Huaiyu Chen. Chinese Studies in History. Volume 53, Issue 3. Summer 2020.

The Dunhuang manuscript P. 4518 (10) is a fascinating illustrated manuscript that could be dated in the 10th century. Although it is commonly known as the scene of preaching Dharma, contemporary scholarship does not offer an adequate interpretation. Combining both traditional canonical texts and uncovered Chinese and Sanskrit manuscripts from Dunhuang and Khotan, this study suggests that this is an illustration showing that the Buddha explained the Mani pearl as the symbol of his Dharma Body (Dharmakaya) to two Arhats who were depicted as two monks with halo, upon the inquiry of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva. This story might come from the Jñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra, a popular text in Central and East Asia, as its Sanskrit fragments from Khotan and Chinese manuscripts from Dunhuang indicated. One of the most important themes in this text was the Mani pearl appeared as the symbol of the Dharmakaya, which should be honored and worshipped.

Introduction

In the Pelliot collection from Dunhuang preserved in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, there is a group of paper paintings and manuscripts numbered P. 4518. One of the most remarkable pieces therein is the painting P. 4518 (24). Professor Zhang Guangda has published several papers about this painting and discussed its Zoroastrian nature and content in detail. He identified it as a painting depicting Sogdian Daēnās at a Zoroastrian community celebration near Dunhuang. Subsequently, his identification inspired numerous discussions among scholars in both China and France. In his paper “Revisiting the Zoroastrian Painting in the Tang Dynasty” published in 1997, he pointed out some methodological implications from his discussion on this single piece from Dunhuang as follows:

Unlike holography, this Zoroastrian painting could not reflect the comprehensive image of the spread of Zoroastrianism in medieval China. However, it might be like many other single pieces of documents, illustrating the depth of the spread of some Western and Central Asian religious doctrines in China. Interpreting such sources, as various symbolic signs in the religious iconographies indicated, not only needs to know about what the original meaning of the text was, but also needs to consider the mixture and combination of various elements. In other words, we should understand based on the context how various elements in the mixture and combination experienced various changes in accord with the different regions and situations.

His remarks in this passage are inspirational for those of us seeking to understand other single items-manuscripts or paintings-from Dunhuang. Accordingly, taking the lead from Professor Zhang’s work, this paper undertakes an experimental examination of a painting numbered P. 4518 (10) in the same group of items as painting P. 4518 (24) that Professor Zhang discussed. However, although this paper is also focusing on a single piece, it can be combined with other traditionally transmitted and excavated literature for understanding the doctrines it reflects and their historical and religious context.

In short, this paper argues that manuscript P. 4518 (10) reflects the cult of the Cintāmaṇi in the history of Mahāyāna Buddhism. This cult of the Cintāmaṇi is very similar to the cult of the stupa and the cult of the book, which makes Mahāyāna Buddhism different from mainstream Buddhism and Nikaya Buddhism. These three cults in Mahāyāna Buddhism share some common features, yet they emerged in different contexts and experienced different trajectories of development. They might be accepted by Mahāyāna Buddhists to different extents, which led their different roles and fates in East Asian Buddhism later.

In general, the doctrines and practices on worship in early Mahāyāna Buddhism were closely connected with the rise of devotionalism. The devotionalism in early Mahāyāna Buddhism was extraordinary because Mahāyāna Buddhism believed in the power of others when one could not reach enlightenment by oneself, which means that, to achieve the goal of enlightenment, individuals had to rely on the power of others through practicing devotionalism toward others. This devotionalism also believed in the sacredness of objects of worship and developed a series of offering and worshiping rituals. For instance, the cult of the stupa considered the Buddha’s relics, that were housed within the stupa, as objects of worship. A series of rituals associated with this worship, such as offering flowers and incense, pilgrimage, and circumambulation, were developed. In the meantime, in this place, worshipers also venerated the main objects of worshiping and pilgrimage in the center of the ritual place, which became the main icons. The cult of the book is similar. In early Mahāyāna Buddhism, the book itself was viewed by Buddhists as relics of Dharma, which were sacred. The place where the book was produced became the object of worship and the destination of pilgrimage. The doctrine of Buddhist devotionalism exhibits a strong symbolism, which means that the objects of worship, such as relics and books, appeared to symbolize the Buddha and his teachings. However, it seems that not every cult in Mahāyāna Buddhism can be identified explicitly in a particular scripture because many Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures experienced a process of sutrafication. In Chinese Buddhism, with the rise of the canon, in many Buddhist texts there was a process of being incorporated into the canon, which was called canonization. Once a Chinese text entered the Buddhist canon, it would be commonly circulated among Buddhist communities. In light of this background in medieval Chinese Buddhism, this paper suggests that early Mahāyāna Buddhism also developed the cult of the Cintāmaṇi, which viewed the Cintāmaṇi or the Mani jewel as the sacred object and worshiped it. The sacredness of the jewel emanated from it symbolizing the Dharma body of the Buddha, which was one of the three bodies of the Buddha according to the Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine. In other words, the jewel appeared as the Dharma body of the Buddha and received veneration and worship from Mahāyāna Buddhists.

