|
The objects in the exhibition cover fifteen centuries,
from a Chinese gilt bronze Shakyamuni statuette dated to 473 and brought
at an unknown period to the Potala Palace to the Medicine thangka copies
of the 1920s now kept in the Lhasa Museum. Thus this art historical survey
of Tibet ends sometime before 1950 and does not include the period and
person of the 14th Dalai Lama. This has been criticized by many visitors
to the exhibition, whose idea and image of Tibet are essentially determined
by this foremost and highly appreciated Tibetan representative of our
days. For obvious reasons the devastations of countless historical relics
during the so-called “Cultural Revolution” in the whole of
China and Tibet between 1966 and 1976 were not documented in Essen and
Berlin, but are still very tragically in mind, not only in the West. And
those eminent losses cannot be covered by all the exhibited treasures,
which fortunately have survived, for the religious benefit, daily use,
study, and aesthetic pleasure of Tibetans in Tibet, in the diaspora, and
abroad. That an exhibition of Tibetan cultural relics from present-day
China shown in the West will focus on "Buddhist Art and Religion"
alone is self-explaining. And self-restriction in this sense has been
practised in Essen and in Lhasa, even at the Villa Hügel vernissage,
when in an informal and discrete ambience no official speeches and statements
were given and the officials from Lhasa and Beijing were hardly seen.
When this exhibition, which has been under the patronage of the Chinese
Prime Minister Hu Jintao and of the German Federal President Horst Köhler,
was opened in its second venue on February 20, 2007, in the Museum for
Asian Art at Berlin (director Prof. Willibald Veit and Dr. Herbert Butz
for the East Asian department) in a more official way, welcome addresses
were given by the President of the German House of Parliament, Norbert
Lammert, by China’s ambassor Ma Canrong, and by Nyima Tsering, director
of the Administrative Bureau of Cultural Relics of the TAR in Lhasa.
The homemade German texts in the show and in the catalogue-handbook
get along without any overall guidelines except those of academic relevance
and correctness toward the individual object and its cultural context.
Such insight and discipline are not self-evident here and there and may
give rise to criticism on both sides. The German organisers, one may argue,
had no other choice in order to get this exhibition done. Yet they were
intelligent enough to pay proper respect to the needs and feasibilities
of the generous lenders and to get a maximum back. According to his own
words the director of the Villa Hügel Cultural Foundation, Prof.
Paul Vogt, was also well aware of the eventual political aspects and related
discussions in this regard. But he noted: “Nevertheless Tibetans
in exile supported actively the planning and preparations of this exhibition.
Other came to pay their respect to these ritual images and were pleased
to see such significant visual manifestations of their faith, which have
been sent from Tibetan monasteries or institutions, and not from museums
in the West. I am convinced that the public presentation of these religious
objects and the scientific study and publication of Tibet’s cultural
heritage will contribute to their preservation and safeguarding”.
And the German Federal President justified his patronage with similar
arguments: "This exhibition does not claim to present the history
of Tibet until our days, however it shows religious works of art –
often still in active ritual use – owned by public institutions
and by monasteries. Thus they are part of a living culture and of the
identity of the Tibetan people. The exhibition gives a chance for a cultural
and spiritual mission. We believe that the presentation of Tibet’s
cultural relics is also a contribution to emphasize and to support the
autonomy of Tibet”.
In view of the different thematic categories the selection
is well balanced between images and non-figural items, with 59 statues
from miniature to life-size, 25 thangka paintings and six fabric images
(kesi, silk embroidery), some 54 ritual objects, four sacred books, and
twelve historical and other secular objects.
It was not the intention of this exhibition to illustrate
and document the cultural history of Tibet or to give a visual introduction
to the “Land of Snows”. Yet many chapters of Tibet’s
religious and cultural history are covered by the five sections of the
exhibition plan anyway.
The visitor – and the reader of the heavy (over
4 kg!) catalogue handbook – begins his kora ("bsko ra";
ritual circumambulation) in front of the early Indian and Tibetan Lamdre
(lam ‘bras) lineage masters of the Sakyapa tradition, an at least
most impressive “path and result” and no doubt a brilliant
mental and highly eyecatching introduction into the visual dharma of Tibet.
The second part, like all the other sections decorated in a colour scheme
featuring one of the symbolic colours of the Five Buddha Families or of
the five elements, is dedicated to the three-fold world of the dharma
– body, speech, and mind: to the principal deities and teachers,
the sacred scriptures, and to the stupa, the aniconic symbol of the Awakened
One. The third part follows at the center of the exhibition: the mandalas,
meditational emblems of microcosm and macrocosm, and then the fourth,
a large section comprising a rather broad and not always convincing entity
of “Rulers and Monasteries” with images of religious (and
secular) sovereigns and their emblemata, various ritual implements and
altar furnishings, which one would have prefered to see, however, in a
more condensed and systematic context of a “temple iconology”.
The last section of the exhibition - dedicated to Tibetan medicine - appears
more like a rather arbitrary appendix (of an en-vogue subject) rather
than an essential chapter of the fivefold path to enlightenment on the
exhibition's ambitious path of circumambulation.
The aesthetic presentation in the huge, over a hundred
years old building, once the residence of the famous Krupp family, a leading
industrial “institution” in 20th century Germany, was very
impressive. The spacious halls were skilfully transformed into several
compartments with the objects shown in a decent setting of tranquilizing
colours and concentrated light. In reasonable balance with the overall
design additional texts provide sufficient information for the exhibits,
much to the benefit of the visitor, who in other cases like the current
exhibition on “The Dalai Lamas” in Zürich (Ethnographic
Museum) and Rotterdam (World Museum) is solely and “compulsorily”
guided around by audiophones. The high standard of the selection could
not be realised in every field, presumably due to restrictions of the
lenders of this exhibition. This is specifically evident for the painted
Mandalas, which are represented only on a low quality level (nos. 68,72,73,78),
although two exceptional 15th century Kalacakra Mandalas are kept in the
Potala Palace and in the Lhasa Museum. Only a few other items might be
considered dispensable, such as the paintings nos. 43, 46 and 58, or the
statues nos. 30,51,52 and 66 along with some ritual objects such as nos.
90,91,93 and 101 did not match the excellent overall quality level of
this exhibition.
In the following annotations I will mainly focus on those
works of art, which by their outstanding artistic quality, their specific
iconographic interest, or by characteristics inviting scholarly dispute
may deserve some special attention.
| |
Fig.
2a |
The ten life-size Lamdre masters in gilt copper repoussé
technique from Mindröl Ling (sMin grol gling) monastery are no doubt
among the most fascinating statues to exist in present-day Tibet (fig.2a,b).
Though closely connected with the Sakya tradition the complete set of
21 images, from Buddha Vajradhara to the Shalu lotsawa Chökyong Sangpo
(Chos skyong bZang po, 1441-1528), was moved from the deserted Drathang
(Gra thang) monastery shortly before my first visit there in 1992 to the
Nyingma seat at Mindröl Ling, where they are now installed in the
heart of the dukhang. In style and technique these unique monumental yogins
and teachers indicate a Newari atelier, which is confirmed by a Nagari
inscription on one of the exposed images. It is believed that they were
commissioned by Chökyong Sangpo, who came from Shalu to central Tibet
in 1483 to become later on abbot of Drathang, where he introduced the
Lamdre teachings of the Sakya tradition. At Gong dkar Chos sde he may
have been in contact with the genius artist mKhyen brtse or with his atelier,
whose unorthodox modern painting style and some related nearly lifesize
and very realistic statues of Lamdre masters (as they are mentioned for
an unidentifiable site in 1919) [4],
were probably not without influence on the Nepalese artists.We are informed
by the texts (Zhva lu gdan rabs) that Chökyong Sangpo’s disciple
Ön Lodrö Pekar (‘On bLo gros Pad dkar) commissioned a
precious image of his master after the death of the latter, which might
be identical with the last one of the 21 statues at Mindröl Ling.
