CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
CHAPTER XII.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHAPTER XV.
CHAPTER XVI.
CHAPTER XVII.
CHAPTER XVIII.
CHAPTER XIX.
CHAPTER XX.
CHAPTER XXI.
CHAPTER XXII.
CHAPTER XXIII.
CHAPTER XXIV.
CHAPTER XXV.
CHAPTER XXVI.
CHAPTER XXVII.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
CHAPTER XXIX.
CHAPTER XXX.
CHAPTER XXXI.
CHAPTER XXXII.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
CHAPTER XXXV.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
CHAPTER XL.
PREFACE
Several times during my long residence in Hong Kong I endeavoured to
read through the “Narrative of Fâ-Hien;” but though interested with the
graphic details of much of the work, its columns bristled so
constantly—now with his phonetic representations of Sanskrit words, and
now with his substitution for them of their meanings in Chinese
characters, and I was, moreover, so much occupied with my own special
labours on the Confucian Classics, that my success was far from
satisfactory. When Dr. Eitel’s “Handbook for the Student of Chinese
Buddhism” appeared in 1870, the difficulty occasioned by the Sanskrit
words and names was removed, but the other difficulty remained; and I
was not able to look into the book again for several years. Nor had I
much inducement to do so in the two copies of it which I had been able
to procure, on poor paper, and printed from blocks badly cut at first,
and so worn with use as to yield books the reverse of attractive in
their appearance to the student.
In the meantime I kept studying the subject of Buddhism from various
sources; and in 1878 began to lecture, here in Oxford, on the Travels
with my Davis Chinese scholar, who was at the same time Boden Sanskrit
scholar. As we went on, I wrote out a translation in English for my own
satisfaction of nearly half the narrative. In the beginning of last
year I made Fâ-Hien again the subject of lecture, wrote out a second
translation, independent of the former, and pushed on till I had
completed the whole.
The want of a good and clear text had been supplied by my friend, Mr.
Bunyiu Nanjio, who sent to me from Japan a copy, the text of which is
appended to the translation and notes, and of the nature of which some
account is given in the Introduction, and towards the end of this
Preface.
The present work consists of three parts: the Translation of Fâ-Hien’s
Narrative of his Travels; copious Notes; and the Chinese Text of my
copy from Japan.
It is for the Translation that I hold myself more especially
responsible. Portions of it were written out three times, and the whole
of it twice. While preparing my own version I made frequent reference
to previous translations:—those of M. Abel Rémusat, “Revu, complété, et
augmenté d’éclaircissements nouveaux par MM. Klaproth et Landress”
(Paris, 1836); of the Rev. Samuel Beal (London, 1869), and his revision
of it, prefixed to his “Buddhist Records of the Western World”
(Trübner’s Oriental Series, 1884); and of Mr. Herbert A. Giles, of
H.M.’s Consular Service in China (1877). To these I have to add a
series of articles on “Fa-hsien and his English Translators,” by Mr. T.
Watters, British Consul at Î-Chang (China Review, 1879, 1880). Those
articles are of the highest value, displaying accuracy of Chinese
scholarship and an extensive knowledge of Buddhism. I have regretted
that Mr. Watters, while reviewing others, did not himself write out and
publish a version of the whole of Fâ-Hien’s narrative. If he had done
so, I should probably have thought that, on the whole, nothing more
remained to be done for the distinguished Chinese pilgrim in the way of
translation. Mr. Watters had to judge of the comparative merits of the
versions of Beal and Giles, and pronounce on the many points of
contention between them. I have endeavoured to eschew those matters,
and have seldom made remarks of a critical nature in defence of
renderings of my own.
The Chinese narrative runs on without any break. It was Klaproth who
divided Rémusat’s translation into forty chapters. The division is
helpful to the reader, and I have followed it excepting in three or
four instances. In the reprinted Chinese text the chapters are
separated by a circle in the column.
