Buddhist Ralations Between India and Sung China

7/27/2019 Buddhist Ralations Between India and Sung China

1/20

Buddhist Relations between India and Sung ChinaAuthor(s): Jan Yn-huaReviewed work(s):Source: History of Religions, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Aug., 1966), pp. 24-42Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062095 .

Accessed: 28/02/2013 08:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistory

of Religions.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:09:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1062095?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1062095?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/20

Jan Yln-hua BUDDHIST RELATIONSBETWEEN INDIA ANDSUNG CHINA

Buddhist relations between India and China constitute one of theoutstanding factors in the history of Chinese culture. From thetime of the introduction of Buddhism to China until the northernSung period (A.D. 960-1127), there were a number of Indian mis-sionaries who went to China; and from the other end we findstreams of Buddhist pilgrims visiting India from China. Thesecontacts form one great chapter of the medieval civilization whichhad a strong impact on Chinese mind, culture, and society. Itshould also have had some degree of influence on Indian life,though the extent of this has yet to be fully studied and assessed.1As far as the Chinese were concerned, the Buddhist monks ofmedieval times constantly gave due importance to their relationswith India. In those days India was the source of inspiration to

[N.B. Because of its length Professor Jan's article will be published in twoinstalments. The second instalment, including translations of documents and alengthy glossary of Chinese characters and transliterations, will appear in thenext number, November, 1966.-EDITORS.]1 Apart from P. C. Bagchi's discussion of the possible Chinese influence onIndia (India and China, A Thousand Years of Cultural Relations [hereinafter citedas "India and China"] [New York: Philosophical Library, 1951], pp. 197ff.), twomore attempts have been published during recent years. One is Chi Hsien-lin'sChung-yin wen-hua-kuan-hsi-shih lun-ts'ung ("Essays on Cultural and HistoricalRelations between China and India") (Peking: Jen-min ch'u-pan she, 1957),pp. 99ff. The other is Suniti Kumar Chatterji's "India and China: Ancient Con-tacts. What India Received from China" (paper originally read before theTwenty-fifth International Congress of Orientalists, Moscow, 1960), Journal of theAsiatic Society (Calcutta), I, No. 1 (1959), 89-122. 24

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

Chinese Buddhists. It was from this source that they secured newideas and theory, new systems of philosophy, new patterns of life,and new spirit and courage. With the help of this inspiration, theyfound ways to solve their problems spiritually and materially andlearned many things that were not part of the old Chinese culture.With the help of this learning, they examined the situation, assi-milated and developed these newly acquired doctrines, resystem-atized them, and created something new both to traditionalChinese culture and to traditional Indian Buddhism.This, I think, was the reason why the Chinese Buddhist bio-graphers often gave the prime place to record the canonicaltranslators in the histories written by them.2 And most of the trans-lators were from or related to India. This is also the reason whyBuddhist relations between these two countries comprise a subjectof interest to many scholars. Compared with the earlier periods,the religious contact between India and Sung China is a subjectless studied. Research published in European languages has stoodrather still since the efforts made by E. Chavannes (1865-1918).3The subject is also neglected both in China and Japan. Except fora few articles and reference books, there are no special studies on

this aspect of history. As a result, there are certain confusionsrelating to the historical facts, certain significant points remainuninvestigated, and no new assessment has been published.Among the pioneers, the works of B. Nanjio (1849-1927),Chavannes, and S. Mochizuki (1869-1948) are important andinfluential.4 It was Nanjio who made the Chinese translation of2 Cf. Hui-chiao (497-554) et al., serial works entitled Kao-seng chuan ("Bio-graphy of the Eminent Monks"), in Taisho Shinshu daizokyo (hereinafter referred

to as "T"), Nos. 2059-61; and various Chinese catalogues of Buddhist canonscompiled by Seng-yu (445-518) et al. as found in T, Nos. 2034, 2145, 2154, 2157,etc.Biographical notes on the Buddhist translators who worked in China wererendered into French by Bagchi in his book Le canon bouddhiqueen Chine (2 vols.;Paris and Calcutta, 1927, 1938). Some of these biographies have also been trans-lated and annotated by many scholars in the field of the history of Buddhism inChina.3 E. Chavannes, "Les Inscriptions chinoises de bodh-gaya," Revue de l'Histoiredes Religions, XXXIII (1896), 1-58; and "Notes sinologiques," Bulletin de L'flcoleFrancaise d'Extreme-Orient, IV (1904), 75ff.4 B. Nanjio, A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripitaka(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1883; reprinted in Tokyo, 1929); Mochizuki Shinko,Bukkyo dai-jiten ("Great Encyclopedia of Buddhism") (7 vols.; Kyoto, 1931-36);Chavannes, op. cit., n. 3.Among Chinese scholars, Liang Ch'i-ch'ao (1873-1929) did not touch the Sungperiod in his articles collected in Fo-hsiieh yen-chiu shih-pa-p'ien ("Eighteenessays of Buddhist Studies") (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chii, 1941). Chang Hsing-lang collected historical documents on Sino-Indian relations in his book, Chung-hsichiao-t'ung-shih-liao Hui-pien ("Historical Materials of China-West Communica-tions") (Peiping: Fu-jen ta-hsiieh, 1930), VI, pp. 439ff. Although related to India25



