An Exceptional Category of Central Monastic Officials in the Tang Dynasty: A Study of the Ten Bhadantas During the Reigns of Gaozu, Empress Wu, and Zhongzong

Abstract

In most periods of the Tang Dynasty, central monastic officials were typically appointed from among government officials, while Buddhist monks could only serve as the Three Monastic Superintendents (sangang 三綱) in the Buddhist state monasteries at the local level. However, during the reigns of Gaozu, Empress Wu, and Zhongzong, a distinct group of monastic officials known as the “Ten Bhadantas” (shidade 十大德)—entirely composed of Buddhist monks—emerged as central monastic officials in exceptional political contexts, overseeing Buddhist affairs throughout the empire. Gaozu’s ten bhadantas were a temporary appointment, yet they constituted a centralized monastic administrative structure and institutional power center at the national level in Chang’an, tasked with supervising Buddhist affairs and monasteries across the empire. This arrangement provided substantial religious support and political guarantee at a time when religious policy remained unsettled and national governance was unstable during the early years of the Tang Dynasty. It helped the newly established regime overcome the difficulties of managing religious affairs in its formative period. Under Empress Wu, the ten bhadantas of the Dabiankongsi chapel offered powerful Buddhist theoretical support for her seizure of the Tang throne and the consolidation of the Wu-Zhou regime. They contributed to the sacralization, authorization, and legitimization of secular imperial power through appeals to heavenly mandate or Buddhist prophecy, thereby securing the reverence and acknowledgment of both monastic and lay communities. During Zhongzong’s reign, the ten bhadantas of the Linguang chapel aided him in leveraging Buddhism to expand his political influence and vigorously cultivating support from both monastic and lay Buddhist adherents within the government and across society, thereby consolidating his rule. Based on the above, this indicates that the ten bhadantas, a special institutional formation in the Tang Dynasty characterized by the functions and status of central monastic officials, exemplified a complex and tension-filled model of state–saṃgha relations. This model vividly reflected the ongoing historical process in which Buddhism was increasingly Sinicized and secularized.

1. Introduction

Around 400 CE, the monastic official system in Chinese Buddhism began to emerge under the Northern Wei (386–534), Later Qin (384–417), and Eastern Jin (317–420) Dynasties. Subsequently, the basic structure of the monastic official system in the Northern Dynasties gradually took shape, developing into the Zhaoxuan 昭玄 official system, headed by the Shamentong 沙門統 (Śramaṇa Supervisor [the Highest Monastic Official]). In contrast, the Southern Dynasties established a different structure, known as the Sengzhu 僧主 official system, which was led by the Dasengzheng 大僧正 (Grand Monastic Supervisor) (G. Zhang 1997, pp. 353–58). The coexistence of these two systems of monastic officials reflected the principle of “monks governing monks” (yisengzhiseng 以僧制僧), whereby eminent monks were appointed as central and local monastic officials to assist the imperial authority in the administration of national Buddhist affairs. By the Sui and Tang periods, the state had considerably reinforced its control over Buddhism by establishing a range of central and local governmental offices to supervise Buddhist affairs. This development significantly curtailed the political authority of monastic officials and redirected their responsibilities toward the internal administration of Buddhist affairs, in accordance with the practical demands of centralized governance. During the Sui Dynasty (581–619), the central government established the Chongxuan shu 崇玄署 (Central Agency Responsible for Administering Buddhist Monks, Nuns, and Daoist Priests during both the Sui and Tang Periods) in the capital and appointed the Daochang jiancheng 道場監丞 (Government Officials Stationed at Practice-sites1) at the prefectural and county levels. By the Daye period (605–618), a preliminary two-tiered administrative system for regulating Buddhism had taken shape (G. Zhang 1997, pp. 375–76). The Tang Dynasty (618–907) inherited the monastic administrative system of the Sui, but the central authority responsible for overseeing Buddhist affairs underwent several institutional transitions. Zhang Gong categorizes these changes into three distinct phases: “from the early Tang period to the Wu-Zhou reign of Yanzai (618–694), the Honglu si 鴻臚寺 (Court of State Ceremonials) served as the supervising authority; from the first year of Yanzai to the sixth year of Tianbao (694–746), the Cibu 祠部 (Ministry of Rites) assumed control; and from the sixth year of Tianbao to the third year of Tianfu (746–903), administrative responsibilities were jointly managed by the Gongdeshi 功德使 (Commissioner of Merit and Virtue) and the Cibu” (G. Zhang 1997, p. 376). The central government of the Tang Dynasty exercised administrative control over Buddhism throughout the empire by establishing state institutions and appointing government officials as their directors, thereby ensuring that Buddhism served broader political objectives. Notably, the role of the Gongdeshi underwent significant changes during this period. Prior to Zhenyuan (785–805), both monks and government officials could serve as the Gongdeshi. However, “after Zhenyuan, all such commissioners were appointed from among court officials; and due to the specific political circumstances in the later Tang, most of the Gongdeshi were served by eunuchs” (Yang 2014, p. 292). From the above brief overview of the history of the monastic official system up to the Tang Dynasty, it becomes evident that the Tang central government further weakened the autonomy of Buddhism by exercising tighter control over the appointment of monastic officials. At the same time, it strengthened its administrative authority over Buddhist affairs throughout the empire. Central monastic officials were generally filled by state-appointed officials, and the period during which monks were permitted to serve as the Gongdeshi was notably brief. Monks were thus relegated to local monastic official positions within the Buddhist state monasteries (guansi 官寺),2 specifically serving in the roles of the Three Monastic Superintendents (sangang 三綱), where they were responsible solely for internal monastic affairs. Kamada Shigeo refers to such roles as “monastic officials in the narrow sense” (xiayi sengguan 狹義僧官).3 Throughout the Tang Dynasty, monastic leaders, though generally relegated to subordinate or auxiliary roles under central government institutions, were at times able to participate in the administration of national Buddhist affairs and in coordinating the state–saṃgha relations as the “Ten Bhadantas” (shidade 十大德).4

The Sanskrit term “bhadanta” is an honorific title used to show respect toward Buddhas, bodhisattvas, or eminent monks (Shi 1988, p. 879). Its Chinese translation, “dade” 大德, is a reverential title specifically reserved for eminent monks. The Zenghui ji 增輝記 [Record of Enhanced Radiance (a lost Tang-dynasty Buddhist monastic code that dealt with the Sinicization of Buddhist precepts and is known today only through citations in later texts)] explains: “When one’s Buddhist conduct is accomplished and one’s virtue is lofty, one is called Great Virtue (Ch. dade 大德; Skt. bhadanta)” (行滿德高, 曰大德).5 Zanning 贊寧 (919–1001) categorized the term “dade” into three usages: as an honorific bestowed by the Tang court upon distinguished monks;6 as a respectful suffix attached to the names of appointed local monastic officials;7 and as a temporary position assigned to monks for specific tasks.8 In its literal sense, the term “shidade” refers to ten eminent monks distinguished by both erudition and moral virtue. However, under the reigns of Gaozu (r. 618–626), Empress Wu, and Zhongzong, the ten bhadantas, all of whom were monks, assumed the role of central monastic officials during specific political junctures, charged with supervising Buddhist affairs at the national level. This paper focuses exclusively on the ten bhadantas of the Tang Dynasty, who served as central monastic officials with a distinctive status—not only because key aspects of their role have been largely overlooked in previous research, but also because the ten-bhadanta system constituted a crucial component of state–saṃgha relations in Tang China. By examining the typology and historical evolution of this institution, the study aims to clarify the religious and political significance of the ten bhadantas, their intrinsic connection to the Buddhist palace chapel (neidaochang 內道場),9 and, ultimately, to illuminate the complex model of state–saṃgha interaction characterized by multiple layers of tension. This dynamic reflects the broader historical process of the Sinicization of Buddhism.