In transliterating the names of Chinese characters I have generally
followed the spelling of Morrison rather than the Pekinese, which is
now in vogue. We cannot tell exactly what the pronunciation of them
was, about fifteen hundred years ago, in the time of Fâ-Hien; but the
southern mandarin must be a shade nearer to it than that of Peking at
the present day. In transliterating the Indian names I have for the
most part followed Dr. Eitel, with such modification as seemed good and
in harmony with growing usage.
For the Notes I can do little more than claim the merit of selection
and condensation. My first object in them was to explain what in the
text required explanation to an English reader. All Chinese texts, and
Buddhist texts especially, are new to foreign students. One has to do
for them what many hundreds of the ablest scholars in Europe have done
for the Greek and Latin Classics during several hundred years, and what
the thousands of critics and commentators have been doing of our Sacred
Scriptures for nearly eighteen centuries. There are few predecessors in
the field of Chinese literature into whose labours translators of the
present century can enter. This will be received, I hope, as a
sufficient apology for the minuteness and length of some of the notes.
A second object in them was to teach myself first, and then others,
something of the history and doctrines of Buddhism. I have thought that
they might be learned better in connexion with a lively narrative like
that of Fâ-Hien than by reading didactic descriptions and argumentative
books. Such has been my own experience. The books which I have
consulted for these notes have been many, besides Chinese works. My
principal help has been the full and masterly handbook of Eitel,
mentioned already, and often referred to as E.H. Spence Hardy’s
“Eastern Monachism” (E.M.) and “Manual of Buddhism” (M.B.) have been
constantly in hand, as well as Rhys Davids’ Buddhism, published by the
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, his Hibbert Lectures, and
his Buddhist Suttas in the Sacred Books of the East, and other
writings. I need not mention other authorities, having endeavoured
always to specify them where I make use of them. My proximity and
access to the Bodleian Library and the Indian Institute have been of
great advantage.
I may be allowed to say that, so far as my own study of it has gone, I
think there are many things in the vast field of Buddhist literature
which still require to be carefully handled. How far, for instance, are
we entitled to regard the present Sûtras as genuine and sufficiently
accurate copies of those which were accepted by the Councils before our
Christian era? Can anything be done to trace the rise of the legends
and marvels of Sâkyamuni’s history, which were current so early (as it
seems to us) as the time of Fâ-Hien, and which startle us so frequently
by similarities between them and narratives in our Gospels? Dr. Hermann
Oldenberg, certainly a great authority on Buddhistic subjects, says
that “a biography of Buddha has not come down to us from ancient times,
from the age of the Pâli texts; and, we can safely say, no such
biography existed then” (“Buddha—His Life, His Doctrine, His Order,” as
translated by Hoey, p. 78). He has also (in the same work, pp. 99, 416,
417) come to the conclusion that the hitherto unchallenged tradition
that the Buddha was “a king’s son” must be given up. The name “king’s
son” (in Chinese {...}), always used of the Buddha, certainly requires
to be understood in the highest sense. I am content myself to wait for
further information on these and other points, as the result of
prolonged and careful research.
Dr. Rhys Davids has kindly read the proofs of the Translation and
Notes, and I most certainly thank him for doing so, for his many
valuable corrections in the Notes, and for other suggestions which I
have received from him. I may not always think on various points
exactly as he does, but I am not more forward than he is to say with
Horace,—
“Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.”
I have referred above, and also in the Introduction, to the Corean text
of Fâ-Hien’s narrative, which I received from Mr. Nanjio. It is on the
whole so much superior to the better-known texts, that I determined to
attempt to reproduce it at the end of the little volume, so far as our
resources here in Oxford would permit. To do so has not been an easy
task. The two fonts of Chinese types in the Clarendon Press were
prepared primarily for printing the translation of our Sacred
Scriptures, and then extended so as to be available for printing also
the Confucian Classics; but the Buddhist work necessarily requires many
types not found in them, while many other characters in the Corean
recension are peculiar in their forms, and some are what Chinese
dictionaries denominate “vulgar.” That we have succeeded so well as we
have done is owing chiefly to the intelligence, ingenuity, and untiring
attention of Mr. J. C. Pembrey, the Oriental Reader.