In the following discussion, this paper will first examine the content of manuscript P. 4518 (10), then discuss its nature. The textual foundation of its content and nature will then be illuminated by exploring both transmitted and excavated texts. Nevertheless, I have to point out that, although I argue that manuscript P. 4518 (10) reflects the nature of the cult of the Cintāmaṇi, there is no single extant Buddhist scripture devoted solely to this cult, or in other words this cult seems not to be canonized in a single scripture. Therefore, we have to defer to this manuscript if we wish to seek to understand this cult as a significant practice in the history of Chinese Buddhism, in conjunction with other texts as well as associated archaeological materials.

The Content and Nature of the Dunhuang Manuscript P. 4518 (10)

The Dunhuang manuscript P. 4518 (10) is a single piece of paper with a painting on the verso side. More specifically, this manuscript seems to be a single sheet of a pothi-format booklet, which can be dated to the 10th century based on the style. This manuscript is 7.4 cm high and 41.4 cm long. According to the description in French on the website of the International Dunhuang Project, this manuscript is a painting of preaching the Dharma, which is illustrated with black ink and colorful paint on a palm-leaf-format sheet. The colors used in this painting include slate blue, carmine, orange, rose-violet, yellow, and light brown. In the center of the manuscript, there is a jewel with red fire flames. This jewel is located in the place where string would pass through as binding for pothi leaves. There are four figures with two on each side of the jewel. On the left side of the manuscript, there is one Buddha and one Bodhisattva. The Buddha is close to the jewel and he is wearing a monastic robe with his two hands making the gesture of preaching the Dharma (Vitarka Mudrā). On the far left, there is a Bodhisattva with both his palms joined together to show respect, facing his left side. On the right side of the manuscript, there are two monks with their palms joined together. Plants are drawn to separate each figure and the jewel. The description on the IDP website points out that this painting and another painting numbered S. 193 in the Stein collection preserved in the British Museum belong to the same group of paintings from Dunhuang. The description does not specify the name of the Bodhisattva who is next to the Buddha in this painting. Jean-Pierre Drège noted that the painter skillfully put the jewel in the center of the painting and precisely matched the hole for the string to bind the pothi leaves. His notes are primarily concerned with the format of this manuscript in light of the book-binding formats from Dunhuang, without much information about the content of the painting. Hence, if we carefully examine this painting in the historical context of Buddhism in combination with other sources, we might be able to reveal some novel and interesting information.

On manuscript P. 4518 (10), green lotus stalks appear as decorations on both shoulders of the Buddha. All four figures have halo lights behind their heads. There is also halo light behind the back of the Buddha. The Buddha and one monk close to the jewel in the center have rose-violet halo lights yet the Bodhisattva on the far left and the monk on the far right have orange halo lights, which is the same color as the Buddha’s robes, the jewel’s fire flames, and the lotus flower supporting the jewel. The two monks on the right side are wearing slate blue monastic robes. Since both of them have halo lights, they should not be regarded as ordinary monks. They were holy figures or, more specifically, arhats, or Buddhist saints who have reached a certain level of enlightenment. In most religious art across the Eurasian continent, the halo light was often used to depict holy figures, such as Jesus Messiah and saints in Christian art as well as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Buddhist art. On this manuscript, the jewel is the same size as the Buddha, Bodhisattva, and arhats surrounding it, which seems to indicate that it was the main icon, or the central object, in this painting. This depiction of the jewel makes me recall the parable of the jewel where the Buddha used the jewel to preach his teachings. In my opinion, to understand this painting, we should bring the central position of the jewel and the gestures of all figures surrounding it together and take a close look at what they really mean in the Buddhist context. Given the central position of this figure-size jewel in this painting and the discernible attitudes of its surrounding figures, it seems that the jewel was the object of veneration and worship. Its position as the main icon makes it look like a sacred object, although no offerings from worshipers can be identified in this painting. Importantly, to understand the content of this painting, we need to turn to other transmitted and excavated texts.