Whether all other repoussé figures of this cycle were still made
during the lifetime of Chökyong Sangpo remains purely speculative.
[5]
It is, however, more likely that the complete set was produced after the
Shalu Lotsawa had died in 1528. Thus a date to the second quarter of the
16th century does not only correspond better to the general characteristics
of a 16th century style like it is illustrated for example by the magnificent
Siddha murals at Yamdrog Talung (Ya ‘brog sTag lung) monastery,
but would be also in accordance with the dating of the exhibition catalogue
(“first half of 16th century”), whose 33(!) pages on this
subject present an extremely detailed documentation on the Sakya school
in Tibet and its essential Lamdre tradition, as well as on the various
iconographic, stylistic, art historical, and technical aspects of the
Mindröl Ling statues (p.119-151). [6]
In his precise and substantial commentaries, Andreas Kretschmar clearly
identified the Mindröl Ling group clearly with the oral Vajra verses
tradition of the Lamdre system from the early beginnings until Zhang ston
Chos ‘bar (1053-1135, no.7 of the exhibition), which were written
down for the first time by the third Sakya throne-holder Sa chen Kun dga’
sNying po (1092-1158, no.8).
Fig. 2b |
|
By reviewing the sculptural highlights of the exhibition
via some kind of chronological order, I do not follow here the “iconological”
system of the overall presentation, which, displaying the objects within
the specific context of function and meaning, is generally the best way
to introduce a foreign culture of complex and difficult symbolism to a
greater public. Among the early metal sculptures shown in the exhibition,
two male figures of unknown iconography from the Potala Palace are labelled
as “Zhang zhung Kingdom of Western Tibet, 8th century” (no.40),
an attribution which is solely based on von Schroeder’s problematic
“identification” of some twelve predominantly Buddhist (!)
statuettes discovered by him in the Potala Palace and at a few other sites
in Tibet in the 1990s. [7]
In her text to this entry Marit Kretschmar (MK) refers mainly –
and correctly – to the early “Central Asian” costumes
of these images, a general feature however of early Tibetan figures without
any priority for western Tibet (where in the pre-11th century period the
“Kashmirian mode” had been the only stylistic convention anyway).
This may just confirm the early date of these enigmatic statues, which
hardly can be understood as “donors” (von Schroeder).
Until recently no cultural or artistic profile could
be established for a western Tibetan Zhang zhung kingdom, of which no
reliable archaeological data and clues do exist. Neither during the Tucci
expeditions in the 1930s or the Chinese excavations at Tsaparang and Tholing
in the 1980s and 1990s, nor in the course of the extensive field surveys
in the western Changthang plains by John V.Bellezza and from the first
archaeological investigations at Khyung lung dNgul mkhar by Professor
Li Yongxian in 2004 have any similar artefacts come to light, which would
support the hypothesis of a specific group of “Zhang zhung art”.
And how much sense does it make to find Buddhist art production in a Bon-dominated
kingdom, which by mere chronology did not exist anymore at the time when
these images – on stylistic grounds – must have been manufactured?
I also have doubts whether the twelve “Zhang zhung images”
(as suggested by von Schroeder), partly cast in copper and partly in brass,
make a homogenous “oeuvre”. Some of them belong to the style
of Greater Kashmir, while others are more related to an early Newar-Central
Tibetan style of the sPu rgyal dynasty period. [8]
One may argue that Buddhism had found its way to the eastern borderlands
of Greater Kashmir, which is indeed well-documented by several early rock-carved
images in Ladakh, Zanskar, Baltistan and Gilgit, and assume, as von Schroeder
does, that the “origins” for these statues might be sought
for in “the Tibetan dominions in the western parts of Central Asia”.
Yet the “origins” only? Or as another construct would make
us believe: could these images have been “commissioned” by
the Zhang zhung rulers from those “western” areas? Wouldn’t
it be less speculative to associate them with the Tibetan borderlands
in the West around the 8th century, with “Bolorian Tibet”
or with “Little Bolor” (Tib. Bru zha), which was conquered
by the Tibetans in 735?
| |
Fig.
3 |
At least four of the six exhibited Kashmir style metal
images are of exceptional quality and art historical importance. An additional
advantage of the thoughtful selection is their wide chronological range
over a period of circa 600 years, a rare chance to study the earliest
and the latest Kashmir styles from about 600 to 1200 at the same time.
The most impressive Kashmiri “guest” from the Potala Palace
and one of only two existing early Kashmiri statues of this size and quality
is a 94 cm tall standing Shakyamuni inscribed at the base in Sanskrit
as having been donated by the monk Priyaruci and King Durlabha (-vardhana,
r.circa 625-637), which allows a dating of the statue to circa 620-630
(no.13; fig.3). Almost 400 years later, sometime between 998 and 1016,
when it had apparently been brought from Kashmir to western Tibet, a Tibetan
inscription was added describing this Buddha as the personal meditational
image of the royal prince Nagaraja (988-1026), son of the lama-king Ye
shes ‘Od of Gu ge, who was constructing at that time the great “mandala
temple” at Tholing. With the exception of the much later standing
Buddha in the Cleveland Museum of Art (datable to circa 1000) and a similar
statue in the Lindenmuseum Stuttgart, Germany, no monumental Kashmir style
image of this importance has been shown in the West before.
Fig. 4a |
|
Another significant 63 cm high gilt copper statue of a
standing Shakyamuni from the Lhasa Museum (fig.4a) can be regarded in
my opinion as a later, circa 11th century “Gu ge interpretation”
by a Tibetan artist of the classical earlier Kashmir Buddha type (no.14:
“Kashmir, 7th/8th century”). While the attribution of Kashmir
style images from the 10th through the 12th centuries either to a Kashmiri
or to a Tibetan artist is in many cases difficult or even impossible,
the Lhasa Buddha indicates in comparison with nos.11 and 13 as well as
with other “genuine” early Kashmir statuary a distinctive
local “Gu ge design”: the more schematic “linear”
garment style (“Faltenstil”) of the robe as well as the proportions
of the head and its facial features seem to be general characteristics
of Western Himalayan figural art between Gu ge and sPi ti during the 11th
and 12th century, compared with nos.11 and 13 or other early statues of
“genuine” Kashmiri provenance. [9]
| |
Fig.
4b |
Coming back to the original Kashmir style images of the
7th and 8th centuries, the seated Buddha in dharmacakra-mudra no.11 is
another exhibition highlight from Greater Kashmir, whose artistic production
had an essential influence on Tibetan art during the formative phase between
circa 1000 and 1200, primarily and rather exclusively in the western regions.
From here these images may have been brought at that time and in later
periods (probably a few during the Tibetan military campaigns in the 7th
or 8th century) to central Tibet, where however their distinctive style
did not have a substantial impact on statuary and painting, which increasingly
came under the influence of the great Pala-Indian and Nepalese traditions.