The pictures that have been introduced were taken from a superb edition
of a History of Buddha, republished recently at Hang-châu in
Cheh-kiang, and profusely illustrated in the best style of Chinese art.
I am indebted for the use of it to the Rev. J. H. Sedgwick, University
Chinese Scholar.
JAMES LEGGE.
Oxford:
June, 1886.
[Illustration: Sketch Map Of Fâ-Hien’s Travels]
The accompanying Sketch-Map, taken in connexion with the notes on the
different places in the Narrative, will give the reader a sufficiently
accurate knowledge of Fâ-Hien’s route.
There is no difficulty in laying it down after he crossed the Indus
from east to west into the Punjâb, all the principal places, at which
he touched or rested, having been determined by Cunningham and other
Indian geographers and archaeologists. Most of the places from
Ch’ang-an to Bannu have also been identified. Woo-e has been put down
as near Kutcha, or Kuldja, in 43° 25′ N., 81° 15′ E. The country of
K’ieh-ch’a was probably Ladak, but I am inclined to think that the
place where the traveller crossed the Indus and entered it must have
been further east than Skardo. A doubt is intimated on page 24 as to
the identification of T’o-leih with Darada, but Greenough’s “Physical
and Geological Sketch-Map of British India” shows “Dardu Proper,” all
lying on the east of the Indus, exactly in the position where the
Narrative would lead us to place it. The point at which Fâ-Hien
recrossed the Indus into Udyâna on the west of it is unknown.
Takshasila, which he visited, was no doubt on the west of the river,
and has been incorrectly accepted as the Taxila of Arrian in the
Punjâb. It should be written Takshasira, of which the Chinese
phonetisation will allow;—see a note of Beal in his “Buddhist Records
of the Western World,” i. 138.
We must suppose that Fâ-Hien went on from Nan-king to Ch’ang-an, but
the Narrative does not record the fact of his doing so.
INTRODUCTION
Life of Fâ-Hien; Genuineness and Integrity of the Text of his
Narrative; Number of the Adherents of Buddhism.
1. Nothing of great importance is known about Fâ-Hien in addition to
what may be gathered from his own record of his travels. I have read
the accounts of him in the “Memoirs of Eminent Monks,” compiled in A.D.
519, and a later work, the “Memoirs of Marvellous Monks,” by the third
emperor of the Ming dynasty (A.D. 1403-1424), which, however, is nearly
all borrowed from the other; and all in them that has an appearance of
verisimilitude can be brought within brief compass.
His surname, they tell us, was Kung, and he was a native of Wû-yang in
P’ing-Yang, which is still the name of a large department in Shan-hsi.
He had three brothers older than himself; but when they all died before
shedding their first teeth, his father devoted him to the service of
the Buddhist society, and had him entered as a Sramanera, still keeping
him at home in the family. The little fellow fell dangerously ill, and
the father sent him to the monastery, where he soon got well and
refused to return to his parents.
When he was ten years old, his father died; and an uncle, considering
the widowed solitariness and helplessness of the mother, urged him to
renounce the monastic life, and return to her, but the boy replied, “I
did not quit the family in compliance with my father’s wishes, but
because I wished to be far from the dust and vulgar ways of life. This
is why I chose monkhood.” The uncle approved of his words and gave over
urging him. When his mother also died, it appeared how great had been
the affection for her of his fine nature; but after her burial he
returned to the monastery.
On one occasion he was cutting rice with a score or two of his
fellow-disciples, when some hungry thieves came upon them to take away
their grain by force. The other Sramaneras all fled, but our young hero
stood his ground, and said to the thieves, “If you must have the grain,
take what you please. But, Sirs, it was your former neglect of charity
which brought you to your present state of destitution; and now, again,
you wish to rob others. I am afraid that in the coming ages you will
have still greater poverty and distress;—I am sorry for you
beforehand.” With these words he followed his companions into the
monastery, while the thieves left the grain and went away, all the
monks, of whom there were several hundred, doing homage to his conduct
and courage.