Although the description on the IDP website pointed out the Buddha and the jewel, as well as the Bodhisattva and the two monks, the details about these latter three figures should be examined further. I would argue that this Bodhisattva was Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva and, as suggested above, the two monks were arhats. This painting, P. 4518 (10), seems to depict the scene in which upon the request of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva the Buddha lectured on the parable of the Mani jewel (Cintāmaṇi) to arhats. Although belonging to the same group, manuscript P. 4518 (10) is slightly larger than the Dunhuang painting S. 193 in the Stein collection of the British Museum which is 7 cm high and 41.1 cm long. Painting S. 193 seems to have been cut slightly on the top edge and some figures in the painting have been damaged. According to Roderick Whitfield, painting S. 193 depicts two Buddhas and two monks, in a pothi format which can also be dated to the 10th century. For me, the two so-called monks in this painting should both be identified as arhats, because they both have halo lights behind their backs. They were listening to the preaching of the Buddha. Since there are two Buddhas, with their gestures, and one jewel in the center of this painting, I suggest that, together, they might indicate the visual representation of Trilakāya in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The jewel in the center symbolizes the dharmakaya of the Buddha whilst the two Buddhas in the painting refer to the manifested body (Nirāmaṇakāya) of the Buddha and the bliss body (sambhogakaya) of the Buddha, respectively. The Buddha on the left side actually sits with the gesture of wish-fulfilling (Varada-Mudrā) to respond to the request of sentient beings, which should be the manifested body of the Buddha. The Buddha on the right side sitting with the gesture of preaching Dharma should be viewed as the bliss body of the Buddha who delivered the parable of the jewel as the Dharma Body.

The scene of the Buddha’s preaching the parable of the Mani jewel upon the request of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva can be found in a section of a Buddhist scripture entitled Ārya sarvabuddha viṣayāvatāra jñānālokālaṃkāra nāma mahāyāna sūtram, which is commonly known as Jñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra, hereafter abbreviated to JAA. The Chinese version of this text can be found in a couple of manuscripts discovered from the cave library of Dunhuang. Several ancient fragments of this text in Sanskrit were discovered in Khotan. So, clearly it was a well circulated text in Central Asia. Since this text was cited in the Ratnagotravibhāga treatise for interpreting tathāgatagarbha thought, many Japanese scholars have devoted space to discussing this text. In the 1990s, a Japanese investigation team discovered the complete Sanskrit version of this text, along with the Sanskrit version of the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, in the Potala Place in Tibet. This shocked the international scholarly community. Since there was already some scholarship on the Chinese and Tibetan translations, Japanese academicians quickly published a critical edition of the Sanskrit version in 2004. In the following section, I will briefly discuss these texts.

There are three Chinese versions of the JAA in the Taishō canon, identified as T. 357, 358, 359. They were translated by Dharmaruchi in 501, Saṁgha-pāla in the Liang Dynasty, and Fahu’s team in the Northern Song Dynasty. Among the Chinese manuscripts discovered in the cave library in Dunhuang, one can be found in the Stein collection at the British Library and another resides in the Nanjing Normal University Library (NNUL), numbered S. 4718 and NNUL. 01, respectively. Huang Zheng notes that the NNUL. 01 manuscript bears a title from Dharmaruchi’s translation. The entire manuscript is 755 cm long and 25.5 cm wide and is in the whirlwind binding format of 15 sheets bound consecutively. Each sheet is 50 cm long and consists of 28 written lines with 17 characters on each line. Huang suspects that this manuscript was written before 650. Zhao Hong carefully examined the physical characteristics, external format, written content, calligraphic style, and features of both the S. 4718 and NNUL. 01 manuscripts, and she concludes that they both must have originally belonged to the same book. Some fragments in Sanskrit were discovered in a Buddhist ruin in Andere near Khotan. Aurel Stein published pictures of these fragments in his report Ancient Khotan, but today only three fragments can be found in the British Library and their pictures are included in the online database of the International Dunhuang Project. Soon after Stein brought these fragments back to England, Japanese scholar Watanabe Kaigyoku identified them because he found the corresponding passages in the Chinese Buddhist canon. Later in the early 2000s, Karashima Seishi reexamined these fragments and provided more comprehensive transcriptions and translations. In 1999, an investigation team from the Buddhist Studies Institute of Taisho University discovered the entire Sanskrit version of the JAA. They first published a critical edition of the Sanskrit version and subsequently published Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese editions. Therefore, plus its Tibetan version, the JAA survives in six versions in three Buddhist languages, including one Sanskrit, one Tibetan, and three Chinese versions. Japanese scholarship pays special attention to this text due to its emphasis on the thought of the Dharma body without birth and death.