The Lhasa museum image no.11 is one of the finest seated Buddhas of an
“antique” Gandharan-Swat Valley style lineage, with silver
and copper inlays of Central Asian textile patterns. Similar sculptures
are preserved in Western public and private collections and in the Yonghegong
temple at Beijing [10],
and in remote places in western Tibet, where even “unknown”
masterpieces of an early Kashmir style have survived like at Gu ru rGyam
cave sanctuary in ancient Khyung lung valley, to be properly rediscovered
and hopefully published in the near future. Even at much more prominent
places like the Ramoche in Lhasa, exceptional Kashmirian statues are preserved
such as an (unpublished) 87 cm tall crowned Buddha of the circa 11th century,
a period when probably most of the Kashmir style images were brought to
central Tibet (fig.4b).
A very interesting six-armed Avalokiteshvara from the
Potala Palace represents the late Kashmir style of around 1200 (no.35).
However, I cannot agree with the catalogue text, according to which this
image would not be “a Kashmiri work in the real sense”, yet
with “influences from other regions”. From which regions?
Was there ever any distinctive influence from the neighbouring regions
on the art of Kashmir except of the Indian Gupta and the Gandharan-Swat
mainstream? Has ever a Kashmiri statue been associated with the highly
refined late Kashmir style of the Alchi murals, where similar floral ornaments
and flamed patterns like on the throne and nimbus of the Potala statue
do occur? [11]
And can late or latest elements of an over five hundred years old artistic
tradition (which is subject to change!) be interpreted as a foreign vocabulary?
Fig.
5 |
Fig.
6 |
Fig.
7 |
Fig.
8 |
The Pala-Indian predecessors of Tibetan art are represented
by one of the most beautiful and important masterpieces of the entire
exhibition: the life-size standing Bodhisattva Maitreya from the Li ma
lha khang in the Potala Palace collection (no.32; height: 154cm; figs.5,6,7).
Before 1994, the year when these chapels were opened to the public for
the first time, this exceptional 12th century brass statue virtually did
not exist for pious pilgrims and experienced experts. Since then this
most beautiful monumental Indian sculpture in Tibet has been largely covered
by silk brocades. Thus the real grandeur of this Pala style statue with
all the ornamental silver and copper inlays on the dhoti and the turquoise
and other precious stones indicating a manufacture for a Tibetan patron
was only revealed in the exhibition. The image was either produced in
eastern India (as it is known for example for a painted scroll commissioned
by Atisha) or, probably more likely, in Tibet by an Indian artist. At
least two more monumental statues of the 11th and 12th centuries in a
private property and at sNye thang monastery [12]
document clearly the presence, and as I believe, the production of large
Indian metal statues in Tibet. And one wonders about the strict objections
of some Tibetologists against a probable Indian authorship of a few early
thangkas found in Tibet. [13]
Just three examples of comparable Indian stone and metal sculpture may
prove what has not been seen in the catalogue text: a superb 11th century
stone torso of a female figure in the Delhi National Museum (fig.8), a
Tara stele in the Indian Museum at Calcutta dated to 1074, and a Kurkihar
Avalokiteshvara in the Patna Museum of the late 11th or early 12th century.
[14]
– One cannot help but regret when looking at this Sambhogakaya-Maitreya,
that he does not reveal his “true” unpainted face, now after
over 800 years, though more for the pleasure of the art lover than for
the benefit of unknown hierarchs and countless pilgrims on their path
from the formal beauty of the phenomena to the formless truth of the dharma.
While other Nepalese sculpture is represented only by
a small but beautiful 14th century gilt copper statuette of a thousand-armed
Avalokiteshvara (no.33), the significant image of the seated bodhisattva
(Amoghasiddhi?) no.20 should be rather attributed to a Newari atelier
of the 11th century than described as “Tibetan”. Like several
other statues of the same style, this loan from the Lhasa museum can be
regarded as a prototype model for Tibetan statuary of the phyi dar period,
especially also for monumental clay statues like at the Lhasa Jo khang
or at sNye thang monastery. [15]
In its simple composition and jewelry adornment it recalls the classical
tradition of early Newari sculpture at a time when Tibetan artists were
just about to copy and to assimilate the formal vocabulary of their neighbours
to the south, west and north of the central regions.
Two royal figures, no. 80 and 81, are masterpieces of
Tibetan statuary in a double sense: beautiful examples of advanced 14th
century image art and rare incunabula of high-ranking secular iconography.
The 47cm high brass image of King Srong btsan sGam po (no.81, fig.8b)
from the Potala Palace is, with the exception of some early 9th century
rock-carvings in eastern Tibet, the earliest preserved statue of a sPu
rgyal dynasty king, represented here in the much older concept of the
“Avalokiteshvara in the form of a king” (Blue Annals). The
catalogue text (by Petra Maurer) however, though extensively informing
the reader about Srong btsan sGam po in general, does not say anything
about the proper statue with regard to its historical, iconographic and
stylistic aspects in context. While this king was identified with Tibet’s
most prominent bodhisattva already during the later monarchic period,
when those kings were described as “son of the gods” (lha
sras) or as a “king divinely manifested” in contemporary rdo
ring inscriptions and Dunhuang texts, the individual image of the bodhisattva
ruler with the small Amitabha figure on top of his turban did not exist
to the best of my knowledge before the 14th century. When Ta’i si
tu Byang chub rGyal mtshan (1302-1364), the actual ruler of dBus gTsang
towards the middle of the 14th century, promoted a “national renaissance”
by creating a new awareness of the Tibetan roots in the dynastic era,
the historical and ideological background and motivation for such images
and for a proper Srong btsan sGam po cult were established. And at the
same period the first monumental clay statue of this king was installed
in the Jo khang, which may have served as a model for the metal image
of the exhibition. [16]
The historical circumstances are confirmed by stylistic criteria. The
characteristic dragon medallions of the king’s robe can be well
compared with similar designs of imperial symbolism on Yuan dynasty textiles.
– The catalogue texts for the two royal images of the same (!) period
and style are strangely written by two different authors. In her detailed
discussion of the anonymous “Tibetan dharma king” no.80 Bernadette
Broeskamp (BB) follows largely the description in von Schroeder’s
“Buddhist Sculptures in Tibet” (“Princely donor depicted
as Amitayus? 11th/12th century”, fig.8a) [17],
yet interprets the iconography more convincingly as an early religious
king (chos rgyal) in the sambhogakaya aspect. Although this idealized
statue of a worldly sovereign may well be associated with earlier concepts
of Vairocana as an universal ruler and of the dharmaraja-cakravartin,
it must be dated to the same 14th century period like the king no.81.
Both images have similar motifs and stylistic elements: garment style
and especially the making of the lower part of the robe, facial features,
and hair style. The crown leaves do not resemble those of the 11th or
12th century, which are characterised by a rather flat and linear design
(see for example no.20!), but recall instead the more sculptural style
of 13th and 14th century metalwork inlaid with precious stones. [18]
A comparison with similarly dressed princely figures in the wall-paintings
at Drathang (Gra thang, 1081/1093) is for chronological reasons misleading.
The style of the royal metal statues in the Potala indicates also an archaistic
element in order to mark the historical continuity and the “revival”
of the chos rgyal period and its “mode monarchique” in the
14th century. Ornamental textile patterns such as the Central Asian roundels
on the sleeves of the king’s robe can be regarded as specific designs
of ancient royal or princely dresses and were apparently used for a similar
context also in later times. And last but not least, no other royal statues
of this type exist, which can be safely attributed to the phyi dar period.
