Ganapati Rituals in Chinese - article ; n°1 ; vol.77, pg 321-354

Robert Duquenne

Description

Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient - Année 1988 - Volume 77 - Numéro 1 - Pages 321-354
34 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: BULLETIN_DE_L-ECOLE_FRANCAISE_D-EXTREME-ORIENT
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1988
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 3 Mo

Extrait

Robert Duquenne
Ganapati Rituals in Chinese
In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 77, 1988. pp. 321-354.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Duquenne Robert. Ganapati Rituals in Chinese. In: Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient. Tome 77, 1988. pp. 321-354.
doi : 10.3406/befeo.1988.1749
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1988_num_77_1_1749RITUALS IN CHINESE* GANAPATI
BY
ROBERT DUQUENNE.
Not less than twelve texts in the Chinese Buddhist Canon are dedicated to
Vinàyaka or Ganapati (the alternative and more usual name Ganeša never occurs
here). Either sutras (куб tët), rituals (giki Л1&., kalpa) or "methods" (hô;&, vidhi),
they are all liturgical and magical prescriptions, with almost no relation whatsoever
to Buddhist doctrine. They might thus be considered as heterodox, or at least
hybrid, from a strictly Buddhist point of view: some of them do not even bear any
reference to anything Buddhist, which is rare even in esoteric literature. Yet, the
cult of Ganapati does not belong exclusively to any creed, and these texts are
reportedly translated by Bodhiruci, Vajrabodhi, Šubhakarasimha and Amoghavaj-
ra, the most prominent translators in the Buddhist esoteric tradition of Tang period
China (the fact is that we often see texts attributed to the most illustrious authors
and translators and, more specifically for the Ganapati rituals, the same text under
different titles and signatures).
Even from a Hindu point of view they may look rather odd, and apart from the
very translucent Buddhist garb on a few of these texts, they describe rites and
mythical traditions which in most cases do not correspond to anything from the
bulky literature on Ganeša preserved in Sanskrit and other Indian languages, as far
as we have been able to ascertain from the samples of this literature which have
been published or described.1
Most of the iconographical features of the elephant-headed god which are
described or represented — his usual attributes being a radish or a broken tusk, a
"gladdening" pellet (kangi-dan WiŮWl, modaka) or a few such pellets in a bowl,
an axe, a mace, a noose, a sword — clearly have their origin in a rigorously and
scrupulously preserved Indian tradition. But no Indian representation of a twin
(sôshin^jt maithuna) figure has yet been identified among the numerous maithuna
or yab-yum figures from Nepal and Tibet. Yet this is the usual representation, under
(*) Paralipomena from the article Daishó-kangiten k^^Mr'f—, to appear in Hóbógirin, volume VII
(forthcoming). Hence the Japanese transcriptions of Chinese characters, a mere convention increasingly
adopted in Buddhist studies.
(1) P. Courtright, Ganeša, Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings, Oxford 1985, gives a clear and
fascinating analysis of the Indian myths related to Ganesa.
Haridas Mitra, Ganapati, in Visva-Bharati Annals, vol. Ill, 1958, p. 1-120, has many useful
quotations from Sanskrit texts otherwise scattered and hardly accessible. ROBERT DUQUENNE 322
the enigmatic name of Kangiten W^Lx- (Nandïsvara?), in the East Asian tradition
of esoteric Buddhism, and the only example of maithuna figures in this tradition.
Nothing in the Indian iconographical descriptions and representations appears yet
to fit the very precise ritual and iconographical descriptions and instructions
known from these Chinese translations.2
Of these twelve texts known from modern, Japanese editions of the Chinese
Buddhist Canon, five are in fact more or less expanded versions of a single
Vinâyaka ritual first evidenced in a Collection of Dhàranïs (Darani-jikkyô fèM%£i£ :
T. XVIII 901 xii n° 51 884cll-885a23): this is reportedly an abridged version of
a mythical Vidyàdhara-pitaka (Jimyô-zô $*Щ) in one hundred thousand lines,
translated in 653-654 by Atikuta i5?*1 %fy , a monk from Central India working in
Changan and known only as the author of this collection. A second version in
almost the same wording is attributed to Amoghavajra (Fuku -?;£ : active 746-774),
with however a contradictory subtitle which specifies that it is an abstract from
Atikuta's Collection (T. XXI 1266).3
Only Atikuta's and Amoghavajra's versions are attested to in the Chinese