It is clear that the JAA was translated into many languages and was circulated in Central and East Asia, which indicates its significance to Mahāyāna Buddhism. Now we can combine the textual sources with painting P. 4518 (10) for discussing the doctrine on the Mani jewel as the symbol of the Dharma body. As I briefly noted earlier, the monks appearing in the painting were not ordinary monks, but arhats. This point can be supported by the opening scene in the JAA as follows:

Thus have I heard, at one time, the Bhagavat was dwelling in Rājgir on the Mountain of Vulture Peak Mountain, on the fourth level of the Womb of Dharmadhātu Palace, together with a great assembly of twenty-five thousand monks. All of these monks were arhats who had their outflows extinct and had no more afflictions. Their minds had no attachments. Their minds had complete liberation and their wisdom had perfect liberation. Their kind minds were tamed, and they were great nāgas. They accomplished what needed to be done. They detached from their heavy burden and obtained their own benefit. They had exhausted the bonds of existence and their kindness obtained right wisdom. Their minds were liberated from everything. Their minds obtained freedom and reached the first other shore.

These arhats have achieved a certain level of enlightenment so they were depicted as saints with halo lights in painting P. 4518 (10), which makes them different from ordinary monks. The robes they wore were apparently made of rags and mixed orange and slate blue in contrast to the single-color robes of the Buddha and Bodhisattva. These orange and slate blue colors of the robes worn by these arhats might be viewed as a mixture of the Mahīśāsakā sect’s blue robes and the Dharmaguptaka sect’s red robes, but different from the Sarvāstivāda sect’s dark robes, the Mahāsāṃghika sect’s yellow robes, and the Kāśyapīya sect’s dark-brown robes. Hence, the scene in painting P. 4518 (10) depicts these arhats listening to the Dharma preached by the Buddha upon the request of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva on the Mani jewel as the Dharma Body of the Buddha.

Many Japanese scholars such as Takasaki Jikido note that the JAA emphasizes the significant position of the Mani jewel parable in the intellectual history of tathāgatagarbha thought. They have also briefly noted that the Mani jewel appeared as one of the symbols of the Dharma body of the Buddha. Besides the Mani jewel, the giant Dharma drum and sunshine are also the symbols of the Dharma body of the Buddha. Regarding the Mani jewel, the JAA has a section where the Buddha explains its role of symbolizing the Dharma body to Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva as follows:

Mañjuśrī, in the great ocean there is a precious jewel of fulfilling all wishes which is hanging up on the top of a high banner. It will accord with the mind of a sentient being for completing the requested wishes. Like this, sentient beings will hear the sound coming forth from the mani jewel. Nevertheless, that mani jewel does not mentally construct anything, without forming or pondering or conceiving. It has no mind, and detaches itself from mind, mentality, and consciousness.

Mañjuśrī, Tathāgata is same as the mani jewel. He does not mentally construct anything, without forming or pondering or conceiving. He has no mind, and detaches itself from mind, mentality, and consciousness. He is not perceivable and detaches himself from any perceiving and measuring. He has no attachment and detaches himself from attachment. Greed is not returning. Anger is not returning. And delusion is not returning. He is neither true nor false, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither shining nor non-shining, neither understanding nor ignorance, neither enlightened nor non-enlightened, neither birth nor extinction, and neither conceiving nor non-conceiving. He has no body and detaches from body. He is neither obtained nor abandoned. He has no conceptual proliferation nor can be spoken about, detaching from any word. He is unhappy and detaches from happiness. He has no birth. He is unmeasurable and detaches from measurement. He is not leaving, without leaving, and leaving extinction. He cuts off from all realms and detaches from all words. He is invisible, non-contemplating, and non-obtainable. He is neither voidness nor non-voidness. He is invisible and unspeakable. He is not conjunotion nor detaches from conjunotion. He is not acting, making, showing, afflicting, or being about to be purified. He is non-name, non-form, non-mark, non-markless, non-karma, non-karma-attribution, non-past, non-future, non-present, non-affliction, non-no-affliction, non-dispute, non-no-dispute, non-sound, detachment from all sounds, non-word, non-mark, detachment from all marks, non-inner, non-external, or non-middle.

Mañjuśrī, the jewel of Tathāgata is clear and pure with right mind, hanging up on the top of high banner of great compassion, which accords with all sentient beings’ beliefs and practices and they hear the sounds of preaching like this. Mañjuśrī, Tathāgata views all things equally and abandons his mind, without forming and different minds.

This passage views the Mani jewel to be the same as Tathāgata. The Mani jewel has neither birth nor extinction and it could not be damaged by three poisons. This jewel illustrates Nāgārjuna’s (c.150-c.250 CE) Madhyamika philosophy centered on the emptiness, provisional, and the middle way. Although a banner cannot be identified on painting P. 4518 (10), the Mani jewel indeed appears as the main icon. It seems that this painting does not exactly match what the textual source describes, which is very common given other cases of the transformation tableaux in the caves of Dunhuang.

