CHAPTER XLI

CENTRAL ASIA

1

The term Central Asia is here used to denote the Tarim basin, without

rigidly excluding neighbouring countries such as the Oxus region and

Badakshan. This basin is a depression surrounded on three sides by

high mountains: only on the east is the barrier dividing it from China

relatively low. The water of the whole area discharges through the

many branched Tarim river into Lake Lobnor. This so-called lake is now

merely a flooded morass and the basin is a desert with occasional

oases lying chiefly near its edges. The fertile portions were formerly

more considerable but a quarter of a century ago this remote and

lonely region interested no one but a few sportsmen and geographers.

The results of recent exploration have been important and surprising.

The arid sands have yielded not only ruins, statues and frescoes but

whole libraries written in a dozen languages. The value of such

discoveries for the general history of Asia is clear and they are of

capital importance for our special subject, since during many

centuries the Tarim region and its neighbouring lands were centres and

highways for Buddhism and possibly the scene of many changes whose

origin is now obscure. But I am unfortunate in having to discuss

Central Asian Buddhism before scholars have had time to publish or

even catalogue completely the store of material collected and the

reader must remember that the statements in this chapter are at best

tentative and incomplete. They will certainly be supplemented and

probably corrected as year by year new documents and works of art are

made known.

Tarim, in watery metaphor, is not so much a basin as a pool in a tidal

river flowing alternately to and from the sea. We can imagine that in

such a pool creatures of very different provenance might be found

together. So currents both from east to west and from west to east

passed through the Tarim, leaving behind whatever could live there:

Chinese administration and civilization from the east: Iranians

from the west, bearing with them in the stream fragments that had

drifted from Asia Minor and Byzantium, while still other currents

brought Hindus and Tibetans from the south.

One feature of special interest in the history of the Tarim is that it

was in touch with Bactria and the regions conquered by Alexander and

through them with western art and thought. Another is that its

inhabitants included not only Iranian tribes but the speakers of an

Aryan language hitherto unknown, whose presence so far east may oblige

us to revise our views about the history of the Aryan race. A third

characteristic is that from the dawn of history to the middle ages

warlike nomads were continually passing through the country. All these

people, whether we call them Iranians, Turks or Mongols had the same

peculiarity: they had little culture of their own but they picked up

and transported the ideas of others. The most remarkable example of

this is the introduction of Islam into Europe and India. Nothing quite

so striking happened in earlier ages, yet tribes similar to the Turks

brought Manichæism and Nestorian Christianity into China and played no

small part in the introduction of Buddhism.

A brief catalogue of the languages represented in the manuscripts and

inscriptions discovered will give a safe if only provisional idea of

the many influences at work in Central Asia and its importance as a

receiving and distributing centre. The number of tongues

simultaneously in use for popular or learned purposes was remarkably

large. To say nothing of great polyglot libraries like Tun-huang, a

small collection at Toyog is reported as containing Indian, Manichæan,

Syriac, Sogdian, Uigur and Chinese books. The writing materials

employed were various like the idioms and include imported palm

leaves, birch bark, plates of wood or bamboo, leather and paper, which

last was in use from the first century A.D. onwards. In this dry

atmosphere all enjoyed singular longevity.

Numerous Sanskrit writings have been found, all dealing with religious

or quasi religious subjects, as medicine and grammar were then

considered to be. Relatively modern Mahayanist literature is abundant

but greater interest attaches to portions of an otherwise lost

Sanskrit canon which agree in substance though not verbally with the

corresponding passages in the Pali Canon and are apparently the

original text from which much of the Chinese Tripitaka was

translated. The manuscripts hitherto published include Sûtras from the

Samyukta and Ekottara Agamas, a considerable part of the Dharmapada,

and the Prâtimoksha of the Sarvâstivâdin school. Fa-Hsien states that

the monks of Central Asia were all students of the language of India

and even in the seventh century Hsüan Chuang tells us the same of

Kucha. Portions of a Sanskrit grammar have been found near Turfan and

in the earlier period at any rate Sanskrit was probably understood in

polite and learned society. Some palm leaves from Ming-Ŏi contain

fragments of two Buddhist religious dramas, one of which is the

Sâriputra-prakaraṇa of Aśvaghosha. The handwriting is believed

to date from the epoch of Kanishka so that we have here the oldest

known Sanskrit manuscripts, as well as the oldest specimens of Indian

dramatic art[459]. They are written like the Indian classical dramas

in Sanskrit and various forms of Prâkrit. The latter represent

hitherto unknown stages in the development of Indian dialects and some

of them are closely allied to the language of Aśoka's inscriptions.

Another Prâkrit text is the version of the Dharmapada written in

Kharoshṭhî characters and discovered by the Dutreuil de Rhins

mission near Khotan[460], and numerous official documents in this

language and alphabet have been brought home by Stein from the same

region. It is probable that they are approximately coeval with the

Kushan dynasty in India and the use of an Indian vernacular as well as

of Sanskrit in Central Asia shows that the connection between the two

countries was not due merely to the introduction of Buddhism.

Besides these hitherto unknown forms of Prâkrit, Central Asia has

astonished the learned world with two new languages, both written in a

special variety of the Brahmi alphabet called Central Asian Gupta. One

is sometimes called Nordarisch and is regarded by some authorities as

the language of the Śakas whose incursions into India appear to

have begun about the second century B.C. and by others as the language

of the Kushans and of Kanishka's Empire. It is stated that the basis

of the language is Iranian but strongly influenced by Indian

idioms[461]. Many translations of Mahayanist literature (for

instance the Suvarṇaprabhâsa, Vajracchedikâ and Aparimitâyus

Sûtras) were made into it and it appears to have been spoken

principally in the southern part of the Tarim basin[462]. The other

new language was spoken principally on its northern edge and has been

called Tokharian, which name implies that it was the tongue of the

Tokhars or Indoscyths[463]. But there is no proof of this and it is

safer to speak of it as the language of Kucha or Kuchanese. It exists

in two different dialects known as A and B whose geographical

distribution is uncertain but numerous official documents dated in the

first half of the seventh century show that it was the ordinary speech

of Kucha and Turfan. It was also a literary language and among the

many translations discovered are versions in it of the Dharmapada and

Vinaya. It is extremely interesting to find that this language spoken

by the early and perhaps original inhabitants of Kucha not only

belongs to the Aryan family but is related more nearly to the western

than the eastern branch. It cannot be classed in the Indo-Iranian

group but shows perplexing affinities to Latin, Greek, Keltic,

Slavonic and Armenian[464]. It is possible that it influenced Chinese

Buddhist literature[465].

Besides the "Nordarisch" mentioned above which was written in Brahmi,

three other Iranian languages have left literary remains in Central

Asia, all written in an alphabet of Aramaic origin. Two of them

apparently represent the speech of south-western Persia under the

Sassanids, and of north-western Persia under the Arsacids. The texts

preserved in both are Manichæan but the third Iranian language, or

Sogdian, has a more varied literary content and offers Buddhist,

Manichæan and Christian texts, apparently in that chronological order.

It was originally the language of the region round Samarkand but

acquired an international character for it was used by merchants

throughout the Tarim basin and spread even to China. Some Christian

texts in Syriac have also been found.

The Orkhon inscriptions exhibit an old Turkish dialect written in the

characters commonly called Runes and this Runic alphabet is used in

manuscripts found at Tun-huang and Miran but those hitherto published

are not Buddhist. But another Turkish dialect written in the Uigur

alphabet, which is derived from the Syriac, was (like Sogdian)

extensively used for Buddhist, Manichæan and Christian literature. The

name Uigur is perhaps more correctly applied to the alphabet than the

language[466] which appears to have been the literary form of the

various Turkish idioms spoken north and south of the Tien-shan. The

use of this dialect for Buddhist literature spread considerably when

the Uigurs broke the power of Tibet in the Tarim basin about 860 and

founded a kingdom themselves: it extended into China and lasted long,

for Sûtras in Uigur were printed at Peking in 1330 and Uigur

manuscripts copied in the reign of K'ang Hsi (1662-1723) are reported

from a monastery near Suchow[467]. I am informed that a variety of

this alphabet written in vertical columns is still used in some parts

of Kansu where a Turkish dialect is spoken. Though Turkish was used by

Buddhists in both the east and west of the Tarim basin, it appears to

have been introduced into Khotan only after the Moslim conquest.

Another Semitic script, hitherto unknown and found only in a

fragmentary form, is believed to be the writing of the White Huns or

Hephthalites.

As the Tibetans were the predominant power in the Tarim basin from at

least the middle of the eighth until the middle of the ninth century,

it is not surprising that great stores of Tibetan manuscripts have

been found in the regions of Khotan, Miran and Tun-huang. In Turfan,

as lying more to the north, traces of Tibetan influence, though not

absent, are fewer. The documents discovered must be anterior to

the ninth century and comprise numerous official and business papers

as well as Buddhist translations[468]. They are of great importance

for the history of the Tibetan language and also indicate that at the

period when they were written Buddhism at most shared with the Bön

religion the allegiance of the Tibetans. No Manichæan or Christian

translations in Tibetan have yet been discovered.

Vast numbers of Chinese texts both religious and secular are preserved

in all the principal centres and offer many points of interest among

which two may be noticed. Firstly the posts on the old military

frontier near Tun-huang have furnished a series of dated documents

ranging from 98 B.C. to 153 A.D.[469] There is therefore no difficulty

in admitting that there was intercourse between China and Central Asia

at this period. Secondly, some documents of the T'ang dynasty are

Manichæan, with an admixture of Buddhist and Taoist ideas[470].