2. The Ten Bhadantas During the Reign of Gaozu

The establishment of the ten-bhadanta system was driven by profound historical motivations. On the one hand, during the early years of the Tang Dynasty, the empire had not yet been fully pacified. The court was still engaged in military struggles against regional separatist forces, such as Liu Wuzhou 劉武周 (d. 620) and Wang Shichong 王世充 (d. 621), in its efforts to unify the realm. Consequently, the government had little opportunity to formulate a comprehensive religious policy to manage national Buddhist affairs. The ten-bhadanta system thus functioned as a provisional measure. On the other hand, when Gaozu (Li Yuan 李淵) ascended the throne at the Taiji Hall 太極殿 of the imperial palace (danei 大內) in Chang’an on Wude 1.5.20 [jiazi] (18 June 618),10 the Tang regime remained politically unstable, facing pressure from multiple forces. It was essential to pacify various political factions. As Oda Yoshihisa has noted, “The ten-bhadanta system was part of Li Yuan’s strategy following his occupation of Chang’an, established for the purpose of controlling and overseeing the Buddhist monastic community in the capital” (Oda 1979, pp. 51–64).

Regarding the purpose of Gaozu’s establishment of the ten-bhadanta system, “Jizang zhuan” 吉藏傳 [Biography of Jizang] records that “In the early years of the Wude era (618–626), the Buddhist monastic community (saṃgha) had grown excessively large and had become entangled in various institutional abuses. In response to mounting public concern, the Tang court strategically established the ten bhadantas as a means to oversee and regulate Buddhist affairs. While framed as a concession to popular sentiment, [this initiative in fact reflected a calculated political move to reassert state control over Buddhism]” (武德之初, 僧過繁結, 置十大德綱維法務, 宛從物議).11 “Zhizang zhuan” 智藏傳 [Biography of Zhizang] states that “By the early years of the Wude era, the monastic officials had been established” (逮武德初歲, 爰置僧官).12 Similarly, “Mingzhan zhuan” 明瞻傳 [Biography of Mingzhan] records that “During the reign of the Tang Dynasty, the monastic officials had been established” (大唐御世, 爰置僧官).13 This directly points out that the ten bhadantas were the central monastic officials established by Gaozu in the early years of the Wude era to oversee national Buddhist affairs.

Regarding the criteria for selecting eminent monks to join the ten bhadantas, there were two methods: direct appointment by Gaozu and election by the Buddhist monastic community.

“Baogong zhuan” 保恭傳 [Biography of Baogong] records that “[Baogong] was highly respected by the Buddhist monastic community and enjoyed a prestigious reputation in the imperial capital. In the second year of Wude (619), an imperial edict summoned him back to the capital, where he was reinstated to supervise monastic affairs, and the Chanding Monastery was renamed the Dazhuangyan Monastery. Upon being nominated as one of the ten bhadantas to oversee the saṃgha, the monks in the capital, intimidated by his authority, did not dare to ascend to the position. Gaozu, upon hearing this, remarked, ‘Chan Master Gong’s virtue and conduct are pure and exemplary; he is qualified to serve as the guiding principle. I alone shall appoint him.’ Once he assumed this responsibility, no one dared to challenge him, and he became the foremost among the ten bhadantas, entrusted with making final decisions, resolving disputes, and maintaining harmony, without causing any resentment” (御眾攝持, 聲光帝里, 武德二年下敕召還, 依舊檢校, 仍改禪定為大莊嚴. 及舉十大德統攝僧尼, 京輦諸僧懾惮威嚴, 遂不登及. 高祖聞之, 曰: “恭禪師志行清澄, 可為綱紀, 朕獨舉之.” 既位斯任, 諸無與對, 遂居大德之右, 專當剖斷, 平恕衷詣, 眾無怨焉).14 It demonstrates that Baogong, due to his close relationship with the emperor, was directly appointed by Gaozu as the leader of the ten bhadantas. This account highlights how, at the early consolidation of the Tang regime, the court sought to control Buddhism by holding the power to appoint leaders of the Buddhist monastic community.

As for the selection of the other bhadanta-monks, there was a standardized procedure in place. “After the Great Tang assumed the Mandate and established its reign, the court—motivated by a commitment to protect and uphold the Buddhadharma15—instituted the office of the ten bhadantas, entrusting them with the supervision of monastic affairs. At that time, a grand assembly of monks was convened, and individuals were ranked in accordance with their merits and standing. Among them, Kan 侃16 distinguished himself by his solemn comportment, exceptional presence, and incomparable dignity. Endowed with profound virtue and held in the highest esteem by the saṃgha, he was accordingly appointed to this eminent office. Calm and gracious in manner, and adept at guiding others, he enabled many monks to deepen their understanding of the Buddhist teachings” (大唐受禪, 情存護法, 至十大德, 用清朝寄. 時大集僧眾, 標明序位, 侃儀止肅然, 挺超莫擬, 既德充僧望, 遂之斯任, 恂恂善誘, 弘悟繁焉).17 “All the Three Superintendents of the Buddhist monasteries and Taoist temples throughout the empire, as well as the bhadanta-monks in the capital, were to be selected based on their moral excellence, profound cultivation, and the endorsement of the community. The selected individuals were then reported to the Cibu under the Department of State Affairs (Shangshu [sheng] 尚書[省]) for record-keeping” (凡天下寺觀三綱, 及京都大德, 皆取其道德高妙、 為眾所推者補充, 申尚書祠部).18 From this, it can be inferred that selection as one of the ten bhadantas began with the convening of the Buddhist monastic community to deliberate on suitable candidates and determine their order of precedence. The candidates were required to possess high prestige and exemplary moral conduct within the Buddhist monastic community. Ideally, they would also be capable of overseeing the Buddhist monastic community and managing monastic affairs—qualities exemplified by Mingzhan 明瞻, who was praised for “reorganizing the monastic affairs to conform to contemporary standards, with detailed records” (整理僧務, 備列當時) and for “being skilled at managing monastic affairs” (善識治方).19 Only then can they be nominated by the Buddhist monastic community and included in the list of candidates for the ten bhadantas. The proposed list of ten bhadantas must be submitted to the Cibu for review and filing. Once the emperor agrees and issues the appointment, the complete and formal selection and appointment process for the ten bhadantas is concluded.

According to the research of Yamazaki Hiroshi, only seven monks from the list of the ten bhadantas can be traced in the Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 [Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks], namely Baogong, Jizang, Fakan, Huiyin 惠因, Haizang 海藏, Zhizang 智藏, and Mingzhan.20 Regarding the selection and operational process of the ten bhadantas, the following table outlines the details (

Table 1. Known Information on Seven Monks Identified among the Ten Bhadantas in the Xu gaoseng zhuan.

Dharma Name	Appointment Time	Date of Passing	Age at Death	Abbotship Monastery Name/Start Date
Baogong	Wude 2 (21 January 619–8 February 620)	Wude 4.12.19 (4 February 622)	80	Dazhuangyan Monastery 大莊嚴寺 (Chanding Monastery 禪定寺)/the late years of Renshou (8 February 601–24 January 605)
Jizang	The beginning of the Wude period	Wude 6.5 (4 June–2 July 623)	75	Riyan Monastery 日嚴寺/Sui Dynasty (Yamazaki 1942, p. 605)
Fakan	\	Wude 6.11 (28 November 623–26 December 623)	73	Xingshan Monastery 興善寺/Late years
Huiyin	\	Zhenguan 1.2.12 (22 March 628)	89	Chanding Monastery (Dazhuangyan Monastery)/Sui Renshou 3 (16 February 603–5 February 604)
Haizang	\	\	\	\
Zhizang	The beginning of the Wude period	Wude 8.4.15 (26 May 625)	85	Daxingshan Monastery 大興善寺/Before Kaihuang 3 (29 January 583–16 February 584)
Mingzhan	\	Zhenguan 2.10.27 (28 November 628)	70	Daxingshan Monastery/Kaihuang 3

):

By analyzing and verifying the information listed in the Table 1 above, including the appointment times, dates of passing, ages at death, names of the Chang’an monasteries they presided over, and their starting dates, the following conclusions can be drawn:

First, regarding the specific time when Gaozu established the ten bhadantas, there has been considerable debate among scholars. Given that Baogong was summoned back to Chang’an by imperial edict in the second year of Wude (619), and was subsequently “appointed as one of the ten bhadantas to oversee the saṃgha” (及舉十德統攝僧尼),21 it can be concluded that the establishment of the ten bhadantas occurred no earlier than the second year of Wude. Baogong passed away on Wude 4.12.19 (4 February 622), which is the earliest death date among the seven bhadanta-monks, thus confirming that the creation of the ten bhadantas certainly occurred before this time. The Shishi jigu lue 釋氏稽古略 [Brief Investigation of the History of the Śākya (Buddhist) Family] cites an important historical source from the Bianzheng lun 辯正論 [Treatise on Identifying the True], stating: “In Wude 3 [gengchen], Gaozu established the ten bhadantas at Cibei Monastery, entrusting them with the responsibility of overseeing the saṃgha” (庚辰武德三年…… ([高祖] 於慈悲寺制十大德, 統舉僧尼).22 Except for the unknown birth and death dates of Haizang, the monk whose death occurred the latest among the remaining six was Mingzhan, who passed away on Zhenguan 2.10.27 (18 November 628). Therefore, it can be concluded that the “ten bhadantas” established by Gaozu began in Wude 3 (9 February 620–27 January 621) and ended after Mingzhan’s passing on Zhenguan 2.10.27 (28 November 628), marking the termination of the system. The system was only implemented during the Wude period and was abolished at the beginning of the Zhenguan era (627–649). The ten-bhadanta system established by Gaozu was, in fact, a temporary position within the central monastic official system, created to consolidate the support of Buddhist followers for the newly founded Tang regime, which was still in a period of political instability. The system selected ten respected senior monks, known for their deep moral integrity and extensive experience in monastic affairs, to oversee the management of monastic affairs and the order of monasteries throughout the empire, thereby serving to maintain political stability. As the ten bhadanta-monks passed away one by one, and no successors were appointed to replace them, Gaozu’s ten-bhadanta system lasted only about ten years. “Henceforth no single monk or group of monks was to be accorded primacy over the Buddhist church either in name or in fact; control was to be vested solely in the hands of secular officials appointed by the government” (Weinstein 1987, p. 11).

Second, Stanley Weinstein, in his book Buddhism under the T’ang, argues that in order to further weaken the autonomy of Buddhism, Gaozu disregarded the two-hundred-year-old tradition and abolished the appointment of the Datong 大統 (Great Supervisor of the Saṃgha). He believes that the ten-bhadanta system set up by Gaozu was a new system, which replaced the traditional leadership of a single monk overseeing Buddhism with the appointment of ten bhadanta-monks to collectively lead and manage religious affairs and the Buddhist monastic community (Weinstein 1987, p. 10). But is this truly the case?

Let us first trace the evolution of the Datong. Zanning, in his Dasong sengshi lüe 大宋僧史略 [Abbreviated History of Monastics Written in the Song], states that “The Sui Dynasty promoted Buddhism and Daoism in an effort to reform the customs inherited from the [Later] Zhou (951–960). Monk Meng 猛 was summoned to reside at the Daxingshan Monastery and was appointed as the Datong of the Sui empire. His secular surname was Duan 段, and he hailed from Jingyang 涇陽. He specialized in teaching the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the Ten Grounds Sūtra” (隋興佛道, 變革周風, 召僧猛住大興善寺, 為隋國大統. 猛姓段, 涇陽人也, 講《般若》《十地》等).23 Monk Meng (507–588 or 589) served as the Datong during the Sui Dynasty, a position equivalent to the Shamentong in the Northern Dynasties. The Datong was the head of the central monastic official system, overseeing all other monastic officials. “The Zhaoxuan si 昭玄寺 (Court for Buddhist Monastic Affairs) served as the central authority overseeing all Buddhist affairs throughout the empire. Its leadership structure consisted of one Datong, one Tong 統 (Supervisor), and three Duweina 都維那 (Chief Monastic Administrators). Subordinate positions included Gongcao 功曹 (Administrative Officers) and Zhubuyuan 主簿員 (Clerks), who were responsible for managing the Shamen Cao 沙门曹 (Monastic Affairs Offices) in prefectures, commanderies, and counties” (昭玄寺, 掌諸佛教. 置大統一人, 統一人, 都維那三人. 亦置功曹、 主簿員, 以掌諸州郡縣沙門曹).24 This established a well-organized two-tier monastic official system during the Northern Wei and Northern Qi periods (550–577). “Fashang zhuan” 法上傳 [Biography of Fashang] records: “Initially, during the mid-Tianbao period, the state established the Shitong 十统 (Ten Supervisors of the Saṃgha). Upon hearing the proposal, the relevant officials submitted a memorial stating that the matter required special distinction. Emperor Wenxuan then personally annotated the decree, writing: ‘Dharma Master [Fa]-shang may serve as the Datong, and the others shall serve as the Supervisors (Tongtong 通統).’ As a result of this special imperial favor, his authority was treated as that of the Buddha himself: whatever he said was invariably followed” (初, 天保之中, 國置十統, 有司聞奏, 事須甄異, 文宣乃手注狀云: “[法]上法師可為大統，餘為通統.” 故帝之特遇, 事之如佛, 凡所吐言, 無不承用).25 “It also established the Shitong under the Zhaoxuan [si] to enforce monastic discipline and uphold the true Dharma, thereby ensuring that the two million monks and nuns were harmoniously governed and free from disorder. In this endeavor, Fashang alone rendered truly outstanding service.” (又置昭玄[寺]十統, 肅清正法, 使夫二百萬眾, 綏緝無塵, 法上一人, 誠有功矣).26 During the Tianbao era (550–559), Emperor Wenxuan of Northern Qi, Gao Yang 高洋 (r. 550–559), established the Shitong and appointed Fashang (495–580) as the Datong, with the remaining nine monks serving as the Tongtong. Gao Yang held Fashang in particularly high regard and trust, indicating that the position of Datong was reserved for the emperor’s most favored monk. In this role, Fashang, as the Datong in charge of the Zhaoxuan si, along with the nine Tongtong, was responsible for overseeing national Buddhist affairs, managing monasteries, and pacifying the two million monks and nuns, leading them to align with the imperial rule, thus solidifying the Northern Qi’s control. “Zhirun zhuan” 智閏傳 [Biography of Zhirun] states that “Building upon the flourishing Buddhist traditions of Yexia (the capital of Northern Qi), the Shitong rose to prominence, with their influence spreading widely and resonating across the realm, permeating all under heaven.” (承鄴下盛宗佛法, 十統鬱興, 令響滂流, 洋溢天壤).27 This underscores the distinctive role of the Shitong system under the Zhaoxuan Office, which—functioning as part of the central monastic administrative structure—embodied a system of monks governing monks. Yamazaki Hiroshi lauded this as “a monumental achievement in the state regulation of Buddhism” (Yamazaki 1942, p. 520).

It is evident that Gaozu’s establishment of the ten-bhadanta system, with Baogong as the head of the ten bhadanta-monks, was modeled on the Northern Dynasties’ Zhaoxuan system, which appointed one monk as the Datong, while the others served as the Tongtong. Furthermore, Gaozu’s ten-bhadanta system, while inheriting the Sui Dynasty’s Datong system, also drew inspiration from Emperor Wen of Sui’s six-bhadanta system28 and his precedent in Kaihuang 5 (5 February 585–25 January 586), when he convened ten eminent translation masters at the Daxingshan Monastery to assist Jinayaśa (Ch. Shena jueduo 阇那崛多; 523–600) in translating Buddhist scriptures. “Moreover, ten bhadanta-śramaṇas (shidade shamen 十大德沙門; i.e., ten bhadanta-monks), including Sengxiu 僧休, Facan 法粲, Fajing 法經, Huizang 慧藏, Hongzun 洪遵, Huiyuan 慧遠, Fazuan 法纂, Senghui 僧暉, Mingmu 明穆, and Tanqian 曇遷, were appointed to supervise translation projects and determine doctrinal interpretations. The śramaṇas Mingmu and Yancong 彥琮 meticulously rechecked the Sanskrit manuscripts, conducted thorough revisions, and refined the textual meaning” (又置十大德沙門僧休、法粲、法經、慧藏、洪遵、慧遠、法纂、僧暉、明穆、曇遷等監掌翻事,銓定宗旨; 沙門明穆、彥琮重對梵本, 再審覆勘, 整理文義).29 The ten bhadantas set up by Emperor Wen of Sui was a temporary translation team formed by royal decree for the purpose of translating Buddhist scriptures, composed entirely of scripture-translating monks (yijing seng 譯經僧) rather than monastic officials. Once the translation work was completed, this team would automatically disband, lacking any characteristics of a state administrative institution. However, Gaozu appropriated this nomenclature while simultaneously adopting the Zhaoxuan model of central monastic administration, thereby transforming the early Tang ten-bhadanta system into a formal institutional framework. Consequently, Stanley Weinstein’s claim that Gaozu abolished the Datong position in favor of a model of collective leadership led by the ten bhadantas proves to be untenable.

