Cao Yanlu’s Dwelling-Securing (Zhenzai) Ritual in the Context of Medieval Chinese Household Religion

A ritual text has survived to us through the manuscript discovery in Dunhuang that describes the dwelling-securing ritual performed by Cao Yanlu who ruled the Dunhuang region from 976 CE to 1002 CE. The ritual was initiated by the strange occurrence of a hole in the ground, into which water kept flowing for ten days without overflowing. Perceiving the occurrence as a divinatory sign, Cao Yanlu summoned Yinyang specialists and diviners to determine what it portended. However, after checking books and diagrams concerning various prodigies, these Yinyang specialists and diviners could not reach a consensus about the portent, which was interpreted as presaging a diversity of calamities, including illness or death of Cao’s family, disputes, and political turbulence. Furthermore, the Yinyang specialists and diviners failed to counsel Cao on how to avoid the impending calamities. Cao then undertook the ritual, in which he invoked the whole range of spirits and pleaded with them to expel all possible demonic attacks against his dwelling that were responsible for the unusual occurrence of the hole. 

The ritual text provides a rare window into the concrete practices that made up medieval Chinese religious experience and expression. The first thing to emphasize is Cao’s employment of the service of Yinyang specialists and diviners. In ancient and medieval China, Yinyang specialists and diviners would be regarded as experts participating in the occult tradition known as _shushu_ 數術 “calculations and arts,” a body of practical knowledge, skills, and techniques concerned mainly with tackling demonic hazards in daily life. The _shushu_ tradition has received comparatively less attention from scholars of medieval Chinese religions who are preoccupied with the established traditions (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism). The ritual text serves as prima facie evidence of the vitality of the _shushu_ tradition in people’s real religious life in medieval China. Furthermore, as the religious forms of the _shushu_ tradition are usually identified in modern scholarship as magic, Cao’s indiscriminate adoption of both magical practices and religious rituals forces us to rethink the validity of the religion/ magic distinction in studying medieval Chinese religion. 

Another noteworthy point is Cao’s pragmatic attitude. Although Cao is known elsewhere as a lay Buddhist for his devotion to the construction of Buddhist caves, the ritual text shows that he sought help from non-Buddhist religious specialists. Cao’s religious practices may thus appear inconsistent when being judged against the institutional model of religions that presumes exclusive religious affiliation. Yet if we look at Cao’s religious practices from the bottom up, considering how he selected practices, across traditions, that were deemed efficacious in particular situations, we have a better appreciation of the practical logic behind Cao’s religious practices. Indeed, the ritual text states explicitly that Cao turned to the ritual only after the Yinyang specialists and diviners could not solve the problem. His pragmatic attitude is further borne out by the inclusive list of spirits from different religions invoked in the ritual. The mixture of spirits from different religions indicates that Cao was concerned with practical efficacy more than religious affiliation.

Despite being a political elite, Cao’s dwelling-securing ritual would be more accurately understood as an instance of household religion that cuts across social classes in medieval China. Household religion refers to religious practices undertaken for the protection of a house, whose material qualities (its location, orientation, shape, and composition and the arrangement of various rooms and objects in it) are believed, on the ground of correlative cosmology, to have a profound impact on the residents. Thanks to a set of Dunhuang manuscripts with the _zhaijing_ 宅經 “books on dwellings” literature, we now have sufficient evidence to reconstruct medieval Chinese household religion. When placing Cao’s dwelling-securing ritual in the context of household religion, the cleanly cut distinction between popular religion and elite religion breaks down. Cao exhibited the same rationale behind household religion when he perceived the unusual occurrence of a hole in his house as demonic harassment and when he took ritual action to exorcise responsible demons from his house. Moreover, Cao’s indiscriminate use of magical acts and religious rituals for their practical efficacy finds its full expression in the _zhaijing_ literature that informed people about protective measures drawn from diverse traditions. This is not to deny the difference between Cao and ordinary people in their religious practices, but it should be noted that the difference is not one of kind, but one of degree. Unlike Cao who could hire professionals with unlimited access to all _zhaijing_ texts, ordinary people might not afford to consult an expert and had to rely on their own reading of any available _zhaijing_ texts. In other words, the difference between Cao and ordinary people is none other than one of degree in terms of expertise.

Seeing Cao’s dwelling-securing ritual through the lens of household religion, we have a better understanding of the mixture of spirits from different traditions invoked in the ritual. Instead of accounting for the mixture as a product of interreligious interactions in the abstract sense, we can construe it as a feature of the continuity and revitalization of household religion that was open to Buddhist and Daoist demonologies. We can then understand Buddhism and Daoism as providing new idioms for the expression of household religion and thus be liberated from the fruitless task of determining the religious sect of the ritual based on the identity of particular spirits mentioned in the ritual.