CHINA (_continued_)
THE CANON
The Buddhist scriptures extant in the Chinese language are known
collectively as San Tsang[708] or the three store-houses, that is to
say, Tripitaka. Though this usage is justified by both eastern and
European practice, it is not altogether happy, for the Chinese
thesaurus is not analogous to the Pali Canon or to any collection of
sacred literature known in India, being in spite of its name arranged
in four, not in three, divisions. It is a great _Corpus Scriptorum
Sanctorum_, embracing all ages and schools, wherein translations of
the most diverse Indian works are supplemented by original
compositions in Chinese. Imagine a library comprising Latin
translations of the Old and New Testaments with copious additions from
the Talmud and Apocryphal literature; the writings of the Fathers,
decrees of Councils and Popes, together with the _opera omnia_ of the
principal schoolmen and the early protestant reformers and you will
have some idea of this theological miscellany which has no claim to be
called a canon, except that all the works included have at some time
or other received a certain literary or doctrinal hall-mark.
1
The collection is described in the catalogue compiled by Bunyiu
Nanjio[709]. It enumerates 1662 works which are classified in four
great divisions, (_a_) Sûtra, (_b_) Vinaya, (_c_) Abhidharma, (_d_)
Miscellaneous. The first three divisions contain translations only;
the fourth original Chinese works as well.
The first division called Ching or Sûtras amounts to nearly two-thirds
of the whole, for it comprises no less than 1081 works and is
subdivided as follows: (_a_) Mahâyâna Sûtras, 541, (_b_) Hînayâna
Sûtras, 240, (_c_) Mahâyâna and Hînayâna Sûtras, 300 in number,
admitted into the canon under the Sung and Yüan dynasties, A.D.
960-1368. Thus whereas the first two subdivisions differ in doctrine,
the third is a supplement containing later translations of both
schools. The second subdivision, or Hînayâna Sûtras, which is less
numerous and complicated than that containing the Mahâyâna Sûtras,
shows clearly the character of the whole collection. It is divided
into two classes of which the first is called A-han, that is,
Agama[710]. This comprises translations of four works analogous to the
Pali Nikâyas, though not identical with the texts which we possess,
and also numerous alternative translations of detached sûtras. All
four were translated about the beginning of the fifth century whereas
the translations of detached sûtras are for the most part earlier.
This class also contains the celebrated Sûtra of Forty-two Sections,
and works like the Jâtaka-nidâna. The second class is styled Sûtras of
one translation[711]. The title is not used rigorously, but the works
bearing it are relatively obscure and it is not always clear to what
Sanskrit texts they correspond. It will be seen from the above that
the Chinese Tripitaka is a literary and bibliographical collection
rather than an ecclesiastical canon. It does not provide an authorized
version for the edification of the faithful, but it presents for the
use of the learned all translations of Indian works belonging to a
particular class which possess a certain age and authority.
The same characteristic marks the much richer collection of Mahâyâna
Sûtras, which contains the works most esteemed by Chinese Buddhists.
It is divided into seven classes:
1. [Chinese: ] Pan-jo (Po-jo) or Prajnâpâramitâ[712].
2. [Chinese: ] Pao-chi or Ratnakûṭa.
3. [Chinese: ] Ta-chi or Mahâsannipâta.
4. [Chinese: ] Hua-yen or Avatamsaka.
5. [Chinese: ] Nieh-pan or Parinirvâṇa.
6. [Chinese: ] Sûtras in more than one translation
but not falling into any of the above five
classes.
7. [Chinese: ] Other sûtras existing in only one translation.
Each of the first five classes probably represents a collection of sûtras
analogous to a Nikâya and in one sense a single work but translated into
Chinese several times, both in a complete form and in extracts. Thus the
first class opens with the majestic Mahâprajnâpâramitâ in 600 fasciculi
and equivalent to 200,000 stanzas in Sanskrit. This is followed by several
translations of shorter versions including two of the little sûtras called
the Heart of the Prajnâpâramitâ, which fills only one leaf. There are also
six translations of the celebrated work known as the Diamond-cutter[713],
which is the ninth sûtra in the Mahâprajnâpâramitâ and all the works
classed under the heading Pan-jo seem to be alternative versions of parts
of this great Corpus.
The second and third classes are collections of sûtras which no longer
exist as collections in Sanskrit, though the Sanskrit text of some
individual sûtras is extant. That called Pao-chi or Ratnakûṭa opens
with a collection of forty-nine sûtras which includes the longer
version of the Sukhâvatîvyûha. This collection is reckoned as one
work, but the other items in the same class are all or nearly all of
them duplicate translations of separate sûtras contained in it. This
is probably true of the third class also. At least seven of the works
included in it are duplicate translations of the first, which is
called Mahâsannipâta, and the sûtras called Candragarbha, Kshitig.,
Sumerug., and Akâśag., appear to be merely sections, not separate
compositions, although this is not clear from the remarks of Nanjio
and Wassiljew.
The principal works in class 4 are two translations, one fuller than
the other, of the Hua-yen or Avatamsaka Sûtra[714], still one of the
most widely read among Buddhist works, and at least sixteen of the
other items are duplicate renderings of parts of it. Class 5
consists of thirteen works dealing with the death of the Buddha and
his last discourses. The first sûtra, sometimes called the northern
text, is imperfect and was revised at Nanking in the form of the
southern text[715]. There are two other incomplete versions of the
same text. To judge from a specimen translated by Beal[716] it is a
collection of late discourses influenced by Vishnuism and does not
correspond to the Mahâparinibbânasutta of the Pali Canon.
Class 6 consists of sûtras which exist in several translations, but
still do not, like the works just mentioned, form small libraries in
themselves. It comprises, however, several books highly esteemed and
historically important, such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarîka (six
translations), the Suvarṇaprabhâsa, the Lalitavistara, the Lankâvatâra,
and the Shorter Sukhâvatîvyûha[717], all extant in three translations.
In it are also included many short tracts, the originals of which are
not known. Some of them are Jâtakas, but many[718] deal with the ritual
of image worship or with spells. These characteristics are still more
prominent in the seventh class, consisting of sûtras which exist in a
single translation only. The best known among them are the Śûrângama and
the Mahâvairocana (Ta-jih-ching), which is the chief text of the
Shin-gon or Mantra School[719].