The religious monuments of Central Asia comprise stupas, caves and

covered buildings used as temples or vihâras. Buddhist, Manichæan and

Christian edifices have been discovered but apparently no shrines of

the Zoroastrian religion, though it had many adherents in these

regions, and though representations of Hindu deities have been found,

Hinduism is not known to have existed apart from Buddhism[471]. Caves

decorated for Buddhist worship are found not only in the Tarim basin

but at Tun-huang on the frontier of China proper, near Ta-t'ung-fu in

northern Shensi, and in the defile of Lung-mên in the province of

Ho-nan. The general scheme and style of these caves are similar, but

while in the last two, as in most Indian caves, the figures and

ornaments are true sculpture, in the caves of Tun-huang and the Tarim

not only is the wall prepared for frescoes, but even the figures are

executed in stucco. This form of decoration was congenial to Central

Asia for the images which embellished the temple walls were moulded in

the same fashion. Temples and caves were sometimes combined, for

instance at Bäzäklik where many edifices were erected on a terrace in

front of a series of caves excavated in a mountain corner. Few

roofed buildings are well preserved but it seems certain that some

were high quadrilateral structures, crowned by a dome of a shape found

in Persia, and that others had barrel-shaped roofs, apparently

resembling the chaityas of Ter and Chezarla[472]. Le Coq states that

this type of architecture is also found in Persia[473]. The commonest

type of temple was a hall having at its further end a cella, with a

passage behind to allow of circumambulation. Such halls were

frequently enlarged by the addition of side rooms and sometimes a

shrine was enclosed by several rectangular courts[474].

Many stupas have been found either by themselves or in combination

with other buildings. The one which is best preserved (or at any rate

reproduced in greatest detail)[475] is the Stupa of Rawak. It is set

in a quadrangle bounded by a wall which was ornamented on both its

inner and outer face by a series of gigantic statues in coloured

stucco. The dome is set upon a rectangular base disposed in three

stories and this arrangement is said to characterize all the stupas of

Turkestan as well as those of the Kabul valley and adjacent regions.

This architecture appears to owe nothing to China but to include both

Indian (especially Gandharan) and Persian elements. Many of its

remarkable features, if not common elsewhere, are at least widely

scattered. Thus some of the caves at Ming-Ŏi have dome-like roofs

ornamented with a pattern composed of squares within squares, set at

an angle with each other. A similar ornamentation is reported from

Pandrenthan in Kashmir and from Bamian[476].

The antiquities of Central Asia include frescoes executed on the walls

of caves and buildings, and paintings on silk paper[477]. The origin

and affinities of this art are still the subject of investigation and

any discussion of them would lead me too far from my immediate

subject. But a few statements can be made with some confidence.

The influence of Gandhara is plain in architecture, sculpture, and

painting. The oldest works may be described as simply Gandharan but

this early style is followed by another which shows a development both

in technique and in mythology. It doubtless represents Indian Buddhist

art as modified by local painters and sculptors. Thus in the Turfan

frescoes the drapery and composition are Indian but the faces are

eastern asiatic. Sometimes however they represent a race with red hair

and blue eyes.

On the whole the paintings testify to the invasion of Far Eastern art

by the ideas and designs of Indian Buddhism rather than to an equal

combination of Indian and Chinese influence but in some forms of

decoration, particularly that employed in the Khan's palace at

Idiqutshähri[478], Chinese style is predominant. It may be too that

the early pre-buddhist styles of painting in China and Central Asia

were similar. In the seventh century a Khotan artist called Wei-ch'ih

Po-chih-na migrated to China, where both he and his son Wei-ch'ih

I-sêng acquired considerable fame.

Persian influence also is manifest in many paintings. A striking

instance may be seen in two plates published by Stein[479] apparently

representing the same Boddhisattva. In one he is of the familiar

Indian type: the other seems at first sight a miniature of some

Persian prince, black-bearded and high-booted, but the figure has four

arms. As might be expected, it is the Manichæan paintings which are

least Indian in character. They represent a "lost late antique

school[480]" which often recalls Byzantine art and was perhaps the

parent of mediæval Persian miniature painting.

The paintings of Central Asia resemble its manuscripts. It is

impossible to look through any collection of them without feeling that

currents of art and civilization flowing from neighbouring and even

from distant lands have met and mingled in this basin. As the reader

turns over the albums of Stein, Grünwedel or Le Coq he is haunted by

strange reminiscences and resemblances, and wonders if they are merely

coincidences or whether the pedigrees of these pictured gods and men

really stretch across time and space to far off origins. Here are

coins and seals of Hellenic design, nude athletes that might adorn a

Greek vase, figures that recall Egypt, Byzantium or the Bayeux

tapestry, with others that might pass for Christian ecclesiastics;

Chinese sages, Kṛishṇa dancing to the sound of his flute,

frescoes that might be copied from Ajanta, winged youths to be styled

cupids or cherubs according to our mood[481].

Stein mentions[482] that he discovered a Buddhist monastery in the

terminal marshes of the Helmund in the Persian province of Seistan,

containing paintings of a Hellenistic type which show "for the first

time _in situ_ the Iranian link of the chain which connects the

Græco-Buddhist art of extreme north-west India with the Buddhist art

of Central Asia and the Far East."

Central Asian art is somewhat wanting in spontaneity. Except when

painting portraits (which are many) the artists do not seem to go to

nature or even their own imagination and visions. They seem concerned

to reproduce some religious scene not as they saw it but as it was

represented by Indian or other artists.

2

Only one side of Central Asian history can be written with any

completeness, namely its relations with China. Of these some account

with dates can be given, thanks to the Chinese annals which

incidentally supply valuable information about earlier periods. But

unfortunately these relations were often interrupted and also the

political record does not always furnish the data which are of most

importance for the history of Buddhism. Still there is no better

framework available for arranging our data. But even were our

information much fuller, we should probably find the history of

Central Asia scrappy and disconnected. Its cities were united by no

bond of common blood or language, nor can any one of them have had a

continuous development in institutions, letters or art. These were

imported in a mature form and more or less assimilated in a precocious

Augustan age, only to be overwhelmed in some catastrophe which, if not

merely destructive, at least brought the ideas and baggage of another

race.

It was under the Emperor Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) of the Han dynasty

that the Chinese first penetrated into the Tarim basin. They had heard

that the Hsiung-nu, of whose growing power they were afraid, had

driven the Yüeh-chih westwards and they therefore despatched an envoy

named Chang Ch'ien in the hope of inducing the Yüeh-chih to co-operate

with them against the common enemy. Chang Ch'ien made two adventurous

expeditions, and visited the Yüeh-chih in their new home somewhere on

the Oxus. His mission failed to attain its immediate political object

but indirectly had important results, for it revealed to China that

the nations on the Oxus were in touch with India on one hand and with

the more mysterious west on the other. Henceforth it was her aim to

keep open the trade route leading westwards from the extremity of the

modern Kansu province to Kashgar, Khotan and the countries with which

those cities communicated. Far from wishing to isolate herself or

exclude foreigners, her chief desire was to keep the road to the west

open, and although there were times when the flood of Buddhism which

swept along this road alarmed the more conservative classes, yet for

many centuries everything that came in the way of merchandize, art,

literature, and religion was eagerly received. The chief hindrance to

this intercourse was the hostility of the wild tribes who pillaged

caravans and blocked the route, and throughout the whole stretch of

recorded history the Chinese used the same method to weaken them and

keep the door open, namely to create or utilize a quarrel between two

tribes. The Empire allied itself with one in order to crush the second

and that being done, proceeded to deal with its former ally.

Dated records beginning with the year 98 B.C. testify to the presence

of a Chinese garrison near the modern Tun-huang[483]. But at the

beginning of the Christian era the Empire was convulsed by internal

rebellion and ceased to have influence or interest in Central Asia.

With the restoration of order things took another turn. The reign of

the Emperor Ming-ti is the traditional date for the introduction of

Buddhism and it also witnessed the victorious campaigns of the famous

general and adventurer Pan Ch'ao. He conquered Khotan and Kashgar and

victoriously repulsed the attacks of the Kushans or Yüeh-chih who were

interested in these regions and endeavoured to stop his progress. The

Chinese annals do not give the name of their king but it must have

been Kanishka if he came to the throne in 78. I confess however that

this silence makes it difficult for me to accept 78-123 A.D. as the

period of Kanishka's reign, for he must have been a monarch of some

celebrity and if the Chinese had come into victorious contact with

him, would not their historians have mentioned it? It seems to me more

probable that he reigned before or after Pan Ch'ao's career in Central

Asia which lasted from A.D. 73-102. With the end of that career

Chinese activity ceased for some time and perhaps the Kushans

conquered Kashgar and Khotan early in the second century. Neither the

degenerate Han dynasty nor the stormy Three Kingdoms could grapple

with distant political problems and during the fourth, fifth and sixth

centuries northern China was divided among Tartar states, short-lived

and mutually hostile. The Empire ceased to be a political power in the

Tarim basin but intercourse with Central Asia and in particular the

influx of Buddhism increased, and there was also a return wave of

Chinese influence westwards. Meanwhile two tribes, the Hephthalites

(or White Huns) and the Turks[484], successively became masters of

Central Asia and founded states sometimes called Empires--that is to

say they overran vast tracts within which they took tribute without

establishing any definite constitution or frontiers.