When he had finished his noviciate and taken on him the obligations of
the full Buddhist orders, his earnest courage, clear intelligence, and
strict regulation of his demeanour were conspicuous; and soon after, he
undertook his journey to India in search of complete copies of the
Vinaya-pitaka. What follows this is merely an account of his travels in
India and return to China by sea, condensed from his own narrative,
with the addition of some marvellous incidents that happened to him, on
his visit to the Vulture Peak near Rajagriha.
It is said in the end that after his return to China, he went to the
capital (evidently Nanking), and there, along with the Indian Sramana
Buddha-bhadra, executed translations of some of the works which he had
obtained in India; and that before he had done all that he wished to do
in this way, he removed to King-chow (in the present Hoo-pih), and died
in the monastery of Sin, at the age of eighty-eight, to the great
sorrow of all who knew him. It is added that there is another larger
work giving an account of his travels in various countries.
Such is all the information given about our author, beyond what he
himself has told us. Fâ-Hien was his clerical name, and means
“Illustrious in the Law,” or “Illustrious master of the Law.” The Shih
which often precedes it is an abbreviation of the name of Buddha as
Sâkyamuni, “the Sakya, mighty in Love, dwelling in Seclusion and
Silence,” and may be taken as equivalent to Buddhist. It is sometimes
said to have belonged to “the eastern Tsin dynasty” (A.D. 317-419), and
sometimes to “the Sung,” that is, the Sung dynasty of the House of Liu
(A.D. 420-478). If he became a full monk at the age of twenty, and went
to India when he was twenty-five, his long life may have been divided
pretty equally between the two dynasties.
2. If there were ever another and larger account of Fâ-Hien’s travels
than the narrative of which a translation is now given, it has long
ceased to be in existence.
In the Catalogue of the imperial library of the Suy dynasty (A.D.
589-618), the name Fâ-Hien occurs four times. Towards the end of the
last section of it (page 22), after a reference to his travels, his
labours in translation at Kin-ling (another name for Nanking), in
conjunction with Buddha-bhadra, are described. In the second section,
page 15, we find “A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms;”—with a note, saying
that it was the work of the “Sramana, Fâ-Hien;” and again, on page 13,
we have “Narrative of Fâ-Hien in two Books,” and “Narrative of
Fâ-Hien’s Travels in one Book.” But all these three entries may
possibly belong to different copies of the same work, the first and the
other two being in separate subdivisions of the Catalogue.
In the two Chinese copies of the narrative in my possession the title
is “Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms.” In the Japanese or Corean recension
subjoined to this translation, the title is twofold; first, “Narrative
of the Distinguished Monk, Fâ-Hien;” and then, more at large,
“Incidents of Travels in India, by the Sramana of the Eastern Tsin,
Fâ-Hien, recorded by himself.”
There is still earlier attestation of the existence of our little work
than the Suy Catalogue. The Catalogue Raisonné of the imperial library
of the present dynasty (chap. 71) mentions two quotations from it by Le
Tao-yuen, a geographical writer of the dynasty of the Northern Wei
(A.D. 386-584), one of them containing 89 characters, and the other
276; both of them given as from the “Narrative of Fâ-Hien.”
In all catalogues subsequent to that of Suy our work appears. The
evidence for its authenticity and genuineness is all that could be
required. It is clear to myself that the “Record of Buddhistic
Kingdoms” and the “Narrative of his Travels by Fâ-Hien” were
designations of one and the same work, and that it is doubtful whether
any larger work on the same subject was ever current. With regard to
the text subjoined to my translation, it was published in Japan in
1779. The editor had before him four recensions of the narrative; those
of the Sung and Ming dynasties, with appendixes on the names of certain
characters in them; that of Japan; and that of Corea. He wisely adopted
the Corean text, published in accordance with a royal rescript in 1726,
so far as I can make out; but the different readings of the other texts
are all given in top-notes, instead of foot-notes as with us, this
being one of the points in which customs in the east and west go by
contraries. Very occasionally, the editor indicates by a single
character, equivalent to “right” or “wrong,” which reading in his
opinion is to be preferred. In the notes to the present republication
of the Corean text, S stands for Sung, M for Ming, and J for Japanese;
R for right, and W for wrong. I have taken the trouble to give all the
various readings (amounting to more than 300), partly as a curiosity
and to make my text complete, and partly to show how, in the
transcription of writings in whatever language, such variations are
sure to occur,
“maculae, quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit nature,”
while on the whole they very slightly affect the meaning of the
document.