One of the most exceptional loans of the entire exhibition,
both for its sheer aesthetic beauty and technical workmanship as well
as for its art historical importance, is the large gilt copper statue
of the Kalacakra yidam deity from Shalu monastery (no.54, height: 60 cm),
an unrivalled masterpiece of a Tibetan yab-yum image. (fig.9) Nowhere
else in Tibet or in any public and private collection in China or abroad
has been preserved a similar sculptural group of this size and quality.
The catalogue text (Gregor Verhufen) however is limited to a general though
detailed iconographic description of the Kalacakra yidam without giving
any attention to the individual statue and to its art historical or technical
aspects. This principal image was no doubt specifically associated with
Bu ston’s Kalacakra teachings and praxis at Shalu and thus would
probably have been produced there by an atelier from the Kathmandu Valley
sometime between 1320 and 1364. [19]
The elegant movement of the figure, the dynamic and very decorative scarves,
the elaborately worked crowns, and the various inlaid precious stones
indicate clearly the Newar artist tradition of that period, stylistic
characteristics which can also be recognized in several painted cycles
at Shalu. And it must have been this ultimate yidam image representing
the highest teaching system of the Yoga Tantras, which in 1919 the famous
pilgrim-scholar Kah thog Si tu Chos kyi rGya mtsho had seen on his extensive
travels in the Central Regions of Tibet, “as tall as an arrow, of
pure gold and adorned with precious stones”. [20]
The reviewer being familiar with this monastery since 1980, cannot help
adding his personal thanks – certainly in the name of many others
who have seen the exhibition – to the monk community of Shalu (and
so he did during a visit in October 2006) for having been so generous
to let one of their most precious treasures go for some time to the western
world.
Fig. 10 |
|
That significant early paintings are less well represented
in the German exhibition depends at least partly on the more limited material
which has survived in good condition. And obviously there are now many
more pre-16th century thangkas in western properties (most of them more
or less extensively restored) than in Tibetan monasteries and other institutions,
which have not been ritually used for long or never did undergo a thorough
restoration. Although we do not know if there are still hidden treasures
among the painted scrolls stored in the Potala Palace, it seems that there
is probably only a single painting of the characteristic 12th and 13th
century Five Tathagatha sets left in Tibet as they once existed for example
at Shalu monastery [21]
and from where their sculptural counterparts were lent for this exhibition
(no.19a-e; fig.10)
| |
Fig.
11 |
The most significant and beautiful painting shown in the
exhibition is a hitherto unpublished 14th century thangka of a Newari
artist depicting the crowned Diamond Seat Buddha (fig.11) or, as it is
called in the Sadhanamala text of the 12th century, the Vajrasana tathagatha
in bhumisparsa mudra seated on the diamond throne, triumphing over Mara
(no.16). Like in several earlier 12th and 13th century paintings [22]
the Buddha is represented soon after his enlightenment seated in the Mahabodhi
temple at Bodhgaya, yet depicted “ahistorically” with a crown
like a cakravartin, a “world king” or universal ruler, though
“still” dressed in a monk’s robe of the historical Buddha:
Shakyamuni in his divine and kingly form. The crowned Buddha, basically
referring to his sambhogakaya aspect according to the trikaya concept
and a quite rare iconographic form of the Mahabodhi-Vajrasana Shakyamuni,
symbolizes “the five transcendental insights (jnanas) that the Buddha
attained as part of the enlightenment process” [23],
manifested by the five transcendental Buddhas seated in the Mahabodhi
shrine in the painting’s upper section. The actual origins and models
of the crowned Diamond Seat-bhumisparsa mudra Buddha surrounded by Mara’s
attack and many more scenes of Shakyamuni’s life-story can be traced
back to the characteristic large Indian stone steles of the Pala period
and especially to the popular small votive tablets (see no.15) as they
were existing mainly in the Bodhgaya and Nalanda areas to be brought by
pious pilgrims and eminent masters to Tibet. The Chinese monk-traveller
Xuanzang (Hsien Tsiang) reports from the early 7th century that the principal
statue of the Buddha, “eleven feet and five inches high” in
the Mahabodhi temple depicted calling the earth as witness whilst subduing
Mara. He described it as adorned with “a necklace of precious stones
and jewels, whilst on the head they placed a diadem of encircling gems,
exceedingly rich”. [24]
According to a textual tradition a coronation was part of celestial consecrations
bestowed on Shakyamuni after his final meditation stage. [25]
And as told by a later Tsongkhapa biography the Jo bo Shakyamuni statue
in the Lhasa Jokhang would have been crowned with a diadem (dbu rgyan)
“to encourage the devotion of the Indians” [26],
which recalls the 10th and 11th century stone steles from Nalanda depicting
the Buddha crowned like a king as an universal sovereign.
Beyond the very thorough description and interpretation
of the Buddha story around the central composition, nothing is said in
the catalogue text on the art historical and stylistic aspects of the
painting, which recalls the Newari style murals at Shalu of the first
half of the 14th century, though it is not really identical with their
specific formal language. While the individual “handwriting”
indicates clearly a Nepalese artist (see detail illustr. p.175,176), one
cannot label this magnificent Mahabodhi enlightenment Shakyamuni simply
as “Kathmandu Valley style”. 30 years after Pratapaditya Pal’s
pioneering book on Nepalese painting and so many newly discovered and
published painted scrolls and metal images from Nepal and Nepalese style
works of art from Tibet one sees the need for a comprehensive modern documentation
of Nepalese painting and sculpture and of its “Nepalo-Tibetan”
derivatives. And then one may also find a more precise stylistic –
and iconographical - identity for the much later but somehow archaistic
and hardly less refined painting of the Bodhgaya-Shakyamuni no.17 than
just “Tibet, 18th-19th century”. [27]
Fig. 12 |
|
Another excellent selection – especially in the
context of the two paintings no.16 and 17 – has been the sandalwood
“model” of the Mahabodhi temple at Bodhgaya (fig.12), the
largest and most detailed existing miniature copy of this principal Buddhist
sanctuary among several other replicas in the Potala Palace collection
(no.22, height: 49 cm), with a very informative catalogue text on the
history and typology of the Mahabodhi temple by Niels Gutschow. While
several other of these temple copies are much smaller in order to serve
as portable votive objects for pilgrims, this exceptional shrine in miniature
might have been sent with a highranking mission to Tibet, probably during
the phyi dar period or at the latest maybe as a sacred gift taken by the
Bodhgaya abbot Sariputra on his visit to Tibet in 1414. Beyond its value
as an object of veneration, this outstanding reliquary is most important
for architectural exactness as an authentic 11th century “model”
of the original building as it was before the late 11th century (indicated
by some details which no longer exist in the present building). The attribution
of this Mahabodhi temple replica to Burmese artisans [28],
who had been involved in the reconstruction of the temple architecture
around 1098, remains however speculative. This assumption is based on
another problematic hypothesis, according to which the so-called “short
necked Buddha” type (as illustrated by this replica) would indicate
a distinctive Burmese origin, but not, one may add, exclusively, since
the early prototypes appear to have their roots in Eastern Bengal. The
wooden temple replica, which seems to be made almost exactly on a scale
of 1:100 in relation to the early circa 50 metres high Mahabodhi temple
of the Gupta period, informs us like no other of these models about the
original construction of this foremost shrine of the Buddhist world. Only
here we can identify the original stone fence dating to the first century
B.C.E. or the contemporary capitals and bases of the pillars. And even
the many small Gupta style Buddha statues in the niches of the central
tower and of the portico may serve for a reliable reconstruction of the
former architecture in composition and style.
| |
Fig.