The JAA also explains the meaning of the Dharma body. It states that,

Mañjuśrī, Tathāgata, is called the Dharma body. Mañjuśrī, Tathāgata is not born and has no birth. Mañjuśrī, Tathāgata has no name, form, words, mind, and consciousness. Mañjuśrī, Tathāgata does not form any mental construct and detaches from any mental construct. Mañjuśrī, speaking about Tathāgata is called emptiness, with his non-exhausting marks, his space, his true realm, all of his dharma realm of emptiness and equality, his nonduality, and his non-understanding realm.

The text further says that, “what realizes that all dharmas are empty is called enlightenment. Enlightenment is called realizing that all dharmas are empty. Emptiness is enlightenment. Like this, emptiness, non-mark, non-wish, non-action, non-practice, non-reliance, non-birth, non-taking, non-place, as these dharmas are realized, are called enlightenment.”

These passages clearly illustrate that in the JAA the Mani jewel symbolizes the Dharma body, and also the state of enlightenment, which no longer merely refers to the Buddhist instrument that was used to fulfill the wishes of sentient beings. In other words, the Mani jewel was not a tool for reaching enlightenment, but the enlightenment itself. This was an innovative idea in the JAA that we can rarely find in other texts. Once Tathāgata explained this idea, Mañjuśrī felt joyful and composed ten eulogies for praising the Buddha, which laid the foundation for the ritual of the Dharma body. Some manuscripts from Dunhuang reveal ten rituals for praising the Dharma body. According to Wang Chuan, at least eleven manuscripts offer detailed descriptions about these ten rituals and their textual foundation was the Dharmaruchi’s translation of the JAA. As I mentioned earlier, Dharmaruchi’s version of the JAA can be found in two manuscripts from Dunhuang, namely S. 4718 and NNUL. 01. Hence, the Chinese translation of the JAA seems to be accepted in Chinese Central Asia, and the ritual of praising the Buddha’s Dharma body that was centered on this text was also incorporated into the religious practices of medieval Chinese Buddhism.

The Mani jewel has been depicted in many different ways in the Buddhist literature in medieval China. One of the most common images appeared as the material and decoration for Buddhist architecture. This tradition of writing about the Mani jewel as architectural material has been found in the JAA. In the second part of this text, while describing the inconceivable realm of the Buddha, the Mani jewel is frequently mentioned as the main material source for constructing this realm. The following is stated:

Mañjuśrī! Seven treasures are set up to fill the great trichiliocosm, which are used as merits from donations for as numerous eons as the dust particles in the great trichiliocosm. Mañjuśrī! Again, there are as numerous Bodhisattvas as the sands in the Ganges River. Each of these Bodhisattvas uses the sand gold (jambūnada-suvarna) to cover as many lands of immeasurable (asāṃkhya) Buddhas as the sands in the Ganges River. All trees are covered with heavenly clothes, on their tops covering with the net of the Mani treasure of the bright king. The Mani treasure of the free king served as the pavilions. The Mani treasure of the lightning brightness served as the guard rails. The jewels of fulfilling wishes are full of that world. All jeweled banners and umbrellas are erected. During the daytime they are offered to as immeasurable Buddhas as the sands of the Ganges River. Offering like this should last as immeasurable eons as the sands of the Ganges River. The merit from this offering is immeasurable. If there are more Bodhisattvas who believe in this Dharma method, speaking about fourteen verses in this Dharma method for other Bodhisattvas, the merits would be as numerous as the immeasurable.

Nevertheless, there is a long history in Buddhist literature suggesting that the Mani jewel served as one of seven treasures for constructing the Buddha’s realm. Unlike other treasures, as we can see in manuscript P. 4518 (10), the Mani jewel became the main icon to receive worship. How did it reach such a status? In the next section, I will discuss the development of this cult.

The Rise of the Cult of the Mani Jewel

Treasures or other offering materials might reflect different meanings in the long history of Buddhism. Their implications often altered with the changing historical and religious contexts, often in accordance with the needs of Buddhists who offered and honored them. For example, my earlier scholarship has discussed the lamp in the history of Chinese Buddhism. There were many forms of lamps and they had different symbolic and religious meanings. They played various roles in numerous Buddhist rituals. Although Buddhist texts mentioned that there were four major forms of lamps-votive lamps, infinite lamps, body lamps, and displaying lamps-my research demonstrated that the stone lamp or stone lamp platform played a significant role in the Buddhist history of the Tang Dynasty. In my earlier research, I have argued that the role of the lamp was transformed into the object of worship in Chinese Buddhism from the votive offering in early Buddhism. I briefly mentioned that the Mani jewel that was set up on the top of the stone lamp symbolized the everlasting Buddhist Dharma. This section will examine the changing images of the Mani jewel in Buddhist history and trace the rise of the Mani jewel as the object of worship for symbolizing the Buddhist Dharma and Dharma body, transforming from one of the treasures in early Buddhism.