The editors of the Catalogue Raisonné intimate their doubts of the good
taste and reliability of all Fâ-Hien’s statements. It offends them that
he should call central India the “Middle Kingdom,” and China, which to
them was the true and only Middle Kingdom, but “a Border land;”—it
offends them as the vaunting language of a Buddhist writer, whereas the
reader will see in the expressions only an instance of what Fâ-Hien
calls his “simple straightforwardness.”
As an instance of his unreliability they refer to his account of the
Buddhism of Khoten, whereas it is well known, they say, that the
Khoteners from ancient times till now have been Mohammedans;—as if they
could have been so 170 years before Mohammed was born, and 222 years
before the year of the Hegira! And this is criticism in China. The
Catalogue was ordered by the K’ien-lung emperor in 1722. Between three
and four hundred of the “Great Scholars” of the empire were engaged on
it in various departments, and thus egregiously ignorant did they show
themselves of all beyond the limits of their own country, and even of
the literature of that country itself.
Much of what Fâ-Hien tells his readers of Buddhist miracles and legends
is indeed unreliable and grotesque; but we have from him the truth as
to what he saw and heard.
3. In concluding this introduction I wish to call attention to some
estimates of the number of Buddhists in the world which have become
current, believing, as I do, that the smallest of them is much above
what is correct.
i. In a note on the first page of his work on the Bhilsa Topes (1854),
General Cunningham says: “The Christians number about 270 millions; the
Buddhists about 222 millions, who are distributed as follows:—China 170
millions, Japan 25, Anam 14, Siam 3, Ava 8, Nepal 1, and Ceylon 1;
total, 222 millions.”
ii. In his article on M. J. Barthelemy Saint Hilaire’s “Le Bouddha et
sa Religion,” republished in his “Chips from a German Workshop,” vol.
i. (1868), Professor Max Muller (p. 215) says, “The young prince became
the founder of a religion which, after more than two thousand years, is
still professed by 455 millions of human beings,” and he appends the
following note: “Though truth is not settled by majorities, it would be
interesting to know which religion counts at the present moment the
largest numbers of believers. Berghaus, in his ‘Physical Atlas,’ gives
the following division of the human race according to
religion:—‘Buddhists 31.2 per cent, Christians 30.7, Mohammedans 15.7,
Brahmanists 13.4, Heathens 8.7, and Jews 0.3.’ As Berghaus does not
distinguish the Buddhists in China from the followers of Confucius and
Laotse, the first place on the scale really belongs to Christianity. It
is difficult to say to what religion a man belongs, as the same person
may profess two or three. The emperor himself, after sacrificing
according to the ritual of Confucius, visits a Tao-sse temple, and
afterwards bows before an image of Fo in a Buddhist chapel. (‘Mélanges
Asiatiques de St. Pétersbourg,’ vol. ii. p. 374.)”
iii. Both these estimates are exceeded by Dr. T. W. Rhys Davids
(intimating also the uncertainty of the statements, and that numbers
are no evidence of truth) in the introduction to his “Manual of
Buddhism.” The Buddhists there appear as amounting in all to 500
millions:—30 millions of Southern Buddhists, in Ceylon, Burma, Siam,
Anam, and India (Jains); and 470 millions of North Buddhists, of whom
nearly 33 millions are assigned to Japan, and 414,686,974 to the
eighteen provinces of China proper. According to him, Christians amount
to about 26 per cent of mankind, Hindus to about 13, Mohammedans to
about 12 1_2, Buddhists to about 40, and Jews to about 1_2.
