Click here return to the Hualin main page.
Click here return to the Hualin E-Journal Vol 2.1 Table of Contents page.
Faxian and Liu Yu’s Inner Circle: Interactions between Society and Buddhism during the Eastern Jin Dynasty
LIU Yuan-ju 劉苑如
Keywords: Faxian, Liu Yu and his circle, Longhua monastery, Daochang Monastery, Xing Monastery
Abstract: This article discusses the interaction between Faxian (338?–423?) and Liu Yu (363–422) and his circles, especially the relations within the sangha in Qingxu and Jingzhou, from the point of geo-relationship and of dharma-associated practices, to remodel the social networks and Buddhist background of the Eastern Jin and the Sixteen Kingdoms, to discuss the protection of Buddhism by Liu Yu’s circles, and to highlight the contribution of Faxian to it. There are some important hints as to that. First, Faxian came back to Qingzhou, which coincided with the time when Liu Yu had reclaimed the provinces of Qing, Yan and Si, and planned to establish the kingdom of Song. As soon as Faxian reached land, he was invited by Liu Yu’s younger brother, Liu Yan (Dao Lian, 368–422) to build a monastery called Longhua in Pengcheng. Second, he translated sutras and vinaya texts together with Buddhabhadra (359–429) at Daochang Monastery in Jiankang, during the twelfth and fourteenth year of the Yixi period, with the support of the benefactors from Liu Yu’s clique Meng Yi and Chu Shudu (378–424). Lastly, he went to Xing Monastery in Jingzhou for his last days, this was also a consequence of Liu Yu’s power. During his lifetime rich in travel, with the spread of Buddhism to the east, Faxian was connected to several important places of the Buddhist sangha, which is also closely related to the choice and acceptance of the Buddhist doctrine in China, and which constructed a complicated circle of Buddhist believers.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.