4/20

Buddhist Relations BetweenIndia and Sung Chinathe Buddhist Tripitaka known to European scholars and whoattempted to restore certain Sanskrit names from Chinese trans-cription to Roman script. Chavannes' article, "Les inscriptionsChinoises de bodh-gaya," and his contribution on Chi-yeh's jour-ney to India are the major attempts on later Sino-Indian Buddhisthistory. Mochizuki's contribution, though more accurate, is limitedto scholars who know Japanese, and the references made by ChangHsing-lang and Huang Ch'an-hua were overshadowed by othertopics discussed in their books.There should be no doubt about the competence of these earlierefforts. They had long-lasting influence, and most of their con-clusions were accepted and followed by others. Even in recentpublications, including certain textbooks, the research results ofthese pioneers are still repeated.5 But when one checks these earlierresearches against original sources, especially the texts newly re-discovered during the last few decades, there are a number offactors that disprove certain earlier conclusions, clarify certainexisting confusions, and enrich our knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is (1) to discuss the value and authen-ticity of these rediscoveries, using these new materials; (2) to rectifycertain confusions related to the Institute for Canonical Transla-tions and (3) the life of the Indian translators working in the SungCourt; (4) to discuss the problems concerning the assessment ofSino-Indian Buddhist relations during the Sung period; andfinally, (5) to compile a new chronological document on theBuddhist contacts between India and Sung China. This newattempt should put us in a better position to understand thehistory of the period, and it may be useful to those scholars whoand Sung China, the book was published before the rediscovery of the lost textsconcerned. Huang Ch'an-hua had a brief survey on the topic, but it was not themain subject in his book Chung-kuofo-chiao shih ("History of Buddhism in China")(Changsha: Commercial Press, 1940), pp. 316ff. Chou Ta-fu's contribution, "Kai-cheng Fa-kuo Han-hsiieh-chia Sha-wan tui Yin-tu ch'u-t'u Han-wen-pei te wu-shih" ("Corrections of Chavannes' interpretation of the Chinese stone inscriptionsunearthed in India"), Li-shih yen-chiu, No. 6 (1957), 79-82, is mainly on epi-graphical and textual problems.5 In addition to Bagchi (India and China and Le canon bouddhique en Chine),other examples are Chou Hsiang-kuang, Indo-Chinese Relations, A History ofChinese Buddhism (Allahabad: Indo-Chinese Literature Publications, 1955),pp. 163-66, and Prabhash Chandra Majumdar, "A Few Chinese Travellers visitedIndia during the Medieval Period," Calcutta Review, CXLIV (1957), pp. 281-84.K. M. Panikar did not mention the topic in his book, India and China, A Study ofCultural Relations (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1957). Bhasker AnandaSaletore discussed the problem, but his materials are limited only to the earlyreferences such as Nanjio, Chavannes, and Chou Hsiang-kuang, thus reaffirmingold statements (India's Diplomatic Relations with the East [Bombay: PopularBook Depot, 1960], pp. 335ff.). 26



5/20

are interested in the history of Buddhism in India; there are alsocertain points which would supplement the official histories of theSung dynasty.

IThe rediscovered sources I have mentioned comprise four works.The first, Hsiang-fufa-pao lu ("A Catalogue of the Precious Booksof Dharma, Compiled during the age of Ta-chung-hsiang-fu"), wascompiled in A.D. 1013 by Chao An-jen (958-1018), Yang Yi (974-1020), and others. The second, Ching-yu fa-pao lu ("A Catalogueof the Precious Books of Dharma compiled during the age ofChing-yu") was forwarded to the Sung emperor in 1036 by LiiYi-chien (978-1043), Sung Shou (991-1040), etc. Apart from therecords of titles, volumes, classifications, and reference remarks ofthe translated literatures, the former catalogue also recorded cer-tain events related to the Institute for Canonical Translations,including the arrival of the western monks to the court during theperiod 974-1011.The second catalogue gave more attention to the Buddhist rela-tions with India. It provided four chapters (xvi-xix) to record thetopic. Except for some damaged parts, most portions of this recordare available. Both these works were once regarded as lost books,and they were not included in any collection, Ta-tsang-ching, orother serial publications (ts'ung-shu) at the time of Nanjio,Chavannes, etc. This situation continued until 1933, when a set ofthe Chin edition of Ta-tsang-ching was surprisingly rediscoveredfrom the Kuang-sheng monastery of Chao-ch'eng county in Shansiprovince, China.6 In spite of certain damages to this edition, thethree long-lost catalogues are found in this collection.7 Though theoriginal copies printed in the twelfth century are fragmentary,they still contain important materials about which scholars hadknown nothing since the thirteenth century. Soon after the newsof rediscovery spread, the Chih-na Nei-hsiieh Yuan (Chinese Insti-tute for Buddhist Studies) reconstructed and published two of thecatalogues under the titles Hsiang-fufa-pao lu lieh-ch'u ("A Digestof Hsiang-fu fa-pao-lu") and Ching-yu fa-pao lu lueh-ch'u ("A

6 The survey about the discovery of the Chin Tripitaka in Chinese made byTsukamoto Zenryu was a competent account of that time. Cf. "Kin-koku Daizono hatsugen to sono kanko" ("The Discovery of the Chin Edition of Tripitaka andIts Reprinting"), Nikka bukkyo Kenkyi-kai nempo ("Annual of the Society ofNihon-China Buddhist Studies"), I (1934), 167-91.7 Apart from the two catalogues mentioned below, a fragmentary text ofanother catalogue, T'ien-sheng shih-chiao lu (compiled by Wei-ching in 1027) hasalso been rediscovered, but the fragment is not available to me at the moment.27



6/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung ChinaDigest of Ching-yu fa-pao lu").8 This put scholars in a much betterposition than that of the pioneer researchers.