When the T'ang dynasty (618-907) re-united the Empire, the Chinese

Government with characteristic tenacity reverted to its old policy of

keeping the western road open and to its old methods. The Turks were

then divided into two branches, the northern and western, at war with

one another. The Chinese allied themselves with the latter, defeated

the northern Turks and occupied Turfan (640). Then in a series of

campaigns, in which they were supported by the Uigurs, they conquered

their former allies the western Turks and proceeded to organize the

Tarim basin under the name of the Four Garrisons[485]. This was the

most glorious period of China's foreign policy and at no other time

had she so great a position as a western power. The list of her

possessions included Bokhara in the west and starting from

Semirechinsk and Tashkent in the north extended southwards so as to

embrace Afghanistan with the frontier districts of India and

Persia[486]. It is true that the Imperial authority in many of these

regions was merely nominal: when the Chinese conquered a tribe which

claimed sovereignty over them they claimed sovereignty themselves. But

for the history of civilization, for the migration of art and ideas,

even this nominal claim is important, for China was undoubtedly in

touch with India, Bokhara and Persia.

But no sooner did these great vistas open, than new enemies appeared

to bar the road. The Tibetans descended into the Tarim basin and after

defeating the Chinese in 670 held the Four Garrisons till 692, when

the fortunes of war were reversed. But the field was not left clear

for China: the power of the northern Turks revived, and Mohammedanism,

then a new force but destined to ultimate triumph in politics and

religion alike, appeared in the west. The conquests of the Mohammedan

general Qutayba (705-715) extended to Ferghana and he attacked

Kashgar. In the long reign of Hsüan Tsung China waged a double warfare

against the Arabs and Tibetans. For about thirty years (719-751) the

struggle was successful. Even Tabaristan is said to have acknowledged

China's suzerainty. Her troops crossed the Hindu Kush and reached

Gilgit. But in 751 they sustained a crushing defeat near Tashkent. The

disaster was aggravated by the internal troubles of the Empire and it

was long before Chinese authority recovered from the blow[487]. The

Tibetans reaped the advantage. Except in Turfan, they were the

dominant power of the Tarim basin for a century, they took tribute

from China and when it was refused sacked the capital, Chang-an (763).

It would appear however that for a time Chinese garrisons held out in

Central Asia and Chinese officials exercised some authority, though

they obtained no support from the Empire[488]. But although even late

in the tenth century Khotan sent embassies to the Imperial Court,

China gradually ceased to be a Central Asian power. She made a

treaty with the Tibetans (783) and an alliance with the Uigurs, who

now came to the front and occupied Turfan, where there was a

flourishing Uigur kingdom with Manichæism as the state religion from

about 750 to 843. In that year the Kirghiz sacked Turfan and it is

interesting to note that the Chinese who had hitherto tolerated

Manichæism as the religion of their allies, at once began to issue

restrictive edicts against it. But except in Turfan it does not appear

that the power of the Uigurs was weakened[489]. In 860-817 they broke

up Tibetan rule in the Tarim basin and formed a new kingdom of their

own which apparently included Kashgar, Urumtsi and Kucha but not

Khotan. The prince of Kashgar embraced Islam about 945, but the

conversion of Khotan and Turfan was later. With this conversion the

connection of the Tarim basin with the history of Buddhism naturally

ceases, for it does not appear that the triumphal progress of Lamaism

under Khubilai Khan affected these regions.

3

The Tarim basin, though sometimes united under foreign rule, had no

indigenous national unity. Cities, or groups of towns, divided by

deserts lived their own civic life and enjoyed considerable

independence under native sovereigns, although the Chinese, Turks or

Tibetans quartered troops in them and appointed residents to supervise

the collection of tribute. The chief of these cities or oases were

Kashgar in the west: Kucha, Karashahr, Turfan (Idiqutshähri, Chotscho)

and Hami lying successively to the north-east: Yarkand, Khotan and

Miran to the south-east[490]. It may be well to review briefly the

special history of some of them.

The relics found near Kashgar, the most western of these cities, are

comparatively few, probably because its position exposed it to the

destructive influence of Islam at an early date. Chinese writers

reproduce the name as Ch'ia-sha, Chieh-ch'a, etc., but also call the

region Su-lê, Shu-lê, or Sha-lê[491]. It is mentioned first in the

Han annals. After the missions of Chang-Ch'ien trade with Bactria and

Sogdiana grew rapidly and Kashgar which was a convenient emporium

became a Chinese protected state in the first century B.C. But when

the hold of China relaxed about the time of the Christian era it was

subdued by the neighbouring kingdom of Khotan. The conquests of

Pan-Ch'ao restored Chinese supremacy but early in the second century

the Yüeh-chih interfered in the politics of Kashgar and placed on the

throne a prince who was their tool. The introduction of Buddhism is

ascribed to this epoch[492]. If Kanishka was then reigning the

statement that he conquered Kashgar and Khotan is probably correct. It

is supported by Hsüan Chuang's story of the hostages and by his

assertion that Kanishka's rule extended to the east of the Ts'ung-ling

mountains: also by the discovery of Kanishka's coins in the Khotan

district. Little is heard of Kashgar until Fa-Hsien visited it in

400[493]. He speaks of the quinquennial religious conferences held by

the king, at one of which he was present, of relics of the Buddha and

of a monastery containing a thousand monks all students of the

Hinayana. About 460 the king sent as a present to the Chinese Court an

incombustible robe once worn by the Buddha. Shortly afterwards Kashgar

was incorporated in the dominions of the Hephthalites, and when these

succumbed to the western Turks about 465, it merely changed masters.

Hsüan Chuang has left an interesting account of Kashgar as he found it

on his return journey[494]. The inhabitants were sincere Buddhists and

there were more than a thousand monks of the Sarvâstivâdin school. But

their knowledge was not in proportion to their zeal for they read the

scriptures diligently without understanding them. They used an Indian

alphabet into which they had introduced alterations.

According to Hsüan Chuang's religious conspectus of these regions,

Kashgar, Osh and Kucha belonged to the Small Vehicle, Yarkand and

Khotan mainly to the Great. The Small Vehicle also flourished at Balkh

and at Bamian[495]. In Kapiśa the Great Vehicle was predominant but

there were also many Hindu sects: in the Kabul valley too Hinduism and

Buddhism seem to have been mixed: in Persia[496] there were several

hundred Sarvâstivâdin monks. In Tokhara (roughly equivalent to

Badakshan) there was some Buddhism but apparently it did not flourish

further north in the regions of Tashkent and Samarkand. In the latter

town there were two disused monasteries but when Hsüan Chuang's

companions entered them they were mobbed by the populace. He says that

these rioters were fire worshippers and that the Turks whom he visited

somewhere near Aulieata were of the same religion. This last statement

is perhaps inaccurate but the T'ang annals expressly state that the

population of Kashgar and Khotan was in part Zoroastrian[497]. No

mention of Nestorianism in Kashgar at this date has yet been

discovered, although in the thirteenth century it was a Nestorian see.

But since Nestorianism had penetrated even to China in the seventh

century, it probably also existed in Samarkand and Kashgar.

The pilgrim Wu-K'ung spent five months in Kashgar about 786, but there

appear to be no later data of interest for the study of Buddhism.

The town of Kucha[498] lies between Kashgar and Turfan, somewhat to

the west of Karashahr. In the second century B.C. it was already a

flourishing city. Numerous dated documents show that about 630 A.D.

the language of ordinary life was the interesting idiom sometimes

called Tokharian B, and, since the Chinese annals record no alien

invasion, we may conclude that Kucha existed as an Aryan colony

peopled by the speakers of this language some centuries before the

Christian era. It is mentioned in the Han annals and when brought into

contact with China in the reign of Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) it became a

place of considerable importance, as it lay at the junction[499] of

the western trade routes leading to Kashgar and Aulieata respectively.

Kucha absorbed some Chinese civilization but its doubtful loyalty to

the Imperial throne often involved it in trouble. It is not until the

Western Tsin dynasty that we find it described as a seat of Buddhism.

The Tsin annals say that it was enclosed by a triple wall and

contained a thousand stupas and Buddhist temples as well as a

magnificent palace for the king[500]. This implies that Buddhism had

been established for some time but no evidence has been found to date

its introduction.

In 383 Fu-chien, Emperor of the Tsin dynasty, sent his general

Lü-Kuang to subdue Kucha[501]. The expedition was successful and among

the captives taken was the celebrated Kumârajîva. Lü-Kuang was so

pleased with the magnificent and comfortable life of Kucha that he

thought of settling there but Kumârajîva prophesied that he was

destined to higher things. So they left to try their fortune in China.

Lü-Kuang rose to be ruler of the state known as Southern Liang and his

captive and adviser became one of the greatest names in Chinese

Buddhism.

Kumârajîva is a noticeable figure and his career illustrates several

points of importance. First, his father came from India and he himself

went as a youth to study in Kipin (Kashmir) and then returned to

Kucha. Living in this remote corner of Central Asia he was recognized

as an encyclopædia of Indian learning including a knowledge of the

Vedas and "heretical śâstras." Secondly after his return to Kucha

he was converted to Mahayanism. Thirdly he went from Kucha to China

where he had a distinguished career as a translator. Thus we see how

China was brought into intellectual touch with India and how the

Mahayana was gaining in Central Asia territory previously occupied by

the Hinayana. The monk Dharmagupta who passed through Kucha about 584

says that the king favoured Mahayanism[502]. That Kucha should have

been the home of distinguished translators is not strange for a

statement[503] has been preserved to the effect that Sanskrit texts

were used in the cities lying to the west of it, but that in Kucha

itself Indian languages were not understood and translations were

made, although such Sanskrit words as were easily intelligible were

retained.