Similar to the lamp, in terms of the images and roles in Buddhist literature and rituals, the Mani jewel also experienced numerous changes from early Buddhism to Mahāyāna Buddhism then to Chinese Buddhism. Yagi Haruo examined the Mani jewel in Buddhist art in early medieval China. He covers a variety of materials including Buddhist caves in Kizil, Yungang, Longmen, Gongxian, Buddhist statues in other sites, tomb steles, and painted bricks. For him, the Mani jewel appeared as a decorative object with symbolic meaning. He noticed that the depiction of the Mani jewel experienced a change from the diamond shape of crystals in the Western Regions and Northern Dynasties to the round or ball shape in the Central Plain and Southern Dynasties. In the Northern Dynasties, especially before the Northern Wei moved its capital city to Luoyang, the style of the Mani jewel in the Buddhist art in the caves of Yungang was influenced by that of the Western Regions. This style seems to regard the Mani jewel as the sign of protection. The diamond shape of the Mani jewel can be found in other Buddhist caves such as those in Jintasi and Binglingsi in Gansu Province. Yet in the Southern Dynasties, the style of the Mani jewel seems to be influenced by the shape of jades and pearls in South China because it was often depicted as a round or ball shape. Yagi very briefly mentioned that the Mani jewel might symbolize the brightness of fire. Nevertheless, he did not mention that the Mani jewel was the object of worship.

In pre-Tang Chinese Buddhism, the Mani jewel was similar to the lamp. Both of them served as votive offerings and later they became symbols of the Buddha and Buddhist Dharma, for they could emit light, destroying darkness, and they could also heal severe illnesses. Later they both became objects of worship in Mahāyāna Buddhism, obtaining their positions as sacred as the Buddha’s relics. As the Scripture on the Collection of the Original Acts of the Buddha (Fo benxing ji jing, juan 2) translated by Jñānagupta (523-560 AD) illustrates as follows:

The place where that mani jewel was set up has no difference between daytime and nighttime. Even during the nighttime, it is same as the Sun appears. All houses and courtyards are shining with lights. At this time, devas and humans collected the Buddha’s relics of the jeweled body and built up the stupa. At that time, the monk also invoked this mind: “Now I can set up this mani jewel on the plate for receiving dews on the stupa and make a jeweled vase.” After having invoked this mind, he arrived at the stupa. After he arrived at the stupa, he invoked the following mind: “My this mani jewel values hundred thousands of gold. Now I use this mani jewel and set it up on the top of the stupa. Since that Tathāgata is my master, I hold this mani jewel and set it up on the stupa.” The bright light of that mani jewel shined on the stupa, for infinite 1000 years. That monk again lit infinite lamps which were sufficient to serve as offerings to the stupa for 1000 years. Paying homage and respect! When it reaches 1000 years, the monk does not abandon practicing the Buddha-mindfulness meditation. For that monk observes clear and pure precepts, plus making offerings to the stupa of Tathāgata, for this cause, after his life comes to the end, in life and death, there is no measurement and boundary, and for hundred millions of time periods, he would receive the attributed blessings and joys of humans and devas, no longer falling into evil realms.

In the same scripture, chapter 23 states that the Mani jewel was the same as the body of the Bodhisattva who was the previous life of the Buddha. It says that the body of the Bodhisattva is the same as the Mani jewel which is bright from inside to outside, which reflects the magnificence of the mighty virtue of the Bodhisattva.

In early Buddhism, the Mani jewel, as a decorative material and tool for preaching Dharma, mainly appeared as one of seven treasures of the wheel-turning king (cakravarti-rāja), which was used to decorate Buddhist architecture and jeweled banners, as depicted in numerous examples of Buddhist art. The most detailed description about these seven treasures can be found in the Scripture of Seven Treasures of the Wheel-Turning King 轉輪王七寶經. There are several different versions in the Chinese Buddhist canon. For example, in the Taishō canon, different versions of this text appear in the Ekottarika Āgama (no. 351, 352), the Saṃyukta Āgama (no. 721, 722), the Madhyama Āgama (no. 58), and an independent text entitled the Scripture Spoken by the Buddha on Seven Treasures of the Wheel-Turning King (Fo shuo zhuanlunwang qibao jing 佛說轉輪王七寶經). In the Saṃyukta Āgama, it says that when the wheel-turning king came to power, the Mani jewel would also appear in the world. This Mani jewel had the same form as all other jewels of the king, with eight sides, and bright light, but without any cracks. The Mani jewel often served as the lamp within the king’s palace. The king often cleaned the jewel by wiping it. During humid and rainy nights, the king used the Mani jewel as illumination for leading his troops forward. The light of the Mani jewel could shine as far as one eon.” A concise description can be found in the Madhyama Āgama, which is similar to the Saṃyutta Nikāya in the Pali language. It states that when the wheel-turning king was born in the world there were seven treasures rising. These seven treasures included the treasures of wheel, elephant, horse, Mani, lady, layperson, soldier and subject. Among these seven treasures, as far as I can discern, only the Mani jewel became an object of worship and appeared as the main icon in Buddhist rituals because of its symbolizing role and image of the Buddhist Dharma and Dharma body. Other treasures are respected and honored, but not as high as the Mani treasure. In this sense, the Mani jewel is unique in becoming the object of worship. In chapter nine of the Scripture of the Wise and the Fool 賢愚經 translated by Huijue et al, the Mani jewel was indeed different from the other six jewels. It says that there used to be a city of seven treasures. Five female devas all carried jewels for offering to the Buddha, however, one extraordinary lady was carrying a unique jewel which was called the Cintāmaṇi and it could fulfill the wishes of sentient beings. Several silk paintings from Dunhuang depict these seven jewels.