The third source only recently available to scholars is Wen-chuang chi, a collection of Hsia Sung's writings. Hsia Sung (984-1050) was a famous man of politics and literature in the northernSung court. There were occasions when he was asked by theemperor to conduct or to write certain records in connection withBuddhism. Though his renowned essay on monk Huai-wen's threetrips to India is still missing from the collection,9 nevertheless, theepigraphical texts of Chuan-fa-yian Pei-ming ("Inscribed Recordof the Institute for Transmission of Buddha-Truth") and otherpieces are preserved. This collection was only in manuscript formwithin the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu collection, and except for those whocould go to the National Library of Peking it did not reachscholars. Later, when the "Ssu-k'u chen-pen" series ("Rare booksfrom the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu") was published,1? such new materialsof Buddhist history became available to us.The fourth important reference, only recently reprinted, isSung-hui-yao Chi-kao ("Drafts of Different Collections of the SungStatutes),1l edited by Hsii Sung (1781-1848) and based on earlierscattered sources. Two hundred sets of the book were first printedin 1936, but because the Sino-Japanese war was imminent theywere not circulated extensively. But in 1957 it was photographic-ally reprinted, thus supplying many new sources on the history ofthe Sung period.In the past, source materials for Buddhist relations betweennorthern Sung China and other countries depended mainly oninformation contained in Fo-tsu t'ung-chi (compiled 1258-69);12Sung-shih (the official history of the Sung dynasty),13 which wascompiled between A.D. 1343 and 1345; and a few other Buddhist

8 Hereafter, they are referred to as "HFLL" and "CYLL," respectively. Aboutthe historiographical value of the catalogues, see my paper "Buddhist Historio-graphy in Sung China," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft,CXIV, No. 2 (1964), 360ff., esp. 376-77.9 This record has been referred to in CYLL, p. 21b, and in Fo-tsu t'ung-chi(hereinafter referred to as "FTTC") (T, Vol. XLIX, No. 2035), p. 409b.10 Wen-chuang chi ("Ssu-k'u chen-pen"), Vol. IX, chap. xxvi, pp. 1-26.11Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao (hereinafter referred to as "SHY") (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chii, 1957).12About the merit and defect of FTTC, see the author's article, "Fo-tsut'ung-chi: A Biographical and Bibliographical Study," Oriens Extremus, X (1963),61-82.13 For the shortcomings of Sung-shih (hereinafter referred to as "SS")(Po-na edition), are well known. Historians consider this work the poorestamong the dynastic histories of China. Cf. Feng Chia-sheng's assessment in hisbook, Liao-shih cheng-wu san-chung ("Corrections on the History of the LiaoDynasty") (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chii, 1959), pp. 19-24. 28



7/20

histories written during the Yuan and the Ming periods.14 Most ofthese later works were compiled or written about two to threehundred years after the end of the northern Sung period. And theycontained certain confusions and mistakes about historical events.As compared with these later works, the above-mentioned re-discoveries are more valuable and explicit. The original authorsand compilers of those books were not only contemporaries butwere all "on the spot" when the events took place and had personaland close connections with Buddhist affairs of the age. Theirwritings, therefore, should be regarded as the first-hand materials.Their authenticity has been proved to be unequivocal. There isplentiful evidence to show the reliability and accuracy of thestatements preserved in them. In fact, these rediscovered earlyworks were the sources of later compilations, but because of time,and possibly also because of mistakes in copying, the later worksconfused the matter.In the catalogue Hsiang-fu fa-pao lu there is a passage recordedunder the fourth year of Ching-te (1007), which reads as follows:This year, an edict has been proclaimed again. It stated that accord-ing to a memorial submitted by the Institute for Compilationof History[Hsiu-shih kuan], the religion from India and Gandhara [Buddhism]has been long practicedby the ancestralemperors.The protectiongivenby the GreatMercy[Buddhist gods] is benevolent. The skilful help andthe love of living beingsare meritorious. We have seen with greatrespectthat His Majesty, Emperor T'ai-tsung, has established the Institute forCanonicalTranslations, and the work done in the institute follows. Ithas therefore been prayed that the events of the institute should beregistered in a veritable record [shih-lu], which should be submittedaccordingly.During the seventh month of the next year [1008], the compilationofthe record was completed, comprising eleven fascicles, and was for-warded to the Institute for Compilationof History.15

This clearly proves that even the Institute for Compilation ofHistory was dependent on the sources given by the Buddhistinstitute. In this connection, one has to bear in mind that theInstitute for Compilation of History supplied most of the materialscontained in the dynastic history.1614I.e., the works by Nien-ch'ang (ca. 1282-1342), Chiieh-an (1286-1355), etc.,as found in T, Nos. 2036-37, and Ming-ho's Pu-hsi Kao-seng-chuan ("Supple-mentary Biography of the Eminent Monks," compiled between 1611 and 1641,in Hsil-tsang-ching, IIB/vii/1-2.15 From HFLL, p. 22a. Unless other sources are mentioned, the passagesquoted in this paper are the author's translations.16Cf. Yang Lien-sheng, "The Organization of Chinese Official Historiography,"in Historians of China and Japan, ed. W. G. Beasley et al. (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1961), pp. 45ff. 29



8/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung ChinaAnother instance may be worthwhile to quote, which, thoughrelatively unimportant, still shows how accurate and reliable theserediscoveries are. The example concerns the authorship of SungKao-seng-chuan ("Sung Collection of the Biographies of EminentMonks"). Usually this work is ascribed to Tsan-ning (919-1001).17But in the catalogue we find a remark about this work as follows:"In obedience to an edict, Tsan-ning, a monk of T'ien-shou mona-stery in the capital, and a monk called Chih-lun, of Ta-hsiang-kuomonastery, wrote the work. It was completed in thirty fascicles andsubmitted to the throne at the beginning of the Tuan-kung age

