorporated one short phrase from this text, “like a lid to a box,” in the title of the second chapter of Praying for Power. He used Wang’s text to argue first that Buddhism flourished in the capital, but then goes on to argue that interest in Buddhist activity there was short-lived, decreasing dramatically after 1602. First, elite sojourner interest may have waned in Beijing, but Buddhist interest among longtime residents was another matter. Secondly, Buddhist activity did not necessarily diminish in the Jiangnan region. Several publications have already taken issue with that view: Dewei Zhang, “The Collapse of Beijing as a Buddhist Centre: Viewed from the Activities of Eminent Monks, 1522 to 1620,” Journal of Asian History 43, no. 2 (2009): 137–163; Jennifer Eichman, A Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship, 16.
42 Shanzhishi 善知識 is the Chinese translation of the Sanskrit term kalyāṇamitra, which refers variously to Buddhist monks or good friends who are religious mentors, ideally of high spiritual attainment.
43 Brook’s translation ends here. The following lines are my rendering. Timothy Brook’s footnote to his citation states that Chen Yuan was his source. Timothy Brook, Praying for Power, 56; as cited in Chen Yuan, Mingji Dian-Qian Fojiao kao, 129–130.
44 Exchange poetry (changhe 唱和) reflect a cultural practice whereby one party responded to another’s poems in person, or at times through correspondence, in accordance with the rhyme scheme of the original verse. For more on how this worked, see Anna Shields, One Who Knows Me, 145–147.
45 Timothy Brook dates the letter to 1620, perhaps because Hucker had 1622 as Wang’s death date. However, as demonstrated in this article, both dates are incorrect. Brook, Praying for Power, 55.
46 For better orientation, Appendix 1 provides an overview list of the eighteen persons with dates and variant names.
47 There are no poems, letters, or postfaces in the following collection that include the men listed in Wang’s letter. Xuelang Hong’en, Xuelang ji 雪浪集, 2 juan, in Siku quanshu cunmu congshu 四庫全書存目叢書 jibu 集部, vol. 190 (Jinan: Qi Lu shushe chubanshe, 1995).
48 For more on this debate, see Yu Liu, “The Dubious Choice of an Enemy: The Unprovoked Animosity of Matteo Ricci against Buddhism,” The European Legacy 20, no.3 (2015): 224–238.
49 This incident is recounted only in Deqing’s biography of Xuelang. Zhenke’s collected works make no mention of him. Deqing, “Xuelang fashi En gong zhongxing fadao zhuan 雪浪法師恩公中興法道傳,” in Mengyou ji, fascicle 30, 33–50.
50 Zhenke was in the capital in 1595 to protest Deqing’s exile to Leizhou, but moved in and out over the next nine years. He returned in 1599, left for Mt. Wutai in 1600, returned in 1601, and resided mainly in the Western Hills near Beijing until his arrest in 1603. See Deqing, “Jingshan Daguan Ke chanshi taming 徑山達觀可禪師塔銘,” in Mengyou ji, j. 27, 1–22. For an overview of his movements, see Dai Jicheng 戴繼誠, “Zibo dashi jianpu 紫柏大師簡譜,” www.baohuasi.org/e_book2011/830/830-00457.doc, accessed 1.15.2017.
51 In his extensive biography of Langmu, Deqing wrote that though Langmu was in the capital, he did not meet Zhenke before his arrest in 1603. Langmu, apparently, had great admiration for Zhenke, suggesting that there was no friction keeping them apart. See Hanshan Deqing, “Wancheng Fushan Da Huayan si zhongxing zhushan Langmu chanshi Zhi gong zhuan 皖城浮山大華嚴寺中興住山朗目禪師智公傳,” in Mengyou ji, j. 30, 51–59. Wu Yingbin 吳應賓, “Fudu shan Da Huayan si zhongxing zunsu Langmu chanshi taming bingxu 浮渡山大華嚴寺中興尊宿朗目禪師塔銘併序,” in Fushan faju 浮山法句 (J no. B166, vol. 25, 297.a4–298.c11).