The Lü-tsang or Vinaya-pitaka is divided into Mahâyâna and Hînayâna texts,
neither very numerous. Many of the Mahâyâna texts profess to be
revelations by Maitreya and are extracts of the Yogâcâryabhûmiśâstra[720]
or similar to it. For practical purposes the most important is the
Fan-wang-ching[721] or net of Brahmâ. The Indian original of this work is
not known, but since the eighth century it has been accepted in China as
the standard manual for the monastic life[722].
The Hînayâna Vinaya comprises five very substantial recensions of
the whole code, besides extracts, compendiums, and manuals. The five
recensions are: (_a_) Shih-sung-lü in sixty-five fasciculi, translated
in A.D. 404. This is said to be a Vinaya of the Sarvâstivâdins, but
I-Ching[723] expressly says that it does not belong to the
Mûlasarvâstivâdin school, though not unlike it. (_b_) The Vinaya of
this latter translated by I-Ching who brought it from India. (_c_)
Shih-fen-lü-tsang in sixty fasciculi, translated in 405 and said to
represent the Dharmagupta school. (_d_) The Mi-sha-so Wu-fên Lü or
Vinaya of the Mahîśâsakas, said to be similar to the Pali Vinaya,
though not identical with it[724]. (_e_) Mo-ko-sêng-chi Lü or
Mahasanghika Vinaya brought from India by Fa-Hsien and translated 416
A.D. It is noticeable that all five recensions are classed as
Hinayanist, although (_b_) is said to be the Vinaya used by the
Tibetan Church. Although Chinese Buddhists frequently speak of the
five-fold Vinaya[725], this expression does not refer to these five
texts, as might be supposed, and I-Ching condemns it, saying that[726]
the real number of divisions is four.
The Abhidharma-Pitaka or Lun-tsang is, like the Sûtra Pitaka, divided into
Mahayanist and Hinayanist texts and texts of both schools admitted into
the Canon after 960 A.D. The Mahayanist texts have no connection with the
Pali Canon and their Sanskrit titles do not contain the word
Abhidharma[727]. They are philosophical treatises ascribed to Aśvaghosha,
Nâgârjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu and others, including three works supposed
to have been revealed by Maitreya to Asanga[728]. The principal of these
is the Yogâcârya-bhûmiśâstra, a scripture of capital importance for the
Yogâcârya school. It describes the career of a Bodhisattva and hence parts
of it are treated as belonging to the Vinaya. Among other important works
in this section may be mentioned the Madhyamaka Śâstra of Nâgârjuna, the
Mahâyânasûtrâlankâra of Asanga, and the Awakening of Faith ascribed to
Aśvaghosha[729].
The Hînayâna texts also show no correspondence with the Pali Pitaka but
are based on the Abhidharma works of the Sarvâstivâdin school[730]. These
are seven in number, namely the Jnânaprasthânasâstra of Kâtyâyanîputra
with six accessory treatises or Pâdas[731]. The Mahâvibhâshasâstra, or
commentary on the Jnânaprasthâna, and the Abhidharmakósa[732] are also in
this section.
The third division of the Abhidharma is of little importance but
contains two curious items: a manual of Buddhist terminology composed
as late as 1272 by Pagspa for the use of Khubilai's son and the
Sânkhyakârikâbhâshya, which is not a Buddhist work but a compendium of
Sânkhya philosophy[733].
The fourth division of the whole collection consists of miscellaneous
works, partly translated from Sanskrit and partly composed in Chinese.
Many of the Indian works appear from their title not to differ much
from the later Mahâyâna Sûtras, but it is rather surprising to find in
this section four translations[734] of the Dharmapada (or at least of
some similar anthology) which are thus placed outside the Sûtra
Pitaka. Among the works professing to be translated from Sanskrit are
a History of the Patriarchs, the Buddhacarita of Aśvaghosha, a work
similar to the Questions of King Milinda, Lives of Aśvaghosha,
Nâgârjuna, Vasubandhu and others and the Suhrillekha or Friendly
Epistle ascribed to Nâgârjuna.
The Chinese works included in this Tripitaka consist of nearly two
hundred books, historical, critical, controversial and homiletic,
composed by one hundred and two authors. Excluding late treatises on
ceremonial and doctrine, the more interesting may be classified as
follows:
_(a) Historical._--Besides general histories of Buddhism, there are
several collections of ecclesiastical biography. The first is the
Kao-sêng-chuan[735], or Memoirs of eminent Monks (not, however,
excluding laymen), giving the lives of about five hundred worthies who
lived between 67 and 519 A.D. The series is continued in other works
dealing with the T'ang and Sung dynasties. For the Contemplative School
there are further supplements carrying the record on to the Yüan. There
are also several histories of the Chinese patriarchs. Of these the
latest and therefore most complete is the Fo-tsu-t'ung-chi[736] composed
about 1270 by Chih P'an of the T'ien-T'ai school. The
Ching-tê-ch'uan-têng-lu[737] and other treatises give the succession of
patriarchs according to the Contemplative School. Among historical works
may be reckoned the travels of various pilgrims who visited India.
(_b_) _Critical_.--There are thirteen catalogues of the Tripitaka as it
existed at different periods. Several of them contain biographical
accounts of the translators and other notes. The work called
Chên-chêng-lun criticizes several false sûtras and names. There are also
several encyclopædic works containing extracts from the Tripitaka,
arranged according to subjects, such as the Fa-yüan-chu-lin[738] in 100
volumes; concordances of numerical categories and a dictionary of Sanskrit
terms, Fan-i-ming-i-chi[739], composed in 1151.
(_c_) The literature of several Chinese sects is well represented.
Thus there are more than sixty works belonging to the T'ien T'ai
school beginning with the San-ta-pu or three great books attributed to
the founder and ending with the ecclesiastical history of Chih-p'an,
written about 1270. The Hua-yen school is represented by the writings
of four patriarchs and five monks: the Lü or Vinaya school by eight
works attributed to its founder, and the Contemplative School by a
sûtra ascribed to Hui-nêng, the sixth patriarch, by works on the
history of the Patriarchs and by several collections of sayings or
short compositions.
