[Illustration: VI. THE DEVAS CELEBRATING THE ATTAINMENT OF THE
BUDDHASHIP.]
A
RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC KINGDOMS
BEING AN ACCOUNT BY
THE CHINESE MONK FÂ-HIEN
OF
HIS TRAVELS IN INDIA AND CEYLON
(A.D. 399–414)
IN SEARCH OF THE BUDDHIST BOOKS OF DISCIPLINE
_TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED
WITH A COREAN RECENSION OF THE CHINESE TEXT_
BY
JAMES LEGGE, M.A., LL.D.
Professor of the Chinese Language and Literature
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1886
[_All rights reserved_]
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE xi
INTRODUCTION.
Life of Fâ-hien; genuineness and integrity of the text of his
narrative; number of the adherents of Buddhism. 1
CHAPTER I.
From Chʽang-gan to the Sandy Desert. 9
CHAPTER II.
On to Shen-shen and thence to Khoten. 12
CHAPTER III.
Khoten. Processions of images. The king’s New monastery. 16
CHAPTER IV.
Through the Tsʽung or ‘Onion’ mountains to Kʽeeh-chʽâ; probably
Skardo, or some city more to the East in Ladak. 21
CHAPTER V.
Great quinquennial assembly of monks. Relics of Buddha.
Productions of the country. 22
CHAPTER VI.
On towards North India. Darada. Image of Maitreya Bodhisattva. 24
CHAPTER VII.
Crossing of the Indus. When Buddhism first crossed that river
for the East. 26
CHAPTER VIII.
Woo-chang, or Udyâna. Monasteries and their ways. Traces of
Buddha. 28
CHAPTER IX.
Soo-ho-to. Legend of Buddha. 30
CHAPTER X.
Gandhâra. Legends of Buddha. 31
CHAPTER XI.
Taksahśilâ. Legends. The four great topes. 32
CHAPTER XII.
Purushapura, or Peshâwar. Prophecy about king Kanishka and
his tope. Buddha’s alms-bowl. Death of Hwuy-ying. 33
CHAPTER XIII.
Nagâra. Festival of Buddha’s skull-bone. Other relics, and his
shadow. 36
CHAPTER XIV.
Death of Hwuy-king in the Little Snowy mountains. Lo-e. Poh-nâ.
Crossing the Indus to the East. 40
CHAPTER XV.
Bhida. Sympathy of monks with the pilgrims. 41
CHAPTER XVI.
On to Mathurâ, or Muttra. Condition and customs of Central
India; of the monks, vihâras, and monasteries. 42
CHAPTER XVII.
Saṅkâśya. Buddha’s ascent to and descent from the Trayastriṃśas
heaven, and other legends 47
CHAPTER XVIII.
Kanyâkubja, or Canouge. Buddha’s preaching. 53
CHAPTER XIX.
Shâ-che. Legend of Buddha’s Danta-kâshṭha. 54
CHAPTER XX.
Kośala and Śrâvastî. The Jetavana vihâra and other memorials and
legends of Buddha. Sympathy of the monks with the pilgrims. 55
CHAPTER XXI.
The three predecessors of Śâkyamuni in the buddhaship. 63
CHAPTER XXII.
Kapilavastu. Its desolation. Legends of Buddha’s birth, and other
incidents in connexion with it. 64
CHAPTER XXIII.
Râma, and its tope. 68
CHAPTER XXIV.
Where Buddha finally renounced the world, and where he died. 70
CHAPTER XXV.
Vaiśâlî The tope called ‘Weapons laid down.’ The Council of
Vaiśâlî. 72
CHAPTER XXVI.
Remarkable death of Ânanda. 75
CHAPTER XXVII.
Pâṭaliputtra, or Patna, in Magadha. King Aśoka’s spirit-built
palace and halls. The Buddhist Brahmân, Rȧdhasȧmi.
Dispensaries and hospitals. 77
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Râjagṛiha, New and Old. Legends and incidents connected with it. 80
CHAPTER XXIX.
Gṛidhra-kûṭa hill, and legends. Fâ-hien passes a night on it. His
reflections. 82
CHAPTER XXX.
The Śrataparṇa cave, or cave of the First Council. Legends.
Suicide of a Bhikshu. 84
CHAPTER XXXI.
Gayâ. Śâkyamuni’s attaining to the Buddhaship; and other legends. 87
CHAPTER XXXII.
Legend of king Aśoka in a former birth, and his naraka. 90
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Mount Gurupada, where Kâśyapa Buddha’s entire skeleton is. 92
CHAPTER XXXIV.
On the way back to Patna. Vârâṇasî, or Benâres. Śâkyamuni’s
first doings after becoming Buddha. 93
CHAPTER XXXV.
Dakshiṇa, and the pigeon monastery. 96
CHAPTER XXXVI.
In Patna. Fâ-hien’s labours in transcription of manuscripts, and
Indian studies for three years. 98
CHAPTER XXXVII.
To Champâ and Tâmaliptî. Stay and labours there for three
years. Takes ship to Singhala, or Ceylon. 100
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
At Ceylon. Rise of the kingdom. Feats of Buddha. Topes and
monasteries. Statue of Buddha in jade. Bo tree. Festival of
Buddha’s tooth. 101
CHAPTER XXXIX.
Cremation of an Arhat. Sermon of a devotee. 107
CHAPTER XL.