In regard to all these estimates, it will be observed that the immense
numbers assigned to Buddhism are made out by the multitude of Chinese
with which it is credited. Subtract Cunningham’s 170 millions of
Chinese from his total of 222, and there remains only 52 millions of
Buddhists. Subtract Davids’ (say) 414 1_2 millions of Chinese from his
total of 500, and there remain only 85 1_2 millions for Buddhism. Of
the numbers assigned to other countries, as well as of their whole
populations, I am in considerable doubt, excepting in the cases of
Ceylon and India; but the greatness of the estimates turns upon the
immense multitudes said to be in China. I do not know what total
population Cunningham allowed for that country, nor on what principal
he allotted 170 millions of it to Buddhism;—perhaps he halved his
estimate of the whole, whereas Berghaus and Davids allotted to it the
highest estimates that have been given of the people.
But we have no certain information of the population of China. At an
interview with the former Chinese ambassador, Kwo Sung-tao, in Paris,
in 1878, I begged him to write out for me the amount, with the
authority for it, and he assured me that it could not be done. I have
read probably almost everything that has been published on the subject,
and endeavoured by methods of my own to arrive at a satisfactory
conclusion;—without reaching a result which I can venture to lay before
the public. My impression has been that 400 millions is hardly an
exaggeration.
But supposing that we had reliable returns of the whole population, how
shall we proceed to apportion that among Confucianists, Taoists, and
Buddhists? Confucianism is the orthodoxy of China. The common name for
it is Ju Chiao, “the Doctrines held by the Learned Class,” entrance
into the circle of which is, with a few insignificant exceptions, open
to all the people. The mass of them and the masses under their
influence are preponderatingly Confucian; and in the observance of
ancestral worship, the most remarkable feature of the religion proper
of China from the earliest times, of which Confucius was not the author
but the prophet, an overwhelming majority are regular and assiduous.
Among “the strange principles” which the emperor of the K’ang-hsi
period, in one of his famous Sixteen Precepts, exhorted his people to
“discountenance and put away, in order to exalt the correct doctrine,”
Buddhism and Taoism were both included. If, as stated in the note
quoted from Professor Muller, the emperor countenances both the Taoist
worship and the Buddhist, he does so for reasons of state;—to please
especially his Buddhist subjects in Thibet and Mongolia, and not to
offend the many whose superstitious fancies incline to Taoism.
When I went out and in as a missionary among the Chinese people for
about thirty years, it sometimes occurred to me that only the inmates
of their monasteries and the recluses of both systems should be
enumerated as Buddhists and Taoists; but I was in the end constrained
to widen that judgment, and to admit a considerable following of both
among the people, who have neither received the tonsure nor assumed the
yellow top. Dr. Eitel, in concluding his discussion of this point in
his “Lecture on Buddhism, an Event in History,” says: “It is not too
much to say that most Chinese are theoretically Confucianists, but
emotionally Buddhists or Taoists. But fairness requires us to add that,
though the mass of the people are more or less influenced by Buddhist
doctrines, yet the people, as a whole, have no respect for the Buddhist
church, and habitually sneer at Buddhist priests.” For the “most” in
the former of these two sentences I would substitute “nearly all;” and
between my friend’s “but” and “emotionally” I would introduce “many
are,” and would not care to contest his conclusion farther. It does
seem to me preposterous to credit Buddhism with the whole of the vast
population of China, the great majority of whom are Confucianists. My
own opinion is, that its adherents are not so many as those even of
Mohammedanism, and that instead of being the most numerous of the
religions (so called) of the world, it is only entitled to occupy the
fifth place, ranking below Christianity, Confucianism, Brahmanism, and
Mohammedanism, and followed, some distance off, by Taoism. To make a
table of percentages of mankind, and assign to each system its
proportion, is to seem to be wise where we are deplorably ignorant;
and, moreover, if our means of information were much better than they
are, our figures would merely show the outward adherence. A fractional
per-centage might tell more for one system than a very large integral
one for another.
THE TRAVELS OF FÂ-HIEN
or RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC KINGDOMS
CHAPTER I.
