290 jinhua chen
as little lenience to the foreign monks as to their Chinese Dharma
brothers (see Zizhi tongjian 211.6695, 6703).^9 However, most of these
anti-Buddhism policies were soon either halted or significantly modi-
fied, partly due to Xuanzong’s attitude toward esoteric Buddhism.
Esoteric Buddhism also proved instrumental in maintaining the
status of establishment Buddhism in the subsequent post-rebellion
period due to its strong presence in palace chapels. Although the Tang
rulers succeeded in cracking down on the An Lushan and Shi Siming
rebellions, they could do little to reverse the decentralizing tendency
in the political realm. Another type of decentralization was also con-
currently underway within the sangha, as various Buddhist centers
emerged thanks to the patronage of regional warlords. Under such
circumstances, the central government cooperated with the main-
stream sangha in strengthening its legitimacy through various mea-
sures, including reinforcement of the politico-religious institution of
the palace chapel, which was portrayed as the ultimate source for both
political and religious power (Chen 2004, 154). Under the reigns of
most post-rebellion emperors, esoteric Buddhism functioned as a pil-
lar for the palace chapels.
Parallel to the central importance esoteric Buddhism attained in
the palace chapels is, quite unexpectedly, the key role it exerted in
another even more unique Buddhist institution, the renowned “sub-
terranean reliquary crypt” (digong ) of Famensi. Occa-
sionally opened during the Yuan (1271–1368) and Ming (1368–1644)
dynasties, this underground reliquary crypt, which garnered world-
wide attention when it was brought to light in 1987, was primarily
derived from a series of high-profile activities that climaxed in the
re-enshrinement of the Buddha’s relics officially enacted on January
25, 874 (Xiantong 15.1.4). Ample archaeological evidence reveals that
it was built on the model of imperial palaces, with the implication
(^9) The Indian or Central Asian monk who is known to us only by his Chinese name,
Huifan (?–713), was not merely a reputed lover of Taiping, but also a chief politi-
cal and financial advisor to her. Huifan was executed in 713 as a consequence of the
famous coup in the summer. This obscure but obviously quite important monk and a
couple of significant politico-religious projects instigated by him are studied in Chen
(2006). Additionally, I am in the course of preparing a monograph on him and several
related Buddhist monks and Daoist priests active in the political and religious worlds
at the turn of the eighth century. Further, according to Zanning (919?–1001?),
sometime after Vajrabodhi’s arrival in Luoyang in 720, Xuanzong decreed a sweeping
deportation of “barbarian monks” from his emporium. See Song gaoseng zhuan, T.
2061.50:711b17–c6, translated and discussed in Chou (1945, 275–278).