(_d_) _Controversial_.--Under this heading may be mentioned
polemics against Taoism, including two collections of the
controversies which took place between Buddhists and Taoists from A.D.
71 till A.D. 730: replies to the attacks made against Buddhism by
Confucian scholars and refutations of the objections raised by
sceptics or heretics such as the Chê-i-lun and the Yüan-jên-lun, or
Origin of man[740]. This latter is a well-known text-book written by
the fifth Patriarch of the Hua-yen school and while criticizing
Confucianism, Taoism, and the Hînâyana, treats them as imperfect
rather than as wholly erroneous[741]. Still more conciliatory is the
Treatise on the three religions composed by Liu Mi of the Yüan
dynasty[742], which asserts that all three deserve respect as teaching
the practice of virtue. It attacks, however, anti-Buddhist
Confucianists such as Han-Yü and Chu-Hsi.
The Chinese section contains three compositions attributed to imperial
personages of the Ming, viz., a collection of the prefaces and laudatory
verses written by the Emperor T'ai-Tsung, the Shên-Sêng-Chuan or memoirs
of remarkable monks with a preface by the Emperor Ch'êng-tsu, and a
curious book by his consort the Empress Jên-Hsiao, introducing a sûtra
which Her Majesty states was miraculously revealed to her on New Year's
day, 1398 (see Nanjio, No. 1657).
Though the Hindus were careful students and guardians of their sacred
works, their temperament did not dispose them to define and limit the
scriptures. But, as I have mentioned above[743], there is some
evidence that there was a loose Mahayanist canon in India which was
the origin of the arrangement found in the Chinese Tripitaka, in so
far as it (1) accepted Hinayanist as well as Mahayanist works, and (2)
included a great number of relatively late sûtras, arranged in classes
such as Prajnâpâramitâ and Mahâsannipâta.
2
The Tripitaka analyzed by Nanjio, which contains works assigned to
dates ranging from 67 to 1622 A.D., is merely the best known
survivor among several similar thesauri[744]. From 518 A.D. onwards
twelve collections of sacred literature were made by imperial order
and many of these were published in more than one edition. The
validity of this Canon depends entirely on imperial authority, but,
though Emperors occasionally inserted the works of writers whom they
esteemed[745], it does not appear that they aimed at anything but
completeness nor did they favour any school. The Buddhist Church, like
every other department of the Empire, received from them its share of
protection and supervision and its claims were sufficient to induce
the founder, or at least an early Sovereign, of every important
dynasty to publish under his patronage a revised collection of the
scriptures. The list of these collections is as follows[746]:
1. A.D. 518 in the time of Wu-Ti, founder of the Liang.
2. " 533-4 Hsiao-Wu of the Northern Wei.
3. " 594 } Wan-ti, founder of the Sui.
4. " 602 } Wan-ti, founder of the Sui.
5. " 605-16 Yang-Ti of the Sui.
6. " 695 the Empress Wu of the T'ang.
7. " 730 Hsüan-Tsung of the T'ang.
8. " 971 T'ai-Tsu, founder of the Sung.
9. " 1285-7 Khubilai Khan, founder of the Yüan.
10. " 1368-98 Hung-Wu, founder of the Ming.
11. " 1403-24 Yung-Lo of the Ming.
12. " 1735-7 Yung-Ching and Ch'ien-Lung of the Ch'ing[747].
Of these collections, the first seven were in MS. only: the last five
were printed. The last three appear to be substantially the same. The
tenth and eleventh collections are known as southern and
northern[748], because they were printed at Nanking and Peking
respectively. They differ only in the number of Chinese works admitted
and similarly the twelfth collection is merely a revision of the tenth
with the addition of fifty-four Chinese works.
As mentioned, the Tripitaka contains thirteen catalogues of the
Buddhist scriptures as known at different dates[749]. Of these the
most important are (_a_) the earliest published between 506 and 512
A.D., (_b_) three published under the T'ang dynasty and known as
Nei-tien-lu, T'u-chi (both about 664 A.D.), and K'ai-yüan-lu (about
720 A.D.), (_c_) Chih-Yüan-lu or catalogue of Yüan dynasty, about
1285, which, besides enumerating the Chinese titles, transliterates
the Sanskrit titles and states whether the Indian works translated are
also translated into Tibetan. (_d_) The catalogue of the first Ming
collection.
The later collections contain new material and differ from the earlier
by natural accretion, for a great number of translations were produced
under the T'ang and Sung. Thus the seventh catalogue (695 A.D.)
records that 859 new works were admitted to the Canon. But this
expansion was accompanied by a critical and sifting process, so that
whereas the first collection contained 2213 works, the Ming edition
contains only 1622. This compression means not that works of
importance were rejected as heretical or apocryphal, for, as we have
seen, the Tripitaka is most catholic, but that whereas the earlier
collections admitted multitudinous extracts or partial translations of
Indian works, many of these were discarded when complete versions had
been made.
Nanjio considers that of the 2213 works contained in the first
collection only 276 are extant. Although the catalogues are preserved,
all the earlier collections are lost: copies of the eighth and
ninth were preserved in the Zō-jō-ji Library of Tokyo[750] and
Chinese and Japanese editions of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth are
current. So far as one can judge, when the eighth catalogue, or
K'ai-yüan-lu, was composed (between 713 and 741), the older and major
part of the Canon had been definitively fixed and the later
collections merely add the translations made by Amogha, and by writers
of the Sung and Yüan dynasties.
The editions of the Chinese Tripitaka must be distinguished from the
collections, for by editions are meant the forms in which each
collection was published, the text being or purporting to be the same
in all the editions of each collection. It is said[751] that under the
Sung and Yüan twenty different editions were produced. These earlier
issues were printed on long folding sheets and a nun called
Fa-chên[752] is said to have first published an edition in the shape
of ordinary Chinese books. In 1586 a monk named Mi-Tsang[753] imitated
this procedure and his edition was widely used. About a century later
a Japanese priest known as Tetsu-yen[754] reproduced it and his
publication, which is not uncommon in Japan, is usually called the
Ō-baku edition. There are two modern Japanese editions: (_a_) that
of Tokyo, begun in 1880, based on a Korean edition[755] with various
readings taken from other Chinese editions. (_b_) That of Kyoto, 1905,
which is a reprint of the Ming collection[756]. A Chinese edition has
been published at Shanghai (1913) at the expense of Mrs. Hardoon, a
Chinese lady well known as a munificent patron of the faith, and I
believe another at Nanking, but I do not know if it is complete or
not[757].