FROM CH’ANG-GAN TO THE SANDY DESERT
Fâ-Hien had been living in Ch’ang-gan.(1) Deploring the mutilated and
imperfect state of the collection of the Books of Discipline, in the
second year of the period Hwăng-che, being the Ke-hâe year of the
cycle,(2) he entered into an engagement with Kwuy-king, Tâo-ching,
Hwuy-ying, and Hwuy-wei,(3) that they should go to India and seek for
the Disciplinary Rules.(4)
After starting from Ch’ang-gan, they passed through Lung,(5) and came
to the kingdom of K’een-kwei,(6) where they stopped for the summer
retreat.(7) When that was over, they went forward to the kingdom of
Now-t’an,(8) crossed the mountain of Yang-low, and reached the emporium
of Chang-yih.(9) There they found the country so much disturbed that
travelling on the roads was impossible for them. Its king, however, was
very attentive to them, kept them (in his capital), and acted the part
of their danapati.(10)
Here they met with Che-yen, Hwuy-keen, Sang-shao, Pao-yun, and
Sang-king;(11) and in pleasant association with them, as bound on the
same journey with themselves, they passed the summer retreat (of that
year)(12) together, resuming after it their travelling, and going on to
T’un-hwang,(13) (the chief town) in the frontier territory of defence
extending for about 80 le from east to west, and about 40 from north to
south. Their company, increased as it had been, halted there for some
days more than a month, after which Fâ-Hien and his four friends
started first in the suite of an envoy,(14) having separated (for a
time) from Pao-yun and his associates.
Le Hao,(15) the prefect of T’un-hwang, had supplied them with the means
of crossing the desert (before them), in which there are many evil
demons and hot winds. (Travellers) who encounter them perish all to a
man. There is not a bird to be seen in the air above, nor an animal on
the ground below. Though you look all round most earnestly to find
where you can cross, you know not where to make your choice, the only
mark and indication being the dry bones of the dead (left upon the
sand).(16)
NOTES
(1) Ch’ang-gan is still the name of the principal district (and its
city) in the department of Se-gan, Shen-se. It had been the capital of
the first empire of Han (B.C. 202-A.D. 24), as it subsequently was that
of Suy (A.D. 589-618). The empire of the eastern Tsin, towards the
close of which Fâ-Hien lived, had its capital at or near Nan-king, and
Ch’ang-gan was the capital of the principal of the three Ts’in
kingdoms, which, with many other minor ones, maintained a
semi-independence of Tsin, their rulers sometimes even assuming the
title of emperor.
(2) The period Hwang-che embraced from A.D. 399 to 414, being the
greater portion of the reign of Yao Hing of the After Ts’in, a powerful
prince. He adopted Hwang-che for the style of his reign in 399, and the
cyclical name of that year was Kang-tsze. It is not possible at this
distance of time to explain, if it could be explained, how Fâ-Hien came
to say that Ke-hae was the second year of the period. It seems most
reasonable to suppose that he set out on his pilgrimage in A.D. 399,
the cycle name of which was Ke-hae, as {.}, the second year, instead of
{.}, the first, might easily creep into the text. In the “Memoirs of
Eminent Monks” it is said that our author started in the third year of
the period Lung-gan of the eastern Tsin, which was A.D. 399.
(3) These, like Fâ-Hien itself, are all what we might call “clerical”
names, appellations given to the parties as monks or sramanas.
(4) The Buddhist tripitaka or canon consists of three collections,
containing, according to Eitel (p. 150), “doctrinal aphorisms (or
statements, purporting to be from Buddha himself); works on discipline;
and works on metaphysics:”—called sutra, vinaya, and abhidharma; in
Chinese, king {.}, leuh {.}, and lun {.}, or texts, laws or rules, and
discussions. Dr. Rhys Davids objects to the designation of
“metaphysics” as used of the abhidharma works, saying that “they bear
much more the relation to ‘dharma’ which ‘by-law’ bears to ‘law’ than
that which ‘metaphysics’ bears to ‘physics’” (Hibbert Lectures, p. 49).
However this be, it was about the vinaya works that Fâ-Hien was chiefly
concerned. He wanted a good code of the rules for the government of
“the Order” in all its internal and external relations.
