Chapter 14

During the reign of the Emperor Hwan (147-167), An-shi-kao (usually called An-shing), a Shâman of An-hsi,(86) brought classical books to Lo, and translated them. This is evidently the same translator of whom Mr. Beal (“J. R. A. S.” 1856, pp. 327, 332) speaks as a native of Eastern Persia or Parthia, and whose name Mr. Wylie wished to identify with Arsak. As An-shi-kao is reported to have been a royal prince, who made himself a mendicant and travelled as far as China, Mr. Wylie supposes that he was the son of one of the Arsacidæ, Kings of Persia. Mr. Beal on the contrary, takes the name to be a corruption of A_s_vaka or Assaka—_i. e._ Ἱππάσιοι.(87)

Under the Emperor Ling, 168-189 A. D., _K_i-_kh_an (or _K_i-tsin), a Shâman from the Yueh-_k_i (called _K_i-lau-kia-_k_uai by Beal), _K_û-fo-soh (Ta-fo-sa), an Indian Shâman, and others, worked together to produce a translation of the Nirvâ_n_a-sûtra, in two sections. The K’ai-yuen-lu ascribes twenty-three works to _K_i-_kh_an, and two Sûtras to _K_û-fo-soh.

Towards the end of the Han dynasty, _K_u-yung, the grand guardian, was a follower of Buddha.

In the time of the Three Kingdoms (220-264) Khang-sang-hui, a Shâman of the Western regions, came to Wû(88) with Sûtras and translated them. Sun-_kh_üan, the sovereign, believed in Buddhism. About the same time Khang-sang-khai translated the longer text of the Sukhavatîvyûha.

In Wei,(89) during the period Hwang-_kh_u (220-226) the Chinese first observed the Buddhist precepts, shaved their heads, and became Sang—_i. e._ monks.

Even before this, a Shâman of the Western regions had come here and translated the Hsiâo-pin Sûtra—_i. e._ the Sûtra of Smaller Matters (Khudda-kanikâya?)—but the head and tail of it were contradictory, so that it could not be understood.

In the period Kan-lû (256-259), _K_û-shi-hsing (Chu-shuh-lan, in Beal’s “Catalogue”) went to the West as far as Khoten, and obtained a Sûtra in ninety sections, with which he came back to Yéh, in the Tsin period of Yüen-khang (291-299), and translated it (with Dharmaraksha) under the title of “Light-emitting Pra_gn_â-pâramitâ Sûtra.”(90)

In the period Thai-shi (265-274), under the Western Tsin (265-316), Kû-fâ-hu(91) (Dharmaraksha), a Shâman of the Yüeh-_k_i, travelled through the various kingdoms of the West, and brought a large collection of books home to Lo, where he translated them. It is stated in the Catalogue of the Great _K_au, an interlude in the dynasty of Thang (690-705 A. D.), that in the seventh year of the period Thai-khang (286) he translated _K_ing-fa-hwa—_i. e._ the Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 14).(92)

About 300 A. D. _K_i-kung-ming translated the Wei-ma (Vimala-kîrtti) and Fa-hwa (Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka).(93)

In 335 the prince of the _Kh_au kingdom (during the Tsin dynasty) permitted his subjects to become Shâmans, influenced chiefly by Buddhasi_m_ha.(94)

In the time of the rebel Shih-leh, 330-333, during the Tsin dynasty, a Shâman Wei-tao-an, or Tao-an, of _Kh_ang-shan, studied Buddhist literature under Buddhasi_m_ha. He produced a more correct translation of the Vimala-kîrtti-sûtra (and Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka), and taught it widely; but as he was not an original translator, his name is not mentioned in the K’ai-yuen-lu. On account of political troubles, Tâo-an led his disciples southward, to Hsin-ye, and dispatched them to different quarters—Fâ-shang to Yang-_k_âu, Fâ-hwa to Shû—while he himself, with Wei-yüan, went to Hsiang-yang and _Kh_ang-an. Here Fu-_kh_ien, the sovereign of the Fûs, who about 350 had got possession of _Kh_ang-an, resisting the authority of the Tsin, and establishing the dynasty of the Former _Kh_in, received him with distinction. It was at the wish of Tâo-an that Fu-_kh_ien invited Kumâra_g_îva to _Kh_ang-an; but when, after a long delay, Kumâra_g_îva arrived there, in the second year of the period Hung-shi (400 A. D.), under Yâo-hsing, who, in 394, had succeeded Yâo-_kh_ang,(95) the founder of the After _Kh_in dynasty, Tâo-an had been dead already twenty years. His corrected translations, however, were approved by Kumâra_g_îva.

