Encyclopedia of Buddhism

inside a very small crystal sarcophagus, within a silver-
gilt 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 sub-
stance 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 stu
pa 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 stu
pa 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 metal-
working and textile techniques of the late Tang period,
the tributary system, ritual implements (water vessels,
staffs, incense burners and stands, containers for in-
cense) and evidence of the practice of esoteric Bud-
dhism 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. Cam-
bridge, 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: Cele-
brated Discoveries from the People’s Republic of China,ed.
Yang Xiaoneng. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1999.

RODERICKWHITFIELD

FAMILY, BUDDHISM AND THE

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 re-

lationship to the family. Why, after all, would Bud-

dhism 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 so-

cietal 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 lan-

guage of renunciation; (2) a symbolic language in

which identity within the monastic setting is under-

stood as a kind of replication of the patriarchal fam-

ily, 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, state-

ments regarding the unsatisfactory and even danger-

ous 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 think-

ing develop that will continue to bind one in the cy-

cle of birth and death (SAMSA
RA), and keep one from

making progress toward NIRVA
NA. Among these state-

ments 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 pre-

scribed life cycle within the family, the risks of child-

birth being paramount. In sum, in this sphere of

discourse Buddhist authorities encourage reflection

on the benefits of leaving the encumbering and dan-

gerous 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 land-

owning 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 famil-

ialism. 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-

FAMILY, BUDDHISM AND THE