In the time of the Wei, Kucha again got into trouble with China and

was brought to order by another punitive expedition in 448. After this

lesson a long series of tribute-bearing missions is recorded, sent

first to the court of Wei, and afterwards to the Liang, Chou and Sui.

The notices respecting the country are to a large extent repetitions.

They praise its climate, fertility and mineral wealth: the

magnificence of the royal palace, the number and splendour of the

religious establishments. Peacocks were as common as fowls and the

Chinese annalists evidently had a general impression of a brilliant,

pleasure-loving and not very moral city. It was specially famous for

its music: the songs and dances of Kucha, performed by native artists,

were long in favour at the Imperial Court, and a list of twenty airs

has been preserved[504].

When the T'ang dynasty came to the throne Kucha sent an embassy to do

homage but again supported Karashahr in rebellion and again brought on

herself a punitive expedition (648). But the town was peaceful and

prosperous when visited by Hsüan Chuang about 630.

His description agrees in substance with other notices, but he praises

the honesty of the people. He mentions that the king was a native and

that a much modified Indian alphabet was in use. As a churchman, he

naturally dwells with pleasure on the many monasteries and great

images, the quinquennial assemblies and religious processions.

There were more than 100 monasteries with upwards of 5000 brethren who

all followed the Sarvâstivâda and the "gradual teaching," which

probably means the Hinayana as opposed to the sudden illumination

caused by Mahayanist revelation. The pilgrim differed from his hosts

on the matter of diet and would not join them in eating meat. But he

admits that the monks were strict according to their lights and that

the monasteries were centres of learning.

In 658 Kucha was made the seat of government for the territory known

as the Four Garrisons. During the next century it sent several

missions to the Chinese and about 788 was visited by Wu-K'ung, who

indicates that music and Buddhism were still flourishing. He mentions

an Abbot who spoke with equal fluency the language of the country,

Chinese and Sanskrit. Nothing is known about Kucha from this date

until the eleventh century when we again hear of missions to the

Chinese Court. The annals mention them under the heading of Uigurs,

but Buddhism seems not to have been extinct for even in 1096 the Envoy

presented to the Emperor a jade Buddha. According to Hsüan Chuang's

account the Buddhism of Karashahr (Yenki) was the same as that of

Kucha and its monasteries enjoyed the same reputation for strictness

and learning.

Turfan is an oasis containing the ruins of several cities and possibly

different sites were used as the capital at different periods. But the

whole area is so small that such differences can be of little

importance. The name Turfan appears to be modern. The Ming Annals[505]

state that this city lies in the land of ancient Ch'e-shih (or

Kü-shih) called Kao Ch'ang in the time of the Sui. This name was

abolished by the T'ang but restored by the Sung.

The principal city now generally known as Chotscho seems to be

identical with Kao Ch'ang[506] and Idiqutshähri and is called by

Mohammedans Apsus or Ephesus, a curious designation connected with an

ancient sacred site renamed the Cave of the Seven Sleepers. Extensive

literary remains have been found in the oasis; they include works in

Sanskrit, Chinese, and various Iranian and Turkish idioms but also in

two dialects of so-called Tokharian. Blue-eyed, red-haired and

red-bearded people are frequently portrayed on the walls of Turfan.

But the early history of this people and of their civilization is

chiefly a matter of theory. In the Han period[507] there was a kingdom

called Kü-shih or Kiü-shih, with two capitals. It was destroyed in 60

B.C. by the Chinese general Chêng-Chi and eight small principalities

were formed in its place. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.

Turfan had some connection with two ephemeral states which arose in

Kansu under the names of Hou Liang and Pei Liang. The former was

founded by Lü-Kuang, the general who, as related above, took Kucha. He

fell foul of a tribe in his territory called Chü-ch'ü, described as

belonging to the Hsiung-nu. Under their chieftain Mêng-hsün, who

devoted his later years to literature and Buddhism, this tribe took a

good deal of territory from the Hou Liang, in Turkestan as well as in

Kansu, and called their state Pei Liang. It was conquered by the Wei

dynasty in 439 and two members of the late reigning house determined

to try their fortune in Turfan and ruled there successively for about

twenty years. An Chou, the second of these princes, died in 480 and

his fame survives because nine years after his death a temple to

Maitreya was dedicated in his honour with a long inscription in

Chinese.

Another line of Chinese rulers, bearing the family name of Ch'iu,

established themselves at Kao-ch'ang in 507 and under the Sui dynasty

one of them married a Chinese princess. Turfan paid due homage to the

T'ang dynasty on its accession but later it was found that tributary

missions coming from the west to the Chinese court were stopped there

and the close relations of its king with the western Turks inspired

alarm. Accordingly it was destroyed by the imperial forces in 640.

This is confirmed by the record of Hsüan Chuang. In his biography

there is a description of his reception by the king of Kao-ch'ang on

his outward journey. But in the account of his travels written after

his return he speaks of the city as no longer existent.

Nevertheless the political and intellectual life of the oasis was not

annihilated. It was conquered by the Uigurs at an uncertain date, but

they were established there in the eighth and ninth centuries and

about 750 their Khan adopted Manichæism as the state religion. The

many manuscripts in Sogdian and other Persian dialects found at

Turfan show that it had an old and close connection with the west. It

is even possible that Mani may have preached there himself but it does

not appear that his teaching became influential until about 700 A.D.

The presence of Nestorianism is also attested. Tibetan influence too

must have affected Turfan in the eighth and ninth centuries for many

Tibetan documents have been found there although it seems to have been

outside the political sphere of Tibet. About 843 this Uigur Kingdom

was destroyed by the Kirghiz.

Perhaps the massacres of Buddhist priests, clearly indicated by vaults

filled with skeletons still wearing fragments of the monastic robe,

occurred in this period. But Buddhism was not extinguished and

lingered here longer than in other parts of the Tarim basin. Even in

1420 the people of Turfan were Buddhists and the Ming Annals say that

at Huo-chou (or Kara-Khojo) there were more Buddhist temples than

dwelling houses.

Let us now turn to Khotan[508]. This was the ancient as well as the

modern name of the principal city in the southern part of the Tarim

basin but was modified in Chinese to Yü-t'ien, in Sanskrit to

Kustana[509]. The Tibetan equivalent is Li-yul, the land of Li, but no

explanation of this designation is forthcoming.

Traditions respecting the origin of Khotan are preserved in the

travels of Hsüan Chuang and also in the Tibetan scriptures, some of

which are expressly said to be translations from the language of Li.

These traditions are popular legends but they agree in essentials and

appear to contain a kernel of important truth namely that Khotan was

founded by two streams of colonization coming from China and from

India[510], the latter being somehow connected with Asoka. It is

remarkable that the introduction of Buddhism is attributed not to

these original colonists but to a later missionary who, according to

Hsüan Chuang, came from Kashmir[511].

This traditional connection with India is confirmed by the

discovery of numerous documents written in Kharoshṭhî characters

and a Prakrit dialect. Their contents indicate that this Prakrit was

the language of common life and they were found in one heap with

Chinese documents dated 269 A.D. The presence of this alphabet and

language is not adequately explained by the activity of Buddhist

missionaries for in Khotan, as in other parts of Asia, the

concomitants of Buddhism are Sanskrit and the Brahmi alphabet.

There was also Iranian influence in Khotan. It shows itself in art and

has left indubitable traces in the language called by some Nordarisch,

but when the speakers of that language reached the oasis or what part

they played there, we do not yet know.

As a consequence of Chang Ch'ien's mission mentioned above, Khotan

sent an Embassy to the Chinese Court in the reign of Wu-ti (140-87

B.C.) and the T'ang Annals state that its kings handed down the

insignia of Imperial investiture from that time onwards. There seems

however to have been a dynastic revolution about 60 A.D. and it is

possible that the Vijaya line of kings, mentioned in various Tibetan

works, then began to reign[512]. Khotan became a powerful state but

submitted to the conquering arms of Pan-Ch'ao and perhaps was

subsequently subdued by Kanishka. As the later Han dynasty declined,

it again became strong but continued to send embassies to the Imperial

Court. There is nothing more to mention until the visit of Fa-Hsien in

400. He describes "the pleasant and prosperous kingdom" with evident

gusto. There were some tens of thousands of monks mostly followers of

the Mahayana and in the country, where the homes of the people were

scattered "like stars" about the oases, each house had a small stupa

before the door. He stopped in a well ordered convent with 3000 monks

and mentions a magnificent establishment called The King's New

Monastery. He also describes a great car festival which shows the

Indian colour of Khotanese religion. Perhaps Fa-Hsien and Hsüan Chuang

unduly emphasize ecclesiastical features, but they also did not

hesitate to say when they thought things unsatisfactory and their

praise shows that Buddhism was flourishing.

In the fifth and sixth centuries Khotan passed through troublous times

and was attacked by the Tanguts, Juan-Juan and White Huns.

Throughout this stormy period missions were sent at intervals to China

to beg for help. The pilgrim Sung Yün[513] traversed the oasis in 519.

His account of the numerous banners bearing Chinese inscriptions hung

up in the temple of Han-mo proves that though the political influence

of China was weak, she was still in touch with the Tarim basin.

When the T'ang effectively asserted their suzerainty in Central Asia,

Khotan was included in the Four Garrisons. The T'ang Annals while

repeating much which is found in earlier accounts, add some points of

interest, for they say that the Khotanese revere the God of Heaven

(Hsien shên) and also the Law of Buddha[514]. This undoubtedly means

that there were Zoroastrians as well as Buddhists, which is not

mentioned in earlier periods. The annals also mention that the king's

house was decorated with pictures and that his family name was Wei

Ch'ih. This may possibly be a Chinese rendering of Vijaya, the

Sanskrit name or title which according to Tibetan sources was borne by

all the sovereigns of Khotan.