3
The translations contained in the Chinese Tripitaka belong to several
periods[758]. In the earliest, which extends to the middle of the
fourth century, the works produced were chiefly renderings of detached
sûtras[759]. Few treatises classified as Vinaya or Abhidharma were
translated and those few are mostly extracts or compilations. The
sûtras belong to both the Hîna and Mahâyâna. The earliest extant
translation or rather compilation, the Sûtra of Forty-two sections,
belongs to the former school, and so do the majority of the
translations made by An-Shih-Kao (148-170 A.D.), but from the second
century onwards the Prajnâpâramitâ and Amitâbha Sûtras make their
appearance[760]. Many of the translations made in this period are
described as incomplete or incorrect and the fact that most of them
were superseded or supplemented by later versions shows that the
Chinese recognized their provisional character. Future research will
probably show that many of them are paraphrases or compendiums rather
than translations in our sense.
The next period, roughly speaking 375-745 A.D., was extraordinarily
prolific in extensive and authoritative translations. The translators
now attack not detached chapters or discourses but the great monuments
of Indian Buddhist literature. Though it is not easy to make any
chronological bisection in this period, there is a clear difference in
the work done at the beginning and at the end of it. From the end of
the fourth century onwards a desire to have complete translations of
the great canonical works is apparent. Between 385 and 445 A.D. were
translated the four Agamas, analogous to the Nikâyas of the Pali
Canon, three great collections of the Vinaya, and the principal
scriptures of the Abhidharma according to the Sarvâstivâdin school.
For the Mahâyâna were translated the great sûtras known as Avatamsaka,
Lankâvatâra, and many others, as well as works ascribed to
Aśvaghosha and Nâgârjuna. After 645 A.D. a further development of
the critical spirit is perceptible, especially in the labours of Hsüan
Chuang and I-Ching. They attempt to give the religious public not only
complete works in place of extracts and compendiums, but also to
select the most authoritative texts among the many current in India.
Thus, though many translations had appeared under the name of
Prajnâpâramitâ, Hsüan Chuang filled 600 fasciculi with a new rendering
of the gigantic treatise. I-Ching supplemented the already bulky
library of Vinaya works with versions of the Mûlasarvâstivâdin
recension and many auxiliary texts.
Amogha (Pu-K'ung) whose literary labours extended from 746 to 774 A.D.
is a convenient figure to mark the beginning of the next and last
period, although some of its characteristics appear a little earlier.
They are that no more translations are made from the great Buddhist
classics--partly no doubt because they had all been translated
already, well or ill--but that renderings of works described as
Dhâraṇî or Tantra pullulate and multiply. Though this literature
deserves such epithets as decadent and superstitious, yet it would
appear that Indian Tantras of the worst class were not palatable to
the Chinese.
4
The Chinese Tripitaka is of great importance for the literary history
of Buddhism, but the material which it offers for investigation is
superabundant and the work yet done is small. We are confronted by
such questions as, can we accept the dates assigned to the
translators, can we assume that, if the Chinese translations or
transliterations correspond with Indian titles, the works are the
same, and if the works are professedly the same, can we assume that
the Chinese text is a correct presentment of the Indian original?
The dates assigned to the translators offer little ground for
scepticism. The exactitude of the Chinese in such matters is well
attested, and there is a general agreement between several authorities
such as the Catalogues of the Tripitaka, the memoirs known as
Kao-Sêng Chuan with their continuations, and the chapter on Buddhist
books in the Sui annals. There are no signs of a desire to claim
improbable accuracy or improbable antiquity. Many works are said to be
by unknown translators, doubtful authorship is frankly discussed, and
the movement of literature and thought indicated is what we should
expect. We have first fragmentary and incomplete translations
belonging to both the Mahâ and Hînayâna: then a series of more
complete translations beginning about the fifth century in which the
great Hînayâna texts are conspicuous: then a further series of
improved translations in which the Hînayâna falls into the background
and the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu come to the front. This
evidently reflects the condition of Buddhist India about 500-650 A.D.,
just as the translations of the eighth century reflect its later and
tantric phase.
But can Chinese texts be accepted as reasonably faithful reproductions
of the Indian originals whose names they bear, and some of which have
been lost? This question is really double; firstly, did the
translators reproduce with fair accuracy the Indian text before them,
and secondly, since Indian texts often exist in several recensions,
can we assume that the work which the translators knew under a certain
Sanskrit name is the work known to us by that name? In reply it must
be said that most Chinese translators fall short of our standards of
accuracy. In early times when grammars and dictionaries were unknown
the scholarly rendering of foreign books was a difficult business,
for professional interpreters would usually be incapable of
understanding a philosophic treatise. The method often followed was
that an Indian explained the text to a literary Chinese, who recast
the explanation in his own language. The many translations of the more
important texts and the frequent description of the earlier ones as
imperfect indicate a feeling that the results achieved were not
satisfactory. Several so-called translators, especially Kumârajîva,
gave abstracts of the Indian texts[761]. Others, like Dharmaraksha,
who made a Chinese version of Aśvaghosha's Buddhacarita, so
amplified and transposed the original that the result can hardly
be called a translation[762]. Others combined different texts in one.
Thus the work called Ta-o-mi-to-ching[763] consists of extracts taken
from four previous translations of the Sukhâvatîvyûha and rearranged
by the author under the inspiration of Avalokita to whom, as he tells
us, he was wont to pray during the execution of his task. Others
again, like Dharmagupta, anticipated a method afterwards used in
Tibet, and gave a word for word rendering of the Sanskrit which is
hardly intelligible to an educated Chinese. The later versions, _e.g._
those of Hsüan Chuang, are more accurate, but still a Chinese
rendering of a lost Indian document cannot be accepted as a faithful
representation of the original without a critical examination[764].