After two years takes ship for China. Disastrous passage to Java;
and thence to China; arrives at Shan-tung; and goes to
Nanking. Conclusion or l’envoi by another writer. 111
CHINESE TEXT: 高僧法顯傳
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, &c.
Sketch-map of Fâ-hien’s travels _To face Introduction, page 1_
I.
Dream of Buddha’s mother of his incarnation _To face p. 65_
II.
Buddha just born, with the nâgas supplying water
to wash him _To face p. 67_
III.
Buddha tossing the white elephant over the wall _To face p. 66_
IV.
Buddha in solitude and enduring austerities _To face p. 87_
V.
Buddhaship attained _To face p, 88_
VI.
The devas celebrating the attainment of the
Buddhaship _To face the Title_
VII.
Buddha’s dying instructions _To face p. 70_
VIII.
Buddha’s death _To follow VII_
IX.
Division of Buddha’s relics _To follow VIII_
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 (page 4), 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
Landresse’ (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 ‘Fâ-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 (〇) 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 Sakyamuni’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 Pali 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 太子), 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-chau 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 archæologists. Most of the places from
Chʽang-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
Kʽieh-chʽa 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 Tʽo-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.
Takshaśilâ, 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 Nanking to Chʽang-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,[1] and he was a native of Wu-yang
in Pʽing-Yang,[2] 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 Śrâmaṇera,
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 Śrâmaṇeras 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 novitiate 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-piṭaka. 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 Râjagṛiha.
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 Śramaṇa
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[3] (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 Śâkyamuni, ‘the Śâkya, 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 ‘Śramaṇa, 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 Śramaṇa 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 Tâo-yüen, 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 topnotes, instead of footnotes
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 Kʽien-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, Nepál
1, and Ceylon 1; total, 222 millions.’
ii. In his article on M. J. Barthélemy Saint Hilaire’s ‘Le Bouddha et
sa Religion,’ republished in his ‘Chips from a German Workshop,’
vol. i. (1868), Professor Max Müller (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, Brahmânists 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-ssé 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 12½, Buddhists to about 40, and Jews to about
½.
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) 414½ millions of Chinese from his
total of 500, and there remain only 85½ 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-tâo, 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, Tâoists,
and Buddhists? Confucianism is the orthodoxy of China. The common
name for it is Jû Chiâo, ‘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 Kʽang-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 Tâoism were both included. If, as stated in the note
quoted from Professor Müller, the emperor countenances both the Tâoist
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 Tâoism.
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 Tâoists; 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 Tâoists. 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, Brahmânism, and Mohammedanism, and followed, some
distance off, by Tâoism. 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.
NOTES
[1] 龔
[2] 平陽, 武陽
[3] 荆州
THE TRAVELS OF FÂ-HIEN or RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC KINGDOMS
CHAPTER I.
FROM CHʽANG-GAN TO THE SANDY DESERT.
Fâ-hien had been living in Chʽang-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 Hwuy-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 Chʽang-gan, they passed through Lung,[5] and came
to the kingdom of Kʽeen-kwei,[6] where they stopped for the summer
retreat.[7] When that was over, they went forward to the kingdom
of Now-tʽan,[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 dânapati.[10]
Here they met with Che-yen, Hwuy-keen, Săng-shâo, Pâo-yun, and
Săng-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 Tʽun-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 Pâo-yun and his associates.
Le Hâo,[15] the prefect of Tʽun-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] Chʽang-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
Nanking, and Chʽang-gan was the capital of the principal of the
three Tsʽin 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 Hwăng-che embraced from A.D. 399 to 414, being the
greater portion of the reign of Yâo Hing of the After Tsʽin, a
powerful prince. He adopted Hwăng-che for the style of his reign
in 399, and the cyclical name of that year was Kăng-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-hâe 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-hâe, as 二,
the second year, instead of 一, 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 Śramaṇas.
[4] The Buddhist tripiṭaka 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 sûtra, vinaya, and
abhidharma; in Chinese, king (經), leŭh (律), and lun (論), 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-sŭh. The name remains in Lung Chow, in the extreme west of
Shen-se.
[6] Kʽeen-kwei was the second king of ‘the Western Tsʽin.’ His family
was of northern or barbarous origin, from the tribe of the Seen-pe,
with the surname of Kʽeih-fuh. The first king was Kwo-jin, and
received his appointment from the sovereign of the chief Tsʽin
kingdom in 385. He was succeeded in 388 by his brother, the
Kʽeen-kwei of the text, who was very prosperous in 398, and took the
title of king of Tsʽin. Fâ-hien would find him at his capital,
somewhere in the present department of Lan-chow, Kan-sŭh.
[7] Under varshâs or vashâvasâna (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 (五
凉). The name Leang remains in the department of Leang-chow in the
northern part of Kan-sŭh. The ‘southern Leang’ arose in 397 under a
Tŭh-făh Wû-kû, who was succeeded in 399 by a brother, Le-luh-koo; and
he again by his brother, the Now-tʽan 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-sŭh. 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] Dâna is the name for religious charity, the first of the six
pâramitâs, or means of attaining to nirvâṇa; and a dânapati is ‘one
who practises dâna and thereby crosses (越) 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 Pâo-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 Tripiṭaka, col. 417.
[12] This was the second summer since the pilgrims left Chʽang-gan.
We are now therefore, probably, in A.D. 400.
[13] Tʽun-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-sŭh; 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 Hâo was a native of Lung-se, a man of learning, able and
kindly in his government. He was appointed governor or prefect of
Tʽun-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 Ilchî, 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.