52 For more on this pañcavārṣika, usually referred to as a Buddhist Rite of Deliverance for the dead, and the ritual more generally, see Dewei Zhang, “Challenging the Reigning Emperor for Success: Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清 (1546–1623) and Late Ming Court Politics,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 134, no. 2 (2014): 263–285; Daniel Stevenson, “Text, Image, and Transformation in the History of the Shuilu fahui, the Buddhist Rite of Deliverance of Creatures of Water and Land,” in Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism, ed. Marsha Weidner (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001), 30–72.
53 Deqing and Zhencheng met in Beijing sometime between 1571 and 1582, but Deqing spent most of 1571–1582 either at Mt. Wutai or elsewhere while Zhencheng spent much of that period in Beijing. However, from 1582 onward Zhencheng spent most of his time at Mt. Wutai, returning periodically to Beijing either at the request of the emperor and empress dowager to hold Dharma talks or to raise money for his Mt. Wutai projects. For a timeline and biographical information see Deqing, “Chici Qingliang shan Zhulin si Kongyin Cheng fashi taming 敕賜清涼山竹林寺空印澄法師塔銘,” in Mengyou ji, j. 27, 38–45; Sung-peng Hsu, A Buddhist Leader in Ming China: The Life and Thought of Han-Shan Te-Ch’ing (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979), 66–75.
54 For a short description of this dispute, see Jiang Wu, Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-Century China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 27. See also Zhang Zhiqiang 張志強, Weishi sixiang yu wan Ming weishixue yanjiu 唯識思想與晚明唯識學研究, in Zhongguo Fojiao xueshu lundian 中國佛教學術論典, vol 7 (Kaohsiung: Foguangshan wenjiao jijinhui, 2001), 291–439; and a long discussion in Jiang Canteng 江燦騰, Wan Ming Fojiao conglin gaige yu foxue zhengbian zhi yanjiu: yi Hanshan Deqing de gaige shengya wei zhongxin 晚明佛教叢林改革與佛學諍辯之研究:以憨山德清的改革生涯為中心 (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1990), 203–292.
55 For references to the two letters mentioned here, see Deqing, Mengyou ji, j. 13, 32–39.
56 There is one extant letter from Deqing to Yin’an and three to Yu’an. In one letter to Yu’an, Deqing mentions that Zhenke wanted to recite the Lotus Sutra one hundred times, so Yu’an either knew him or knew of him. Deqing, Mengyou ji, j. 13, 47–54.
57 Better put, there is no evidence that Deqing knew a monk called Qingxu. There are a few late Ming writings by monks named Qingxu, but there is not enough information in Wang’s letter or in other sources connected to this list to establish beyond a doubt the identity of this monk.
58 Yu’an was a provincial graduate (juren 舉人). He had met Huang Hui and knew him well enough so that when Hongdao corresponded with Huang, he included news about Yu’an. Yuan Hongdao, Yuan Zhonglang chidu 袁中郎尺牘, ed. Fan Qiao 范橋 and Zhang Minggao 張明高 (Beijing: Zhongguo guangbo dianzhi chubanshe, 1991), 257.
59 For a detailed description of this event and translation of the exchange that followed, see Jennifer Eichman, A Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship, 293–294. Zhencheng is not mentioned in Zhenke’s collected writings. Many of Zhencheng’s writings appear to have been commentaries; there is no single extant collection of his letters, poems, sermons, and so forth, that is, no quanji 全集 or yulu 語錄, and for this reason it is harder to establish his relations with others. However, Zhencheng did edit the Qingliang shanzhi 清涼山志, which includes forty of his poems on the sacred and scenic sites at Mt. Wutai, none of which mentions personal relationships. For a short discussion of a few, see Jie Feng 楷鋒, “Cong Zhencheng de shi kan Zhencheng qiren 從鎮澄的詩看鎮澄其人,” Wutaishan yanjiu 五台山研究 6 (1987): 18–24. For a recent study of his life and thought, see Jian Kaiting 簡凱廷, “Wan Ming Wutai shan Kongyin Zhencheng ji qi sixiang yanjiu 晚明五臺僧空澄及其思想研究” (Ph.D. diss., National Tsing Hua University 國立清華大學, 2017).