catalogues from the Tang period and regularly re-edited, first in the Korean canon
(XHIth century) and then in the successive Chinese editions, except the very first
ones in the Song period. Manuscripts may already have reached Japan in the early
VI Ilth century, as they are listed among the texts kept at the Shôsôin jH,spt. in
Nara; they were then successively introduced from China by Kukai 3S$ in 807, by
Ennin jfj'- in 847 and by Enchin 'f^ in 858, so they were transmitted in both the
Shingon ш and Tendai £& traditions of Japanese esoteric Buddhism.4
(2) On iconography:
Alice Getty, Ganeéa the Elephant-headed God, Oxford 1934, gives only a brief survey of the Chinese
and Japanese tradition.
Lokesh Chandra, Ganeša in Japan, in Indo-Iranian Studies III (Acharya Raghuvira Commemoration
Volume), p. 121-146, a brief, systematic and well illustrated survey of the ritual and iconographie
tradition in Japan.
N.B. "East Asian tradition" as used here does not include the Mongolian and Manchu developments
of Tibetan Buddhism. Japanese authors, specially in pre-war and war times confusedly refer to yab-yum
figures of all kinds as being Kangi-tens.
(3) The only detailed account in any Western language of this East Asian tradition is given in
A. Kabanov, Kangi-ten (Ganapati) in Japanese Mikkyô, unpublished paper presented at the Seminar on
Esoteric Buddhism in Japan, Aarhus University (Denmark), September 1988 (scheduled for publication
in 1990). Without knowing each other, Dr. Kabanov, of the Oriental Institute in Leningrad, and myself
have spent long years in parallel studies on Ganapati in Japan. The occasion of our first meeting was the
seminar in Aarhuš, where we both were guests of Dr. Ian Astley-Kristensen. Dr. Kabanov kindly gave
me a copy of his paper, for which I am much indebted.
(4) Atikuta's Darani-jikkyô is well attested to in all official Chinese catalogues from the one
compiled by Jing-mai/ Seimai $яд|! in 664-665 (T. LV 2151 i 368al9-b2: Atikuta's biography, compare
T. L 2061 ii 718Ы8-СЗ; T. LV 2153 i 379Ы: 350 sheets; et al.). As for Japan, it is only listed in the
recapitulative catalogue compiled in 902 by Annen $&■ : T. LV 2176 i 1114Ы0).
Amoghavajra's version is and could have been mentioned only in the Zheng-yuan-lu /Jôgenroku
jl, the latest of the Tang catalogues, compiled in 794 to complete the previous ones with the
numerous translations by Amoghavajra, who died in 774: T. LV 2156 i 754al6, ш 768cl9; 2157 i 773Ы8,
xv 881a2, xxii 932Ы5, xxvn 1012all, xxix 1032b6-7; 2158 1051c9. The specifications "one volume %
or three sheets of paper |Л" correspond to the length of the text known to us. In Japan, it is already
listed among the Shôsôin ž%1&* manuscripts (T. XCVIII = TM. I 13 п 962b25 no. 57), which probably
means that, as for e.g. the Mahâvairocana-sutra, it is one of the esoteric texts which where, if not read
and practised, then at least introduced to Japan in the first half of the VHIth century, before Kukai
*$ et al. were sent on official missions to China with orders to bring back the necessary texts and GANAPATI RITUALS IN CHINESE 323
This is not the case for the Shijuhô-kyô JSJDxlŒ- and the Dai-shijuhôkyô
fék-iT. XXI 1267-1268): the shorter and longer versions of a sutra of spells
and rites for "The Messenger" or "to cast charms", shi <ë. being an inaccurate
translation of [Vi]-náyaka, or shi-juhô &Л& being understood as one compound.
Both versions include the Vinâyaka ritual among other iconographical and ritual
prescriptions as well as mythical traditions. Both are attributed to Bodhiruci
(Bodairushi ^$Ш%-, active 693-727), but the oldest evidence, manuscripts from the
Kôzanji %\Jž near Kyoto, does not date back beyond the Heian or Kamakura
period, say beyond the Xlth century.5 Interestingly enough, Bodhiruci states
(T. XXI 1268 302al2-15) that the Vinâyaka ritual was translated "between the
Chen and Sui dynasties" (581-589) by a brahmin from Central India, from a text
brought back from the Western Countries йЯЦЦ (usually Asia) by a subject of
the Chinese Court U^- (variant reading řjjA. : a Northern Barbarian). The period at
least corresponds to the first evidence of Ganeša worship.
A Daijizaiten-hôsoku-giki №&.%&%%& (Mahešvara-vidhi-kalpa?) in one short
volume, attributed to a Ren xing or Ningyô л=*т , Chinese or Japanese author
otherwise unknown,6 is in fact another version of the Shijuhô-kyô $j!&%ët (T. 1267)
with a few variants and a few more spells. The title refers to Šiva Mahešvara, the
father of Ganapati in Indian mythology, but only the present text and Bodhiruci's
translations mention this Šivaistic context.7
Still another Vinâyaka ritual is the o