Third, a closer examination of the identities and activities of the seven bhadanta-monks reveals that “most of them had studied in the Southern Dynasties and had previously held the position of the sangang in famous monasteries of Chang’an, such as Dazhuangyan Monastery or Daxingshan Monastery, during the late Sui and early Tang periods” (Xie 2009, p. 103). Dazhuangyan Monastery in Chang’an, initially named Chanding Monastery, was constructed by Emperor Wen of Sui during Renshou 3 (16 February 603–5 February 604) to offer posthumous blessings for his beloved Empress Wenxian, Dugu Jialuo 獨孤伽羅 (544–602). Daxingshan Monastery in Chang’an, established in Taishi 2 (22 February 266–10 February 267) under Emperor Wu of Jin, was the ancestral monastery of Esoteric Buddhism. Apart from Haizang’s unclear biographical details and Jizang’s permanent residence at Riyan Monastery in Chang’an, the remaining five bhadanta-monks all hailed from either Dazhuangyan Monastery or Daxingshan Monastery. This indicates that Gaozu’s selection of the “ten bhadantas” was a strategic move to balance the political interests of both the Southern and Northern Buddhist monastic communities. The chosen monks had widespread influence within both regions, extensive monastic networks, and prior administrative experience as the sangang in the Buddhist state monasteries. As a result, they possessed the authority and prestige necessary to manage Buddhist affairs and monasteries throughout the empire. Thus, the Dazhuangyan Monastery and Daxingshan Monastery in Chang’an functioned as central hubs for communication between the Southern and Northern Buddhist monastic communities, overseeing monastic affairs. This organizational framework facilitated Gaozu’s political objectives during the Wude period, helping consolidate the loyalty of the Buddhist monks and nuns and stabilizing the social order.

In conclusion, Gaozu’s ten-bhadanta system was both a continuation and an innovation—building upon the central monastic official system of the Northern and Southern Dynasties, as well as the precedents of the six bhadantas and the ten bhadanta-śramaṇas under the Sui Dynasty. It provided strong religious support and political assurance during the Wude period, when religious policies were not fully developed, and the political situation was unstable, thereby helping the nascent Tang regime navigate the challenges of religious governance in the early stages of state formation. By appointing ten highly respected bhadanta-monks, the court established a central-level monastic administrative structure and power center in Chang’an to oversee Buddhist affairs and monasteries across the empire. Nevertheless, these appointments were temporary and never formally integrated into the central administrative bureaucracy, and the system came to an end in the early Zhenguan period. After the oversight of Buddhist affairs was transferred to secular officials, monks were relegated to positions such as the sangang, which functioned as local monastic officials. This shift reflects the early Tang court’s dual strategy of utilizing and constraining Buddhism because “they feared the revival of the Buddhist monastic communities as ‘an imperium in imperio’” (Wright 1959, p. 67). Yamazaki Hiroshi commented that, from the perspective of a strong centralized state-building and the unity of imperial law, the Tang Dynasty particularly inherited the legal system of the Northern Dynasties, but this inheritance was limited to specific circumstances in the early period (Yamazaki 1942, p. 606). However, in a rather ironic twist, the early Tang founders, while intentionally avoiding the incorporation of monastic leaders into the formal state administrative institution for managing Buddhist affairs, as was done in central monastic official system of the Southern and Northern Dynasties, instead instituted the ten-bhadanta system as a temporary expedient to deflect criticism. At the same time, they sought to harness the moral authority and influence of prominent monastic leaders to bridge the divide between Northern and Southern Buddhist monastic communities and to unify Buddhist circles across the realm. In this way, the ten-bhadanta system became a political instrument for consolidating religious support during the founding of the Tang state. This approach established a compelling precedent for emperors following Gaozu, demonstrating that even in the absence of formal recognition as central monastic officials, the ten bhadantas could persist throughout Tang history as an institution serving imperial authority—whether in the form of honorific titles, respectful epithets for local monastic officials, or temporary functional appointments. The institutional continuity of the ten-bhadanta system thus underscores its distinctive adaptability within the evolving dynamics of Tang state–saṃgha relations. It reflects a form of religious pragmatism whereby Buddhist institutions could recalibrate their structures and functions in response to changing political exigencies, highlighting the system’s role as a fluid mediating mechanism between the preservation of Buddhist legitimacy and the consolidation of imperial power.

3. The Ten Bhadantas and Buddhist Palace Chapels During the Reigns of Empress Wu and Zhongzong

After Gaozu, the ten-bhadanta system, which had the characteristics of central monastic officials, seemed to fade into obscurity, much like the legendary and elusive Udumbara flower. Having fulfilled its transitional role of assisting the Tang regime in overcoming the difficult early years of statehood and gaining the support of Buddhist forces to stabilize imperial rule, the system quietly disappeared with the passing of the last bhadanta-monk.30 Zanning once lamented about the reigns of Gaozu, Taizong, Gaozong, and Xuanzong, saying, “Monasteries only established the sangang, while the Zhaoxuan system was abolished and not continued; the officials of monastic affairs sank into obscurity and were not revived” (僧寺止立三綱而已, 昭玄統正革而不沿, 僧務官方沈而弗舉).31 It is conceivable that, without the special political circumstances of the time, a system similar to the ten-bhadanta system of Gaozu’s reign would have been difficult to replicate in subsequent dynasties.

However, during the reign of Empress Wu and her son Zhongzong, due to pragmatic political and religious needs, it became a viable strategy to support or promote favored Buddhist monks to serve the consolidation of their rule, or even in the case of power struggles, to aid in coups, rather than solely for personal Buddhist beliefs of the emperors. According to the research by Antonino Forte (Forte 2005, pp. 1–368) and Jinhua Chen (Chen 2004b, pp. 108–60), during the transition from the Tang to the Zhou Dynasty and throughout Empress Wu’s reign, the ten bhadantas not only served as leaders of the Buddhist monastic community at the Buddhist palace chapels, but also as the central administrative authority overseeing Buddhist affairs throughout the empire. Their involvement contributed significantly to the religious legitimacy and theoretical justification of Empress Wu’s rule. Furthermore, due to Empress Wu’s close personal ties with the ten bhadanta-monks and her strong political motivations behind her religious inclinations, the Buddhist palace chapels flourished like never before during her reign. The frequent and deep interaction between imperial power and Buddhadharma was especially evident in the Buddhist palace chapels of her era. The appointment of Buddhist monks to central monastic official positions and their active participation in state affairs allowed the Buddhist monastic community, which had been relegated to a subordinate status under the central religious institutions led by government officials since the reign of Gaozu, to achieve a breakthrough in its political standing. After Zhongzong’s restoration, due to the challenging political environment, the pro-Buddhist policies of the Wu-Zhou period continued, and the ten-bhadanta system was once again established to stabilize the regime.

3.1. The Ten Bhadantas of Empress Wu’s Dabiankongsi Chapel

The Jiu Tang shu 舊唐書 [Old Book of Tang] provides a list of the ten bhadanta-monks of Empress Wu’s palace chapels:

[Xue Huaiyi] 薛懷義 (d. 695) was among a group of bhadanta-monks in Luoyang (Luoyang dade seng 洛陽大德僧), including Faming 法明, Chuyi 處一, Huiyan 惠儼, Huileng [慧]稜, Xinggan 行感, Degan 德感, Zhijing 知靜, Xuangui [玄]軌, and Xuanzheng 宣政, who recited scriptures in the Buddhist palace chapel. Huaiyi entered and exited riding horses from the imperial stables, accompanied by palace eunuchs. The Wu clan nobles would prostrate and pay homage to him. He was commonly referred to as Master Xue among the people. [薛懷義]自是與洛陽大德僧法明、處一、惠儼、[慧]稜、行感、德感、知靜、[玄]軌、宣政等, 在內道場念誦. 懷義出入乘廐馬, 中官侍從. 諸武朝貴, 匍匐禮謁. 人間呼為薛師.32

Starting in 685, Empress Wu placed ten bhadanta-monks33 in her palace chapel in Luoyang, instructing them to perform scripture recitations. In reality, this served as a covert means of developing the theoretical foundation for the Wu-Zhou revolution. Clearly, the Buddhist palace chapel where these ten bhadanta-monks resided was the Dabiankongsi 大遍空寺 (Dabiankong Monastery; or, according to some sources, Biankongsi) Chapel.34

