Consecrating the Buddha : Legend, Lore, and History of the Imperial Relic-Veneration Ritual in the T'ang Dynasty

本文旨在處厘中國佛史上一相當重要且耐人味之課題－佛的生身舍利及帝王禮拜舍利之現象。文中敘述自魏晉至唐代以來，帝王在宮殿裡所舉行的奉迎舍利儀式，並以唐高宗（r.650~683）、武后（r.690~704）肅宗（r.756~761）、德宗（r.779~804）、憲宗（r.805~819）及懿宗（r.859~870）等皇帝之尊禮舍利為焦點，分析各朝禮拜舍利之可能因素。本文雖大致同意歷史文獻對奉迎佛舍利之描述、但要提醒讀者注意此禮拜儀式的歷史背景，了解人為的、刻意塑造成的「傳統」對佛舍利之存在及此儀式產生的作用。文中揭示各個歷史段裡，史家與佛教學者有意無意地捲入塑造成「歷史化」佛舍利及其奉迎之過程，而使其成為一歷史傳統。此塑造過程，表現於正史及佛教著作裡結合傳說、民俗、與史實而成之歷史敘述。此類歷史敘述多為近代史家作為撰寫佛教歷史之依據；而此一結合之結果，實類似歷史事實與虛構故事之混合體，為某些西方史家所謂的「迷思歷史」（mythistory ）。本文大致分成七節。首先略述正史及佛教著作中有關佛舍利與帝王之關聯，說明多數記錄都稱傳說中阿王佛利之神異性。其神蹟吸引唐以前不少皇帝與親王。這些記載都認定佛舍利之神奇及其改變人們信仰之用，顯示他們受到俗裡有關佛舍利說法之影響。為了說明此點，本文之第二節集中討論民俗觀裡的佛舍利如何轉化成歷史性或「準歷史性」（quasi-historcial）之敘述，採名僧道宣（596~667）之著作為範例，說明此一變化之複雜過程。並將道宣著作中有關劉薩何及其發現佛舍利之故事，置於帝王迎拜、瞻仰佛舍利之脈絡中詳加討論。本文第三節專論帝王奉禮迎、尊禮佛舍利之詳情，舉出兩種禮拜佛舍利之傳統：拜佛牙及拜佛指骨。本節根據道宣著作所提供之資料，及1987 年在陝西法門寺所挖掘之碑銘，認為唐以前可能已形成上述兩種禮拜佛舍利傳統。其中禮拜佛指骨在唐代躍為最盛行之傳統。第四節專論此一傳統，說明高宗至德宗以來諸帝為何並如何表達他們指骨之敬仰，及舉行迎拜佛指骨之儀式。這些皇帝大致因健康不佳、政治不穩、軍事不利，等各種原因，覺其王權之削弱，發現奉佛之重要，而欲以奉迎佛骨之儀式來幫助鞏固、安定其為人主之威權。第五節指出唐代帝王迎佛指骨利舍一事史家寫成戲劇化之篇章。尤其憲宗與懿宗之奉迎佛指骨至京，皇帝之私下禮拜等過程，莊嚴隆重，耗費巨大，而百姓沿途瞻仰，頂禮膜拜，燒頂灼臂，如痴如狂，正史之記載，彰彰在目。本節指出正史作者似認定此佛教指骨亦為所謂的阿育王佛舍利之部份，而特別渲染憲宗、懿宗兩朝奉迎佛骨，使其顯得史無前例，隱晦了其與前代奉佛及民俗的關聯。第六節即在討論此一落失之關聯，略述現代學者對發掘出之法門寺碑銘所作的解釋。並指出其說法之優點及問題，懷疑學者將迎拜佛指骨之民俗說法歷史化的潛在意圖。此節並質疑學者對佛骨年代與歸屬之斷定法及其對所謂的「靈骨」與「影骨」來源的解釋。此「靈骨」與「影骨」為法門寺掘之七百餘種遺物之一，但「影骨」之複製成「靈骨」，仍有問題尚未釐清。本文結論重申傳說與民俗對歷史記載形成之影響，並提醒史家在遇到含史實及故事之史料而難以分辨其虛實之時，應如何小心處理及運用這些史料。雖然本文承認重建可靠的佛舍利及奉迎舍利之歷史，不無可能，但亦提出若干疑義，以供更進一步的研及討論。