In early medieval China, some Chinese translations of Buddhist literature occasionally touched on the origins of the Mani jewel. One of the origins can be seen in the Samyukta-ratna-pitaka-sūtra (Za baozang jing 雜寶藏經) in the 5th century. It says that the Buddha told his followers that this Mani jewel came from the brain of the makara fish, which could help disinfect viruses, heal heat illnesses, and remove enemies. A brahmin once held a Mani jewel and offered it to the Buddha for going forth. The Buddha shaved his head and preached Dharma to him. Then this brahmin received the arhat fruit. It is interesting that this story suggests that a brahmin as a non-Buddhist could devote a Mani jewel to the Buddha and obtain the arhat fruit. Some other Chinese translations of Buddhist texts have similar narratives on the functions and roles of the Mani jewels that show two features including serving as one of seven treasures for decorating architecture in the Buddha’s realm and demonstrating supernatural powers for fulfilling wishes of sentient beings such as healing illnesses. The Mani jewel could help patrons receive the arhat fruit. The Chinese translation of the Avadānaśataka (A Hundred Glorious Deeds) narrated that the Buddha told his disciples that the Mani jewel could be the evidence for a monk to reach enlightenment. It says that one of the kings in ancient India collected some relics of the Buddha and constructed a stupa for housing these relics. A caravan leader went to the sea to search for jewels and came back safely. He put a Mani jewel on the top of the stupa and made a vow. For this virtue and merit, for ninety-one kalpas he would never fall into evil realms. He would also encounter the Buddha and go forth to reach enlightenment. This story means that the caravan leader actually made a vow by putting a Mani jewel on the top of the stupa where the Buddha’s relics were honored. Then the Mani jewel fulfilled the vow of this leader.

Mahāyāna Buddhism inherits some traditions on the Mani jewels from early Buddhist literature. Mani jewels also appeared as decorative objects for Buddhist architecture and banners of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Some Mahāyāna Buddhist texts such as Bodhisattva-gocaropāya-visaya-vikurvana-nirdeśa translated by Bodhisruchi and the Daśacakra-Kṣitigarbha-sūtra translated by Xuanzang state that the Mani jewel has eight virtues. For example, its shining light could bring breeze to sentient beings, cure evil illnesses, and prevent evil beasts from harming others, as well as releasing sentient beings from the prison. The Mani jewel could also bring sentient beings clothes, jewelry, wealth, and so on. Besides these features, Mahāyāna Buddhism developed new ideas about the Mani jewel which can be manifested from the close connection between the Mani jewel and the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva, one of the four most acclaimed Bodhisattvas in East Asian Buddhism, was renowned for holding a Mani jewel to fulfill the vows of sentient beings whenever he was asked. Cintāmaṇicakra, a manifestation of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva, also held a Mani jewel for fulfilling the wishes of sentient beings. In East Asian Buddhist art, these two Bodhisattvas are often depicted as holding the Mani jewel, which is their iconic image. In Tantric Buddhism, the Mani jewel was a very important tool. Kūkai (774-835 AD) claimed that he received a Mani jewel that was from the nāga palace and he offered it to the Japanese court which enhanced the legitimation of Japanese imperial power. These doctrines and practices centered on the Mani jewel did not make it the object of worship, but they paved the way for the Mani jewel toward becoming the main icon.

Furthermore, Mahāyāna Buddhism continued to reinterpret the origins and functions of the Mani jewel. It expanded the roles and functions as well as the symbolic meanings of the Mani jewel. The Mani jewel continued to symbolize the Buddha. Some Mahāyāna Buddhist texts claimed that it also symbolized the perfection of wisdom (Prajñāpāramitā). It even symbolized the ālaya-vijñāna. And it is not surprising that it symbolized the Dharma body of the Buddha. Interestingly, according to the Ārya-saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra 解深密經, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures came from the nāga palace, which was often called the turning of the Dharma wheel for the second time. This is the origin of the Dharma, one of the three jewels in Buddhism. To compare it with the Mani jewel, the latter was also said to come from the nāga palace. Due to the Mani jewel’s symbolic role as the Buddha, it shows that, in Mahāyāna Buddhism both the symbols of the Buddha and the Dharma came from the same origin.