[A.D. 988-89].'18 The statement of joint authorship of Sung Kao-seng-chuan was confirmed by the memorial submitted by Tsan-ning himself. This shows the authenticity of the new sources.Hsia Sung's writings about Buddhist events are also very reli-able. Hsia not only was a contemporary of and had personal con-nections with the events, but also his writings were usually doneunder the royal edict for official and formal commemorations.19The compilation of the Sung statutes was a constant officialeffort made by the Sung government.20 During the period of thedynasty, more than ten collections of the statutes were compiledfrom time to time. These were again the sources upon which bothSung-shih and Fo-tsu t'ung-chi depended, but most of the materialswere omitted by these two later works.21 Under such circum-stances, the reprinted Sung-hui-yao, especially its information aboutgovernment's policies towards Buddhists, added many new pointsto our knowledge. As it is an official document, and the informationis very precise and substantial, their reliability is undoubtable.The new points we obtained from the above-mentioned sourcesare related to many aspects of history. Some are concerned withthe functions of the government institutions, some with the reli-gious missions from India, some with the lives and names of Indiantranslators, some with the appointment of government personnelconcerned with Buddhist affairs, and some with the missions ofChinese pilgrims.

IIIn the past, our knowledge about Yi-ching Yiian (Institute forCanonical Translations) depended mainly on Fo-tsu t'ung-chi.17 E.g., Nanjio, op. cit., No. 1495, and other later Chinese catalogues.18 Quoted from HFLL, p. 29b. About Tsan-ning's statement mentioned belowsee T, Vol. L, p. 709b, 1. 4.19 Wen-chuang chi, chap. xxvi; and FTTC, p. 409b, etc.20 Cf. SHY, Vol. I, pp. 1-2.21Ibid., p. 2a; FTTC, "T'ung-li," p. 132a, 1. 13.

30



9/20

From this we know that the establishment of the institute beganin the fifth month of the fifth year of T'ai-p'ing-hsing-kuo (A.D.980).22 In A.D. 983 its name was altered to Ch'uan-fa Yuan (Insti-tute for Transmission of Dharma). The same source also informedscholars about activities and procedures of the translations andhonors bestowed on members of the institute. But when oneinquires into more details concerned with the official statues,appointment of personnel, and certain other points, the informa-tion becomes scanty.Now, with the help of the new discoveries and Sung-shih, ourknowledge has been enriched. According to Sung-shih, the institutewas a regular bureau under the department of Hung-lu Ssu (Courtof Diplomatic Receptions). This indicates that during the Sungperiod this Buddhist institute constituted an official department,a regular and permanent rather than a temporary or irregulararrangement, as had been the case during the previous dynasties.The official record is as follows: "The Institute for Transmissionof Dharma controls the works of translation and literary revisions[of Buddhist canons]."23 This statement has also been strengthenedby a similar one in Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao.24

Regarding the later history of the institute, our knowledge isagain insufficient, as the previous records stressed only the greatand active period of the institute. Yet, since the department con-stituted a regular office, the abolition or alteration of it should nothave remained unnoticed in official documents. However, thispoint was missed in Sung-shih. But Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao againcomes to our assistance. It states:

On the twenty-third day of the second month of the second year,under the reign of Shun-hsi [March17, 1175], the monk Chih-chiiehofthe Institute for Transmission of Dharma prayed that his institute beoriginally located in the T'ai-p'ing hsing-kuo monastery at the rightstreet of the eastern capital [K'ai-feng]. At the beginning of the Shao-hsing age [ca. 1131-40] there were monks who accompanied the royalcarriageand came to this place [i.e., Lin-an or Hang-chou] and estab-lished monastic palaces and other buildings. Therefore,he prayed thatthe throne should name the new establishment T'ai-p'ing hsing-kuoCh'uan-fassu. The prayer was assented to.25Though Chih-p'an, the author of Fo-tsu t'ung-chi, did not recordthis story in his book, he wrote a short note when he was narrating

22 FTTC, p. 398a.23 From SS, chap. clxv, p. 5b.24 SHY, Vol. III, p. 2915a.25 Ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 7893a.2-H.O.R. 31



10/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung Chinathe work of the institute during the year 983. He noted that "thepresent Institute for Transmission of Dharma at Lin-an is theInstitute for Canonical Translations. But now it is only workingfor religious service in the royal palace."26This evidence shows that even when the Sung government lostits original capital in northern China and shifted to the south, theinstitute was still continued as a government department, thoughits functions were different from its early ones. Thus its historywas much longer than has been usually presumed.Another point related to the institute is concerned with theofficial honors bestowed on its members. Some scholars havealready drawn our attention to the titular designations given bythe throne to the monk-translators.27 But our interest has yet tobe directed to the lay members of the institute. In Sung-hui-yaoChi-kao there is a passage which may be translated as follows:

In this year [1020], a top-ranking minister named Ting Wei [962-1033] was made the commissionerof [Buddhist] translations. This wasan extra duty of his office,and the numberof this titular post was onlyone. During the age of T'ien-hsi [1017-21], when two academicians ofHanlin Academy, namely, Ch'ao Chiung [948-1031] and Li Wei [ca.985], were appointed as the officers for polishing the translated litera-tures, the number of the post thus increased to two. After Ting Weiresigned, the commissionershipremained vacant for some time, untilthe third year of T'ien-sheng [1025], when Wang Ch'in-jo [962-1025]was the premierand was again designated with the titular title of com-missioner. The post, though, was continuously held by the succeedingprime ministers; nevertheless, such honor was not allowed to berecordedin the obituary notes. In some cases, the second privy coun-cillors and commissionersof military affairswere also honoredwith thetitular title of the officer for polishing the translated literatures.28The same source also stated that after Lu Yi-chien retired fromthe prime ministership, Chang Te-hsiang (978-1048) succeeded asthe commissioner. "Thereafter, the titular designation of thecommissionership was allowed to enter into official and obituaryrecords."29 Considering this information along with the record inthe table of prime ministers contained in Sung-shih,30 the passagequoted and translated above would be more significant and trueto the historical facts. This again disproves a generally acceptednotion that during the whole period of the Sung dynasty Buddhism26 T, Vol. XLIX, p. 398c.27 Cf. Bagchi, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, pp. 585, 595, 597, etc.28SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892b.29Ibid.30 SS, chap. ccxi, "Piao" (ii)-"Tsai-fu" (ii), p. 8ff. This tradition continuedtill the second year of Hsi-ning (1069).

32



11/20

was looked down upon by the Confucian officers as a result of therevival of Confucianism. That notion was true only in the laterpart of the epoch and cannot be fully applied to the history of theearlier period. The reason is that during the early days Neo-Confucianism itself was developing. Its influence was still limitedto certain members of intellectual circles and did not yet have astrong impact on the rest of the officers and scholars.It is worth mentioning that one of the most important achieve-ments of the institute was the organizational development oftranslation. Both Fo-tsu t'ung-chi and Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao haveclearly recorded how detailed and scientific was the division ofworks in translation. The process of translating a Buddhist textwas usually handled by different persons in their respective capa-cities, that is, the chief translator (yi-chu), the philosophicalassistant (cheng-yi), the linguistic assistant in Sanskrit (cheng-wen),the transcriber (shu-tzu fan-hsieh seng), the scribe-cum-transla-torial assistant (pei-shu), the Chinese-text editor (chieh-wen), thejoint translator (ch'an-yi), the final drafter (k'an-ting), and theofficer for polishing the translated literature (jui-wen).31 Thoughsuch divisions for translating works were there during the pre-vious periods, they were more systematic in the Sung institute.This was one reason why the monks could translate a large numberof works within a short space of time, and it is also the reason whywe believe the Sung translations of Buddhist texts are moreliterary and accurate than many early translations.Of course, a good translation depends on many factors, especi-ally the chief translator. The work of a large group of scholars mayor may not be better than a single hand or the co-operation of afew competent scholars. But when such masterly hands were notavailable, teamwork was the only possible method. In this con-nection, one has to note that the organizational development was,in fact, a result of such a situation. During this period neither theIndian nor the Chinese monks could master the other's language.Therefore, the works translated during the period, though underan individual name or names, were actually done by a team. Thisis also proved by the fact that "after the death of Jih-ch'eng, thesubtranslator monk, Hui-hsiin, and others, were all unable to31 Cf. the author's paper, "Organizational development of the Translation ofBuddhist texts into Chinese," (a contribution to the All-India Oriental Conference,nineteenth session, New Delhi, 1957). A more detailed study on this topic hasbeen published recently by Tso Szu-bong, "Lun Chung-kuo fo-chiao yi-ch'angchih yi-ching fang-shih yii ch'eng-hsi" ("Methods and procedures used in Trans-lating Buddhist Sutras at Translation Centers in China during the Dynasties fromHan to Sung"), New Asia Journal, V (1963), 239ff., esp. 310ff.

33



12/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung Chinacontinue the work. So they pleaded to abolish the Institute forCanonical Translations. In response, an edict ordered them tocontinue the compilation of catalogues in the institute. Let uswait until some well-learned Indian monk comes, and then thework of translation will be revived."32 This clearly indicates thatthis was the actual situation. It is obvious that unless there wasteamwork or international co-operation, no work could be trans-lated successfully.

IIIPreviously, sketches concerning the eminent Buddhist translatorsof the Sung period have been brief and confused. Fo-tsu t'ung-chiand other Buddhist histories written during the Yuian and theMing periods gave only short notes on those translators, andmostly on their works in China. This lack of reference materialwas a constant handicap to researchers. We did not know aboutthe training of those Indian monks working in China, or the back-ground of their lives, so essential for the study and assessment oftheir works. In this respect the new materials help to clarify cer-tain serious mistakes existing in the field.

AThe greatest mistake was the identification of Fa-hsien (Dharma-bhadra). According to early research, Fa-hsien was a Chinese namegiven by the Sung emperor to Fa-t'ien (Dharmadeva), to rewardthe latter's translations. This reference was first recorded inFo-tsu t'ung-chi in the thirteenth century33 and subsequently wasfollowed by all scholars until recently. Therefore, whenever onegoes through references such as Nanjio's catalogue,34 articles andbooks by Chavannes, P. C. Bagchi,35 and famous dictionaries byMochizuki and others,36 all of them unanimously state that Fa-

32SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7893a.33 T, Vol. XLIX, p. 399c.34 Ming-ho, op. cit., p. 24a, and Nanjio, op. cit., App. II, p. 450.35 Chavannes, op. cit., p. 46; Bagchi, India and China, p. 208; and Bagchi, Lecanon bouddhique en Chine, p. 585.36 Mochizuki, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 4631b; Matsunaga Sh6do, Mikkyo daijiten(Kyoto, 1931-33), II, p. 2003b; and P. Demi6ville et al. (eds.), HbJogirin (supple-mentary vol.; Tokyo, 1931), p. 138b,s.v. "Hoken."Soon after the Chin edition of Ta-tsang-ching was discovered, TsukamotoZenryu pointed out the mis-identification of Fa-hsien with Fa-t'ien; cf. "Bukkyoshiryo to shite Kin koku zokyo" ("The Newly Discovered Chin Edition of theTripitaka in Chinese"), Toho gakuho (Kyoto), VI (1934), pp. 26-100. The referenceavailable to me is the summary in Sodai kenkyu bunken teiyo (Tokyo; T6oybunko, 1961) p. 359. Mochizuki Shinko himself had also accepted this new finding;see his book Bukkyo kyoten seiritsu shi-ron ("Historical Studies on the Formation

34



13/20

hsien is Fa-t'ien. Though during the thirties and forties of thepresent century there were scholars who attempted to rectify thismistake with the help of new discoveries, their effort has yet tobe noticed by others.37 Even in some recent publications the oldmistake remains unchanged.38The incorrect identification of Fa-hsien with Fa-t'ien has been agreat confusion to scholars. Though both Nanjio and S. Matsunagalisted the translations done by Fa-t'ien and Fa-hsien separately,they nevertheless agreed that the two names belonged to oneperson.39 Later, when G. Ono and others were compiling thefamous catalogue Showa hobo somokuroku ("General Catalogue ofBuddhist Canons Compiled during the Age of Showa"), certaindoubts arose about the identification of Fa-hsien. They noted:"Fa-hsien, of the Sung dynasty. He was honored with the title ofMing-chiao Ta-shih, died in the fourth year of Hsien-p'ing [A.D.1001]. According to Fo-tsu t'ung-chi, during the second year ofYung-hsi, Fa-t'ien was renamed Fa-hsien. But in the text of Tsun-sheng ta-ming-wang ching both names are mentioned side by side.It is possible that they were two different persons, and, therefore,the two names are arranged under different headings."40

This short remark showed high competence of scholarship, yetit could not prove the suggestion put forward by them, nor did itclear up the old mistake and confusion. On the contrary, it stillconnected the date and title of Fa-t'ien with Fa-hsien and putFa-t'ien, Fa-hsien and T'ien-hsi-tsai in three places as if they weredifferent persons.41 Thus, the matter was further complicated.Now the new sources have supplied some points of great signifi-cance on this problem. These texts clearly record that Fa-hsien isnot Fa-t'ien but was a name given by the Sung emperor to T'ien-hsi-tsai, a contemporary and colleague of Fa-t'ien. The followingextracts are from the newly recovered texts: (1) In the text of anof Buddhist Canons") (Kyoto, 1946), pp. 171ff., 188ff. Though the new edition ofBukkyo daijiten has been published along with supplementary volumes, I am notcertain this old mistake is corrected as the book is not available in India. Similarly,there are a few other new publications, such as K. K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism inChina, which I am unable to refer to for the same reason. However, Nasu Seiryu,"Chugo-ku Mikkyo ni okeru Dokkyo-shiso no juyo" ["The Acceptance of TaoistThought in Chinese Mystic Buddhism"], Indogaku Bukky6gaku Kenkyu, VI,No. 1 [1958], 89), still referred to Fa-hsien as Fa-t'ien.37 See n. 40, below.38 Chou Hsiang-kuang, op. cit., p. 164; Saletore, op. cit., p. 325; Bagchi, Indiaand China, pp. 145, 208; Weng T'ung-wen, Repertoire des dates des hommesceldbresdes Song (Paris: Sorbonne, 1962), p. 7, s.v. "Fa-hien."39 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 451; Matsunaga, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 2003-b.40 G. Ono et al., Sh6wa hobo somokuroku, I, p. 687b.41 Ibid., pp. 687b, 689%, nd 678c. 35



14/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung Chinainscription written by Hsia Sung, there is recorded "a new name,Fa-hsien [Dharmabhadra, or Virtue of Buddha-Truth], bestowedon T'ien-hsi-tsai by His Majesty the Emperor."42 (2) A similarstatement is also found in other texts. It is stated in Sung-hui-yaoChi-kao that "in the fourth year of Yung-hsi [987], under a royalinstruction, his [T'ien-hsi-tsai's] name was altered to Fa-hsien, andhe continuously held the titular honor of probationary lord ofimperial banquets with the rank of ch'ao-feng Ta-fu."43 (3) Inanother place the same work recorded that "he [Fa-hsien] died inthe eighth month of the third year of Hsien-p'ing [A.D. 1000]. Aposthumous title of hui-pien ["wise and able in argument"] hasbeen declared to honor him."44

Apart from the extracts quoted above, there are more evidencesto support this new identification. For instance, the catalogueHsiang-fu fa-pao lu recorded three translators, namely, T'ien-hsi-tsai, Fa-t'ien, and Shih-hu, during the period up to A.D. 988. Butfrom 989 to 1000 the translators' names were constantly registeredas Fa-hsien, Fa-t'ien, and Shih-hu. The replacement of T'ien-hsi-tsai by Fa-hsien clearly indicates that they are the same person.45The continuous mentioning of Fa-hsien and Fa-t'ien side by sideindicates that they are not the same but two different monks.Moreover, the same catalogue also recorded that (a) Fa-hsien diedon the fourth day of the eighth month in the autumn of the thirdyear of Hsien-p'ing (September 4, 1000),46 while (b) Fa-t'ienpassed way on the eighteenth day of the fifth month in the sum-mer of the fourth year of the same era, or June 12, 1001.47 Thisagain proves they were two different persons, and

the date of Fa-hsien's death is identical with that of T'ien-hsi-tsai as mentionedin other sources, including Fo-tsu t'ung-chi.48These new findings have led us to the conclusion that Fa-hsienis T'ien-hsi-tsai and not Fa-t'ien. This identification has strong andauthentic sources for support; it seems without doubt. If this isacceptable, then the great confusion that was made about sevenhundred years ago has now been clarified by these new discoveries.The texts also supply more material about the life of Dharma-bhadra, or Fa-hsien. One of the texts states that he was a monk