Huaiyi and Faming, along with the other bhadanta-monks, fabricated the Dayun jing [shu] 大雲經[疏] [Commentary on the Great Cloud Sūtra], proclaiming a divine mandate (fuming 符命) that [Wu] Zetian 武則天 was the earthly incarnation of Maitreya, destined to rule over Jambudvīpa, while the decline of the Tang Dynasty was cosmically ordained. Consequently, [Wu] Zetian inaugurated the Zhou Dynasty through an imperial revolution. Huaiyi and the other nine bhadanta-monks, including Faming, were collectively referred to as the County Dukes (Xiangong 县公). They were granted gifts of varying degrees, including purple kasayas and silver turtle-shaped pouches. Their fabricated Dayun jing [shu] was promulgated throughout the empire, with every monastery required to preserve a copy and monks instructed to expound it from high pulpits. 懷義與法明等造《大雲經[疏]》, 陳符命, 言[武]則天是彌勒下生, 作閻浮提主, 唐氏合微. 故[武]則天革命稱周, 懷義與法明等九人並稱縣公, 賜物有差, 皆賜紫袈裟、銀龜袋. 其偽《大雲經[疏]》頒於天下, 寺各藏一本, 令升高座講說.35

In the first year of Zaichu… in the seventh month of autumn… ten monks fabricated the Dayun jing [shu] and presented it to the throne, fervently proclaiming the Divine Empress’s (Shenhuang 神皇) heavenly mandate. An imperial decree was issued throughout the empire, commanding each prefecture to establish a Dayun Monastery (Great Cloud Monastery) and ordain one thousand monks collectively… On the ninth day [renwu] of the ninth month, the Tang mandate was abolished, and the country’s name was changed to Zhou. The era name was changed to Tianshou, a grand amnesty was declared, and seven days of state-sponsored feasting (cipu 賜酺)36 were granted to the common people. On the day of yiyou, Empress Wu was honored the title “Holy and Divine Emperor” (Shengshen Huangdi聖神皇帝), while demoting the reigning Tang emperor to the status of imperial heir. 載初元年……秋七月……有沙門十人偽撰《大雲經[疏]》, 表上之, 盛言神皇受命之事. 制頒於天下, 令諸州各置大雲寺, 總度僧千人……九月九日壬午, 革唐命, 改國號為周. 改元為天授, 大赦天下, 賜酺七日. 乙酉, 加尊號曰聖神皇帝, 降皇帝為皇嗣.37

In Zaichu 1.7 (12 June–11 July 690), the ten bhadantas’ palace chapel presented the completed compilation of the Dayun jing (Sanskrit: Mahāmegha Sūtra) commentary, titled the Dayun jing Shenhuang shouji yishu 大雲經神皇授記義疏 (Commentary on the Meanings of the Prophecy about the Divine Empress in the Dayun jing).38 This text served as the theoretical justification for Empress Wu’s claim to imperial legitimacy, providing a doctrinal basis for her seizure of supreme power. Empress Wu promulgated the Dayun jing shu throughout the empire and ordered the establishment of a Dayun Monastery in each prefecture. “The most significant political function of the Dayun State Monasteries was to promote the legitimacy of the new Wu-Zhou regime by having monks ascend high pulpits to expound the Dayun jing shu” (Nie 2018, pp. 50–51). On the ninth day of the ninth month (16 October 690), the Wu-Zhou revolution took place, overthrowing the Tang Dynasty and changing the state name to Zhou, while the era name was changed to Tianshou. Three days later, on the day of yiyou (19 October 690), Empress Wu was honored with the title “Holy and Divine Emperor,” while the reigning Emperor (her son, Ruizong Li Dan 李旦, r. 684–690, r. 710–712) was demoted from the imperial throne to the status of imperial heir.

Another important Buddhist scripture concerning the legitimacy of Empress Wu’s regime, the Fo shuo baoyu jing 佛說寶雨經 [Sanskrit: Ratnamegha Sūtra], was retranslated in the second year of Changshou (693) at the Foshouji Monastery 佛授記寺 (the Buddha’s Prophecy Monastery). The main personnel involved in the Buddhist translation studio included Xue Huaiyi, who was responsible for overseeing the translation, as well as the monastery’s Sizhu Xinggan, and the Duweina Degan and Zhijing (Sun 2015, p. 220). All of these monks were part of the ten bhadanta-monks of the Dapingkongsi chapel. This retranslation of the Buddhist scripture (rather than a commentary) stands in contrast to the Dayun jing shu, which only briefly mentions the “Pure Light Heavenly Daughter who will rule Jambudvīpa” (淨光天女當王閻浮提). The Fo shuo baoyu jing clearly states that “This woman will become the emperor in the country of Mahā-Cīna, located in the northeastern part of Jambudvīpa … thereby resolving the issue of the Wu-Zhou regime’s historical legitimacy” (Sun 2013, pp. 1–3). It is evident that the ten bhadantas of the Dapingkongsi chapel, in order to address the legitimacy of Empress Wu’s rule as a female emperor, had long been seeking doctrinal justification from Buddhist scriptures that could serve as a parallel to the celestial mandate, even resorting to the fabrication of the Dayun jing shu and the retranslation of the Fo shuo Baoyu jing. The success of these translations and fabrications played a crucial role in helping Empress Wu secure supreme political power, transitioning from her role as regent to the ruling female emperor of the empire. In terms of religious theory, these efforts temporarily quelled the widespread rumors and debates in the court and among the people, solidifying her position.

Therefore, on Shengli 2.10.8 (6 September 699), after completing the newly translated Da Fangguangfo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 (Sanskrit: Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra), Empress Wu personally wrote the Dazhou xinyi Da Fangguangfo huayan jing xu 大周新譯大方廣佛華嚴經序 [Preface to the Newly Translated Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra of the Great Zhou]. In this preface, she mentions that the Dayun jing shu and the Fo shuo baoyu jing became, one after the other, the doctrinal justification for the legitimacy of the Wu-Zhou regime. The phrase “the land is level, the heavens harmonious, the rivers clear, and the seas calm” (地平天成, 河清海晏)39 also turned into an auspicious sign of the peace and prosperity under her reign, further emphasizing the legitimacy of her ascension to the throne. Based on this, Antonino Forte argues that these two texts together form the Buddhist theoretical foundation for the legitimacy of the Wu-Zhou regime (Forte 2005, pp. 189–203).

However, the Dayun jing shu and the Fo shuo baoyu jing—which constituted the doctrinal foundation for the Wu-Zhou regime’s claim to legitimacy—along with the ten bhadantas of DaBiankongsi Chapel, who simultaneously served as Buddhist theorists, translators, trusted advisors to Empress Wu, and key political operatives, were repeatedly misrepresented and denounced by both monastic and lay scholars in later generations.

Shi Zuxiu 釋祖琇 (fl. ca. 1164), the Southern Song Buddhist historian, in his seminal work Longxing [fojiao] biannian tonglun 隆興[佛教]編年通論 [Comprehensive Discussion and Chronology of [Buddhism] Compiled in the Longxing Era (1163–1164)], presents a trenchant threefold critique. First, although the Xin Tang shi 新唐史 (i.e., the Xin Tang shu) was deeply disdainful of the fabricated nature of the Dayun jing, contemporaries such as Bodhiruci 菩提流志 (572–727), Amoghavajra 不空三藏 (705–774), and the Imperial Preceptor Qingliang Chengguan 清涼澄觀 (738–839) failed to conclusively verify whether the Dayun jing lacked the authority and sanctity of an authentic Buddhist scripture. As a result, it continued to be included in the Buddhist Canon (Dazangjing 大藏經), without being thoroughly expunged. Second, Shi Zuxiu notes that secret apocalyptic prophecies predicting the downfall of the Tang had already circulated as early as the reign of Taizong, so how could the success of the Wu-Zhou revolution be attributed to the Dayun jing presented by the ten bhadantas during Empress Wu’s regency? According to the Buddhist Vinaya, these ten śramaṇas should have been expelled from the Buddhist monastic community and stripped of their monastic status for the grave offense of “displaying supernatural marvels to deceive the public” (xianyi huozhong 顯異惑眾).40 Third, in order to fulfill her personal ambition of becoming emperor, Empress Wu lavished favor upon the ten bhadantas and elevated their status. This, in Shi Zuxiu’s view, not only constituted a revolutionary overthrow of the Tang regime, but also brought corruption to Buddhism itself.41 In sum, Shi Zuxiu regarded the Dayun jing as a fabricated scripture that spread pernicious influence across both the religious and political realms. He condemned the ten bhadantas for violating the Buddhist Vinaya through their political involvement, and he viewed Empress Wu’s use of these monks to legitimize and consolidate her rule as not only a usurpation of the Tang by the Wu-Zhou regime but also a fundamental violation of the purity of Buddhism.