60 On one of his sojourns in the capital, Tao Wangling had planned to visit Zhenke, but after hearing terrible things about his reputation he held off until 1600, after which he became a great supporter and defended Zhenke when he was imprisoned. Still, the association was quite short-lived. Tao Wangling, “Zibo heshang xiangzan 紫柏和尚像贊,” Xie’an ji 歇庵集, ed. Wang Yinglin 王應遴 (Taipei: Weiwen tushu chubanshe, 1976), j. 14, 34a-b. Deqing, “Langmu chanshi Zhigong zhuan,” in Mengyou ji, j. 30, 51–59.
61 For references, see Jennifer Eichman, A Late Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship, 308, 329n74, 341–345. In Dong Qichang’s 董其昌 (1555–1636) description of the 1588 evening talk he wrote that Deqing was not particularly apt at responding to questions. See He Zongmei 何宗美, Gonganpai jieshe kaolun 公安派結社考論 (Chongqing: Chongqing chubanshe, 2005), 87.
62 Cai Chengzhi is mentioned a number of times in the Mengyou ji, including once in Zhenke’s stupa epitaph written by Deqing, though what their connection might be is unclear. Deqing, Mengyou ji, j. 7, 41–44; j. 20, 32–35; j. 27, 7. The letter to Duan Ran is long and doctrinally important. Deqing, Mengyou ji, j. 18, 34–38.
63 Hongdao cannot be linked conclusively to either Cai Shanji or Wang Erkang. A letter to Duan Ran (1607) and one to Cai Chengzhi (1606) are still extant. These two intimate letters sent to friends both have Buddhist content. Yuan Hongdao, Zhonglang chidu, 309, 295.
64 Besides the extant eighteen letters from Yuan Hongdao to Tao Wangling, there are numerous entries in both of their collected writings for multiple exchanges of poetry, accounts of travels together, and spiritual development. Likewise, there are many extant epistolary and poetic exchanges between Hongdao and Huang Hui. For a detailed discussion of Tao Wangling’s spiritual trajectory along with his many interactions concerning self-cultivation with Yuan Hongdao, his two brothers, Huang Hui, Cai Chengzhi, and a chapter subsection devoted to Wang Erkang and his spiritual trajectory, including mention of Li Zhi’s opinion of him, see Jennifer Eichman, A Late Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship, chapter 7, esp. 324–345. Because these relations have already been discussed in that volume, I will not repeat them here.
65 Tao Wangling and Huang Hui were especially close to Wang Erkang. Cai Chengzhi is mentioned in Tao Wangling’s letters. Nevertheless, an understanding of their respective roles is hampered by the lack of extant collected writings (wenji 文集) by either of them, leaving us to assess their position within any given network on the basis of others’ writings. Jennifer Eichman, A Late Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship, 324–345.
66 Yuan Zongdao and Zhongdao played a more active role in the 1597 formation of the group with Hongdao joining slightly later. For a detailed discussion of the evolution of the group, see the work of He Zongmei who has divided this history into five distinct stages beginning in 1597. He Zongmei, Gonganpai jieshe kaolun, 112–116.
67 According to Shen Defu 沈德符 (1578–1642), Shen Yiguan was displeased with the Grape Society meetings and especially with Huang Hui whom he wanted to use to attack the monk Zhenke. However, Zhenke and Huang Hui had had a falling out sometime between 1600–1601 and thus Shen Yiguan abandoned the plan, though Huang and Zhenke apparently patched things up before the meeting at Splendid Brilliance Monastery in 1602, see fn. 59. Shen Defu, “Zibo huo ben 紫柏禍本,” Wanli Yehuo bian 萬曆野獲編, ed. Qian Fang 錢枋 (1619; reprint, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), 690–691.