This Kumâra_g_îva marks a new period of great activity in the translation of Buddhist texts. He is said to have come from Ku-tsi, in Tibet, where the Emperor Yâo-hsing (397-415) sent for him. Among his translations are mentioned the Wei-ma or Vima-la-kîrtti-sûtra (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 17); the Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 15); the Satyasiddha-vyâkara_n_a _s_âstra (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 80). He was a contemporary of the great traveller, Fa-hian, who went from _Kh_ang-an to India, travelled through more than thirty states, and came back to Nanking in 414, to find the Emperor Yâo-hsing overturned by the Eastern Tsin dynasty. He was accompanied by the Indian contemplationist, Buddha-bhadra.(96) Buddhabhadra translated the Fa-yan-king, the Buddhâvata_m_saka-vaipulya-sûtra (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 9), and he and Fa-hian together, the Mo-ho-sang-_k_i-liu—_i. e._ the Vinaya of the Mahâsaṅghika school (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 68).

Another Shâman who travelled to India about the same time was _K_i-mang, of Hsin-fang, a district city of Kâo-_kh_ang. In 419, in the period Yüan-hsi, he went as far as Pâ_t_ali-putra, where he obtained the Nirva_n_a-sûtra, and the Saṅghika, a book of discipline.(97) After his return to Kâo-_kh_ang he translated the Nirvâ_n_a-sûtra in twenty sections.

Afterwards the Indian Shâman Dharmaraksha II.(98) brought other copies of the foreign MSS. to the West of the Ho. And Tsü-_kh_ü Mung-sun, the king of North Liang, sent messengers to Kâo-_kh_ang for the copy which _K_i-mang had brought, wishing to compare the two.(99)

When _K_i-mang’s copy arrived,(100) a translation was made of it in thirty sections. Dharmaraksha II. translated the Suvar_n_a-prabhâsa and the Nirvâ_n_a-Sutrâ, 416-423 A. D. The K’ai-yuen-lu ascribes nineteen works to Dharmalatsin in 131 fascicles.

Buddhism from that time spread very rapidly in China, and the translations became too numerous to be all mentioned.

The Mahâyâna school was represented at that time chiefly by the following translations:—

Translated by Kumâra_g_îva: The Vimalakîrtti-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 17. The Saddharmapun_nd_arika-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 15) The Satyasiddhavyâkara_n_a-_s_âstra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 80)

Translated by Dharmalatsin, or Dharmaraksha II.: The Suvar_n_aprabhâsa-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 15) The Nirvâ_n_a-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue.” p. 12)

The Hînayâna school was represented by—

The Sarvâstivâda-vinaya by Kumâra_g_îva (Beal, “Catalogue,” pp. 67, 68).

The Dîrghâgama-sûtra, by Buddhaya_s_as, 410 A. D. (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 36).

The Vinaya of the four Parts, by Buddhaya_s_as.(101)

The Ekottarâgama-sûtra (Aṅguttara), translated by Dharmanandin, of Tukhâra (Fa-hsi).

The Abhidharma disquisitions, by Dharmayasas,(102) of Kophene.

During the period of Lung-an (397-401) the Ekottarâgama (Anguttara) and Madhyamâgama-sûtras(103) were translated by Saṅghadeva of Kophene. This is probably the Ma_gg_hima Nikâya, translated by Gotama Saṅghadeva, under the Eastern Tsin dynasty, 317-419.

In the period Î-hsi (405-418) the Shâman _K_i-fâ-ling brought from Khoten to Nanking, the southern capital, the Hwâ-yen Sûtra in 36,000 gâthâs, and translated it. This may be the Buddhâvata_m_saka-sûtra, called the Ta-fang-kwang-fo-fa-yan-king (Beal’s “Catalogue,” pp. 9, 10). This translator is not mentioned in the K’ai-yuen-lu.

In 420 the Tsin dynasty came to an end.

The Emperor Thai-wu (424-452), of the N. Wei dynasty, persecuted the Buddhists, 446; but from the year 452 they were tolerated. This dynasty lasted from 386 to 535, when it was divided into two.

In 458 there was a conspiracy under Buddhist influences, and more stringent laws were enforced against them.