Shi Zuxiu’s criticism of Empress Wu and her ten bhadantas primarily centers on the conduct of eminent monks—some of whom were even leaders within the Buddhist monastic community—who were excessively involved in the exercise of imperial political power. In his view, such involvement not only compromised their personal adherence to the Vinaya and undermined the purity of Buddhism, but also set a harmful precedent for future generations of Buddhist disciples. However, what Shi Zuxiu failed to recognize was that it was precisely Empress Wu’s urgent need for political legitimacy prior to her ascension, as well as her desire to maintain authority after taking the throne, that led her to actively employ Buddhism as a counterbalance to the Daoism embraced by the Li-Tang imperial family. In emulation of Gaozu, she appointed ten bhadantas and situated them within the sacred space of the Buddhist palace chapel, a space intimately bound up with her personal and political interests. There, they not only performed a range of Buddhist rituals, but also effectively harnessed their religious charisma and doctrinal expertise to serve as long-term agents in the promotion and legitimation of her imperial rule.

In Tianshou 2.2 (5 January–3 February 691),42 Empress Wu issued the Shijiao zai daofa zhi shang zhi 釋教在道法之上制 (An Edict on Placing Buddhism above Taoism), thereby terminating the religious policy established by Taizong in Zhenguan 11 (1 February 637–20 January 638), which had granted Daoist priests and priestesses precedence over Buddhist monks and nuns (daoshi nvguan ke zai sengni zhi qian 道士女冠可在僧尼之前).43 The edict referenced the so-called “Golden-Mouthed Prophecy” (jinkou zhi ji 金口之記) and the “Precious Gāthās” (baoji zhi wen 寶偈之文), both of which alluded to the prophecy in the Dayun jing shu foretelling that the “Pure Light Heavenly Daughter who will rule Jambudvīpa”—a Buddhist scriptural basis for Empress Wu’s legitimacy to ascend the throne. Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019–1086), in his Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑 [Comprehensive mirror for aid in government], explicitly stated the following: “In the guimao [month of Tianshou 2], an edict was issued declaring that Buddhism provided the doctrinal foundation for the revolution (referring to the Dayun jing) and thus should be elevated above Taoism” ([天授二年]癸卯[月], 制以释教开革命之阶(谓《大雲经》也), 升於道教之上).44 This directly identified the Dayun jing shu as the theoretical justification for Wu-Zhou revolution. That Empress Wu issued the edict declaring Buddhism superior to Daoism within less than half a year of her enthronement was likely a deliberate political move to curry favor with the ten bhadantas of the Buddhist palace chapels and with local Buddhist monastic communities, thereby raising the political status of monks, winning hearts and minds, and securing their loyalty in service of her rule.

Another piece of material reveals the origin of Fazang 法藏45 (643–712) entering the Dapingkongsi Chapel and becoming a monk responsible for translating the eighty-volume new version of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra.

In Wansui tongtian 1, an imperial edict was issued to summon the sāmaṇera (shami 沙彌, novice monk) Kang Fazang 康法藏 to expound the core teachings of the Huayan [jing] 華嚴[經] (Sanskrit: Avataṃsaka Sūtra; an abbreviation of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra) at Taiyuan Monastery. As he began explaining the title of the scripture, a miraculous white light suddenly emerged from his mouth, forming a canopy that remained suspended in the air for a long time. The crowd was astonished and awed, and a lector-monk (dujiang 都講) named Sengheng 僧恒 reported the phenomenon to the throne. Delighted by the miracle, Empress Wu ordered the ten bhadantas of the capital to confer upon Fazang the full monastic ordination (upasaṃpadā; manfen jie 滿分戒), bestowing upon him the honorific title “Xianshou” 賢首 (Worthy Leader). She also commanded him to enter the Dabiankong Monastery to participate in scripture translation. 萬歲通天元年詔沙彌康法藏於太原寺開示《華嚴[經]》宗旨, 方緒經題, 感白光昱然自口而出, 須臾成蓋, 停空久之. 萬眾懼呼歎異, 都講僧恒奏其事. 則天悅, 有旨命京城十大德為藏授滿分戒, 賜號賢首, 詔入大遍空寺參譯經.46

Wansui tongtian 1 lasted from 7 April to 29 November 696. Since Dabiankong Monastery was located in the imperial palace area of Luoyang, the term “capital” in the text refers to Luoyang, the seat of Empress Wu and her court at the time, not Chang’an. Given that Empress Wu never established a second group of “ten bhadantas,” the “ten bhadantas of the capital” (jingcheng shidade 京城十大德) refers specifically to the ten bhadantas of the Dabiankongsi Chapel. The “Taiyuan Monastery” mentioned here should be the East Taiyuan Monastery 東太原寺, also known as Dafuxian Monastery 大福先寺. Empress Wu’s decree for the ten bhadantas to confer the full monastic ordination upon Fazang and to bestow upon him the title “Xianshou” reflects her wish for Fazang to join the Dabiankongsi Chapel and participate in the translation of the eighty-volume new version of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra. It is important to note that Dabiankong Monastery only hosted the ceremony to mark the beginning of the translation of the new version of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra on Zhengsheng 1.3.14 (2 May 695). The actual translation venue was at the Foshouji Monastery. The translation of the new version of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra was completed on Shengli 2.10.8.47 Therefore, it can be concluded that Fazang likely became involved in the subsequent translation work of the eighty-volume new version of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra after the period of Wansui tongtian 1. The record of Empress Wu’s decree for Fazang to enter Dabiankong Monastery indicates that he had become a member of the Buddhist monastic community of the Dabiankongsi Chapel.

In summary, the ten bhadantas of Empress Wu’s palace chapel played a crucial role in supporting her usurpation of the Li-Tang regime and the consolidation of the Wu-Zhou regime. Through their active involvement in the compilation and retranslation of works such as the Dayun jing shu, Fo shuo Baoyu jing, and the eighty-volume Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra, they provided substantial Buddhist theoretical backing for Empress Wu’s political aspirations. Simultaneously, the Dabiankongsi Chapel, where the ten bhadantas resided, became the center of religious authority in the country. The eminent monks stationed there wielded significant power and resources, enabling them to translate and compile Buddhist scriptures, gather outstanding Buddhist talents for Empress Wu’s service, and, as trusted monks, articulate their political demands to her. Empress Wu’s decision to establish the Dabiankongsi Chapel within her palace, and to appoint the ten bhadantas and other monks to serve there, was motivated by her desire not only to secure the support of Buddhist leaders and theoretical assistance from Buddhist talents, but also to sacralize, legitimize, and reinforce her imperial authority through the divine mandate or Buddhist prophecy. This was a calculated move to gain the reverence and recognition of both the monastic and secular subjects. Furthermore, the ten bhadantas, serving as central monastic officials with both political and religious authority, made Empress Wu’s palace chapels—especially the Dabiankong Monastery—into “the office for the committee of ten bhadantas” and “the highest monastic authority” (Chen 2004b, p. 151). It also became a sacred site revered by followers throughout the empire, thereby reinforcing the very foundations of Empress Wu’s political authority.