Hsüan Chuang broke his return journey at Khotan in 644. He mentions the

fondness of the people for music and says that their language differed

from that of other countries. The Mahâyâna was the prevalent sect but

the pilgrim stopped in a monastery of the Sarvâstivâdins[515]. He

describes several sites in the neighbourhood, particularly the Go'sringa

or Cow-horn mountain[516], supposed to have been visited by the Buddha.

Though he does not mention Zoroastrians, he notices that the people of

P'i-mo near Khotan were not Buddhists.

About 674 the king of Khotan did personal homage at the Chinese Court.

The Emperor constituted his territory into a government called

P'i-sha after the deity P'i-sha-mên or Vai'sravana and made him

responsible for its administration. Another king did homage between

742 and 755 and received an imperial princess as his consort. Chinese

political influence was effective until the last decade of the eighth

century but after 790 the conquests of the Tibetans put an end to it

and there is no mention of Khotan in the Chinese Annals for about

150 years. Numerous Tibetan manuscripts and inscriptions found at

Endere testify to these conquests. The rule of the Uigurs who replaced

Tibet as the dominant power in Turfan and the northern Tarim basin

does not appear to have extended to Khotan.

It is not till 938 that we hear of renewed diplomatic relations with

China. The Imperial Court received an embassy from Khotan and deemed

it of sufficient importance to despatch a special mission in return.

Eight other embassies were sent to China in the tenth century and at

least three of them were accompanied by Buddhist priests. Their object

was probably to solicit help against the attacks of Mohammedans. No

details are known as to the Mohammedan conquest but it apparently took

place between 970 and 1009 after a long struggle.

Another cultural centre of the Tarim basin must have existed in the

oases near Lob-nor where Miran and a nameless site to the north of the

lake have been investigated by Stein. They have yielded numerous

Tibetan documents, but also fine remains of Gandharan art and Prakrit

documents written in the Kharoshthî character. Probably the use of

this language and alphabet was not common further east, for though a

Kharoshthî fragment was found by Stein in an old Chinese frontier

post[517] the library of Tun-huang yielded no specimens of them. That

library, however, dating apparently from the epoch of the T'ang,

contained some Sanskrit Buddhist literature and was rich in Sogdian,

Turkish, and Tibetan manuscripts.

4

Ample as are the materials for the study of Buddhism in Central Asia

those hitherto published throw little light on the time and manner of

its introduction. At present much is hypothetical for we have few

historical data--such as the career of Kumârajîva and the inscription

on the Temple of Maitreya at Turfan--but a great mass of literary and

artistic evidence from which various deductions can be drawn.

It is clear that there was constant intercourse with India and the

Oxus region. The use of Prakrit and of various Iranian idioms points

to actual colonization from these two quarters and it is probable

that there were two streams of Buddhism, for the Chinese pilgrims

agree that Shan-shan (near Lob-nor), Turfan, Kucha and Kashgar were

Hînayânist, whereas Yarkand and Khotan were Mahâyânist. Further, much

of the architecture, sculpture and painting is simply Gandharan and

the older specimens can hardly be separated from the Gandharan art of

India by any considerable interval. This art was in part coeval with

Kanishka, and if his reign began in 78 A.D. or later the first

specimens of it cannot be much anterior to the Christian era. The

earliest Chinese notices of the existence of Buddhism in Kashgar and

Kucha date from 400 (Fa-Hsien) and the third century (Annals of the

Tsin, 265-317) respectively, but they speak of it as the national

religion and munificently endowed, so that it may well have been

established for some centuries. In Turfan the first definite record is

the dedication of a temple to Maitreya in 469 but probably the history

of religion there was much the same as in Kucha.

It is only in Khotan that tradition, if not history, gives a more

detailed narrative. This is found in the works of the Chinese pilgrims

Hsüan Chuang and Sung Yün and also in four Tibetan works which are

apparently translated from the language of Khotan[518]. As the story

is substantially the same in all, it merits consideration and may be

accepted as the account current in the literary circles of Khotan

about 500 A.D. It relates that the Indians who were part-founders of

that city in the reign of Asoka were not Buddhists[519] and the

Tibetan version places the conversion with great apparent accuracy

170 years after the foundation of the kingdom and 404 after the death

of the Buddha. At that time a monk named Vairocana, who was an

incarnation of Manjuśri, came to Khotan, according to Hsüan Chuang

from Kashmir[520]. He is said to have introduced a new language as

well as Mahâyânism, and the king, Vijayasambhava, built for him the

great monastery of Tsarma outside the capital, which was miraculously

supplied with relics. We cannot be sure that the Tibetan dates

were intended to have the meaning they would bear for our chronology,

that is about 80 B.C., but if they had, there is nothing improbable in

the story, for other traditions assert that Buddhism was preached in

Kashmir in the time of Asoka. On the other hand, there was a dynastic

change in Khotan about 60 A.D. and the monarch who then came to the

throne may have been Vijayasambhava.

According to the Tibetan account no more monasteries were built for

seven reigns. The eighth king built two, one on the celebrated

Gośirsha or Gośringa mountain. In the eleventh reign after

Vijayasambhava, more chaityas and viharas were built in connection

with the introduction of the silkworm industry. Subsequently, but

without any clear indication of date, the introduction of the

Mahâsanghika and Sarvâstivâdin schools is mentioned.

The Tibetan annals also mention several persecutions of Buddhism in

Khotan as a result of which the monks fled to Tibet and Bruzha. Their

chronology is confused but seems to make these troubles coincide with

a persecution in Tibet, presumably that of Lang-dar-ma. If so, the

persecution in Khotan must have been due to the early attacks of

Mohammedans which preceded the final conquest in about 1000 A.D.[521]

Neither the statements of the Chinese annalists about Central Asia nor

its own traditions prove that Buddhism flourished there before the

Christian era. But they do not disprove it and even if the dream of

the Emperor Ming-Ti and the consequent embassy are dismissed as

legends, it is admitted that Buddhism penetrated to China by land not

later than the early decades of that era. It must therefore have been

known in Central Asia previously and perhaps Khotan was the place

where it first flourished.

It is fairly certain that about 160 B.C. the Yüeh-chih moved westwards

and settled in the lands of the Oxus after ejecting the Sakas, but

like many warlike nomads they may have oscillated between the east and

west, recoiling if they struck against a powerful adversary in either

quarter. Le Coq has put forward an interesting theory of their origin.

It is that they were one of the tribes known as Scythians in Europe

and at an unknown period moved eastwards from southern Russia,

perhaps leaving traces of their presence in the monuments still

existing in the district of Minussinsk. He also identifies them with

the red-haired, blue-eyed people of the Chotscho frescoes and the

speakers of the Tokharian language. But these interesting hypotheses

cannot be regarded as proved. It is, however, certain that the

Yüeh-chih invaded India[522], founded the Kushan Empire and were

intimately connected (especially in the person of their great king

Kanishka) with Gandharan art and the form of Buddhism which finds

expression in it. Now the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien (_c_. 400) found

the Hînayâna prevalent in Shan-shan, Kucha, Kashgar, Osh, Udyana and

Gandhara. Hsüan Chuang also notes its presence in Balkh, Bamian, and

Persia. Both notice that the Mahâyâna was predominant in Khotan though

not to the exclusion of the other school. It would appear that in

modern language the North-West Frontier province of India,

Afghanistan, Badakshan (with small adjoining states), the Pamir

regions and the Tarim basin all accepted Gandharan Buddhism and at one

time formed part of the Kushan Empire.

It is probably to this Gandharan Buddhism that the Chinese pilgrims

refer when they speak of the Sarvâstivâdin school of the Hînayâna as

prevalent. It is known that this school was closely connected with the

Council of Kanishka. Its metaphysics were decidedly not Mahâyânist but

there is no reason why it should have objected to the veneration of

such Bodhisattvas as are portrayed in the Gandhara sculptures. An

interesting passage in the life of Hsüan Chuang relates that he had a

dispute in Kucha with a Mahâyânist doctor who maintained that the

books called Tsa-hsin, Chü-shê, and P'i-sha were sufficient for

salvation, and denounced the Yogaśâstra as heretical, to the great

indignation of the pilgrim[523] whose practical definition of

Mahâyânism seems to have been the acceptance of this work, reputed

to have been revealed by Maitreya to Asanga. Such a definition and

division might leave in the Hînayâna much that we should not expect to

find there.

The Mahâyânist Buddhism of Khotan was a separate stream and Hsüan

Chuang says that it came from Kashmir. Though Kashmir is not known as

a centre of Mahâyânism, yet it would be a natural route for men and

ideas passing from any part of India to Khotan.

5

The Tarim basin and the lands of the Oxus[524] were a region where

different religions and cultures mingled and there is no difficulty in

supposing that Buddhism might have amalgamated there with Zoroastrianism

or Christianity. The question is whether there is any evidence for such

amalgamation. It is above all in its relations with China that Central

Asia appears as an exchange of religions. It passed on to China the art

and thought of India, perhaps adding something of its own on the way and

then received them back from China with further additions[525]. It

certainly received a great deal from Persia: the number of manuscripts

in different Iranian languages puts this beyond doubt. Equally undoubted

is its debt to India, but it would be of even greater interest to

determine whether Indian Buddhism owes a debt to Central Asia and to

define that debt. For Tibet the relation was mutual. The Tibetans

occupied the Tarim basin during a century and according to their

traditions monks went from Khotan to instruct Tibet.