In 460 five Buddhists arrived in China from Ceylon, _viâ_ Tibet. Two of them, Yashaita, and Vudanandi, brought images.(104) In 502 a Hindu translated Mahâyâna books, called Fixed Positions and Ten Positions.(105)

During the dynasties of _Kh_î (479-502), Liang (502-557), and _Kh_in (557-589), many famous Shâmans came to China, and translated books.

The Emperor Wû of Liang (502-549) paid great honor to Buddhism. He made a large collection of the Buddhist canonical books, amounting to 5,400 volumes, in the Hwâ-lin garden. The Shâman Pao-_kh_ang compiled the catalogue in fifty-four fascicles.

In the period Yung-ping, 508-511, there was an Indian Shâman Bodhiru_k_i, who translated many books, as Kumâra_g_îva had done. Among them were the Earth-holding _s_âstra (bhûmîdhara _s_âstra?) and the Shi-ti-king-lun, the Da_s_abhûmika _s_âstra, greatly valued by the followers of the Mahâyâna.(106)

In 516, during the period Hsî-phing, the Chinese Shâman Wei-shang was sent to the West to collect Sûtras and Vinayas, and brought back a collection of 170 books. He is not, however, mentioned as a translator in the K’ai-yuen-lu.

In 518 Sung-yun, sent by the queen of the Wei country from Lo-yang to India, returned after three years, with 175 volumes. He lived to see Bodhidharma in his coffin. This Bodhidharma, the twenty-eighth patriarch, had arrived in Canton by sea in 528, in the time of Wu-ti, the first Emperor of the Liang dynasty. Some Sanskrit MSS. that had belonged to him, and other relics, are still preserved in Japan.(107)

In the time of the Emperor Wû, of the Northern _K_âu dynasty (561-577), a Shâman, Wei-yüan-sung, accused the Buddhist priests, and the Emperor persecuted them. But in the first year of Kao-tsu, the founder of the Sui dynasty, in 589, toleration was again proclaimed. He ordered the people to pay a certain sum of money, according to the number of the members of each family, for the purpose of preparing Sûtras (the Buddhist canon) and images. And the Government caused copies of the whole Buddhist canon to be made, and placed them in certain temples or monasteries in the capital, and in several other large cities, in such provinces as Ping-_k_âu, Hsiang-_k_âu, Lo-_k_âu, etc. And the Government caused also another copy to be made and to be deposited in the Imperial Library. The Buddhist sacred books among the people were found to be several hundred times more numerous than those on the six Kings of Confucius. There were 1,950 distinct Buddhist books translated.

In the period Tâ-yeh (605-616) the Emperor ordered the Shâman _K_i-kwo to compose a catalogue of the Buddhist books at the Imperial Buddhist chapel within the gate of the palace. He then made some divisions and classifications, which were as follows:—

The Sûtras which contained what Buddha had spoken were arranged under three divisions:—

1. The Mahâyâna. 2. The Hînayâna. 3. The Mixed Sûtras.

Other books, that seemed to be the productions of later men, who falsely ascribed their works to greater names, were classed as Doubtful Books.

There were other works in which Bodhisattvas and others went deeply into the explanation of the meaning, and illustrated the principles of Buddha. These were called Disquisitions, or _S_âstras. Then there were Vinaya, or compilations of precepts, under each division as before, Mahâyâna, Hînayâna, Mixed. There were also Records, or accounts of the doings in their times of those who had been students of the system. Altogether there were eleven classes under which the books were arranged:—

1. Sûtra. Mahâyâna 617 in 2,076 chapters. Mixed 487 in 852 chapters. Mixed and doubtful 172 in 336 chapters. 2. Vinaya. Mahâyâna 52 in 91 chapters. Hînayâna 80 in 472 chapters. Mixed 27 in 46 chapters. 3. _S_âstra. Mahâyâna 35 in 141 chapters. Hînayâna 41 in 567 chapters. Mixed 51 in 437 chapters. Total 1962 in 6,198 chapters.