68 Tao met in the south with Feng Mengzhen 馮夢禎 (1546–1623) in the second month of 1599 and with Zhou Rudeng 周汝登 (1547–1629) in the third and ninth months of 1599, suggesting that he resumed office at the end of 1599. Tao Wangling, Xie’an ji, j. 14, 1a-2a; Feng Mengzhen, Riji 日記, j. 57, 10, in Kuaixue tang ji 快雪堂集, in Siku quanshu cunmu congshu 四庫全書存目叢書, jibu 集部, vol. 165 (1616; reprint, Jinan: Qi Lu shushe chubanshe, 1997), 6; Zhou Rudeng 周汝登, Dongyue zhengxue lu 東越證學錄, in Mingren wenji congkan 明人文集叢刊 1st ser., 25 (facsimile reprint of 1619 edition, Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1970), j. 4, 5b-6a; He Zongmei, Gonganpai jieshe kaolun, 119; Araki Kengo 荒木見悟, “Tō Bōrei to seimeigaku 陶望齡と性命學,” Tōyō Koten gaku kenkyū 東洋古典學研究 13 (2005): 105–125.
69 In 1607, Yuan Hongdao’s wife died and he again returned home. For a detailed timeline of Yuan Hongdao’s whereabouts and that of his brothers, see Zhou Qun 周群, Yuan Hongdao pingzhuan: fu Yuan Zongdao, Yuan Zhongdao pingzhuan 袁宏道評傳: 附袁宗道, 袁中道評傳, in Zhongguo sixiangjia pingzhuan congshu 中國思想家評傳叢書, ed. Kuang Yaming 匡亞明, 136 (Nanjing: Nanjing daxue chubanshe, 1999), 421–423.
70 “Club-mate” is Martin Huang’s translation for this term. Yuan Zhongdao, “Nanyue caoxu南岳草序,” in Wang Yuanhan, Wang Jianyi quanji, 7–8; also in Yuan Zhongdao, Kexue zhai jinji 珂雪齋近集 (1618; reprint of 1935 edition, Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1982), 40. Martin Huang, “Male Friendship and Jiangxue (Philosophical Debates) in Sixteenth-Century China,” NAN NÜ 9, no. 1 (2007): 146–178.
71 He Zongmei, Gonganpai jieshe kaolun, 125.
72 Yuan Zhongdao’s letter exchanges discussed losing his brother and self-cultivation. Two poems indicate that in 1605, when traveling home to Yunnan, Tao Ting stopped in Gongan to see Yuan Hongdao. Yuan Zhongdao, Kexue zhai jinji, 149, 180; Yuan Hongdao, Yuan Hongdao ji jianjiao, 1073; Tao Wangling, Xie’an ji, j. 16, 9b.
73 Tao Ting and Huang Hui both participated in the editing and publishing of Caoxi yidi 曹溪一滴 (J no. B166, vol. 25, 164), a seven-fascicle text comprised of a number of other texts, including as its seventh fascicle, Langmu Benzhi’s Fushan faju, see the next section.
74 Tongzhou was only about thirteen miles from Beijing. Still there are no letters or poems addressed to Wang Yuanhan in Li Zhi’s collected works. For Li Zhi’s whereabouts, see Li Ruiliang 李瑞良 and Zhang Jianye 張建業, “Li Zhi nianpu jianbian 李贄年譜簡編,” in Li Zhi quanji zhu 李贄全集注, ed. Zhang Jianye 張建業, vol. 26 (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2010), 468–487; Li Zhi, A Book to Burn and a Book to Keep (Hidden): Selected Writings, edited and translated by Rivi Handler-Spitz, Pauline C. Lee, and Haun Saussy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), xv, 339–341.
75 The Wang Jianyi quanji includes one letter to Cai Shanji, two to Duan Ran, one to Qian Qianyi, and one to Dong Qichang. Wang Yuanhan also wrote a postface to help Duan Ran raise money to purchase a Buddhist statue. Wang Yuanhan, “Shu Duan Huanran muzao simian fo shuhou 書段幻然募造四面佛疏後,” in Wang Jianyi quanji, 121.
76 Wang Yuanhan, “Emei youji 峩眉遊記,” Wenji 45–53, in Wang Jianyi quanji, 126–130.
77 Wu Yingbin used the phrase “beimian cheng Fushan北面稱浮山” which means loyal or allegiant to Fushan (Langmu), but he stops short of saying that these men took precepts under Langmu. After all, Tao Wangling, Huang Hui, and Wu Yingbin himself all identified themselves as precept-disciples (jie dizi 戒弟子) of the monk Zhuhong. During this period laymen often sought advice from numerous monk-mentors, but whether they became formal disciples of more than one monk remains to be answered.