If we compare how a particular story was told in early Buddhist and Mahāyāna Buddhist texts, we can observe an evolving process whereby the latter instituted modifications to reinterpret it in the Mahāyāna Buddhist context. In the Dharmagupta-vinaya (juan 46), an early Buddhist text, it is stated that five hundred people went to sea to search for the Mani jewel which was hidden within the hair of the nāga king. At the end of the story, it is said that the Mani jewel has the function of healing illnesses. The same story also appears in some Jataka tales. However, the Mahāyāna text, the Lotus Sutra modified the story. In this text (juan 5), it is also said that five hundred people went to sea to search for the Mani jewel. But at the end of this text it is stated that the one who received this jewel would also receive the infinite Dharma body of the Tathāgata. Basically, it indicates that whoever received this Mani jewel would reach Buddhahood, which is a typical Mahāyāna teaching. In another chapter of the Lotus Sutra it is stated that female sentient beings could reach the ultimately supreme enlightenment and become the Buddha by transforming their bodies into male ones if they offered Mani jewels to the Buddha.

In East Asian Buddhist thought, the Mani jewel was said to be the Dharma tool for protecting the state. According to the Karunika-rāja Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經 translated by Amoghavajra in 765, the Mani jewel was the same as the perfection of wisdom which could tame the evil nāgas and devils and fulfill wishes of sentient beings. The Mani jewel could also command the nāga kings to create rain for moisturizing grasses and trees. Shanyue, a monk in the Song Dynasty, pointed out that the Mani jewel came from the spirit pneuma of the Garuda king so it could rain infinitely to benefit sentient beings. He also emphasized that the Mani jewel could protect the state. Hence, in the Tang and Song period, the Mani jewel became a Buddhist Dharma tool for protecting the state. By bringing rain it helped the state maintain a good harvest from agricultural production, protecting against the onset of drought disaster.

The most extensive description on the functions and roles of the Mani jewel in Mahāyāna Buddhism can be found in The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom 大智度論 (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, juan 59). Therein, it is stated that the Mani jewel had no fixed color and it was clear and wondrous. It could produce all treasures, clothes, food, and also fulfill all wishes. It could remove four categories of illnesses, specifically those that transpired because of delusions, wind, heat, and miscellaneous problems. It could be an antidote for snake venom and cure all problems from the three poisons of hatred, greed, and desire. This treatise pointed out that there were two kinds of Mani jewels: one from heaven and the other from the worldly realm. Both of them were the same as the perfection of wisdom. They could bring wealth to lay people and bring enlightenment to monastic members. The Mani jewel could also defeat mara, devils, earth spirits, and evil ghosts. It could eliminate the darkness of three realms, sexual desire, the heat of hatred and greed, ignorance, distrust, disrespect, and sluggish mind. The Mani jewel could cure the illnesses of five human faculties. It could assist practicing meditation, controlling mind, and obtaining enlightenment. However, this treatise seems to suggest that some issues such as the deviant mind cannot be resolved by the Mani jewel. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra also described the roles and functions of the Mani jewel and reflects the Mahāyāna features.

Conclusions

To summarize the above discussion, this paper attempts to explain that the Dunhuang manuscript P. 4518 (10) reflected the scene of the Buddha’s preaching the Mani jewel parable to two arhats upon the inquiry of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva. The Mani jewel in this painting symbolizes the Dharma body (Dharmakaya) of the Buddha, and it became the object of worship with its central position. In this painting, two arhats are discernible because both monks are depicted with halos. The textual foundation for the scene depicted in P. 4518 (10) might be the Jñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra, a text that was popular in Central and East Asia, and its medieval Sanskrit fragments found from Khotan and Chinese manuscripts discovered from Dunhuang. This is a significant Mahāyāna text and its entire Sanskrit and Tibetan versions are preserved in Tibet.

The Mani jewel seems to experience a transformation from being one of seven jewels of the wheel-turning king in early Buddhism to the symbol of the Buddha and Buddha’s Dharmakaya as well as the perfection of wisdom in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Eventually, in medieval Chinese Buddhism, it became the object of worship, the same as the Buddha and the Buddha’s relics. Therefore, this paper suggests that there was a cult of the Mani jewel in the Chinese Mahāyāna tradition, as it was depicted as the same size as the Buddha’s other two bodies in the center of painting P. 4518 (10).