13 |
At about the same time when the sandalwood Mahabodhi temple
no.22 had been carved, one of the most beautifully illuminated Indian
palm leaf manuscripts was written not far away from Bodhgaya, very likely
at the Nalanda Buddhist academy in the late 11th century, from where it
was apparently brought to ‘On ke ru Lha khang monastery, located
some kilometres away from the northern banks of the Tsangpo river opposite
Tsethang (no.26). This hitherto unknown manuscript of the Astasahasrika
Prajnaparamita Sutra (whose name and content should have been explained
briefly in the catalogue) is one of the few illustrated books of the Pala
period in complete condition and especially unique because of its superbly
painted and well preserved wooden covers (58x7 cm, 139 leaves with total
twelve illuminations on four pages, figs.13,14). According to the colophon
the Tsethang manuscript was donated by the mother of the great pandita
Sri Asoka in the second year of the reign of King Surapala, which corresponds
to the very end of the 11th century. With no doubt were those Indian manuscript
illuminations of great influence for early Tibetan paintings in the 11th
and 12th century. In addition to Eva Allinger’s thorough discussion
of this painted treasure in iconography and style, which like many other
texts in the catalogue may certainly suit more the special interest of
the scholarly reader than it would meet the curiosity and capacity of
the “other 95%” of the exhibition’s visitors, at least
two approximately contemporary Pala manuscripts in Tibet are adorned with
illuminations and painted or carved covers of similar breathtaking quality:
another 8000 verses Prajnaparamita text in the Tibet Museum at Lhasa and
a manuscript of unknown content at Sakya monastery. [29]
Fig. 14 |
|
The enormous book treasures at Sakya were so far never
investigated, especially the corpus of Sanskrit manuscripts, “one
of the last ‘hidden’ treasures of Asia”. [30]
When in 1926 the Indian scholar Rahula Sankrtyanana (1893-1963) “discovered
25 bundles of palm-leaf Sanskrit manuscripts” in the “Manuscript
chapel” (Phyag dpe lha Khang) on the upper storey of Sakya monastery,
“the whole floor was covered with a thick layer of dust about one-third
of an inch”. [31]
While in 1961 about 250 manuscripts were brought from Tibet to the Minority
Palace library in Beijing and in the successive years many more from various
monasteries were gathered in Lhasa (Potala and Norbulingka Palaces, of
which some are now in the Tibet Museum), Sakya is still by far the largest
monastic repository of Tibetan and Indian manuscripts. At present the
Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences in Lhasa is working on a project for
an inventory of the Tibetan written and xylographed books in Sakya. And
only recently all these early manuscripts were moved from the huge 13th
century book-shelves in the Lha khang Chen mo to a separate library hall
built in the traditional Tibetan Sakya style in 2004 opposite the southern
front of the main monastic complex.
From “Prajnaparamita light” to the most heavy
8000 verses edition: no.27 is a 100 cm long and 54,5 cm (!) wide foliant
with huge carved wooden covers and usually “on display” at
it’s original place in the main assembly hall of Gyantse monastery
(Chos rgyal lha khang). Both manuscripts are documenting in the exhibition
the wide range of the eminent Buddhist textual tradition from the Indian
Sanskrit sources to the great Tibetan Sutra translations in the Kanjur
at the time of Tsongkhapa, for the exhibition catalogue a good opportunity
to inform extensively about the “Perfection of Wisdom”.
| |
Fig.
15 |
Closely connected with the Indian painting tradition of
the Pala period is another hitherto unseen scroll painting of a standing
bodhisattva Manjusri from the Yarlung Museum at Tsethang and published
here for the first time (no.31; 77,5x23,5cm; fig.15). Formerly kept at
Ke ru Lha khang in the opposite ‘On Valley this image is no doubt
one of the earliest Tibetan paintings to exist, datable on stylistic grounds
to the late 11th century. [32]
The long dbU med inscription on the back consists of Sanskrit dharanis
and consecration formulas. The iconographic and stylistic identity of
this vertically proportioned banner – apparently a very early type
of the Tibetan thangka – has been well researched in the catalogue
by Bernadette Bröskamp. Quotations from Indian manuscript illuminations
of the 11th century such as the trees on top, the lotuses at the bottom,
the figural style of the bodhisattva, and the kneeling donors recalling
similarly drawn lay worshippers in Tibetan murals of the 11th century,
characterise this painting as an early Tibetan interpretation of the Indian
Pala style. The Tsethang bodhisattva can be also clearly distinguished
from the much earlier Tibetan style found at Dunhuang (London, British
Museum) and from the sPu rgyal period bodhisattva statues at Ke ru Lha
khang. The safe stylistic profile of an 11th century date for this thangka
corresponds to other circa contemporary Pala style paintings outside India
like, for example, in Pagan (Abeyadana, Kubyauk gyi Myinkaba, late 11th
and early 12th century) and also contributes to confirm the dating of
other early painted scrolls such as the large Amitayus thangka in the
Metropolitan Museum New York. [33]
Compared with the Indian roots and antecedents, the Chinese
connection with Tibetan Buddhist art for wellknown historical and geographical
reasons is much more long-lasting and by far more variously interrelated
in both directions. While the term “Sino-Tibetan art” refers
correctly to all those paintings and statues produced in Tibet but influenced
by specific Chinese elements in style and iconography (though often misused
for Buddhist or “lamaist” art produced in China in the Tibetan
style), “Tibeto-Chinese” should be the right label for all
Tibetan style works of art made in China and its bordering areas. All
together 10 exhibits belong to this second and indeed more attractive
group. All of them were produced in the imperial ateliers, which guaranteed
a highly refined quality standard of Tibetan-Buddhist “court art”
in China. This foreign esoteric Buddhism, its religious fascination and
political function, and its exotic visual world was in fact concentrated
and limited to imperial demand and patronage, be it the passionate personal
attachment to the Tibetan hierarchs and to their sacred meditational images
under the Yongle emperor of the early Ming, be it the much discussed support
of Tibetan Buddhism by the Qianlong emperor between political considerations
and private interest.
Fig. 16 |
|
The early chapter of Tibeto-Chinese art during the Mongol-Chinese
and Yuan dynasty period (1279-1368 and before) can’t be represented
better than by the magnificent and extremely well preserved Acala “silk
painting” from the Tibet Museum in Lhasa (fig.16) woven in the costly
“imperial” slip tapestry technique (kesi) (no. 49). The much
discussed question, where these early fabric thangkas in this especially
valued technique were produced, Lhasa or Dadu (Beijing), is usually answered
in favour of the Xi Xia Tangut Kingdom, “made in Yuan China”.