78 In brief, Wang Shunding was a high-ranking military official with a long career and a precept-disciple of the monk Zhuhong. He was from Kuaiji 會稽 (Shaoxing), Zhejiang province, as was Tao Wangling. He is often mentioned along with Tao Wangling, Huang Hui, and Wang Erkang. Together with Tao Wangling he is seen in the company of various monks including Zhanran Yuancheng 湛然圓澄 (1561–1626), Huanyou Zhengchuan 幻有正傳 (1549–1614), and Miyun Yuanwu 密雲圓悟 (1566–1642). See Kuaiji Yunmen Zhanran Cheng chanshi taming 會稽雲門湛然澄禪師塔銘 (X no. 1444–B, vol. 72, 839.b15).
79 Wang Shunding, Meng chan yu 夢禪語, published in Fushan faju (J no. B166, vol. 25, 298.c11–299.a23).
80 Wang Shunding wrote that on both occasions Tao Wangling posed a question to Langmu about the Śūraṃgama Sūtra. Wang Shunding 王舜鼎, Meng chan yu 夢禪語, in Fushan faju (J no. B166, vol. 25, 298.c11–299.a23).
81 In letters to Huang Hui and to another correspondent, Langmu discussed Huang Hui’s Pure Land practice. Langmu, Fushan faju (J no. B166, vol. 25, 299.b18–c12; c13–c18).
82 For numerous references to his activities and those of Wu Yongxian, see the index to Jennifer Eichman, A Late Sixteenth-Century Chinese Buddhist Fellowship.
83 Wu Yingbin had desired to revive the monastery after someone had intentionally burned it down, but lacked the resources. See Wu Yingbin, “Langmu chanshi taming bingxu,” in Fushan faju (J no. B166, vol. 25, 297.a4–298.c11); see Deqing, “Langmu chanshi Zhigong zhuan,” in Mengyou ji, fasc. j. 30, 51–59.
84 See Hanshan Deqing, “Langmu chanshi Zhi gong zhuan,” in Mengyou ji, j. 30, 51–59; Wu Yingbin, “Langmu chanshi taming bingxu,” in Fushan faju (J no. B166, vol. 25, 297.a4–298.c11).
85 The dates have been determined based on one temple gazetteer biography that includes the gāthā Wang Yuanhan wrote after Yeyu passed away and a short description of the quiet studio he expanded during the Chongzhen reign 崇禎 (1628–1644) at Mt. Jizu. Jizu shanzhi 雞足山志, in Zhongguo fosi shizhi huikan 中國佛寺史志彙刊, 3rd ser., vol. 84 (Taipei: Mingwen shuju, 1980), 411, 338.
86 Wang, who attained the jinshi in 1601, had no hand in the Chief Supervising Secretary of the Ministry of Rites Zhang Wenda’s 張問達 (d. 1625) impeachment of Li Zhi in 1602. However, Li Tingji was a friend of Tao Wangling and Wang’s unremitting vicious attacks on him may have caused Tao, et al., to distance themselves from Wang.
87 No stranger to all sorts of criticism, late in life Li Zhi encountered numerous difficulties, taxing the good will of his friends. Tao Wangling’s letters to Jiao Hong 焦宏 (1541–1620) mention the danger Li is in as they attempt to find him a safe place to live. Tao Wangling, Xie’an ji, j. 16, 41a, 42a.
88 Deqing, Mengyou ji, j.13, 9.
89 The original Sanskrit term, hastināga, referred to a noble elephant. In a Chinese context this became dragons and elephants and refers to religious virtuosi or advanced adepts. It was a term of respect for monks of high spiritual (and usually institutional) stature. The second term fokou ersun 佛口兒孫 designates disciples who can trace their lineage back to those who heard the teachings from the Buddha’s mouth.
90 Wang’s employment of chushi zhangfu 出世丈夫 is semantically rooted in definitions like that supplied by the monk Wunian Shenyou 無念深有 (1544–1627), an intimate friend of Li Zhi, Tao Wangling, and the Yuan brothers. Wunian defines chushi zhangfu as enlightened beings who have already had a Chan breakthrough, having seen their original face before their parents were born. See Wunian Shenyou, Huangbo Wunian chanshi xinghun lu 黃蘗無念禪師醒昏錄 (J no. B98, vol. 20, 518.c30–32).