Often, however, the translator, whatever his weaknesses may have been,
had before him a text differing in bulk and arrangement from the Pali
and Sanskrit texts which we possess. Thus, there are four Chinese
translations of works bearing some relation to the Dhammapada of the
Pali Canon. All of these describe the original text as the compilation
of Dharmatrâta, to whom is also ascribed the compilation of the
Tibetan Udânavarga[765]. His name is not mentioned in connection with
the Pali text, yet two of the Chinese translations are closely related
to that text. The Fa-chü-ching[766] is a collection of verses
translated in 224 A.D. and said to correspond with the Pali except
that it has nine additional chapters and some additional stanzas. The
Fa-chü-p'i-yü-ching[767] represents another edition of the same
verses, illustrated by a collection of parables. It was translated
between 290 and 306. The Ch'u-yao-ching[768], translated in 399, is a
similar collection of verses and parables, but founded on another
Indian work of much greater length. A revised translation containing
only the verses was made between 980 and 1001[769]. They are said to
be the same as the Tibetan Udâna, and the characteristics of this
book, going back apparently to a Sanskrit original, are that it is
divided into thirty-three chapters, and that though it contains about
300 verses found in Pali, yet it is not merely the Pali text plus
additions, but an anthology arranged on a different principle and only
partly identical in substance[770].
There can be little doubt that the Pali Dhammapada is one among
several collections of verses, with or without an explanatory
commentary of stories. In all these collections there was much common
matter, both prose and verse, but some were longer, some shorter, some
were in Pali and some in Sanskrit. Whereas the Chinese Dhammapada is
longer than the Indian texts, the Chinese version of Milinda's
Questions[771] is much shorter and omits books iv-vii. It was made
between 317 and 420 A.D. and the inference is that the original Indian
text received later additions.
A more important problem is this: what is the relation to the Pali Canon
of the Chinese texts bearing titles corresponding to Dîrgha, Madhyama,
Samyukta and Ekottara? These collections of sûtras do not call themselves
Nikâya but A-han or Agama: the titles are translated as Ch'ang (long),
Chung (medium), Tsa (miscellaneous) and Tseng-i, representing Ekottara
rather than Anguttara[772]. There is hence _prima facie_ reason to
suppose that these works represent not the Pali Canon, but a somewhat
similar Sanskrit collection. That one or many Sanskrit works may have
coexisted with a somewhat similar Pali work is clearly shown by the Vinaya
texts, for here we have the Pali Canon and Chinese translations of five
Sanskrit versions, belonging to different schools, but apparently covering
the same ground and partly identical. For the Sûtra Pitaka no such body of
evidence is forthcoming, but the Sanskrit fragments of the Samyuktâgama
found near Turfan contain parts of six sûtras which are arranged in the
same order as in the Chinese translation and are apparently the original
from which it was made. It is noticeable that three of the four great
Agamas were translated by monks who came from Tukhara or Kabul.
Guṇabhadra, however, the translator of the Samyuktâgama, came from
Central India and the text which he translated was brought from Ceylon by
Fa-Hsien. It apparently belonged to the Abhayagiri monastery and not to
the Mahâvihâra. Nanjio[773], however, states that about half of it is
repeated in the Chinese versions of the Madhyama and Ekottara Agamas. It
is also certain that though the Chinese Agamas and Pali Nikâyas contain
much common matter, it is differently distributed[774].
There was in India a copious collection of sûtras, existing primarily
as oral tradition and varying in diction and arrangement, but codified
from time to time in a written form. One of such codifications is
represented by the Pali Canon, at least one other by the Sanskrit text
which was rendered into Chinese. With rare exceptions the Chinese
translations were from the Sanskrit[775]. The Sanskrit codification of
the sûtra literature, while differing from the Pali in language
and arrangement, is identical in doctrine and almost identical in
substance. It is clearly the product of the same or similar schools,
but is it earlier or later than the Pali or contemporary with it? The
Chinese translations merely fix the latest possible date. A portion of
the Samyuktâgama (Nanjio, No. 547) was translated by an unknown author
between 220 and 280. This is probably an extract from the complete
work which was translated about 440, but it would be difficult to
prove that the Indian original was not augmented or rearranged between
these dates. The earliest translation of a complete Agama is that of
the Ekottarâgama, 384 A.D. But the evidence of inscriptions[776] shows
that works known as Nikâyas existed in the third century B.C. The
Sanskrit of the Agamas, so far as it is known from the fragments found
in Central Asia, does not suggest that they belong to this epoch, but
is compatible with the theory that they date from the time of Kanishka
of which if we know little, we can at least say that it produced much
Buddhist Sanskrit literature. M. Sylvain Lévi has suggested that the
later appearance of the complete Vinaya in Chinese is due to the late
compilation of the Sanskrit original[777]. It seems to me that other
explanations are possible. The early translators were clearly shy of
extensive works and until there was a considerable body of Chinese
monks, to what public would these theological libraries appeal? Still,
if any indication were forthcoming from India or Central Asia that the
Sanskrit Agamas were arranged or rearranged in the early centuries of
our era, the late date of the Chinese translations would certainly
support it. But I am inclined to think that the Nikâyas were rewritten
in Sanskrit about the beginning of our era, when it was felt that
works claiming a certain position ought to be composed in what had
become the general literary language of India[778]. Perhaps those
who wrote them in Sanskrit were hardly conscious of making a
translation in our sense, but simply wished to publish them in the
best literary form.
It seems probable that the Hinayanist portion of the Chinese Tripitaka
is in the main a translation of the Canon of the Sarvastivâdins which
must have consisted of:
(1) Four Agamas or Nikâyas only, for the Dhammapada
is placed outside the Sutta Pitaka.
(2) A voluminous Vinaya covering the same ground as the
Pali recension but more copious in legend and anecdote.
(3) An Abhidharma entirely different from the Pali works
bearing this name.