The Buddhist literature discovered in Central Asia represents, like

its architecture, several periods. We have first of all the fragments

of the Sanskrit Agamas, found at Turfan, Tun-huang, and in the Khotan

district: fragments of the dramas and poems of Aśvaghosha from

Turfan: the Prâtimoksha of the Sarvastivâdins from Kucha and numerous

versions of the anthology called Dharmapada or Udâna. The most

interesting of these is the Prakrit version found in the neighbourhood

of Khotan, but fragments in Tokharian and Sanskrit have also been

discovered. All this literature probably represents the canon as

it existed in the epoch of Kanishka and of the Gandharan sculptures,

or at least the older stratum in that canon.

The newer stratum is composed of Mahâyânist sutras of which there is a

great abundance, though no complete list has been published[526]. The

popularity of the Prajñâ-pâramitâ, the Lotus and the Suvarṇa-prabhâsa

is attested. The last was translated into both Uigur (from the Chinese)

and into "Iranien Oriental." To a still later epoch[527] belong the

Dhâraṇîs or magical formulæ which have been discovered in considerable

quantities.

Sylvain Lévi has shown that some Mahâyânist sutras were either written

or re-edited in Central Asia[528]. Not only do they contain lists of

Central Asian place-names but these receive an importance which can be

explained only by the local patriotism of the writer or the public

which he addressed. Thus the Sûryagarbha sutra praises the mountain of

Gośringa near Khotan much as the Puranas celebrate in special

chapters called Mâhâtmyas the merits of some holy place. Even more

remarkable is a list in the Chandragarbha sutra. The Buddha in one of

the great transformation scenes common in these works sends forth rays

of light which produce innumerable manifestations of Buddhas. India

(together with what is called the western region) has a total of 813

manifestations, whereas Central Asia and China have 971. Of these the

whole Chinese Empire has 255, the kingdoms of Khotan and Kucha have

180 and 99 respectively, but only 60 are given to Benares and 30 to

Magadha. Clearly Central Asia was a very important place for the

author of this list[529].

One of the Turkish sutras discovered at Turfan contains a discourse of

the Buddha to the merchants Trapusha and Bhallika who are described as

Turks and Indra is called Kormusta, that is Hormuzd. In another

Brahmâ is called Aṣrua, identified as the Iranian deity

Zervan[530]. In these instances no innovation of doctrine is implied

but when the world of spirits and men becomes Central Asian

instead of Indian, it is only natural that the doctrine too should

take on some local colour[531].

Thus the dated inscription of the temple erected in Turfan A.D. 469 is

a mixture of Chinese ideas, both Confucian and Taoist, with Indian. It

is in honour of Maitreya, a Bodhisattva known to the Hînayâna, but

here regarded not merely as the future Buddha but as an active and

benevolent deity who manifests himself in many forms[532], a view

which also finds expression in the tradition that the works of Asanga

were revelations made by him. Akâśagarbha and the Dharmakâya are

mentioned. But the inscription also speaks of heaven (t'ien) as

appointing princes, and of the universal law (tao) and it contains

several references to Chinese literature.

Even more remarkable is the admixture of Buddhism in Manichæism. The

discoveries made in Central Asia make intelligible the Chinese edict

of 739 which accuses the Manichæans of falsely taking the name of

Buddhism and deceiving the people[533]. This is not surprising for

Mani seems to have taught that Zoroaster, Buddha and Christ had

preceded him as apostles, and in Buddhist countries his followers

naturally adopted words and symbols familiar to the people. Thus

Manichæan deities are represented like Bodhisattvas sitting

cross-legged on a lotus; Mani receives the epithet Ju-lai or

Tathâgata: as in Amida's Paradise, there are holy trees bearing

flowers which enclose beings styled Buddha: the construction and

phraseology of Manichæan books resemble those of a Buddhist

Sutra[534]. In some ways the association of Taoism and Manichæism was

even closer, for the Hu-hua-ching identifies Buddha with Lao-tzû and

Mani, and two Manichæan books have passed into the Taoist Canon[535].

Nestorian Christianity also existed in the Tarim basin and became

prominent in the seventh century. This agrees with the record of its

introduction into China by A-lo-pen in 635 A.D., almost simultaneously

with Zoroastrianism. Fragments of the New Testament have been found at

Turfan belonging mostly to the ninth century but one to the fifth. The

most interesting document for the history of Nestorianism is still the

monument discovered at Si-ngan-fu and commonly called the Nestorian

stone[536]. It bears a long inscription partly in Chinese and partly

in Syriac composed by a foreign priest called Adam or in Chinese

King-Tsing giving a long account of the doctrines and history of

Nestorianism. Not only does this inscription contain many Buddhist

phrases (such as Sêng and Ssû for Christian priests and monasteries)

but it deliberately omits all mention of the crucifixion and merely

says in speaking of the creation that God arranged the cardinal points

in the shape of a cross. This can hardly be explained as due to

incomplete statement for it reviews in some detail the life of Christ

and its results. The motive of omission must be the feeling that

redemption by his death was not an acceptable doctrine[537]. It is

interesting to find that King-Tsing consorted with Buddhist priests

and even set about translating a sutra from the Hu language. Takakusu

quotes a passage from one of the catalogues of the Japanese

Tripitaka[538] which states that he was a Persian and collaborated

with a monk of Kapiśa called Prajña.

We have thus clear evidence not only of the co-existence of Buddhism

and Christianity but of friendly relations between Buddhist and

Christian priests. The Emperor's objection to such commixture of

religions was unusual and probably due to zeal for pure Buddhism. It

is possible that in western China and Central Asia Buddhism, Taoism,

Manichæism, Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism all borrowed from one

another just as the first two do in China to-day and Buddhism may have

become modified by this contact. But proof of it is necessary. In most

places Buddhism was in strength and numbers the most important of

all these religions and older than all except Zoroastrianism. Its

contact with Manichæism may possibly date from the life of Mani, but

apparently the earliest Christian manuscripts found in Central Asia

are to be assigned to the fifth century.

On the other hand the Chinese Tripiṭaka contains many translations

which bear an earlier date than this and are ascribed to translators

connected with the Yüeh-chih. I see no reason to doubt the statements

that the Happy Land sutra and Prajñâ-pâramitâ (Nanjio, 25, 5) were

translated before 200 A.D. and portions of the Avataṃsaka and Lotus

(Nanjio, 100, 103, 138) before 300 A.D. But if so, the principal

doctrines of Mahayanist Buddhism must have been known in Khotan[539]

and the lands of Oxus before we have definite evidence for the

presence of Christianity there.

Zoroastrianism may however have contributed to the development and

transformation of Buddhism for the two were certainly in contact. Thus

the coins of Kanishka bear figures of Persian deities[540] more

frequently than images of the Buddha: we know from Chinese sources

that the two religions co-existed at Khotan and Kashgar and possibly

there are hostile references to Buddhism (Buiti and Gaotema the

heretic) in the Persian scriptures[541].

It is true that we should be cautious in fancying that we detect a

foreign origin for the Mahâyâna. Different as it may be from the

Buddhism of the Pali Canon, it is an Indian not an exotic growth.

Deification, pantheism, the creation of radiant or terrible deities,

extreme forms of idealism or nihilism in metaphysics are tendencies

manifested in Hinduism as clearly as in Buddhism. Even the doctrine of

the Buddha's three bodies, which sounds like an imitation of the

Christian Trinity, has roots in the centuries before the Christian

era. But late Buddhism indubitably borrowed many personages from the

Hindu pantheon, and when we find Buddhas and Bodhisattvas such as

Amitâbha, Avalokita, Manjuśrî and Kshitigarbha without clear

antecedents in India we may suspect that they are borrowed from some

other mythology, and if similar figures were known to Zoroastrianism,

that may be their source.

The most important of them is Amitâbha. He is strangely obscure in

the earlier art and literature of Indian Buddhism. Some of the

nameless Buddha figures in the Gandharan sculptures may represent him,

but this is not proved and the works of Grünwedel and Foucher suggest

that compared with Avalokita and Târâ his images are late and not

numerous. In the earlier part of the Lotus[542] he is only just

mentioned as if he were of no special importance. He is also mentioned

towards the end of the Awakening of Faith ascribed to Aśvaghosha,

but the authorship of the work cannot be regarded as certain and, if

it were, the passage stands apart from the main argument and might

well be an addition. Again in the Mahâyâna-sûtrâlaṇkâra[543] of

Asanga, his paradise is just mentioned.

Against these meagre and cursory notices in Indian literature may be

set the fact that two translations of the principal Amidist scripture

into Chinese were made in the second century A.D. and four in the

third, all by natives of Central Asia. The inference that the worship

of Amitâbha flourished in Central Asia some time before the earliest

of these translations is irresistible.

According to Târanâtha, the Tibetan historian of Buddhism[544], this

worship goes back to Saraha or Rahulabhadra. He was reputed to have

been the teacher of Nâgârjuna and a great magician. He saw Amitâbha in

the land of Dhingkoṭa and died with his face turned towards

Sukhâvatî. I have found no explanation of the name Dhingkoṭa but

the name Saraha does not sound Indian. He is said to have been a sudra

and he is represented in Tibetan pictures with a beard and topknot

and holding an arrow[545] in his hand. In all this there is little

that can be called history, but still it appears that the first person

whom tradition connects with the worship of Amitâbha was of low caste,

bore a foreign name, saw the deity in an unknown country, and like

many tantric teachers was represented as totally unlike a Buddhist

monk. It cannot be proved that he came from the lands of the Oxus or

Turkestan, but such an origin would explain much in the tradition.

