Read At The Meeting Of The Royal Asiatic Society, February 16, 1880.
It is probably in the recollection of some of the senior members of this
Society how wide and deep an interest was excited in the year 1853 by the
publication of Stanislas Julien’s translation of the “Life and Travels of
Hiouen-thsang.” The account given by an eye-witness of the religious,
social, political, and literary state of India at the beginning of the
seventh century of our era was like a rocket, carrying a rope to a whole
crew of struggling scholars, on the point of being drowned in the sea of
Indian chronology; and the rope was eagerly grasped by all, whether their
special object was the history of Indian religion, or the history of
Indian literature, architecture, or politics. While many books on Indian
literature, published five-and-twenty years ago, are now put aside and
forgotten, Julien’s three volumes of Hiouen-thsang still maintain a fresh
interest, and supply new subjects for discussion, as may be seen even in
the last number of the Journal of your Society.
I had the honor and pleasure of working with Stanislas Julien, when he was
compiling those large lists of Sanskrit and Chinese words which formed the
foundation of his translation of Hiouen-thsang, and enabled him in his
classical work, the “Méthode pour déchiffrer et transcrire les noms
Sanskrits” (1861), to solve a riddle which had puzzled Oriental scholars
for a long time—viz., how it happened that the original Sanskrit names had
been so completely disguised and rendered almost unrecognizable in the
Chinese translations of Sanskrit texts, and how they could be restored to
their original form.
I had likewise the honor and pleasure of working with your late President,
Professor H. H. Wilson, when, after reading Julien’s works, he conceived
the idea that some of the original Sanskrit texts of which the Chinese
translations had been recovered might still be found in the monasteries of
China. His influential position as President of your Society, and his
personal relations with Sir John Bowring, then English Resident in China,
enabled him to set in motion a powerful machinery for attaining his
object; and if you look back some five-and-twenty years, you will find in
your Journal a full account of the correspondence that passed between
Professor Wilson, Sir J. Bowring, and Dr. Edkins, on the search after
Sanskrit MSS. in the temples or monasteries of China.
On February 15, 1854, Professor Wilson writes from Oxford to Sir John
Bowring:—
“I send you herewith a list of the Sanskrit works carried to China by Hwen
Tsang in the middle of the seventh century, and in great part translated
by him, or under his supervision, into Chinese. If any of them,
_especially the originals_, should be still in existence, you would do
good service to Sanskrit literature and to the history of Buddhism by
procuring copies.”
_Chinese Translators of Sanskrit Texts._
It is a well-known fact that, even long before the time of
Hiouen-thsang—that is, long before the seventh century of our era—large
numbers of Sanskrit MSS. had been exported to China. These literary
exportations began as early as the first century A. D. When we read for
the first time of commissioners being sent to India by Ming-ti, the
Emperor of China, the second sovereign of the Eastern Han dynasty, about
62 or 65 A. D., we are told that they returned to China with a white
horse, carrying books and images.(72) And the account proceeds to state
that “these books still remain, and are reverenced and worshipped.”
From that time, when Buddhism was first officially recognized in
China,(73) there is an almost unbroken succession of importers and
translators of Buddhist, in some cases of Brahmanic texts also, till we
come to the two famous expeditions, the one undertaken by Fa-hian in
400-415, the other by Hiouen-thsang, 629-645 A. D. Fa-hian’s Travels were
translated into French by Abel Rémusat (1836), into English by Mr. Beal
(1869). Hiouen-thsang’s Travels are well known through Stanislas Julien’s
admirable translation. Of Hiouen-thsang we are told that he brought back
from India no less than 520 fasciculi, or 657 separate works, which had to
be carried by twenty-two horses.(74) He translated, or had translated, 740
works, forming 1,335 fasciculi.
I say nothing of earlier traces of Buddhism which are supposed to occur in
Chinese books. Whatever they may amount to, we look in vain in them for
evidence of any Chinese translations of Buddhist books before the time of
the Emperor Ming-ti; and what concerns us at present is, not the existence
or the spreading of Buddhism towards the north and east long before the
beginning of the Christian era, but the existence of Buddhist books, so
far as it can be proved at that time by the existence of Chinese
translations the date of which can be fixed with sufficient certainty.
In the following remarks on the history of these translations I have had
the great advantage of being able to use the Annals of the Sui Dynasty
(589-618), kindly translated for me by Professor Legge. In China the
history of each dynasty was written under the succeeding dynasty from
documents which may be supposed to be contemporaneous with the events they
relate. The account given in the Sui Chronicles of the introduction of
Buddhism and Buddhist works into China is said to be the best general
account to be found in early Chinese literature, and the facts here stated
may be looked upon as far more trustworthy than the notices hitherto
relied upon, and collected from Chinese writers of different dates and
different localities. I have also had the assistance of Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio,
who compared the names of the translators mentioned in the Sui Annals with
the names as given in the K’ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu (Catalogue of the
Buddhist books compiled in the period K’ai-yuen [A. D. 713-741]); and
though there still remain some doubtful points, we may rest assured that
the dates assigned to the principal Chinese translators and their works
can be depended on as historically trustworthy.