It might seem to follow from this that the whole Pali Abhidharma and
some important works such as the Thera-Therîgâthâ were unknown to the
Hinayanists of Central Asia and Northern India in the early centuries
of our era. But caution is necessary in drawing such inferences, for
until recently it might have been said that the Sutta Nipâta also was
unknown, whereas fragments of it in a Sanskrit version have now been
discovered in Eastern Turkestan[779]. The Chinese editors draw a clear
distinction between Hinayanist and Mahayanist scriptures. They exclude
from the latter works analogous to the Pali Nikâyas and Vinaya, and
also the Abhidharma of the Sarvâstivâdins. But the labours of Hsüan
Chuang and I-Ching show that this does not imply the rejection of all
these works by Mahayanists.
5
Buddhist literary activity has an interesting side aspect, namely the
expedients used to transliterate Indian words, which almost
provided the Chinese with an alphabet. To some extent Indian names,
particularly proper names possessing an obvious meaning, are
translated. Thus Asoka becomes Wu-yu, without sorrow: Aśvaghosha,
Ma-ming or horse-voice, and Udyâna simply Yüan or park[780]. But many
proper names did not lend themselves to such renderings and it was a
delicate business to translate theological terms like Nirvâṇa and
Samâdhi. The Buddhists did not perhaps invent the idea of using the
Chinese characters so as to spell with moderate precision[781], but
they had greater need of this procedure than other writers and they
used it extensively[782] and with such variety of detail that though
they invented some fifteen different syllabaries, none of them
obtained general acceptance and Julien[783] enumerates 3000 Chinese
characters used to represent the sounds indicated by 47 Indian
letters. Still, they gave currency[784] to the system known as
_fan-ch'ieh_ which renders a syllable phonetically by two characters,
the final of the first and the initial of the second not being
pronounced. Thus, in order to indicate the sound Chung, a Chinese
dictionary will use the two characters _chu yung_, which are to be
read together as _Ch ung_.
The transcriptions of Indian words vary in exactitude and the later
are naturally better. Hsüan Chuang was a notable reformer and probably
after his time Indian words were rendered in Chinese characters as
accurately as Chinese words are now transcribed in Latin letters. It
is true that modern pronunciation makes such renderings as Fo seem a
strange distortion of the original. But it is an abbreviation of
Fo-t'o and these syllables were probably once pronounced something
like Vut-tha[785]. Similarly Wên-shu-shih-li[786] seems a parody of
Manjuśri. But the evidence of modern dialects shows that the
first two syllables may have been pronounced as Man-ju. The pupil was
probably taught to eliminate the obscure vowel of _shih_, and _li_ was
taken as the nearest equivalent of _ri_, just as European authors
write _chih_ and _tzŭ_ without pretending that they are more than
conventional signs for Chinese sounds unknown to our languages. It was
certainly possible to transcribe not only names but Sanskrit prayers
and formulæ in Chinese characters, and though many writers sneer at
the gibberish chanted by Buddhist priests yet I doubt if this
ecclesiastical pronunciation, which has changed with that of the
spoken language, is further removed from its original than the Latin
of Oxford from the speech of Augustus.
Sanskrit learning flourished in China for a considerable period. In
the time of the T'ang, the clergy numbered many serious students of
Indian literature and the glossaries included in the Tripitaka show
that they studied the original texts. Under the Sung dynasty (A.D.
1151) was compiled another dictionary of religious terms[787] and the
study of Sanskrit was encouraged under the Yüan. But the ecclesiastics
of the Ming produced no new translations and apparently abandoned the
study of the original texts which was no longer kept alive by the
arrival of learned men from India. It has been stated that Sanskrit
manuscripts are still preserved in Chinese monasteries, but no details
respecting such works are known to me. The statement is not improbable
in itself[788] as is shown by the Library which Stein discovered at
Tun-huang and by the Japanese palm-leaf manuscripts which came
originally from China. A few copies of Sanskrit sûtras printed in
China in the Lanja variety of the Devanâgari alphabet have been
brought to Europe[789]. Max Müller published a facsimile of part of
the Vajracchedikâ obtained at Peking and printed in Sanskrit from
wooden blocks. The place of production is unknown, but the characters
are similar to those used for printing Sanskrit in Tibet, as may be
seen from another facsimile (No. 3) in the same work. Placards and
pamphlets containing short invocations in Sanskrit and Tibetan are
common in Chinese monasteries, particularly where there is any
Lamaistic influence, but they do not imply that the monks who use them
have any literary acquaintance with those languages.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 708: [Chinese: ] For an account of some of the scriptures
here mentioned see chap. XX.]
[Footnote 709: _A catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist
Tripitaka_. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893. An index to the Tokyo
edition has been published by Fujii. Meiji XXXI (1898). See too Forke,
_Katalog des Pekinger Tripitaka_, 1916.]
[Footnote 710: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 711: Tan-i-ching [Chinese: ]. Some of the works classed
under Tan-i-ching appear to exist in more than one form, _e.g._
Nanjio, Nos. 674 and 804.]
[Footnote 712: These characters are commonly read Pojo by Chinese
Buddhists but the Japanese reading Hanṇya shows that the
pronunciation of the first character was Pan.]
[Footnote 713: Vajracchedikâ or [Chinese: ] Chin Kang.]
[Footnote 714: Winternitz (_Gesch. Ind. Lit_. II. i. p. 242) states on
the authority of Takakusu that this work is the same as the
Gaṇḍavyûha. See also Pelliot in _J. A_. 1914, II. pp. 118-21. The
Gaṇḍavyûha is probably an extract of the Avatamsaka.]
[Footnote 715: Nos. 113 and 114 [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 716: _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_, pp. 160 ff.]
[Footnote 717: The longer Sukhâvatîvyûha is placed in the Ratnakûta
class.]
[Footnote 718: The Sûtra of Kuan-yin with the thousand hands and eyes
is very popular and used in most temples. Nanjio, No. 320.]
[Footnote 719: No. 399 [Chinese: ] and 530 [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 720: Said to have been revealed to Asanga by Maitreya. No.
1170.]
[Footnote 721: [Chinese: ] No. 1087. It has nothing to do with the
Pali Sûtra of the same name. Digha, I.]
[Footnote 722: See below for an account of it.]
[Footnote 723: _Record of Buddhist Practices_, p. 20.]
[Footnote 724: See Oldenberg, _Vinaya_, vol. I. pp. xxiv-xlvi.]
