Yùzhì jiǎnmó biànyì lù 御製揀魔辨異錄
Imperially Composed: A Record on Selecting the Demonic and Discriminating the Heretical by 世宗皇帝 (製), the Yōngzhèng 雍正 emperor
About the work
An eight-juan imperially composed Buddhist polemical-historiographical work by the Qīng Yōngzhèng emperor 雍正帝 (Aisin-Gioro Yìnzhēn 愛新覺羅·胤禛, 1678–1735, r. 1722–1735). The work is a sustained polemic against Hànyuè Fǎzàng 漢月法藏 (1573–1635), the LínjìYángqí dharma-disciple of Mìyún Yuánwù 密雲圓悟 (KR6q0604) who is denounced as a “demon-knowledge-and-view” (mó zhījiàn 魔知見) figure who introduced doctrinal heresy into the Mìyún line of Línjì Chán. The work follows the early debates of Mìyún himself (the Pìwàng yǔ 闢妄語 polemic) and Tiānyǐn Xiūgōng 天隱修公 (the Shìyí pǔshuō 釋疑普說) in defending the orthodox Mìyún line against Hànyuè’s deviations. Preserved in the Wànzì xùzàngjīng at X65 no. 1281.
Prefaces
The text opens with the imperial Shàngyù 上諭 (“Imperial Decree”):
The Way of the Buddha-patriarchs points to awakening one’s own mind as fundamental. Those who speak this — named “right knowledge and right view” — using it to benefit people and engage with things, causing people to directly reach the mind-source — only then can one be called a descendant of the Buddha-patriarchs. The so-called outside Way and demon Way also have knowledge-and-view; because [they] falsely identify the consciousness-spirit as the birth-and-death root, taking it as the ultimate. Mistakenly identifying the buddha-nature, slandering and destroying the precepts and conduct — therefore [they are] called outside Way and demon Way.
I have viewed the Mìyún Wù tiānyǐn Xiū yǔlù. Its words and phrases — the jīyòng (occasion-and-use) singly raises superior-orientation, directly points the human-mind. Then it accords with the meaning of the One Coming-from-the-West (xī-lái-de-yì 西來的意), and obtains the Cáoxī true-vein. Reaching to seeing within the Mìyún Wù lù the showing of his disciple Fǎzàng’s Pìwàng yǔ 闢妄語: that within, the basis of Fǎzàng’s words shocks: his entire confusion-of-original-nature, ignorant false speaking — not only does he not know the Buddha-Dharma’s lineage-intent, but even at his original-master Mìyún’s awakening-place, he too has not yet glimpsed [it]. Indulging his fantastic delusions, deceiving the world and confusing people. This is truly the outside-demon’s knowledge-and-view. Therefore his master once-and-again refuted [him]; and Tiānyǐn Xiū also has the Shìyí pǔshuō to denounce his errors. But at that time the demon …
[The text continues through the eight-juan polemic against Hànyuè Fǎzàng’s doctrinal positions.]
Abstract
Authorship and date: imperially composed by the Yōngzhèng emperor Aisin-Gioro Yìnzhēn 胤禛 (1678–1735, r. 1722–1735). Composed during the late part of his reign, plausibly 1733–1735 (notBefore = 1733 as a defensible terminus post quem; the work is mentioned by 1734 imperial-court Buddhist documents and was integrated into the imperial canon-printing project that culminated in the Qiánlóng Lóngzàng canon project). notAfter = 1735 (Yōngzhèng’s death). Catalog dynasty 清.
The work is one of the most extraordinary documents of imperial-Chán polemic in Chinese history — the Qīng emperor personally intervening to settle a doctrinal dispute within the LínjìYángqí Chán lineage, taking decisive sides between Mìyún Yuánwù 密雲圓悟 (1566–1642, KR6q0604) and his disgraced disciple Hànyuè Fǎzàng 漢月法藏 (1573–1635). The substantive doctrinal point at issue is the relation between Chán’s “superior-orientation” (xiàngshàng 向上) practice and the standard Tathāgatagarbha doctrine of the Buddha-mind. Yōngzhèng, citing Mìyún and Tiānyǐn Xiū, argues that Hànyuè has substituted false consciousness-spirit (shíshén 識神) for true Buddha-nature — thus making him a “demon Way” deviant.
The polemic is significant because:
- It is one of the principal pre-modern examples of an emperor personally intervening in monastic doctrinal disputes — anticipating and surpassing similar interventions by the Sòng Tàizōng (cf. KR6s0057–KR6s0062) and the Míng Yǒnglè (KR6s0063–KR6s0067) by the depth and specificity of the doctrinal engagement.
- It reflects Yōngzhèng’s personal Chán practice and study — he was, alongside his other duties, a serious Chán practitioner (cf. his Yùxuǎn yǔlù of 1733, KR6s0069).
- It had major consequences for the late-imperial Chán lineage: the Hànyuè line was subsequently suppressed and removed from imperial canonical patronage, while the orthodox Mìyún line (running through Mùchén Dàomǐn KR6q0607, Yùlín Tōngxiù KR6q0605, and the imperial-court yǔlù tradition) was elevated.
Translations and research
- Jiang Wu 吳疆, Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-Century China (Oxford, 2008) — the standard English-language treatment of the Mì-yún / Hàn-yuè dispute and its imperial-Yōng-zhèng resolution.
- Pei-yi Wu, Chün-fang Yü, and successor scholars on Late-Míng / Early-Qīng Chán.
- Wáng Jūn-zhōng 王俊中, Yōng-zhèng huáng-dì yǔ Fó-jiào 雍正皇帝與佛教 — Sinophone monograph on Yōng-zhèng’s Buddhist program.
- Holmes Welch, The Buddhist Revival in China (Harvard, 1968) — Qīng-period Chán historical context.
Other points of interest
The Yōngzhèng emperor’s intervention in the Mìyún / Hànyuè dispute is one of the most consequential state interventions in Chinese Buddhist doctrinal history — comparable in its institutional impact to the Sòng emperors’ canonical patronage and far more directive than the Míng emperors’ devotional patronage. The systematic suppression of the Hànyuè line that followed this work is one of the principal late-imperial cases of doctrinal heterodoxy being directly proscribed by imperial authority.
Links
- DILA authority: (no preserved authority entry for the imperial author)
- CBETA: X65n1281
- Author: Yōngzhèng emperor Aisin-Gioro Yìnzhēn 愛新覺羅·胤禛 (1678–1735, r. 1722–1735)
- Companion Yōngzhèng imperial Buddhist works: KR6s0009 Chóngdìng jiàoshèng fǎshù, KR6s0069 Yùxuǎn yǔlù, KR6s0070 Yùlù zōngjìng dàgāng
- Polemic targets: Hànyuè Fǎzàng 漢月法藏 (1573–1635) and his LínjìYángqí dharma-line
- Defended orthodox lineage: Mìyún Yuánwù 密雲圓悟 (KR6q0604) line