[34]
Yet there is no doubt that the painted models for these highly precious
images came from Tibet. [35]
In so far as the tapestry is certainly not the original icon, which according
to the Tibetan inscription on the Acala was dedicated “to the great
‘Khon (Sa skya) master Grags pa rGyal mtshan (1147-1216) by his
disciple Cang brtson ‘grus grags from Kham”. Since the first
part of the inscription has been variously interpreted as “commissioned”
for Grags pa rGyal mtshan or as “offered” and “presented”
to him, the kesi was dated by some scholars before 1216. According to
Per K.Sorensen’s highly interesting, though not always feasible
and consistent historiographical argumentation, the Acala would have been
“executed for and donated to” Grags pa rGyal mtshan by Cang
brtson ‘grus grags sometime between 1200 and 1216. [36]
According to the most likely interpretation of the inscription the original
painting was “presented” (phul) personally to the eminent
Sakya hierarch, that means during his lifetime, while its woven reproduction
was commissioned at a later time “on imperial command” at
the Mongol capital. A later and in my opinion [37]
more convincing date of the kesi to the Yuan dynasty period is also suggested
by Bernadette Bröskamp’s very informative catalogue text because
of some linguistic inconsistencies in the Tibetan inscription caused by
the non-Tibetan textile atelier later on and, less strikingly I would
say, due to the “sumptuous colourfulness” of the kesi. Another
argument for a later dating towards the second half of the 13th century
or to the Yuan period may be the former pearls stitched once on the figures
in the lower register, of which only a single one is now left (almost
invisible) on the forehead of the central Tara. [38]
The use of pearls to adorn textiles and fabric images is known as a characteristic
Mongolian tradition. Even more supporting an “advanced Mongol period”
date is, in my opinion, the elaborate silken border (fortunately reproduced
in the catalogue in full size), which after a closer look in the exhibition
must be the authentic mounting of the period. The ornamental vocabulary
of these golden silks recalls Yuan dynasty patterns. [39]
And similarly would the two decorative lan dza (lan tsha) script panels
with the Om mani padme hum mantra indicate a Yuan period origin [40].
Although this sacred script originated at the turn of the first millennium
in Buddhist Bengal, where it was called in allusion to its calligraphic
character “ranjana” or “ranja” (Sanskrit: “delightful,
pleasant”), and came with Buddhist manuscripts successively to Nepal,
Central Asia and China, the decorational use for prominent Tibetan style
works of art like the Acala tapestry does not appear to have been popular
before the Yuan dynasty period. “Ranja” was phonetically imitated
by the Tibetans as “lan dza” and predominantly used for ornamental
mantras and bijas (root syllables). – Whatever the artistic differences
in Tibetan “silk painting” of around 1200 or 1300 may be,
the figural style of our kesi – for example the Avalokiteshvara
and Usnisavijaya at the bottom – goes rather towards the 14th century
than back to the 12th century. And a good number of Tibetan painted scrolls,
which by stylistic estimation (or speculation) may date “around
1200” were in fact produced some fifty to hundred years later.
Was this fabric image with its illustrated and textual
references to the first three Sakya hierarchs manufactured at some time
later than the painted Vorlage (model) and sent with Tibetan dignitaries
at the Yuan court to Sakya monastery in the late 13th or early 14th century?
When between circa 1310 and 1320 the imperial tutor and preceptor Mus
chen rGyal mtshan dPal bzang po, the nephew of ‘Phags pa bLa ma,
travelled from Dadu (Beijing) to Sakya, he carried “woven images
(btags sku)” in his luggage. [41]
– The kesi technique was introduced into China by the Uighurs in
the early Song dynasty (12th century) and, as we are informed by a historical
text, factories for these textiles were established in Hangzhou with “weavers
of gold fabrics from the western regions” and “new trends
developed”. [42]
Hangzhou is well known for its production of silkenware and also as an
important administration and art center in southern China, particularly
of Tibetan Buddhism during the late Song and early Yuan dynasty. A comprehensive
Tripitaka edition was published here in 1269-1285, many Buddhist texts
with “Tibeto-Chinese” illustrations xylographed, and the famous
Tibetan style statues at the Feilaifeng grottoes carved between 1282 and
1292. It has been argued by the Chinese scholar Su Bai that the Acala
kesi was possibly(!) produced in a Hangzhou atelier. [43]
Although there is some probability for a Hangzhou origin of such silken
images towards the late 13th century, we have so far no textual or other
evidence.
After the first Ming emperor Hongwu (r.1368-1398) had
banned the production and use of those luxurious silken images, a grand
revival of this Tibeto-Chinese art tradition was patronized by both the
third Ming ruler Chengzu, known as the Yongle emperor (r.1403-1424) and
especially during the reign of the Xuande emperor (1426-1435). The large
blue and golden silk brocade banner of Cakrasamvara in yab-yum from the
Yarlung Museum in Tsethang (no.53; 275x210cm without border), probably
once kept in a Tsethang monastery, has been so far – quite literally
– a hidden treasure, which was not on display in Tibet for the last
decades. [44]
Sometime after circa 1985 its original fabric border was removed and replaced
by modern brocades. By the Chinese six-character mark Da Ming Yongle nian
shi in the upper right corner, “made during the Yongle reign of
the Great Ming”, it can be dated to the years after 1407, when Ming
Chengzu met the Fifth Karmapa at the court in Nanjing the representatives
of the Sakyapa and Gelugpa schools in the successive years. Compared with
two other large-size embroidered silk thangkas of Cakrasamvara and Vajrabhairava
in the Lhasa Jokhang bearing the same Yongle reign mark [45]
the Tsethang banner depicts no other deities or monk figures, which would
allow an attribution to one of these Tibetan-Buddhist traditions or to
a specific hierarch.
| |
Fig.
17 |
The monochrome gold technique has been associated in the
catalogue text (by Juliane Noth) with the originally Central Asian Nasij
(“gold cloth”) weaving of the Yuan period. Basically similar
gold-and-blue silk lampas weaves with Buddhist design did exist already
in the 13th century. [46]
Possibly these uni-coloured “silken paintings” on blue or
red ground had also some influence on later Tibetan thangkas painted in
an equivalent monochrome technique. I cannot see, however, any distinctive
drawing style in the “Chinese brush painting manner” (catalogue
text). “Chinese” is here the entity of several formal and
technical features and the individual “handwriting”: the transformation
of a Tibetan iconographic and aesthetic vocabulary into a new Tibeto-Chinese
syntax of slightly different figural proportions, facial features, and
ornamental design (lotus petals), which appear to have been meticulously
copied but were seen through the eyes of a Chinese artist. At least two
more Yongle-marked gold-threaded silk thangkas of the same style and from
the same atelier exist in Lhasa: a Vajrabhairava on blue ground in the
Potala Palace (fig.17) and another one depicting the same yidam protector
on red ground in the Jo bo chapel of the Jokhang. [47]
Fig. 18 |
|
Although the Guhyasamaja-Aksobhyavajra silk embroidery
from the Potala Palace (no.55) was previously published in colour [48],
it is just breathtaking to see the original image and its fascinating
bright colourfulness and brilliant stitching freshly preserved with its
original fabric border as if it were made yesterday! (fig.18) The thorough
written catalogue text (by Bernadette Bröskamp) presents an interesting
and convincing iconographic analysis, especially with regard to the two
monks in the upper section. While the lama to the left can be quite safely
identified by his black hat with the double vajra and by the small Manjushri
figure (alluding to the first Ming emperor, who was declared a reincarnation
of the wisdom bodhisattva by his successor) as the Fifth Karmapa bDe bzhin
gShegs pa (1384-1415), the other “black hat lama” to the right
might be more difficult to determine. Since another Karmapa can be ruled
out for sheer chronological reasons, it can be only – as rightly
suggested in the catalogue – the Tsongkhapa disciple Shakya Yeshe
(Shakya Ye shes, 1352-1435), to whom the Yongle emperor had also bestowed
a black hat and the title “Son of the Buddha of Western Heaven”
and “Great National Preceptor” (daguoshi) at their meeting
in 1415. Shakya Yeshe is represented on various other fabric images in
succession of his great master as the supreme teacher and great Gelugpa
head displaying the dharmacakra mudra. The figure in bhumisparsa and dhyana
mudra on the embroidery – with the blue six-armed Mahakala protector
of the Yellow School! – would be interpreted as the Gelugpa hierarch
second to Tsongkhapa at a time when the latter was still alive. If so,
how can the representatives of these different religious traditions be
depicted on one and the same thangka, which usually was dedicated and
offered to the head or to the principal monastery of a specific school?