(5) Lung embraced the western part of Shen-se and the eastern part of
Kan-suh. The name remains in Lung Chow, in the extreme west of Shen-se.
(6) K’een-kwei was the second king of “the Western Ts’in.” His family
was of northern or barbarous origin, from the tribe of the Seen-pe,
with the surname of K’eih-fuh. The first king was Kwo-kin, and received
his appointment from the sovereign of the chief Ts’in kingdom in 385.
He was succeeded in 388 by his brother, the K’een-kwei of the text, who
was very prosperous in 398, and took the title of king of Ts’in.
Fâ-Hien would find him at his capital, somewhere in the present
department of Lan-chow, Kan-suh.
(7) Under varshas or vashavasana (Pâli, vassa; Spence Hardy, vass),
Eitel (p. 163) says:—“One of the most ancient institutions of Buddhist
discipline, requiring all ecclesiastics to spend the rainy season in a
monastery in devotional exercises. Chinese Buddhists naturally
substituted the hot season for the rainy (from the 16th day of the 5th
to the 15th of the 9th Chinese month).”
(8) During the troubled period of the Tsin dynasty, there were five
(usurping) Leang sovereignties in the western part of the empire ({.}
{.}). The name Leang remains in the department of Leang-chow in the
northern part of Kan-suh. The “southern Leang” arose in 397 under a
Tuh-fah Wu-ku, who was succeeded in 399 by a brother, Le-luh-koo; and
he again by his brother, the Now-t’an of the text, in 402, who was not
yet king therefore when Fâ-Hien and his friends reached his capital.
How he is represented as being so may be accounted for in various ways,
of which it is not necessary to write.
(9) Chang-yih is still the name of a district in Kan-chow department,
Kan-suh. It is a long way north and west from Lan-chow, and not far
from the Great Wall. Its king at this time was, probably, Twan-yeh of
“the northern Leang.”
(10) Dana is the name for religious charity, the first of the six
paramitas, or means of attaining to nirvâna; and a danapati is “one who
practises dana and thereby crosses {.} the sea of misery.” It is given
as “a title of honour to all who support the cause of Buddhism by acts
of charity, especially to founders and patrons of monasteries;”—see
Eitel, p. 29.
(11) Of these pilgrims with their clerical names, the most
distinguished was Pao-yun, who translated various Sanskrit works on his
return from India, of which only one seems to be now existing. He died
in 449. See Nanjio’s Catalogue of the Tripitaka, col. 417.
(12) This was the second summer since the pilgrims left Ch’ang-gan. We
are now therefore, probably, in A.D. 400.
(13) T’un-hwang (lat. 39° 40′ N.; lon. 94° 50′ E.) is still the name of
one of the two districts constituting the department of Gan-se, the
most western of the prefectures of Kan-suh; beyond the termination of
the Great Wall.
(14) Who this envoy was, and where he was going, we do not know. The
text will not admit of any other translation.
(15) Le Hao was a native of Lung-se, a man of learning, able and kindly
in his government. He was appointed governor or prefect of T’un-hwang
by the king of “the northern Leang,” in 400; and there he sustained
himself, becoming by and by “duke of western Leang,” till he died in
417.
(16) “The river of sand;” the great desert of Kobi or Gobi; having
various other names. It was a great task which the pilgrims had now
before them,—to cross this desert. The name of “river” in the Chinese
misleads the reader, and he thinks of crossing it as of crossing a
stream; but they had to traverse it from east to west. In his
“Vocabulary of Proper Names,” p. 23, Dr. Porter Smith says:—“It extends
from the eastern frontier of Mongolia, south-westward to the further
frontier of Turkestan, to within six miles of Ilchi, the chief town of
Khoten. It thus comprises some twenty-three degrees of longitude in
length, and from three to ten degrees of latitude in breadth, being
about 2,100 miles in its greatest length. In some places it is arable.
Some idea may be formed of the terror with which this ‘Sea of Sand,’
with its vast billows of shifting sands, is regarded, from the legend
that in one of the storms 360 cities were all buried within the space
of twenty-four hours.” So also Gilmour’s “Among the Mongols,” chap. 5.