91 The first two of these phrases are shorthand references to famous Chan gongan. See Case #63 and Case #40 in Wansong, Congrong an lu 從容庵錄 (T no. 2004, vol. 48, 232.a10 and 253.c1). The next two phrases are commonly found within Chan literature.
92 My translation draws on the translations of Analects 16.11 by both Ames and Rosemont and D. C. Lau. Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr., The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation (New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 1998), 199; D.C. Lau, trans., The Analects, by Confucius (Harmondsworth, UK; New York: Penguin Books, 1979), 141.
93 In this context wu 物 refers to enlightenment or the pursuit of enlightenment. The locus classicus for this usage may well be the Platform Sutra (Liuzu dashi fabao tan jing 六祖大師法寶壇經, T no. 2008, vol. 48, 348a13–15).
94 Odorous elephant or bull elephant in musth (xiangxiang 香象; Skt. Gandhahastin) used metaphorically to describe the single-minded, powerful pursuit of Buddhahood by a great bodhisattva. See entry by Griffith Foulk and Charles Muller, Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, accessed 1.5.17, http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb.
95 Both printed versions of the letter have the character wan 灣, meaning cove or inlet, but this is likely a misprint and should be 彎, bend, curve.
96 This term, which became a metaphor for setting up a monk’s residence, is derived from a story about the monk Baozhi 寶誌 (418–514) who signaled his intent to establish residence by planting his staff (zhuoxi 卓錫) in the ground. To call Yeyu’s residence Zhigong’s Abode is high praise indeed and most likely refers to an abode on Mt. Jizu. Sometime after 1628, Yeyu expanded a famous meditation room or residence (一名大靜室) near Houtianping 吼天坪, Mt. Jizu. Perhaps Wang is referring to this place or to a predecessor. Jizu shanzhi, 338, 411.
97 Hagiographies of Yeyu comment that from an early age he loved poetry. He is credited with writing two texts, neither of which is extant: Verses for a Hundred Old Cases (Songgu baize 頌古百則) and The Water Flower Collection (Ouhua ji 漚花集). The former is composed in the literary style of Chan verse commentary (songgu), written in response to each of a hundred Chan gongan 公案. Jizu shanzhi, 411.
98 Those who attain this state of spiritual liberation realize the truth of emptiness and are free from all vexations. The term is often equated with enlightenment. For an extended definition see, Foguang da cidian 佛光大辭典 (Kaohsiung: Foguang chubanshe, 1989–1999), 5619.
99 In Chan monastic contexts the term jinping 巾瓶 could take on the meaning of “to serve or to wait on” and is derived from one of the many references to types of attendants who wait on an abbot. See Chanzong cidian 禪宗詞典, compiled by Yuan Bin 袁賓 (Wuhan: Hubei renmin chubanshe, 1994), 807.
100 There is one short biography that claims Wang was present when Yeyu was cremated, and composed a gāthā. This is suggestive of a deeper relationship. There are also three temples on Mt. Jizu where Wang’s poetry or short sayings are inscribed on rocks, equally suggesting a more sustained relationship with institutions on Mt. Jizu. Jizu shanzhi, 27–29, 411.
101 How much movement there was in and out of the capital by monks and elite Buddhist sojourners is not yet fully resolved despite the concurrence in some Japanese studies that there was a surge of Buddhist activity during the Wanli reign. For a review of that literature, see Dewei Zhang whose quantitative study, based narrowly on biographies of eminent monks, offers a preliminary exploration of possible reasons for their diminishing numbers in Beijing after 1603, though some of the charts are not convincing and much work remains to be done with respect to other monks, sojourner laymen, and the local community. Dewei Zhang, “The Collapse of Beijing as a Buddhist Centre.”
102 For a lengthy study that distinguishes between the Buddhist activities of local residents in Beijing and sojourner efforts, see Susan Naquin, Peking: Temples and City Life, 1400–1900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).