This unorthodox iconography can be only explained by an “unusual”
yet nevertheless very probable function (in view of our usual understanding
of these very images!) of this embroidery, as an apparently personal use
of the emperor for his own religious needs at the court. As already mentioned,
this silken masterpiece must have been commissioned for iconographic reasons
during the reign of the Yongle emperor, whose imperial production of elaborate
fabric images and refined gilt copper statues was not primarily associated
– at least in the earlier years - with one of the three major Tibetan
Buddhist schools like later on with the Gelugpa under the Xuande emperor.
Thus in correspondence to Ming Chengzu’s political and diplomatic
activities, an iconographic syncretism and “ecumenical” approach
equally towards the Karmapa Kagyüpa, Sakyapa, and Gelugpa would characterise
the brocaded and embroidered silken thangkas produced during his reign.
By iconographic and historical evidence the Potala-Guhyasamaja must be
dated after Shakya Yeshe’s first visit at the Ming court in 1415/1416
and before the death of Tsongkhapa in 1419.
The style and the distinctive gold-thread technique can
be best compared with the two large Yongle-marked embroidered banners
in the Lhasa Jokhang (see above for no.53) and with a third thangka of
Raktayamari belonging to the same set, which is now in a private collection.
[49]
Figural proportions and drapery style, the chiaroscuro shading of the
body and the ornamental gold-thread “drawing” of the throne-back
and nimbus, particularly of the smaller seated figures, are so similar
that both the “Jokhang set” and the Potala Guhyasamaja must
have been produced in the same imperial atelier at about the same period.
This would confirm a date of the Potala embroidery to 1416-1419. The same
ornamental design can be also found among the famous gilt metal statues
of the Yongle period. A close affinity exists also between the figural
and ornamental style of the embroidery and of the wall-paintings (and
statues) at Gyantse monastery and castle (ca. 1390-1430s; figural proportions,
garment style, jewellery, torana arch and pillars, lotus throne). And
obviously the well-documented regular missions from Gyantse to the Ming
court and back in the early 15th century had left some cross-cultural
artistic traces in Tibetan painting and statuary in China and in Tibeto-Chinese
art in Tibet. Not “Nepalese” art was instrumental for the
formation of the new “lamaistic” court style under the Yongle
emperor, but the “Nepalo-Tibetan” style of the art at Gyantse
of around 1400.
Another extraordinary Tibetan style embroidered thangka
depicting Kapaladhara-Hevajra comes from the Potala Palace (no.50). By
the rich design around the central figure and the decorative entity of
image and ornament, the tantric protector has been transformed into a
luxurious tapestry of imperial extravagance. The iconographic relation
of the Hevajra yidam to the Sakya tradition does not necessarily associate
this perfectly preserved banner with the visit of the 32nd Sakya abbot
Kun dga’ bKra shis rGyal mtshan at the Ming court in 1413 (in Nanjing
and Beijing), but may also refer to Shakya Ye she’s meetings with
the Ming emperor in 1415 or in 1434/35, now being entitled by the Xuande
emperor (r.1425-1435) as “Jamchen Chöje” (Byams chen
Chos rje, “the Dharma King of Great Mercy” Chin.: daci fawang).
Two other silken images of Hevajra, one in kesi technique in the Potala
Palace and one embroidery in a private collection include the portrait
of this principal Gelugpa hierarch, the first successor of Tsongkhapa.
[50]
However the total lack of any other related deities and monks on the Potala-Hevajra
may also indicate the emperor’s private use of the image or, as
in the case of the large Cakrasamvara brocade (no.53), another imperial
function at the court. If the thangka was ever dedicated to the Gelugpa,
this “minimal iconography” would possibly indicate a date
of around 1415: At his first meeting with the Yongle emperor in early
1415, Shakya Yeshe was treated with fewer honours than the representatives
of the Karmapa and Sakyapa, receiving at that time only the title of a
daguoshi, “Great National Preceptor”, and of a “Son
of the Buddha of the Western Heaven”. [51]
When at the occasion of his second visit at the Ming capital in 1434/35
Jamchen Chöje had obviously managed to bring the Yellow School into
the leading position at the imperial court and had received the title
of a “Great Compassionate Dharma King” (daci fawang) or Byams
chen chos rje as “variation of his title” (E.Sperling), he
was showered with presents by the Xuande emperor. It seems that in fact
most of the fabric thangkas can be attributed to the reign period of the
Xuande emperor (1425-1435), whose promotion for a revival of the costly
Yuan silk tapestries is documented by at least 12 preserved major images
in kesi and embroidered brocade technique. And due to the now much higher
imperial appreciation of the new Gelugpa hierarch his portrait as the
supreme dharma teacher was depicted on most of the textile icons made
during the Xuande reign. [52]
However, the maximum span to date the Potala Hevajra
would be, in my opinion, on historical, iconographic, and stylistic grounds,
between 1415, the year of the Yongle emperor’s first encounters
with the Sakyapa and Gelugpa representatives, and 1435, when Jamchen Chöje
made his second visit to the Ming court. Although a more precise dating
remains speculative, stylistic criteria appear to be rather in favour
of the Xuande period than of a Yongle reign date, as suggested in the
catalogue. The ornamental decoration can be compared with those thangkas,
which must be attributed to 1434/35 such as, for example, the two other
Hevajra images mentioned above. [53]
More “popular” or at least the much better
known Tibetan style art production under the early Ming are the famous
“Yongle bronzes”, of which almost 300 still exist (all with
reign mark, about 10-20% of them of the Xuande reign period), nearly a
hundred of them in Lhasa (mostly in the Potala Palace), approximately
70 in the Beijing museums, and over hundred in public and private collections
worldwide. [54]
Compared with the fabric thangkas produced between circa 1407 and 1435,
it is quite evident that the Yongle emperor’s Tibetan patronage
gave priority to the metal statues, while his successor, the Xuande emperor,
apparently prefered the silken images. Thus by far most of the early Ming
“bronzes” had been sent with Chinese missions to Tibet or
were given to Tibetan dignitaries in the years between circa 1405 and
1425. Only very few statues were brought to Tibet under the Xuande emperor
and Buddhist sculptures are hardly mentioned as gifts for Tibet in the
official accounts of that later period.
Fig.
19a |
Fig.
19b |
Fig.
19c |
Fig.
19d |
One of the most beautiful Yongle gilt copper images has
been selected for this exhibition: the pensive Avalokiteshvara from the
Potala Palace collection (no.37). A visual embodiment of this bodhisattva’s
compassion, of the divine and the human, this elegant statue is an unsurpassable
masterpiece of refined and perfect craftsmanship. (figs.19a,b,c,d) Only
two other images of this type “in royal ease” posture (maharajalila)
of a lokanatha (“lord of the universe” or “world protector”)
exist. [55]
The “pensive mudra” and attitude cannot be traced back to
any text source. However, prototypes of a bodhisattva with the elbow resting
on the raised knee, the right hand lifted towards the cheek slightly inclined
in a gesture of contemplation, and the other hand lying on the foot do
exist in Wei and Tang dynasty sculpture. A seal of an unidentifiable Dalai
Lama fixed to the figure’s left arm proves that this Avalokitshvara
was once most probably the personal meditation object of its worldly manifestation.