[Footnote 725: See Watters, _Yüan Chwang_, I. p. 227. The five schools
are given as Dharmagupta, Mahîs'âsika, Sarvâstivâdin, Kâ'syapîya and
Mahâsanghika. For the last Vatsiputra or Sthavira is sometimes
substituted.]
[Footnote 726: _Record of Buddhist Practices_, p. 8.]
[Footnote 727: The Chinese word lun occurs frequently in them, but
though it is used to translate Abhidharma, it is of much wider
application and means discussion of Śâstra.]
[Footnote 728: See Watters, _Yüan Chwang_, I, pp. 355 ff.]
[Footnote 729: Nos. 1179, 1190, 1249.]
[Footnote 730: For a discussion of this literature see Takakusu on the
Abhidharma Literature of the Sarvâstivâdins, _J. Pali Text Society_,
1905, pp. 67 ff.]
[Footnote 731: Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1273, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1292, 1281,
1282, 1296, 1317. This last work was not translated till the eleventh
century.]
[Footnote 732: Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1263, 1267 and 1269.]
[Footnote 733: See Takakusu's study of these translations in
_B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 1 ff. and pp. 978 ff.]
[Footnote 734: Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1321, 1353, 1365, 1439.]
[Footnote 735: [Chinese: ] No. 1490.]
[Footnote 736: [Chinese: ] No. 1661. For more about the Patriarchs see
the next chapter.]
[Footnote 737: [Chinese: ] No. 1524, written A.D. 1006.]
[Footnote 738: [Chinese: ] No. 1482.]
[Footnote 739: [Chinese: ] No. 1640.]
[Footnote 740: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]. Nos. 1634 and 1594.]
[Footnote 741: See for some account of it Masson-Oursel's article in
_J.A._ 1915, I. pp. 229-354.]
[Footnote 742: [Chinese: ] by [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 743: See chap. XX on the Mahayanist canon in India.]
[Footnote 744: It is described at the beginning as Ta Ming San Tsang,
but strictly speaking it must be No. 12 of the list, as it contains a
work said to have been written about 1622 A.D. (p. 468).]
[Footnote 745: Thus the Emperor Jên Tsung ordered the works of Ch'i
Sung [Chinese: ] to be admitted to the Canton in 1062.]
[Footnote 746: Taken from Nanjio's Catalogue, p. xxvii.]
[Footnote 747: Ch'ien-Lung is said to have printed the Tripitaka in
four languages, Chinese, Tibetan, Mongol and Manchu, the whole
collection filling 1392 vols. See Möllendorf in China Branch, _J.A.S._
xxiv. 1890, p. 28.]
[Footnote 748: But according to another statement the southern
recension was not the imperial collection begun in 1368 but a private
edition now lost. See Nanjio, Cat. p. xxiii.]
[Footnote 749: See for the complete list Nanjio, Cat. p. xxvii. Those
named above are (_a_) [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ],
Nos. 1483, 1485, 1487, and (_b_) [Chinese: ], No. 1612. For the date
of the first see Maspéro in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1910, p. 114. There was a
still earlier catalogue composed by Tao-an in 374 of which only
fragments have been preserved. See Pelliot in _T'oung Pao_, XIX. 1920,
p. 258.]
[Footnote 750: For the Korean copy now in Japan, see Courant,
_Bibliographie coréenne_, vol. III. pp. 215-19.]
[Footnote 751: See Nanjio, Cat. p. xxii.]
[Footnote 752: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 753: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 754: Also called Do-ko.]
[Footnote 755: The earlier collections of the Tripitaka seem to have
been known in Korea and about 1000 A.D. the king procured from China a
copy of the Imperial Edition, presumably the eighth collection (971
A.D.). He then ordered a commission of scholars to revise the text and
publish an edition of his own. The copy of this edition, on which the
recent Tokyo edition was founded, was brought to Japan in the Bun-mei
period 1469-1486.]
[Footnote 756: A supplement to the Tripitaka containing non-canonical
works in 750 volumes (Dai Nippon Zoku-Zōkyō) was published in
1911.]
[Footnote 757: The Peking Tripitaka catalogued by Forke appears to be
a set of 1223 works represented by copies taken from four editions
published in 1578, 1592, 1598 and 1735 A.D., all of which are editions
of the collections numbered 11 and 12 above.]
[Footnote 758: For two interesting lives of translators see the
_T'oung Pao_, 1909, p. 199, and 1905, p. 332, where will be found the
biographies of Sêng Hui, a Sogdian who died in 280 and Jinagupta a
native of Gandhâra (528-605).]
[Footnote 759: But between 266 and 313 Dharmaraksha translated the
Saddharmapundarîka (including the additional chapters 21-26) and the
Lalitavistara. His translation of the Prajñâpâramitâ is incomplete.]
[Footnote 760: In the translations of Lokâkshî 147-186, Chih-Ch'ien
223-243, Dharmaraksha 266-313.]
[Footnote 761: But his translation of the Lotus won admiration for its
literary style. See Anesaki Nichiren, p. 17. Wieger (_Croyances_, p.
367) says that the works of An-shih-kao illustrate the various methods
of translation: absolutely literal renderings which have hardly any
meaning in Chinese: word for word translations to which is added a
paraphrase of each sentence in Chinese idiom: and elegant renderings
by a native in which the original text obviously suffers.]
[Footnote 762: Yet it must have been intended as such. The title
expressly describes the work as composed by the Bodhisattva Ma-Ming
(Aśvaghosha) and translated by Dharmaraksha. Though his idea of a
translation was at best an amplified metrical paraphrase, yet he
coincides verbally with the original so often that his work can hardly
be described as an independent poem inspired by it.]
[Footnote 763: [Chinese: ] No. 203.]
[Footnote 764: See Sukhâvatîvyûha, ed. Max Müller and Bunyiu Nanjio,
Oxford, 1883. In the preface, pp. vii-ix, is a detailed comparison of
several translations and in an appendix, pp. 79 ff., a rendering of
Sanghavarman's Chinese version of verses which occur in the work.
Chinese critics say that Tao-an in the third century was the first to
introduce a sound style of translation. He made no translations
himself which have survived but was a scholar and commentator who
influenced others.]