3.2. The Ten Bhadantas of Zhongzong’s Linguang Chapel

Zhongzong ascended to the throne on 3 January 684, succeeding Gaozong. However, his reign lasted less than two months before Empress Wu deposed him and demoted him to Prince Luling. It was not until the Shenlong Coup on 20 February 705 that he was finally restored to the throne at the Tongtian Palace in Luoyang. Having been removed from the political center of the Tang Empire for nearly twenty years, Zhongzong found himself politically isolated with few trusted allies upon his restoration. As a result, Zhongzong “supported the remnants of the Wu faction’s power, while simultaneously elevating the status of Empress Wei (?–710), and actively promoting the alliance of the Wei and Wu factions to jointly confront the Prince of Xiang48 and the faction of meritorious grand councilors” (Sun 2001, p. 274). Zhongzong’s political stance also shifted dramatically after his restoration. In Shenlong 1 (705), shortly after reclaiming the throne, “he sought to portray himself as the ‘Monarch of Legitimizing Restoration’ (zhongxing zhi zhu 中興之主) of the Tang Dynasty by establishing Buddhist monasteries and Daoist temples named “Zhongxing” 中興 (restoration) throughout each prefecture.” However, in Shenlong 3 (707), in order to continue the dynastic orthodoxy of the Wu-Zhou regime and to inherit its political and religious legacy, Zhongzong “publicly abandoned the ‘zhongxing’ narrative he had once championed” (He and Li 2023, p. 99) and renamed the Zhongxing monasteries and temples as Longxing 龍興 (prosperous rise). Zhang Dazhi argues that, “in the process of suppressing references to zhongxing, Zhongzong completed a transition from a sagely monarch bearing the mission of dynastic restoration to a filial son embracing familial and ethical responsibilities” (D. Zhang 2019, p. 69). Yet in reality, this was a carefully staged political performance designed to court the support of the Wei and Wu factions and to reveal his political orientation. In the author’s view, compared with the Prince of Xiang, Li Dan, who had long resided at the political center and commanded a powerful political faction, Zhongzong—whose political foundation was fragile—suffered from acute insecurity. Rather than yielding to the ambitions of the meritorious officials of the Shenlong Coup, who had their own ulterior motives and sought to manipulate him as a puppet, Zhongzong chose instead to carry forward the pro-Buddhist policies of the Wu-Zhou regime and elevate them to new heights. By doing so, he sought to gain the political recognition and support of the Wei and Wu factions, turning them to his own advantage and forging a political alliance capable of counterbalancing the power of the Prince of Xiang’s group. Historical sources criticize Zhongzong as being “dim-witted and close to favorites, lacking any long-term vision” (志昏近習, 心無遠圖), and attribute the restoration of the Tang Dynasty not to his own efforts but to the assistance of sagely ministers sent by destiny.49 This view reflects a broader ideological reconfiguration: “With the loss of Zhongzong’s political status as the proclaimed restorer of Tang rule, the meritorious officials of the Shenlong Coup gradually came to be portrayed in historical sources as the true agents of dynastic restoration. At the same time, Zhongzong’s historical image became increasingly defined by accusations of incompetence and mediocrity” (He and Li 2023, p. 108). Huang Yongnian argues that the primary goal of the Shenlong Coup was the elimination of the two Zhangs and the overthrow of Empress Wu’s regime, and that Zhongzong’s restoration “was likely not part of the original plan” (Huang 1998, p. 104). The five high ministers led by Zhang Jianzhi 張柬之 (625–706) were motivated by the desire to claim credit for enthroning a new ruler and thus joined forces with members of the Li and Wu clans to execute the palace coup. Zhongzong, in their view, was merely a pawn in their political scheme. It was precisely because he refused to remain under their control that Zhongzong, emulating his mother Wu Zetian, turned to Buddhism to expand his political base and consolidate his regime. His appointment of the ten bhadantas—central monastic officials—was aimed at facilitating his use of the Buddhist monastic community as an instrument of political power.

Fazang, formerly a monk at Empress Wu’s Dabiankongsi Chapel, “chose to side with the political group loyal to Li Xian, a decision that proved prudent” (Chen 2007, p. 152). According to his biography, “Fazang promoted the power of the Dharma internally and supported the imperial cause externally. Once the treacherous elements had been eliminated, his meritorious service was recognized. He was granted a third-rank official title, which he declined repeatedly before finally accepting” (藏乃內弘法力, 外贊皇猷. 妖孽既殲, 策勳斯及. 賞以三品, 固辭固授).50 At the time of Zhongzong’s restoration, Fazang “was serving as the Sizhu of the Dajianfu Monastery, located at Zhongzong’s former residence.” The core members of Zhongzong’s palace chapel in Chang’an were monks from Jingzhou, a region geographically close to Fangzhou, where Zhongzong had lived in exile for nearly two decades. This suggests that “the Buddhist palace chapel functioned as a key medium for Zhongzong’s political messaging, and that its monastic community served as a vital political force in support of his regime” (Sun 2003, pp. 129, 141–42). Jinhua Chen speculates that Fazang was one of the ten bhadantas of Zhongzong’s Linguang chapel (Chen 2003, pp. 352–53).

In his article “Palace Chapels of Tang Dynasty,” Jinhua Chen, based on Zanning’s biographies of Hengjing 恒景 (634–712), Xuanzang 玄奘 (d. after 709), and Daojun 道俊 (d. after 709) in the Xu gaoseng zhuan, traces the location of Zhongzong’s palace chapel—situated within the Linguang Palace—to the city of Chang’an. Chen deduces that Zhongzong held a vegetarian banquet at this Linguang Chapel, inviting over twenty eminent monks from across the empire, with their presence at the Linguang Chapel between 7 December 706 (when Zhongzong returned to Chang’an) and 23 March 709 (when Zhongzong held the banquet). Chen concludes that seven monks—Hengjing, Daojun, Xuanzang, Dao’an 道岸 (654–717), Wengang 文綱 (636–727), Sengjia 僧伽 (Sanskrit: Saṃgha, 628–710), and Siheng 思恒 (653–726)—were affiliated with Zhongzong’s Linguang Chapel. Among the twenty or so monks there, ten held powerful positions, known as the “ten bhadantas” (Chen 2004b, pp. 124–27).

Information regarding Zhongzong’s Linguang Chapel and its ten bhadanta-monks remains extremely limited. However, extant historical sources confirm that Siheng was among the ten bhadantas, and it is highly likely that Dao’an was also a member of this elite group.

The epitaph of Vinaya Master Siheng reveals that Zhongzong once summoned him to the Buddhist palace chapel, appointing him as a preceptor of the bodhisattva precepts (Pusajie shi 菩薩戒師) and one of the ten bhadantas, “entrusting him with the oversight of all Buddhist affairs related to the Dharma, the Saṃgha, and the monastic establishment throughout the realm” (統知天下佛法僧事). His portrait was enshrined in the Linguang Hall, accompanied by an inscription composed by the emperor himself. Although he repeatedly petitioned to withdraw from his position at the Buddhist palace chapel and return to a reclusive life, the emperor did not grant him leave until he had remained for over a year.51 While the epitaph does not explicitly name the Buddhist palace chapel at which Siheng resided, it was most likely the Linguang Chapel.

Dao’an, a prominent disciple of Vinaya Master Wengang, was summoned to the imperial palace in Chang’an following the restoration of Zhongzong. There, he resided within the inner palace alongside several bhadanta-monks. Zhongzong held Dao’an in exceptionally high esteem, inviting him to serve as a preceptor of the bodhisattva precepts and personally leading Empress Wei and other consorts in presenting offerings to him. The emperor also commissioned a portrait of Dao’an to be enshrined in the Linguang Chapel, for which he composed a eulogistic inscription (huazan 畫贊) containing the phrase “Maintaining the affairs of the Dharma and overseeing monastic governance” (維持法務, 綱統僧政). According to the Dao’an zhuan 道岸傳 [Biography of Dao’an] in the Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 [The Song Collection of Biographies of Eminent Monks], Dao’an successively served as one of the sangang in several major monasteries—including Baima 白馬, Zhongxing 中興, Zhuangyan 莊嚴, Jianfu 薦福, and Wangji 罔極—where he was entrusted with comprehensive responsibility for monastic administration. Each of these appointments was granted by imperial edicts, and his exemplary conduct earned the deep respect of both monastics and laypeople alike. Under the established system, monastic officials responsible for the governance of the Buddhist monks and nuns were typically selected from among state officials. However, in recognition of Dao’an’s exceptional moral character and dignified comportment, the court made a rare exception by revising the selection protocol to appoint him to such a position. In response to delays in the construction of the Jianfu Monastery—which had been commissioned by Zhongzong to replace his former residence in Chang’an52—the emperor appointed Dao’an and Zhang Xi 張錫 (fl. ca. 7th to 8th century) as supervising officials. Dao’an, “by broadly employing skillful means and extending great compassion” (廣開方便, 博施慈悲), won the admiration and cooperation of the craftsmen involved, resulting in the project’s rapid and efficient completion. Zhongzong recognized and praised his contributions accordingly.53 As recorded by Zanning, it is evident that Dao’an served as a local monastic official in numerous prominent monasteries and accumulated extensive experience in managing the monastic community and handling monastic affairs. The fact that Zhongzong entrusted him with a supervisory position equivalent to that of state officials suggests that Dao’an had already attained a comparable political status. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to infer that Dao’an was likely one of the ten bhadantas—central monastic officials—appointed by Zhongzong.