_Search for Sanskrit MSS. in China._

It was the publication of Hiouen-thsang’s Travels which roused the hopes of Professor Wilson that some of the old Sanskrit MSS. which had been carried away from India might still be discovered in China.(108)

But though no pains were spared by Sir John Bowring to carry out Professor Wilson’s wishes, though he had catalogues sent to him from Buddhist libraries, and from cities where Buddhist compositions might be expected to exist, the results were disappointing, at least so far as Sanskrit texts were concerned. A number of interesting Chinese books, translated from Sanskrit by Hiouen-thsang and others, works also by native Chinese Buddhists, were sent to the library of the East India House; but what Professor Wilson and all Sanskrit scholars with him most desired, Sanskrit MSS., or copies of Sanskrit MSS., were not forthcoming. Professor Wilson showed me, indeed, one copy of a Sanskrit MS. that was sent to him from China, and, so far as I remember, it was the Kâla-_K_akra,(109) which we know as one of the books translated from Sanskrit into Chinese. That MS., however, is no longer to be found in the India Office Library, though it certainly existed in the old East India House.

The disappointment at the failure of Professor Wilson’s and Sir J. Bowring’s united efforts was felt all the more keenly because neither Sanskrit nor Chinese scholars could surrender the conviction that, until a very short time ago, Indian MSS. had existed in China. They had been seen by Europeans, such as Dr. Gutzlaff, the hard-working missionary in China, who in a paper, written shortly before his death, and addressed to Colonel Sykes (“Journal R. A. S.” 1856, p. 73), stated that he himself had seen Pâli MSS. preserved by Buddhist priests in China. Whether these MSS. were in Pâli or Sanskrit would matter little, supposing even that Dr. Gutzlaff could not distinguish between the two. He speaks with great contempt of the whole Buddhist literature. There was not a single priest, he says, capable of explaining the meaning of the Pâli texts, though some were interlined with Chinese. “A few works,” he writes, “are found in a character originally used for writing the Pâli, and may be considered as faithful transcripts of the earliest writings of Buddhism. They are looked upon as very sacred, full of mysteries and deep significations, and therefore as the most precious relics of the founder of their creed. With the letters of this alphabet the priests perform incantations(110) to expel demons, rescue souls from hell, bring down rain on the earth, remove calamities, etc. They turn and twist them in every shape, and maintain that the very demons tremble at the recitation of them.”

Another clear proof of the existence of Sanskrit MSS. in China is found in the account of a “Trip to Ning-po and T’hëen-t’hae,” by Dr. Edkins. After he had arrived at Fang-kwang, he ascended the Hwa-ling hill, and at the top of the hill he describes a small temple with a priest residing in it. “Scattered over the hill,” he adds, “there are various little temples where priests reside, but the one at the top is the most celebrated, as being the place where Che-k’hae spent a portion of his time, worshipping a Sanskrit manuscript of a Buddhist classic.” On his return he arrived at the pagoda erected to the memory of Che-k’hae, the founder of the Thëen-t’hae system of Buddhism, in the Chin dynasty (about 580 A. D.). And a little farther on, situated in a deep dell on the left, was the monastery of Kaon-ming-sze. This is particularly celebrated for its possession of a Sanskrit MS., written on the palm leaf, once read and explained by Che-k’hae, but now unintelligible to any of the followers of Buddhism in these parts. The priests seemed to pay uncommon reverence to this MS., which is the only one of the kind to be found in the East of China, and thus of great importance in a literary point of view. It is more than 1,300 years old, but is in a state of perfect preservation, in consequence of the palm leaves, which are written on both sides, having been carefully let into slips of wood, which are fitted on the same central pin, and the whole, amounting to fifty leaves, inclosed in a rosewood box.

This may account for the unwillingness of the priests to part with their old MSS., whether Sanskrit or Pâli, but it proves at the same time that they still exist, and naturally keeps up the hope that some day or other we may still get a sight of them.

_Materials on which Sanskrit MSS. were written._

Of course, it might be said that if MSS. did not last very long in India, neither would they do so in China. But even then, we might expect at least that as in India the old MSS. were copied whenever they showed signs of decay, so they would have been in China. Besides, the climate of China is not so destructive as the heat and moisture of the climate of India. In India, MSS. seldom last over a thousand years. Long before that time paper made of vegetable substances decays, palm-leaves and birch-bark become brittle, and white ants often destroy what might have escaped the ravages of the climate. It was the duty, therefore, of Indian Rajahs to keep a staff of librarians, who had to copy the old MSS. whenever they began to seem unsafe, a fact which accounts both for the modern date of most of our Sanskrit MSS. and for the large number of copies of the same text often met with in the same library.