[Footnote 765: This is an anthology (edited by Beckh, 1911: translated
by Rockhill, 1892) in which 300 verses are similar to the Pali
Dhammapada.]
[Footnote 766: [Chinese: ] No. 1365.]
[Footnote 767: [Chinese: ] No. 1353.]
[Footnote 768: [Chinese: ] No. 1321.]
[Footnote 769: [Chinese: ] Fa-chi-yao-sung-ching, No. 1439.]
[Footnote 770: There seem to be at least two other collections.
Firstly a Prâkrit anthology of which Dutreuil de Rhins discovered a
fragmentary MS. in Khotan and secondly a much amplified collection
preserved in the Korean Tripitaka and reprinted in the Tokyo edition
(xxiv.'g). The relation of these to the other recensions is not
clear.]
[Footnote 771: Nanjio, Cat. 1358. See Pelliot, _J.A._ 1914, II. p.
379.]
[Footnote 772: [Chinese: ] For the relations of the Chinese
translations to the Pali Tripitaka, and to a Sanskrit Canon now
preserved only in a fragmentary state, see _inter alia_, Nanjio, Cat.
pp. 127 ff., especially Nos. 542, 543, 545. Anesaki, _J.R.A.S._ 1901,
p. 895; _id_. "On some problems of the textual history of the Buddhist
scriptures," in _Trans. A. S. Japan_, 1908, p. 81, and more especially
his longer article entitled, "The Four Buddhist Agamas in Chinese" in
the same year of the _Trans.; id._ "Traces of Pali Texts in a Mahâyana
Treatise," _Muséon_, 1905. S. Lévi, Le Samyuktâgama Sanskrit, _T'oung
Pao_, 1904, p. 297.]
[Footnote 773: No. 544.]
[Footnote 774: Thus seventy sûtras of the Pali Anguttara are found in
the Chinese Madhyama and some of them are repeated in the Chinese
Ekottara. The Pali Majjhima contains 125 sûtras, the Chinese
Madhyamâgama 222, of which 98 are common to both. Also twenty-two Pali
Majjhima dialogues are found in the Chinese Ekottara and Samyukta,
seventy Chinese Madhyama dialogues in Pali Anguttara, nine in Digha,
seven in Samyutta and five in Khuddaka. Anesaki, _Some Problems of the
textual history of the Buddhist Scriptures_. See also Anesaki in
_Muséon_, 1905, pp. 23 ff. on the Samyutta Nikâya.]
[Footnote 775: Anesaki, "Traces of Pali Texts," _Muséon_, 1905, shows
that the Indian author of the Mahâprajnâpâramitâ Sâstra may have known
Pali texts, but the only certain translation from the Pali appears to
be Nanjio, No. 1125, which is a translation of the Introduction to
Buddhaghosa's Samanta-pâsâdikâ or commentary on the Vinaya. See
Takakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1896, p. 415. Nanjio's restoration of the title
as Sudarśana appears to be incorrect.]
[Footnote 776: See _Epigraphia Indica_, vol. II. p. 93.]
[Footnote 777: In support of this it may be mentioned that Fa-Hsien
says that at the time of his visit to India the Vinaya of the
Sarvâstivâdins was preserved orally and not committed to writing.]
[Footnote 778: The idea that an important book ought to be in Sanskrit
or deserves to be turned into Sanskrit is not dead in India. See
Grierson, _J.R.A.S._ 1913, p. 133, who in discussing a Sanskrit
version of the Râmâyana of Tulsi Das mentions that translations of
vernacular works into Sanskrit are not uncommon.]
[Footnote 779: _J.R.A.S._ 1916, p. 709. Also, the division into five
Nikâyas is ancient. See Bühler in _Epig. Indica_, II. p. 93. Anesaki
says (_Trans. A.S. Japan_, 1908, p. 9) that Nanjio, No. 714, Pên Shih
is the Itivuttakam, which could not have been guessed from Nanjio's
entry. Portions of the works composing the fifth Nikâya (_e.g._ the
Sutta Nipata) occur in the Chinese Tripitaka in the other Nikâyas. For
mentions of the fifth Nikâya in Chinese, see _J.A._ 1916, II. pp.
32-33, where it is said to be called Tsa-Tsang. This is also the
designation of the last section of the Tripitaka, Nanjio, Nos. 1321 to
1662, and as this section contains the Dharmapada, it might be
supposed to be an enormously distended version of the Kshudraka
Nikâya. But this can hardly be the case, for this Tsa-Tsang is placed
as if it was considered as a fourth Piṭaka rather than as a fifth
Nikâya.]
[Footnote 780: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 781: See Watters, _Essays on the Chinese Language_, pp. 36,
51, and, for the whole subject of transcription, Stanislas Julien,
_Méthode pour déchiffrer et transcrire les noms Sanscrits qui se
rencontrent dans les livres chinois_.]
[Footnote 782: Entire Sanskrit compositions were sometimes transcribed
in Chinese characters. See Kien Ch'ui Fan Tsan, _Bibl. Budd_. XV. and
Max Müller, _Buddhist Texts from Japan_, III. pp. 35-46.]
[Footnote 783: _L.c._ pp. 83-232.]
[Footnote 784: See _inter alia_ the Preface to K'ang Hsi's Dictionary.
The _fan-ch'ieh_ [Chinese: ] system is used in the well-known
dictionary called Yü-Pien composed 543 A.D.]
[Footnote 785: Even in modern Cantonese Fo is pronounced as Fat.]
[Footnote 786: [Chinese: ]]
[Footnote 787: Nanjio, Cat. No. 1640.]
[Footnote 788: History repeats itself. I have seen many modern Burmese
and Sinhalese MSS. in Chinese monasteries.]
[Footnote 789: _Buddhist Texts from Japan_, ed. Max Müller in
_Anecdota Oxoniensia_, Aryan Series, I, II and III. For the Lanja
printed text see the last facsimile in I, also III. p. 34 and _Bibl.
Budd._ XIV (Kuan-si-im Pusar), pp. vi, vii. Another copy of this Lanja
printed text was bought in Kyoto, 1920.]