With regard to the period anterior to Ming-ti, the Sui Chronicles tell us
that after an investigation of the records, it was known that Buddhism had
not been brought to China previously to the Han dynasty (began 206 B. C.),
though some say that it had long been spread abroad, but had disappeared
again in the time of the _Kh_in(75) (221-206 B. C.). Afterwards, however,
when _K_ang-_kh_ien was sent on a mission to the regions of the West
(about 130 B. C.), he is supposed to have become acquainted with the
religion of Buddha. He was made prisoner by the Hiungnu (Huns),(76) and,
being kept by them for ten years, he may well have acquired during his
captivity some knowledge of Buddhism, which at a very early time had
spread from Cabul(77) towards the north and the east.
In the time of the Emperor Âi (B. C. 6-2) we read that _Kh_in-_k_ing
caused I-tsun to teach the Buddhist Sûtras orally, but that the people
gave no credence to them. All this seems to rest on semi-historical
evidence only.
The first official recognition of Buddhism in China dates from the reign
of the Emperor Ming-ti, and the following account, though not altogether
free from a legendary coloring, is generally accepted as authentic by
Chinese scholars: “The Emperor Ming-ti, of the After Han dynasty (58-75 A.
D.), dreamt that a man of metal (or golden color) was flying and walking
in a courtyard of the palace. When he told his dream in the Court, Fu-î
said that the figure was that of Buddha. On this the Emperor sent the
gentleman-usher Tsâi-yin and _Kh_in-_k_ing (who must then have been
growing old) both to the country of the great Yueh-_k_i(78) and to India,
in order to seek for such an image.”
An earlier account of the same event is to be found in the Annals of the
After (or Eastern) Han dynasty (25-120 A. D.). These annals were compiled
by Fan-yeh, who was afterwards condemned to death as a rebel (445 A. D.).
Here we read(79) (vol. 88, fol. 8 a _seq._): “There is a tradition that
the Emperor Ming-ti (58-75 A. D.) dreamt that there was a giant-like man
of golden color,(80) whose head was refulgent. The Emperor wanted his
retainers to interpret it. Then some said, ‘There is a god (or spirit) in
the West who is called Fo, whose height is sixteen feet, and of golden
color.’ Having heard this, the Emperor at once sent messengers to
Tien-_k_u (_i. e._ India), to inquire after the doctrine of Buddha.
Subsequently, copies of the image of Buddha were drawn in the middle
country (_i. e._ China).”
The emissaries whom the Emperor Ming-ti had sent to India obtained a
Buddhist Sûtra in forty-two sections, and an image of Buddha, with which
and the Shâmans Kâ_s_yapa Mâtaṅga and _K_û-fa-lan, they returned to the
East. When Tsâi-yin approached (the capital), he caused the book to be
borne on a white horse, and on this account the monastery of the White
Horse was built on the west of the Yung gate of the city of Lo to lodge
it. The classic was tied up and placed in the stone house of the Lan
tower, and, moreover, pictures of the image were drawn and kept in the
_Kh_ing-yüan tower, and at the top of the Hsien-_k_ieh hill.
Here we seem to be on _terra firma_, for some of the literary works by
Kâsyapa Mâtaṅga and _K_û-fa-lan are still in existence. Kâsyapa Mâtaṅga
(or, it may be, Kâsya Mâtaṅga(81)) is clearly a Sanskrit name. Mâtaṅga,
though the name of a _K_andâla or low-caste man, might well be borne by a
Buddhist priest.(82) The name of _K_û-fa-lan, however, is more difficult.
Chinese scholars declare that it can only be a Chinese name,(83) yet if
_K_û-fa-lan came from India with _K_âsyapa, we should expect that he too
bore a Sanskrit name. In that case, _K_û might be taken as the last
character of Tien-_k_û, India, which character is prefixed to the names of
other Indian priests living in China. His name would be Fâ-lan, _i. e._
Dharma + x, whatever lan may signify, perhaps padma, lotus.(84)
M. Feer,(85) calls him Gobhara_n_a, without, however, giving his authority
for such a name. The Sutra of the forty-two sections exists in Chinese,
but neither in Sanskrit nor in Pâli, and many difficulties would be
removed if we admitted, with M. Feer, that this so-called Sûtra of the
forty-two sections was really the work of Kâ_s_yapa and _K_û-fa-lan, who
considered such an epitome of Buddhist doctrines, based chiefly on
original texts, useful for their new converts in China.
It is curious that the Sui Annals speak here of no other literary work due
to Kâ_s_yapa and _K_û-fa-lan, though they afterwards mention the Shih-_k_u
_S_ûtra by _K_û-fa-lan as a work almost unintelligible. In the
Fan-i-ming-i-tsi (vol. iii. fol. 4 b), mention is made of five Sûtras,
translated by _K_û-fa-lan alone, after Kâ_s_yapa’s death. In the
K’ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu catalogue of the Buddhist books, compiled in the
period K’ai-yuen (713-741 A. D.), vol. i. fol. 6, four Sûtras only are
ascribed to _K_û-fa-lan:—
1. The Da_s_abhûmi, called the Sûtra on the destruction of the causes of
perplexity in the ten stations; 70 A. D. This is the Shi-_k_û Sûtra.
2. The Sûtra of the treasure of the sea of the law
(Dharma-samudra-kosha?).
3. The Sûtra of the original conduct of Buddha (Fo-pen-hing-king); 68 A.
D. (taken by Julien for a translation of the Lalita-vistara).