On the other hand, there would be no difficulty in accounting for

Zoroastrian influence at Peshawar or Takkasila within the frontiers of

India.

Somewhat later Vasubandhu is stated to have preached faith in Amitâbha

but it does not appear that this doctrine ever had in India a tithe of

the importance which it obtained in the Far East.

The essential features of Amidist doctrine are that there is a

paradise of light belonging to a benevolent deity and that the

good[546] who invoke his name will be led thither. Both features are

found in Zoroastrian writings. The highest heaven (following after the

paradises of good thoughts, good words and good deeds) is called

Boundless Light or Endless Light[547]. Both this region and its

master, Ahuramazda, are habitually spoken of in terms implying

radiance and glory. Also it is a land of song, just as Amitâbha's

paradise re-echoes with music and pleasant sounds[548]. Prayers can

win this paradise and Ahura Mazda and the Archangels will come and

show the way thither to the pious[549]. Further whoever recites the

Ahuna-vairya formula, Ahura Mazda will bring his soul to "the lights

of heaven[550]," and although, so far as I know, it is not expressly

stated that the repetition of Ahura Mazda's name leads to paradise,

yet the general efficacy of his names as invocations is clearly

affirmed[551].

Thus all the chief features of Amitâbha's paradise are Persian: only

his method of instituting it by making a vow is Buddhist. It is true

that Indian imagination had conceived numerous paradises, and that the

early Buddhist legend tells of the Tushita heaven. But Sukhâvatî is

not like these abodes of bliss. It appears suddenly in the history of

Buddhism as something exotic, grafted adroitly on the parent trunk but

sometimes overgrowing it[552].

Avalokita is also connected with Amitâbha's paradise. His figure,

though its origin is not clear, assumes distinct and conspicuous

proportions in India at a fairly early date. There appears to be no

reason for associating him specially with Central Asia. On the other

hand later works describe him as the spiritual son or reflex of

Amitâbha. This certainly recalls the Iranian idea of the Fravashi

defined as "a spiritual being conceived as a part of a man's

personality but existing before he is born and in independence of him:

it can also belong to divine beings[553]." Although India offers in

abundance both divine incarnations and explanations thereof yet none

of these describe the relationship between a Dhyânî Buddha and his

Boddhisattva so well as the Zoroastrian doctrine of the Fravashi.

S. Lévi has suggested that the Bodhisattva Manjuśrî is of Tokharian

origin[554]. His worship at Wu-tai-shan in Shan-si is ancient and

later Indian tradition connected him with China. Local traditions also

connect him with Nepal, Tibet, and Khotan, and he is sometimes

represented as the first teacher of civilization or religion. But

although his Central Asian origin is eminently probable, I do not at

present see any clear proof of it.

The case of the Bodhisattva Kshitigarbha[555] is similar. He appears

to have been known but not prominent in India in the fourth century

A.D.: by the seventh century if not earlier his cult was flourishing

in China and subsequently he became in the Far East a popular deity

second only to Kuan-yin. This popularity was connected with his

gradual transformation into a god of the dead. It is also certain that

he was known in Central Asia[556] but whether he first became

important there or in China is hard to decide. The devotion of the

Chinese to their dead suggests that it was among them that he acquired

his great position, but his rôle as a guide to the next world has a

parallel in the similar benevolent activity of the Zoroastrian angel

Srosh.

One of Central Asia's clearest titles to importance in the history

of the East is that it was the earliest and on the whole the

principal source of Chinese Buddhism, to which I now turn. Somewhat

later, teachers also came to China by sea and still later, under the

Yüan dynasty, Lamaism was introduced direct from Tibet. But from at

least the beginning of our era onwards, monks went eastwards from

Central Asia to preach and translate the scriptures and it was across

Central Asia that Chinese pilgrims went to India in search of the

truth.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 459: See Lüders, _Bruchstücke Buddhistischer Dramen_, 1911,

and _id., Das Sâriputra-prakarana_, 1911.]

[Footnote 460: See Senart, "Le ms Kharoshṭhî du Dhammapada," in

_J.A._, 1898, II. p. 193.]

[Footnote 461: Lüders, "Die Śakas und die Nordarische Sprache,"

_Sitzungsber. der Kōn. Preuss. Akad_. 1913. Konow, _Gōtting.

Gel. Anz_. 1912, pp. 551 ff.]

[Footnote 462: See Hoernle in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 837 ff. and 1283

ff.; 1911, pp. 202 ff., 447 ff.]

[Footnote 463: An old Turkish text about Maitreya states that it was

translated from an Indian language into Tokhri and from Tokhri into

Turkish. See F.K.W. Müller, _Sitzungsber. der Kön. Preuss. Akad_.

1907, p. 958. But it is not clear what is meant by Tokhri.]

[Footnote 464: The following are some words in this language: Kant, a

hundred; rake, a word; por, fire; soye, son υιοσ; suwan, swese, rain

υει hυετοσ; âlyek, another; okso, an ox.]

[Footnote 465: The numerous papers on this language are naturally

quickly superseded. But Sieg and Siegling Tokharisch, "Die Sprache der

Indoskythen" (_Sitzungsber. der Berl. Ak. Wiss_. 1908, p. 815), may be

mentioned and Sylvain Lévi, "Tokharien B, Langue de Kouteha," _J.A._

1913, II. p. 311.]

[Footnote 466: See Radloff Tisastvustik (_Bibl. Buddh._ vol. xii.), p.

v. This manuscript came from Urumtsi. A translation of a portion of

the Saddharma-pundarîka (_Bibl. Buddh._ xiv.) was found at Turfan.]

[Footnote 467: Laufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1907, p. 392; Radloff,

_Kuan-si-im Pursar_, p. vii.]

[Footnote 468: See especially Stein's _Ancient Khotan_, app. B, and

Francke in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 37.]

[Footnote 469: Chavannes, _Les documents chinois découverts par Aurel

Stein_, 1913.]

[Footnote 470: See especially Chavannes and Pelliot, "Traité

Manichéen" in _J.A._ 1911 and 1913.]

[Footnote 471: Hsüan Chuang notes its existence however in Kabul and

Kapiśa.]

[Footnote 472: See for these Fergusson-Burgess, _History of Indian

Architecture_, I. pp. 125-8.]

[Footnote 473: _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 313.]

[Footnote 474: _E.g._ Grünwedel, _Altbuddhistische Kultstätten_, fig.

624.]

[Footnote 475: Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, plates xiii-xvii and xl, pp.

83 and 482 ff.]

[Footnote 476: See Grünwedel, _Buddh. Kultstätten_, pp. 129-130 and

plate. Foucher, "L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique," p. 145, _J.R.A.S._ 1886, 333

and plate i.]

[Footnote 477: See Wachsberger's "Stil-kritische Studien zur Kunst

Chinesisch-Turkestan's" in _Ostasiatische Ztsft._ 1914 and 1915.]

[Footnote 478: See Grünwedel, _Buddh. Kultstätten_, pp. 332 ff.]

[Footnote 479: _Ancient Khotan_, vol. II. plates lx and lxi.]

[Footnote 480: Le Coq in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299 ff. See the whole

article.]

[Footnote 481: For some of the more striking drawings referred to see

Grünwedel, _Buddh. Kultstätten_, figs. 51, 53, 239, 242, 317, 337,

345-349.]

[Footnote 482: In _Geog. Journal_, May 1916, p. 362.]

[Footnote 483: Chavannes, _Documents chinois découverts par Aurel

Stein_, 1913.]

[Footnote 484: These of course are not the Osmanlis or Turks of

Constantinople. The Osmanlis are the latest of the many branches of

the Turks, who warred and ruled in Central Asia with varying success

from the fifth to the eighth centuries.]

[Footnote 485: That is Kashgar, Khotan, Kucha and Tokmak for which

last Karashahr was subsequently substituted. The territory was also

called An Hsi.]

[Footnote 486: See for lists and details Chavannes, _Documents sur les

Tou-kiue Occidentaux_, pp. 67 ff. and 270 ff.]

[Footnote 487: The conquest and organization of the present Chinese

Turkestan dates only from the reign of Ch'ien Lung.]

[Footnote 488: Thus the pilgrim Wu-K'ung mentions Chinese officials in

the Four Garrisons.]

[Footnote 489: See for this part of their history, Grenard's article

in _J.A._ 1900, I. pp. 1-79.]

[Footnote 490: Pelliot also attributes importance to a Sogdian Colony

to the south of Lob Nor, which may have had much to do with the

transmission of Buddhism and Nestorianism to China. See _J.A._ Jan.

1916, pp. 111-123.]

[Footnote 491: These words have been connected with the tribe called

Sacae, Sakas, or Sök.]

[Footnote 492: See Klaproth, _Tabl. Historique_, p. 166, apparently

quoting from Chinese sources. Specht, _J.A._ 1897, II. p. 187. Franke,

_Beitr.-zur Kenntniss Zentral-Asiens_, p. 83. The passage quoted by

Specht from the Later Han Annals clearly states that the Yüeh-chih

made a man of their own choosing prince of Kashgar, although, as

Franke points out, it makes no reference to Kanishka or the story of

the hostages related by Hsüan Chuang.]

[Footnote 493: Fa-Hsien's Chieh-ch'a has been interpreted as Skardo,

but Chavannes seems to have proved that it is Kashgar.]

[Footnote 494: About 643 A.D. He mentions that the inhabitants

tattooed their bodies, flattened their children's heads and had green

eyes. Also that they spoke a peculiar language.]

[Footnote 495: At Bamian the monks belonged to the Lokottaravâdin

School.]

