聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

佛說造像量度經解

4 min read

Text ID
KR6j0658
Date
1742–1742
Dynasty
清

Fó shuō Zàoxiàng liángdù jīng jiě 佛說造像量度經解

Commentary on the Sūtra of Image-Construction Measurements

by 工布查布 (譯解)

About the work

A single-juan auto-commentary on the Zàoxiàng liángdù jīng 造像量度經 (KR6j0659), composed by 工布查布 Gönpojab (mGon po skyabs; mid-18th-century Mongol-Tibetan-Chinese translator at the Qīng court). The colophon identifies the author as Gönpojab of the Wūzhūmùqín 烏朱穆秦 (Üjümüčin) Mongol tribe, formerly Gōnggōng (公工 — i.e. kung-noble rank). The Taishō text gives a preface composed by an authorial ally — likely the editor or imperial reviewer — whose framing situates the work within the Qīng-court iconometric programme. The dating is precisely fixed by the preface to the period after Gönpojab’s primary translation activity under the Qiánlóng Emperor (高宗, r. 1735–1796); the prefatory matter mentions the multi-year process of revision (積歲既成請正於余). The commentary is a foundational technical reference for Buddhist iconography in late-imperial Chinese practice and was consulted as a normative guide for sculpture and painting in the Qīng-court tradition.

Prefaces

The preface frames the commentary’s significance: “Gönpojab of Wūzhūmùqín, formerly Kung-rank Director, deeply versed in the Five Sciences (五明 pañcavidyā) and skilled in the Three Reliances (三倚 — i.e. the three pramāṇas / three vehicles), with the cintāmaṇi-jewel internally enshrined and his wisdom-moon shining outward, observes that the world’s image-makers depart from the standard, lose its precision, fall into errors of three-fold contention (三會成咎), and so plunge into the worst destinies, with the result that the miàoshèng form of the Tathāgata can no longer be rightly contemplated. To remedy this, Gönpojab traced the original of the zhènxiàng 㡧像 [the canonical Buddha-image], expounded the dharma of garbha-image construction, translated the Zàoxiàng liángdù jīng in one juan, and added his own annotations. Years later the work was complete and submitted for review.”

The preface invokes the Diamond Sūtra — “If one sees forms as non-forms, one sees the Tathāgata” — and the Mahāyāna refusal to assert the cessation of forms; thus form (色身) is vyavahāra even though the absolute is “śūnyamūkya” (真空冥冥). For this reason, when the bodhi-mind is generated, the Tathāgata’s form-body manifests itself, like a rainbow brilliant in the sky, pervading the great trichiliocosm and revealing bodhi-benefit, dust-to-dust, perceived by all hearing-touching beings.

Abstract

The commentary expands on the iconometric specifications of the parent sūtra (KR6j0659), giving for each measurement a precise prose explanation, including: the proportional ratios of the Buddha-body (where the total height = 120 finger-units of the same body); the four-finger height of the uṣṇīṣa; the four-finger hairline; the twelve-finger face (sub-divided into three-and-a-half + three-and-a-half + three-and-a-half + one-and-a-half); the eye, nose, mouth, ear specifications; the proportional throat, shoulders, breast, arms, hands, fingers; the padma-seat. Gönpojab integrates Tibetan and Mongolian iconographic traditions, drawing on the bzo rig (artisan-science) corpus of the Tibetan canonical bstan-‘gyur and on Indian Buddhist iconometric śilpa-śāstra of the Citra-lakṣaṇa tradition.

Translations and research

  • Bentor, Yael. Consecration of Images and Stūpas. Leiden: Brill, 1996. — for the broader Indo-Tibetan iconometric and pratiṣṭhā tradition.
  • Jackson, David and Janice. Tibetan Thangka Painting: Methods and Materials. Boulder: Shambhala, 1984. — for the Tibetan iconometric tradition Gönpojab translates.
  • Mochizuki Shinjō 望月信成. “Zōzō ryōdokyō no kenkyū” 造像量度經の研究, Bukkyō Geijutsu 11 (1951): 56–84.
  • Henss, Michael. The Cultural Monuments of Tibet, 2 vols. Munich: Prestel, 2014. — discusses the Qīng-court reception of Tibetan iconometric texts.

Other points of interest

This work and KR6j0659 together constitute the most influential Buddhist iconometric source in late-imperial Chinese practice, and remain the principal reference for Qīng-period Buddhist sculptural and painting tradition. They mark the late-imperial assimilation of Tibetan Buddhist iconography into the orthodox Chinese Buddhist canon.

Graph View

Backlinks