Much has been written and published on the “Yongle bronzes”,
but rarely were their Tibetan archetypes properly identified! That a hundred
years earlier Nepalo-Chinese metal images of the Yuan period would have
served as models (catalogue text by Juliane Noth) is simply on stylistic
grounds unlikely. And even closer Yuan sculptures – in terms of
period, location and ornamental systems - like at the Juyong Guan gateway
north of Beijing (1342-1345) cannot be regarded as prominent forerunners
in style and iconography. Among the few more safely identifiable 14th
century Tibetan metal statues (or comparable no longer existing images),
which predate the characteristic “Yongle bronzes” and which
must have served as their models, is a Green Tara in the Museum der Kulturen
at Basel. This statue also shows the specific double-lotus base with the
elongated petals, a distinctive feature of the “Yongle bronzes”
(G.W.Essen/T.T.Thingo, Die Götter des Himalaya. Buddhistische Kunst
Tibets. Die Sammlung Gerd-Wolfgang Essen, München 1989, no.48. For
two other 14th century Tibetan images see von Schroeder 2001,op.cit.,
vol.II, 255 E and 257 A). I hesitate to accept the idea that the facial
features and proportions of this statue “correspond completely to
the Nepalese style” and thus would indicate a Newari artist working
in the imperial ateliers. Where are the Yuan period or Nepalese models
for this specific type of the pensive bodhisattva? We must give the imperial
ateliers the credit of having created new iconographic and compositional
types following in some cases much earlier Chinese(!) models as they have
been preserved, for example, by a 10th or 11th century stone sculpture
of a pensive Avalokiteshvara in the Musée Guimet at Paris. [56]
(fig.20) With very few exceptions, all these images were manufactured
probably after Tibetan prototypes in an overall “Nepalo-Tibetan”
style – as it characterises a major part of the Tibetan metal statuary
during the second half of the 14th century - by top Chinese court artists,
who had learned to copy foreign models and transform them into a very
distinctive and homogeneous Tibeto-Chinese court style of its own. Was
it possible that foreign artists could produce statues in the imperial
workshops in their own characteristic “home style” without
any correspondence to the rather canonic conventions imposed by the specific
formal guidelines of that Tibeto-Chinese art production?
Fig.
20 |
Fig.
21 |
Fig.
22 |
Fig.
23 |
A few statues with the Yongle or Xuande reign mark exist,
whose style does not or only partly corresponds to the usual Tibeto-Chinese
artistic canon promoted under those emperors. Provided of course the inscriptions
are authentic, these images would represent next to the mainstream of
the very homogeneous court style some additional though quite exceptional
artistic “traditions” or rather specific ways of manufacture
in the imperial workshops:
1) an “almost” pure Yongle style image with some distinctive
Nepalo-Tibetan elements (garment style), produced by a Chinese court artist,
probably during the very early “formative” phase of the Yongle
reign period. [57]
2) a very Nepalo-Tibetan style statue (in proportions, garment style,
jewelry, inlaid turquoise stones) with some “Yongle elements”
(facial features, lotus petal design, Yongle mark!), produced possibly
by a Newar artist at the imperial ateliers, which may have also served
as a model for the characteristic “Yongle bronzes”. [58]
(fig.21)
3) a pure Newar style image without any Chinese features – except
a Xuande reign mark, produced by a Nepalese or Tibetan artist in the imperial
workshops (?) or brought there with the inscription added afterwards as
a kind of imperial “model mark” (?). [59]
(figs.22,23)
With reference to the illustrations of the Yongle-Kanjur
(around 1410), which were very probably drawn by artists from Nepal or
Tibet, von Schroeder rightly credits craftsmen of those countries as having
“played an active part in the development of this new Tibeto-Chinese
school” [60]
but has not been able to identify safely a single Yongle or Xuande period
statue as a work of a Tibetan or Newari artist produced in the imperial
ateliers. A very difficult problem, indeed, to which my own contributions
here may be regarded more as suggestions than as definitive answers.
The gilt copper image of a female deity no.39 may give
an idea of those Nepalo-Tibetan models, whose elegant postures and gestures,
the design of the double lotus, and even in a way the facial features
must have had a formative influence on the Yongle statues. I cannot recognize
among the great bulk of the Yongle and Xuande sculptures a different degree
of stylistic sinization as it is stated in the catalogue for the Yongle
dPal ldan Lha mo image from the Lhasa museum (no.65), which is not “more
Tibetan” or less Chinese than other statues bearing the imperial
signature. In this case iconography has been misunderstood as style: figures
of wrathful deities in Tibetan art present oftenly greater difficulties
for stylistic determination than those, whose posture, garment, and various
adornments offer better clues for an art historical chronology.
With no doubt the extensive production of Tibetan style
art at the early Ming court was partly motivated by political considerations
in order to continue Mongol-Tibetan relations under the Yuan. The catalogue
text on the Yongle statues however largely excludes emperor Zhu Di’s
strong and – with regard to cultural court politics – very
effective personal interest in Tibetan Buddhist religion and art. How
Buddhist was this Han-Chinese ruler, whose father had been a Buddhist
monk in his young age and whose wife, Empress Xu (d.1407), wrote a sutra
on the Buddhist great virtues describing her spiritual communication with
the bodhisattva Guanyin, who prophesied that Zhu Di would become the next
emperor? No doubt were the production of hundreds of Tibetan style images
and the publication of a monumental Tripitaka edition (1420ff) and of
the so significant first printing of the Tibetan Canon, known as the “Yongle-Kanjur”
and completed in 1410 by his own words in the colophon, more personally
than politically motivated: “The merit it brings to us cannot be
described in words”. And different from Khubilai Khan and from the
Qianlong emperor, the tantric initiations bestowed upon Ming Chengzu (Zhu
Di’s posthumous honorific title) did not serve to make him a “sacred
King” and cakravartin or a bodhisattva-emperor. [61]
No mention is made of his fervent conversion to Tibetan Buddhism. A Buddhist
monk, Daoyuan (Yao Guangxiao), was his closest adviser throughout his
life. And “no Chinese emperor treated any Buddhist eminences with
the same degree of deference, amounting to object adulation”. [62]
Early Chinese Buddhist bronzes like the Shakyamuni figure
no.12 from the Potala Palace (dated to the year 473) were no doubt brought
to Tibet during the 7th and 8th century, be it with the Tang princesses
Wencheng Kongjo (Tib. Mun sheng Kong co) in 641 and Jincheng Kongjo (Kim
sheng Kong co) in 710, be it with Chinese masters and missions in the
successive years. Unlike Buddhist images from Nepal and India and comparable
with the occasional “imports” of 8th and 9th century Kashmir
style statues, those Chinese sculptures had no influence on contemporary
and later Tibetan art. There are at least another twelve Chinese Northern
Wei through Tang dynasty bronzes preserved in the Potala Palace and Jokhang
collections and seven statuettes dating to the Tang period in Tashi Lhünpo
monastery. [63]
Fig.
24a |
Fig.
24b |
Fig.
24c |
Fig.
24d |
Fig.
24e |
Among the six metal images of the Yongle era shown in
this exhibition, an 82 cm high (58 cm when open) gilt copper lotus mandala
of Vajrabhairava (as inscribed in Chinese and Tibetan at the top of the
lotus, fig.24a,b,c) from the Lhasa museum (formerly kept in the Potala
Palace and published in the catalogue under no.75) was supposed to be
shown in the exhibition but was withdrawn for unknown reasons. Instead
a Cakrasamvara mandala of the same set was given on loan (not recorded
in the catalogue), whose original cover of the lotus bud (when closed)
is apparently missing a |