[Footnote 496: Beal, _Records_, II. p. 278. The pilgrim is speaking

from hearsay and it is not clear to what part of Persia he refers.]

[Footnote 497: See Chavannes, _Documents sur les Tou-kiue

Occidentaux_, pp. 121, 125. The inhabitants of K'ang (Samarkand or

Sogdiana) are said to honour both religions. _Ib_. p. 135.]

[Footnote 498: Known to the Chinese by several slightly different

names such as Ku-chih, Kiu-tse which are all attempts to represent the

same sound. For Kucha see S. Lévi's most interesting article "Le

'Tokharien B' langue de Koutcha" in _J.A._ 1913, II. pp. 311 ff.]

[Footnote 499: _J.A._ 1913, ii. p. 326.]

[Footnote 500: See Chavannes in Stein's _Ancient Khotan_, p. 544. The

Western Tsin reigned 265-317.]

[Footnote 501: The circumstances which provoked the expedition are not

very clear. It was escorted by the king of Turfan and other small

potentates who were the vassals of the Tsin and also on bad terms with

Kucha. They probably asked Fu-chien for assistance in subduing their

rival which he was delighted to give. Some authorities (_e.g._ Nanjio

Cat. p. 406) give Karashahr as the name of Kumârajîva's town, but this

seems to be a mistake.]

[Footnote 502: S. Lévi, _J.A._ 1913, ii. p. 348, quoting Hsü Kao Sêng

Chuan.]

[Footnote 503: Quoted by S. Lévi from the _Sung Kao Sêng Chuan_. See

_J.A._ 1913, II. p. 344 and _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 562.]

[Footnote 504: As a proof of foreign influence in Chinese culture, it

is interesting to note that there were seven orchestras for the

imperial banquets, including those of Kucha, Bokhara and India and a

mixed one in which were musicians from Samarkand, Kashgar, Camboja and

Japan.]

[Footnote 505: Quoted by Bretschneider, _Mediaeval Researches_, ii.

189.]

[Footnote 506: Pelliot, _J.A._ 1912, i. p. 579, suggests that Chotscho

or Qoco is the Turkish equivalent of Kao Ch'ang in T'ang

pronunciation, the nasal being omitted.]

[Footnote 507: Chavannes, _Tou-kiue Occidentaux_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 508: For the history of Khotan see Rémusat, _Ville de

Khotan_, 1820, and Stein's great work _Ancient Khotan_, especially

chapter vii. For the Tibetan traditions see Rockhill, _Life of the

Buddha_, pp. 230 ff.]

[Footnote 509: Ku-stana seems to have been a learned perversion of the

name, to make it mean breast of the earth.]

[Footnote 510: The combination is illustrated by the Sino-Kharoshthî

coins with a legend in Chinese on the obverse and in Prakrit on the

reverse. See Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, p. 204. But the coins are later

than 73 A.D.]

[Footnote 511: The Tibetan text gives the date of conversion as the

reign of King Vijayasambhava, 170 years after the foundation of

Khotan.]

[Footnote 512: See Sten Konow in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 345.]

[Footnote 513: See Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, pp. 170, 456.]

[Footnote 514: Chavannes, _Tou-kiue_, p. 125, cf. pp. 121 and 170. For

Hsien shên see Giles's _Chinese Dict._ No. 4477.]

[Footnote 515: Beal, _Life_, p. 205.]

[Footnote 516: Identified by Stein with Kohmari Hill which is still

revered by Mohammedans as a sacred spot.]

[Footnote 517: _Desert Cathay_, II. p. 114.]

[Footnote 518: See Watters, _Yüan Chwang_, II. p. 296. Beal, _Life_.

p. 205. Chavannes, "Voyage de Sung Yun." _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, 395, and

for the Tibetan sources, Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, chap. VIII.

One of the four Tibetan works is expressly stated to be translated

from Khotanese.]

[Footnote 519: The Tibetan Chronicles of Li-Yul say that they

worshipped Vaiśravana and Śrîmahâdevî.]

[Footnote 520: A monk from Kashmir called Vairocana was also active in

Tibet about 750 A.D.]

[Footnote 521: It is also possible that Buddhism had a bad time in the

fifth and sixth centuries at the hands of the Tanguts, Juan-Juan and

White Huns.]

[Footnote 522: The Later Han Annals say that the Hindus are weaker

than the Yüeh-chih and are not accustomed to fight because they are

Buddhists. (See _T'oung Pao_, 1910, p. 192.) This seems to imply that

the Yüeh-chih were not Buddhists. But even this was the real view of

the compiler of the Annals we do not know from what work he took this

statement nor to what date it refers.]

[Footnote 523: See Beal, _Life_, p. 39, Julien, p. 50. The books

mentioned are apparently the Samyuktâbhidharmahṛidaya (Nanjio,

1287), Abhidharma Kosha (Nanjio, 1267), Abhidharma-Vibhâsha (Nanjio,

1264) and Yogâcâryabhûmi (Nanjio, 1170).]

[Footnote 524: The importance of the Tarim basin is due to the

excellent preservation of its records and its close connection with

China. The Oxus regions suffered more from Mohammedan iconoclasm, but

they may have been at least equally important for the history of

Buddhism.]

[Footnote 525: _E.g._ see the Maitreya inscription of Turfan.]

[Footnote 526: Or at least is not accessible to me here in Hongkong,

1914.]

[Footnote 527: I do not mean to say that all Dhâraṇîs are late.]

[Footnote 528: It is even probable that apocryphal Sûtras were

composed in Central Asia. See Pelliot in _Mélanges d'Indianisme_,

Sylvain Lévi, p. 329.]

[Footnote 529: The list of manifestations in Jambudvipa enumerates 56

kingdoms. All cannot be identified with certainty, but apparently less

than half are within India proper.]

[Footnote 530: See _Bibl. Budd._ XII. pp. 44, 46, XIV. p. 45.]

[Footnote 531: The Turkish sutras repeatedly style the Buddha God

(t'angri) or God of Gods. The expression devâtideva is applied to him

in Sanskrit, but the Turkish phrases are more decided and frequent.

The Sanskrit phrase may even be due to Iranian influence.]

[Footnote 532: An Chou, the Prince to whose memory the temple was

dedicated, seems to be regarded as a manifestation of Maitreya.]

[Footnote 533: _J.A._ 1913, I. p. 154. The series of three articles by

Chavannes and Pelliot entitled "Un traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine"

(_J.A._ 1911, 1913) is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge

of Manichæism in Central Asia and China.]

[Footnote 534: _E.g._ see _J.A._ 1911, pp. 509 and 589. See also Le

Coq, _Sitzb. preuss. Akad. der Wiss._ 48, 1909, 1202-1218.]

[Footnote 535: _J.A._ 1913, I. pp. 116 and 132.]

[Footnote 536: See especially Havret, "La stèle chrétienne de

Si-ngan-fu" in _Variétés Sinologues_, pp. 7, 12 and 20.]

[Footnote 537: See Havret, _l.c_. III. p. 54, for some interesting

remarks respecting the unwillingness of the Nestorians and also of the

Jesuits to give publicity to the crucifixion.]

[Footnote 538: See Takakusu, _I-tsing_, pp. 169, 223, and _T'oung

Pao_, 1896, p. 589.]

[Footnote 539: Turfan and Kucha are spoken of as being mainly

Hînayânist.]

[Footnote 540: See Stein, _Zoroastrian deities on Indo-Scythian

coins_, 1887.]

[Footnote 541: See _S.B.E._ IV. (Vendîdad) pp. 145, 209; XXIII. p.

184, V. p. III.]

[Footnote 542: Chap. VII. The notices in Chaps. XXII. and XXIV. are

rather more detailed but also later.]

[Footnote 543: XII. p. 23.]

[Footnote 544: Transl. Schiefner, pp. 93, 105 and 303, and Pander's

_Pantheon_, No. 11. But Târanâtha also says that he was Aryadeva's

pupil.]

[Footnote 545: Śara in Sanskrit.]

[Footnote 546: The doctrine of salvation by faith alone seems to be

later. The longer and apparently older version of the Sukhâvatî Vyûha

insists on good works as a condition of entry into Paradise.]

[Footnote 547: _S.B.E._ IV. p. 293; _ib._ XXXIII. pp. 317 and 344.]

[Footnote 548: It may also be noticed that Ameretât, the Archangel of

immortality, presides over vegetation and that Amida's paradise is

full of flowers.]

[Footnote 549: _S.B.E._ XXIII. pp. 335-7.]

[Footnote 550: _S.B.E._ XXXI. p. 261.]

[Footnote 551: _S.B.E._ XXIII. pp. 21-31 (the Ormasd Yasht).]

[Footnote 552: Is it possible that there is any connection between

Sukhâvatî and the land of Saukavastan, governed by an immortal ruler

and located by the Bundehish between Turkistan and Chinistan? I

imagine there is no etymological relationship, but if Saukavastan was

well known as a land of the blessed it may have influenced the choice

of a significant Sanskrit word with a similar sound.]

[Footnote 553: _E.R.E. sub voce_.]

[Footnote 554: _J.A._ 1912, I. p. 622. Unfortunately only a brief

notice of his communication is given with no details. See also S.

Lévi, _Le Népâl_, pp. 330 ff.]

[Footnote 555: Ti-tsang in Chinese, Jizo in Japanese. See for his

history Visser's elaborate articles in _Ostasiatische Ztsft._

1913-1915.]

[Footnote 556: He was accepted by the Manichæans as one of the Envoys

of Light. _J.A._ 1911, II. p. 549.]