Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One A -L Robert E. Buswell

F AMILY, BUDDHISM AND THE
inside a very small crystal sarcophagus, within a silvergilt
casket bearing forty-five esoteric Buddhist images,
protected by a larger iron casket. The other three relics,
carved from jade, were all close copies of this fourth
relic. About two inches long, it is made of a softer substance
resembling bone, hollow and engraved on the
inside with the seven stars of the Northern Dipper.
According to the inventory tablet, the iron casket
and crystal sarcophagus (with its enclosed jade coffin),
were brought from the monastery to the capital in 873.
Along with the painted stone stupa and the gilt-bronze
pagoda from the first chamber, they may well be the
earliest items in the entire deposit, followed by the
larger stone stupa in the second chamber, and a set of
miniature embroidered garments, including a skirt
presented by Empress Wu (r. 684–705), which is also
mentioned in the inventory tablet.
While a full report of the excavation has yet to be
published, this incredible array of sumptuous objects
has already provided invaluable evidence for metalworking
and textile techniques of the late Tang period,
the tributary system, ritual implements (water vessels,
staffs, incense burners and stands, containers for incense)
and evidence of the practice of esoteric Buddhism
at the Tang court.
See also: Mandala; Relics and Relics Cults; Ritual
Objects
Bibliography
Wang, Eugene Y. “Of the True Body: The Famensi Relics and
Corporeal Transformation in Tang Imperial China.” In Body
and Face in Chinese Visual Culture, ed. Wu Hung et al. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Asia Center and Harvard University
Press, 2003.
Whitfield, Roderick. “Discoveries from the Famen Monastery
at Fufeng and the Qingshan Monastery at Lintong, Shaanxi
Province.” In The Golden Age of Chinese Archaeology: Celebrated
Discoveries from the People’s Republic of China, ed.
Yang Xiaoneng. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University
Press, 1999.
FAMILY, BUDDHISM AND THE
RODERICK WHITFIELD
Given that Buddhism is regularly understood as a
monastic movement dedicated to “leaving the family”
(pravrajya), the technical term for becoming a monk
or nun, it might seem odd to ask about Buddhism’s relationship
to the family. Why, after all, would Buddhism
as a religion of renunciation have anything to do
with family life? However, a closer look at the structure
of Buddhist rhetoric, as well as Buddhism’s various societal
roles, reveals that Buddhism’s relationship to the
family and family values has several unexpected layers.
Arguably there are at least four basic categories of
Buddhist discourse that focus on familial issues: (1) a
discourse on the negative aspects of family life, the language
of renunciation; (2) a symbolic language in
which identity within the monastic setting is understood
as a kind of replication of the patriarchal family,
a kind of corporate familialism; (3) guidelines for
correct conduct at home, pastoral advice from the
Buddhist establishment; and (4) specific lineage claims
that sought to establish an elite family within the
monastic family, a more specialized form of corporate
familialism.
As for the first, the language of renunciation, statements
regarding the unsatisfactory and even dangerous
aspects of family life are typical throughout the
Buddhist world. According to this logic, life in the
family is fraught with burning desires and gnawing
concerns. Consequently, life at home is essentially the
environment in which patterns of conduct and thinking
develop that will continue to bind one in the cycle
of birth and death (SAM SARA), and keep one from
making progress toward NIRVAN A. Among these statements
about the generic risks of family life, one can
also find more specific statements about the physical
dangers that women court as they follow the prescribed
life cycle within the family, the risks of childbirth
being paramount. In sum, in this sphere of
discourse Buddhist authorities encourage reflection
on the benefits of leaving the encumbering and dangerous
domain of family life in order to pursue higher
spiritual goals.
The second sphere of family rhetoric appears when
Buddhist renunciants began to settle down into landowning
religious groups, roughly two centuries before
the beginning of the common era. At this point, even
as the evils of family life were still espoused, monastic
relations were explained via a kind of corporate familialism.
Apparently, the Buddhists began to construct an
ulterior family, actually a purer form of patriarchy, that
was to solidify and legitimize Buddhist identity within
the perimeter of the monastic walls. Thus, in formally
gaining the identity of a monk or nun, one joined the
Buddha in a kind of fictive kinship that sealed one’s
Buddhist identity with a kind of “naturalness” and fa-
280 E NCYCLOPEDIA OF B UDDHISM