The MSS. carried off to China were in all likelihood not written on paper, or whatever we like to call the material which Nearchus describes “as cotton well beaten together,”(111) but on the bark of the birch tree or on palm leaves. The bark of trees is mentioned as a writing material used in India by Curtius;(112) and in Buddhist Sûtras, such as the Kara_nd_a-vyûha (p. 69), we actually read of bhûr_g_a, birch, mâsi, ink, and karama (kalam), as the common requisites for writing. MSS. written on that material have long been known in Europe, chiefly as curiosities (I had to write many years ago about one of them, preserved in the Library at All Souls’ College). Of late,(113) however, they have attracted more serious attention, particularly since Dr. Bühler discovered in Kashmir old MSS. containing independent rescensions of Vedic texts, written on birch bark. One of these, containing the whole text of the Rig-Veda Sa_m_hitâ(114) with accents, was sent to me, and though it had suffered a good deal, particularly on the margins, it shows that there was no difficulty in producing from the bark of the birch tree thousands and thousands of pages of the largest quarto or even folio size, perfectly smooth and pure, except for the small dark lines peculiar to the bark of that tree.(115)

At the time of Hiouen-thsang, in the seventh century, palm leaves seem to have been the chief material for writing. He mentions a forest of palm-trees (_Borassus flabelliformis_) near Konka_n_apura (the Western coast of the Dekhan),(116) which was much prized on account of its supplying material for writing (vol. i. p. 202, and vol. iii. p. 148). At a later time, too, in 965, we read of Buddhist priests returning to China with Sanskrit copies of Buddhist books written on palm leaves (peito).(117) If we could believe Hiouen-thsang, the palm leaf would have been used even so early as the first Buddhist Council,(118) for he says that Kâsyapa then wrote the Pi_t_akas on palm leaves (tâla), and spread them over the whole of India. In the Pâli _G_âtakas, pa_nn_a is used in the sense of letter, but originally par_n_a meant a wing, then a leaf of a tree, then a leaf for writing. Pa_tt_a, also, which is used in the sense of a sheet, was originally pattra, a wing, a leaf of a tree. Suva_nn_a-pa_tt_a, a golden leaf to write on, still shows that the original writing material had been the leaves of trees, most likely of palm-trees.(119) Potthaka, _i. e._ pustaka, book, likewise occurs in the Pâli _G_âtakas.(120)

Such MSS., written on palm leaves, if preserved carefully and almost worshipped, as they seem to have been in China, might well have survived to the present day, and they would certainly prove of immense value to the students of Buddhism, if they could still be recovered, whether in the original or even in later copies.

It is true, no doubt, that, like all other religions, Buddhism too had its periods of trial and persecution in China. We know that during such periods—as, for instance, in 845, under the Emperor Wu-tsung—monasteries were destroyed, images broken, and books burnt. But these persecutions seem never to have lasted long, and when they were over, monasteries, temples, and pagodas soon sprang up again, images were restored, and books collected in greater abundance than ever. Dr. Edkins tells us that “in an account of the Ko-t’sing monastery in the History of T’ian-t’ai-shan it is said that a single work was saved from a fire there several centuries ago, which was written on the Pei-to (Pe-ta) or palm leaf of India.” He also states that great pagodas were built on purpose as safe repositories of Sanskrit MSS., one being erected by the Emperor for the preservation of the newly arrived Sanskrit books at the request of Hiouen-thsang, lest they should be injured for want of care. It was 180 feet high, had five stories with grains of She-li (relics) in the centre of each, and contained monuments inscribed with the prefaces written by the Emperor or Prince Royal to Hiouen-thsang’s translations.

_Search for Sanskrit MSS. in Japan._

Being myself convinced of the existence of old Indian MSS. in China, I lost no opportunity, during the last five-and-twenty years, of asking any friends of mine who went to China to look out for these treasures, but—with no result!

Some years ago, however, Dr. Edkins, who had taken an active part in the search instituted by Professor Wilson and Sir J. Bowring, showed me a book which he had brought from Japan, and which contained a Chinese vocabulary with Sanskrit equivalents and a transliteration in Japanese. The Sanskrit is written in that peculiar alphabet which we find in the old MSS. of Nepâl, and which in China has been further modified, so as to give it an almost Chinese appearance.

That MS. revived my hopes. If such a book was published in Japan, I concluded that there must have been a time when such a book was useful there—that is to say, when the Buddhists in Japan studied Sanskrit. Dr. Edkins kindly left the book with me, and though the Sanskrit portion was full of blunders, yet it enabled me to become accustomed to that peculiar alphabet in which the Sanskrit words are written.