關鍵字

佛舍利；歷史化；迷思歷史；準歷史性；道宣；劉薩何故事；佛指骨；法門寺

並列摘要

This article deals with an important and intriguing aspect of the history of Buddhism in China-the Buddha's bodily relics and the imperial veneration of these relics. It discusses the relic-veneration ritual performed in the palaces of the imperial dynasties from the Wei-chin period through the T'ang dynasty. Focusing on the ritual performed separately by Kao-tsung ( r.650-683 ), Empress Wu ( r.690 ~ 704 ) Sutsung ( r.756 ~ 761 ), Te-tsung ( r.779 ~ 804 ), Hsien-tsung ( r.805 ~ 819 ), and Itsung ( r.859 ~ 872 ), it analyzes possible reasons for the occurrence of each ritual. While acknowledging its existence, the article also calls readers' attention to how this ritual grew out of a created or invented tradition. It reveals the formation and the growth of the tradition as resulting from the creation or historicization undertaken, consciously or unconsciously, by historians and Buddhist scholars at different stages of China's imperial time. The process of this creation or historicization involved the fusion of legend, lore, and historical facts as evidenced by some accounts, including official histories and Buddhist works on the basis of which modern scholars write their historical works. The result of this fusion was the mixture of logos and mythos, a blending of historical facts and fictions, or what may be called ＂mythishtory.＂ The subject in question is discussed under several headings, beginning with the documented relationship between the relics and imperial rulership culled from various secular and Buddhist accounts. All accounts point to the magical property of the legendary A`soka relics which fascinated a number of emperors, kings, and princes before the T'ang dynasty. These accounts recognize the theurgies associated with the relics and their proselytizing effect, thus reflecting of this paper centers on the discussion of how the lore was transformed into a historical, or strictly speaking, a quasi-historical narrative. The works of Tao-hsüan, a renowned Buddhist writer, are used to exemplify the complicated process of this transformation. Tao-hsüan's story about Liu Sa-he and his finding of the relics at the Ch'ang-kan ssu is discussed in detail within the context of imperial veneration. The third section of this article takes note of imperial veneration of the relics which seemingly appeared in two major traditions : the veneration of the Buddha's tooth and the veneration of finger bone. Based on the information provided by Tao-hsüan and the inscription unearthed in 1987 at the Fa-men ssu, this section suggests the possibility that two relic-veneration traditions existed in pre-T'ang times. It points out that the finger bone tradition was made prominent and became the dominant tradition in the T'ang . The fourth section takes up this theme and demonstrates how and why T'ang emperors from Kao-tsung to Te-tsung showed their veneration of the fingerbone relic and performed the relicveneration ritual. It argues that they used this ritual to help solidify their authority whenever they found it had diminished because of weakening health, political instability, military failure, and so forth. Imperial veneration of the finger-bone relic was written into dramatic episodes in the T'ang history, as is discussed in the fifth section. Based primarily on official historical accounts, this section discusses the sumptuous reception, display, and imperial observance of the relic which occurred during the reigns of Hsien-tsung and I-tsung. It also suggests that official histories, which seem to recognize the finger bone as a component of the so-called Asoka relics, made the rituals held in these two reigns look unprecedented, obscuring its possible historical link to earlier incidents. This missing link is discussed in the sixth section which introduces modern scholars' interpretations of the unearthed inscriptions, pointing out the merits and problems of their interpretations which show an attmpt to historicize the notion of imperial veneration of the finger-bone relic provided by the lore. It questions the dating method and asks for a more tenable explanation of the appearance of one piece of socalled ＂holy bone＂ and three grains of so-called ＂duplicate bones＂ discovered among some seven hundred excavated objects. The concluding section recapitulates the theme of legend and lore at work in the formation of historical accounts. It raises questions as to how a historian can better use sources which contain fiction and facts when one may have difficulty drawing a clear-cut line between them. While arguing the possibility of reconstructing, or as a matter of fact, constructing the intriguing history of the Buddha's relics and relicveneration ritual, the article also poses questions and delineates some problems of this task in hopes of furthering investigation of issues relevant to the subject.