Judging from the series of policies that venerated Buddhism and honored monks implemented after his restoration, Zhongzong appears to have been a devout—even zealous—adherent of Buddhism. Yet such piety does not preclude deeper political motivations, namely the desire to expand his influence within the Buddhist community, to craft an image of himself as the Prince of the Buddha’s light (Foguang wang 佛光王),54 and to vigorously cultivate support from both monastic and lay Buddhist adherents within the government and across society. His longstanding rivalry with the Prince of Xiang’s faction, compounded by suspicion toward the increasingly powerful and tightly allied coalition of that prince and the meritorious ministers following the coup, left Zhongzong politically insecure (Sun 2001, pp. 273–74). In response, he chose to continue the Wu-Zhou regime’s Buddhist-centered ideological framework. On one hand, this allowed him to align himself with the Wei and Wu factions and signal his political stance; on the other, he mobilized the monastic community of the Linguang Chapel as a vehicle for political propaganda and established the institution of the ten bhadantas to consolidate his rule. This highlights Zhongzong’s capacity for political maneuvering, revealing a side of him far removed from the image of a dimwitted and ineffectual ruler portrayed in traditional historiography. Regrettably, among the monks whom Zhongzong favored within the Buddhist palace chapel, some had long maintained clandestine ties with the faction of the Prince of Xiang. A prominent example is Wanhui 萬回 (632–712), who fully exploited his status and reputation as a revered “miraculous monk” of the Buddhist palace chapel to generate religious momentum and shape public opinion in favor of Ruizong and Xuanzong. His efforts aimed to construct a framework of political legitimacy and ideological justification for their seizure of imperial power and accession to the throne, thereby actively facilitating Xuanzong’s political ambitions through religious means (Zheng 2023, pp. 7–10). Sun Yinggang has argued that, prior to eliminating the Wei and Wu factions, Xuanzong frequently relied on Buddhist and Daoist clerics to transmit messages. The activities of figures such as Purun 普潤 (fl. ca. 8th century) and Wanhui—both residing in the western wards adjacent to the imperial palace—frequently assumed the character of intelligence gathering (Sun 2001, p. 275). Ultimately, following Zhongzong’s death in the Hall of Shenlong on the renwu day of Jinglong 4.6 (3 July 710),55 the Buddhist monastic community of the Linguang chapel and its institutional structure of the ten bhadantas collapsed and fell into dissolution.

4. Conclusions

This study provides an in-depth analysis of the ten-bhadanta system in early Tang, focusing on its nature as central monastic officials rather than temporary positions established for specific tasks like translation. It not only reveals the complexities of the evolution of this central monastic system from the Northern and Southern Dynasties to the Sui and Tang periods, including the different changes in designations, but also elucidates how it reflects the subtle interaction between the Tang Dynasty’s political power and Buddhism, and the historical mechanisms that shaped this relationship. For most periods in the Tang dynasty, leaders of the Buddhist monastic community served as subordinates within the state’s Buddhist affairs management institution, confined to local monastic roles such as the sangang of the Buddhist state monasteries. However, during exceptional periods, they could assume the position of ten bhadantas, transforming into central monastic officials who oversaw national Buddhist affairs and mediated the state–saṃgha relations. Their changing political status reflects the deep embedding of Buddhism within the Chinese political system. The ten-bhadanta system, with its multiple functions in consolidating political power, maintaining social order, and unifying the people, demonstrates the profound integration of Buddhism with political authority in Tang society.

Particularly during the reigns of Gaozu, Empress Wu, and Zhongzong, the establishment of the ten bhadantas was not only a refinement of the court’s Buddhist governance policies but also a crucial embodiment of the Tang Dynasty’s centralization of power. Gaozu strengthened the central control over Buddhist affairs by establishing the ten bhadantas, preventing the excessive expansion of local monastic power. During the reigns of Empress Wu and Zhongzong, the functions and status of the ten bhadantas were further reinforced. They became not only managers of religious affairs but also key players in maintaining political power, facilitating political reconciliation and unifying the people. In this context, the ten bhadantas represented Buddhism on a religious level while simultaneously fulfilling the historical mission of “the unity of political power and religion.” The ten bhadantas, as central monastic officials established during three distinct historical periods, undertook a unique political mission. “Not only were they national monastic leaders, but they were also deeply involved in the highest level of state affairs” (Chen 2004b, p. 151). In contrast to the prevailing two-tiered administrative system of Chinese Buddhism throughout most of the Tang Dynasty—wherein central monastic officials were typically held by government officials, and monks were limited to serving as the sangang at the local level within the Buddhist state monasteries—the ten-bhadanta system was marked by its exclusive service to the imperial family, its confidential operations, and its provisional nature. The former system represented a “public” model of monastic administration, as an institutional component of the state’s religious governance. Its primary purpose was to curb the influence of the Buddhist monastic community by regulating the appointment and dismissal of monastic officials, thereby strengthening the government’s control over and intervention in national Buddhist affairs. The latter system, by contrast, belonged to the “private” domain of imperial authority. The tenure and operational scope of these central monastic officials—who were monks rather than government officials—were fluid and contingent upon the emperor’s immediate requirements, often dependent on specific individuals for their continuation or cessation. Together, these two systems constituted the central monastic official structure of the Tang Dynasty and subsequent periods. The mutually beneficial alliance between secular authority and religious power—subtle and tacit in its operation—reveals a complex and tension-filled pattern of interaction between royal political power and the Buddhist monastic community. This model of state–saṃgha relations not only underscores the political instrumentalization of Buddhism, but also vividly reflects the ongoing historical process through which Buddhism became increasingly Sinicized and secularized.

At the same time, we must also recognize that under monarchical rule, religion could at times become a tool subservient to secular political authority rather than a purely spiritual faith. This tendency is particularly evident in the ten-bhadanta system, which played a significant role during the reigns of Gaozu, Empress Wu, and Zhongzong. The existence of the Buddhist palace chapel gave rise to a Buddhist monastic community centered within the imperial palace, in which the ten bhadantas served as leading figures. These monks could even be appointed as central monastic officials during exceptional political circumstances. As Zhang Gong has noted, they “were simultaneously the product of the imperial family’s devotion to Buddhism and the outcome of factional struggles within the Tang court” (G. Zhang 1993, p. 86). The formation and development of the ten-bhadanta system was not merely a religious phenomenon but a political instrument by which the Tang regime harnessed Buddhism. Through this system, the court was able not only to effectively integrate Buddhist forces and further strengthen imperial authority—utilizing Buddhism to “reshape political meanings, transform political discourse, and provide new theoretical justification for the legitimacy of the rulers’ governance” (Sun 2020, p. 53)—but also to implement centralized management of the monastic official system, thereby achieving the indoctrination and control of broad social groups. This historical process reveals that Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty was not only a pillar of spiritual faith but also a vital component of state governance and political power structures. By analyzing the ten bhadantas during the reigns of Gaozu, Empress Wu, and Zhongzong, this study highlights their profound significance in the mutual shaping of Buddhism and politics, especially the far-reaching implications for the religious-political framework of the Tang Dynasty and its enduring influence.

In short, the ten-bhadanta system was a unique institutional creation through which the Tang monarchy sought both to harness and to constrain Buddhism. It could not become a permanent feature of the state’s religious administrative structure; rather, its activation or abolishment depended entirely on the needs and decisions of the emperor. Precisely because of this provisional and uncertain nature, the ten-bhadanta system poses significant challenges to historical research. We must reconstruct its operational logic and the activities of its members through a meticulous examination of scattered historical records and by paying close attention to their implicit connections. Only by engaging in a historically grounded yet imaginative reconstruction can we piece together a more comprehensive picture of the structure and function of the ten-bhadanta system in the Tang Dynasty. The formation and evolution of the ten-bhadanta system in the early Tang period vividly illustrates the dual function of Buddhism as both a political instrument and a symbol of faith. Historically, it became a crucial means by which the Tang regime asserted its political legitimacy and maintained social stability. This study of the system contributes to a deeper scholarly understanding of the state–saṃgha relations in the Tang Dynasty, as well as the broader history of religious politics in China.