42 Wen-chuang chi, chap. xxvi, p. 3a, 1. 3.43SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892a, 1. 4.44Ibid., 1. 5.45 HFLL, pp. 3-9b 10a-18b.46 Ibid., p. 18a.47 Ibid., p. 19a.48 T, Vol. XLIX, p. 402a. The only difference is that the author of FTTC stillwrongly recorded Fa-t'ien as Fa-hsien. 36



15/20

from Kashmir. He studied Sabdavidyd [the science of Sanskritlanguage] at Mi-lin monastery of his country at the age of twelve.As his elder paternal cousin Shih-hu [Danapala] had also renouncedfamily life and was a monk, so Dharmabhadra told his cousin:'All the sages and saints of the past considered the translation ofSanskrit canons into Chinese as the means to preach Buddhism.'Therefore, they began their journey together from the countriesof northern India for the east. When they arrived at Tun-huangthey were detained by the local ruler for a few months. They wereforced to cast aside their staffs, water jars, and other things, buttook Sanskrit manuscripts with them and eventually arrived atthe Sung court.49This passage relating to the forward journey of Fa-hsien orT'ien-hsi-tsai was unknown to scholars. Such information, thoughfragmentary, is valuable for the studies of Buddhism in the regionconcerned because there is so little information. Of course, anotherproblem still remains unsolved, that is, the native country of Fa-hsien. Previously, he was described as "a Sramana of Jalandharaof northern India, or of Kasmira of northern India."50 On the onehand, the new findings re-affirm that he is a native of Kashmir;51on the other, it is also stated that he studied at "Mi-lin monasteryof his country." According to Hsiian-tsang, there was a monasterycalled Tamasavana-safigharama, which meant Mi-lin or An-lin(dark forest), and was not far from the city of Jalandhara.52 ButJalandhara was not included within the territory of Kashmirkingdom during the tenth century.53 Whether there was anotherMi-lin monastery founded in Kashmir during the early decades ofthe tenth century, or Jalandhara was under the rule of Kashmirikings, or the Chinese mis-identified Mi-lin monastery with An-linmonastery of Jalandhara is uncertain. No clear answer can beoffered, and the problem remains open for further discussion.

BSung-hui-yao Chi-kao also contains certain new information aboutother Buddhist translators of the Sung period. On Shih-hu orDanapala, it states: "At the age of fifteen, Shih-hu studied under

49SHY, Vol. VIII, pp. 7891b-7892a.50 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 452, and Demieville et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 151a.51SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7891a.52Ibid., p. 7891b. Cf. T. Watters, On Yuan-chwang's Travel in India (London:Royal Asiatic Society, 1905), p. 294.53 Cf. R. C. Majumdar et al. (eds.), The Age of Imperial Kanauj ("The Historyand Culture of the Indian People," Vol. IV [Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavana,1955]), pp. 118ff.37



16/20

Buddhist Relations BetweenIndia and Sung ChinaSramana Pei-hsien [Karuna-bhadra?] of Ti-shih-kung monastery.He learned the regular and running-hand styles of the scripts pre-vailing in the five regions of India. He also knew the writings ofSimhalese, Khotanese, and those of Srivijaya and Java [Che-p'o]."54 Similarly, there was no record about the age of Shih-huin other reference books.55 But now, in the catalogue Chin-yufa-pao lu, there is preserved a note which reads as follows: "Shih-hu fell ill. It has been reported that he entered into nirvana onthe twenty-sixth of this month."56 This note was recorded underthe heading of the twelfth month of the first year in the T'ien-hsi age, which is identical with January 15, 1018.

cApart from the problem as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs,our knowledge about Fa-t'ien has also been enriched by the re-discoveries. In the past, we knew only that he was "a Sramana ofthe Nalanda monastery of Magadha in Central India";57 butnothing was said about his journey to Sung China, though hisworks and honors in the Sung court were comparatively wellregistered in documents.Now the Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao informs us that Fa-t'ien origin-ally belonged to the ksatriya caste and thoroughly studied theTripitaka. He and his brother Ta-li-mo lo-ch'a-to [Dharmala-ksana?], along with Ni-lo [Nara?]-a monk from western India-and a southern Indian monk called Ni-mo-t'o-chi-li-ti [Nirmana-rati-kirti?], four members in all, began their journey to China.Only Fa-t'ien and his brother could reach the destination; on theway the other two died. Fa-t'ien brought some Sanskrit textswith him. By chance he met Fa-chin, a monk of Ho-chung-fu well-versed both in the Sanskrit language and Buddhist sciptures.58Thereafter he translated three canons at Fu-chou. In these trans-lations, Fa-chin acted as assistant translator-cum-scribe; WangKuei-ts'ung, the administrator of the prefecture, polished theliterature of these translations. This event was reported to the

54SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892a.55 E.g., in a standard reference, such as Nanjio, op. cit., p. 453; Ono et at., op.cit., Vol. I, p. 671b; Demi6ville et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 147b; Bagchi, Le canonbouddhique en Chine, p. 597; Mochizuki ShinkS, Bukkyo dainempyo (4th rev. ed.;1956); Ch'en Yuan, Shih-shih Yi-nien-lu ("Data related to dates of ChineseBuddhists") (rev. ed.; Peking, 1964), and Weng, op. cit., etc. None gives the dateof Shih-hu or Danapala.56CYLL, p. 13'.57 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 450; Bagchi, Le canon bouddhiqueen Chine, p. 585; Mochi-zuki, Bukkyo daijiten, p. 4631b; Ming-ho, op. cit., p. 23c; Chou Hsiang-kuang,op. cit., p. 163.58SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7891a. 38



17/20

throne in the seventh year of K'ai-pao (A.D. 974). "Fa-t'ienprayed that he might be allowed to go to Wu-t'ai mountain to payhomage to Bodhisattva Mafijusri, and also to travel to Kiangsu,Chekiang [in East China], South China, and the regions of Pa andShu [Ssu-chwan]. The request was granted."59Whether Fa-t'ien had undertaken this pilgrimage we do notknow. We only know that his activities of translations at Fu-chouhad been reported to the Sung emperor about 974, and he wasprobably summoned to the capital during 979 or 980. His activi-ties and whereabouts during the period between 974 and 980 areunrecorded. It is possible that he went on a pilgrimage to Wu-t'aimountain, as he prayed, but his journey to East and South Chinaseems doubtful, as the annexation of the Sung empire to theseparts was then still under progress. Unless new material appears,the problem will remain unsolved.D

After Nanjio restored the name of Fa-hu as Dharmaraksha to-ward the end of the last century, his suggestion was long acceptedby many scholars.60 All reference books now available unani-mously record Fa-hu alias Dharmaraksha. Nanjio's suggestionwas quite reasonable as there had been an earlier Fa-hu, whichwas undoubtedly a translation of the Sanskrit words dharma-raksha.61 But the situation has changed now, as the rediscoveriesdisprove the long-accepted restoration of the Sanskrit name.Similarly, the new findings also throw more light on his earlier life,which, as I stated above, is very important for the study ofBuddhism in India.

According to Hsiang-fu fa-pao lu, "Fa-hu is a Chinese name.It is Ta-li-mo-po-lo [Dharmapala] in Sanskrit. Dharmapala means'the Protector of Buddha-Truth'; in Chinese it is Fa-hu."62 Thisclearly indicates that the original name of the monk was notDharmaraksha but Dharmapala. Similarly, in all previous refer-ences Fa-hu has been described as a "8ramana of Magadha ofCentral India."63 Now the new texts inform us:

He was a native of Kashmir of northern India. His family belonged59Ibid.60 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 455; Ono et al., op. cit., Vol. I, p. 688b;Mochizuki, Bukkyodaijiten, p. 4592; Matsunaga, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 2005a; Demieville et al. (eds.),op. cit., p. 138a; Bagchi, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, pp. 605ff.61 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 391.62 HFLL, p. 23a. This information is also confirmed by a statement containedin SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892".83 Cf. n. 57, above.39



18/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung Chinato a Brahmana caste, and his original surname was Chiao-ssu-chia[probablythe Kausikas, a Brahmana clan of Kashmir]. His nature wasvery simple, his look was handsome, he was very brilliant from hischildhood. During his younger days he studied the four Vedas as wellas historical records[Puranas?]and Sastras.Later, he went to Magadha, became a monk, and learned differentsubjects at the Chien-ku-k'aiKung monastery, under the supervisionofSramana Su-o-to Shih-li-po-lo[Sugata Sripala]; in Chinese, the latter'sname means Shan-shih Chi-hsiang-hu.64It appears likely that Dharmapala's name was partly derived fromhis teacher's title, pdla. The same source also stated that he for-mally renounced family life and joined the Safigha while he wasin the Chien-ku-k'ai Kung monastery.The same source further stated that "after he attained maturityhe received the commandments in full. He was admitted to thedchdrya degree and studied the Vinaya-pitaka, the collection ofscriptures of monastic disciplines, under the guide of SramanaHsi-yu-ch'eng [Adbhutam-yana?], 8ramana Miao-yi-tsun [Varah-manas-pradhanam?], and 8ramana Pu-shih-k'ai [Dana-varma].He also studied Sabdavidyasdstra, thoroughly investigated theorigin of Sanskrit words, and became skilful in eight tones ofrecitation and well-versed in the studies of the Three Vehicles [ofBuddhism]. Afterwards, he further visited eminent teachers, re-ceived education in Mahayana suitras and sastras. His compositionof prose and verse are both fine."65 All these points are new to ourknowledge. With the accession of this information, we now knowhim much better than did scholars of past generations.The new findings about Fa-hu's life in China confirm the infor-mation supplied by Fo-tsu t'ung-chi and other related Buddhisthistorical texts. But the new sources have a clearer record aboutthe various titles with which Fa-hu was honored by the Sungemperor. To give a short account of this aspect would make ourknowledge more precise. "In the eleventh month of the fourthyear [of Ching-te, 1007], the title of ch'uan-fan ta-shih ["greatmaster who preaches Sanskrit canons"] was bestowed on him.During the second year of Ta-chung-hsiang-fu [1009], he wasmade a subtranslator, as His Majesty the Emperor considered thatthe literary pursuits and scholarship of Fa-hu were sound andbrilliant and fit for the preaching of religion and the translationof canons."66 Another source recorded that "On the eighth of the

64 HFLL, p. 23a.65 Ibid.66 Ibid., p. 23b.40



19/20

twelfth month of the first year of Chih-ho [January 8, 1055], asix-word title of p'u-ming tz'u-chieh ch'uan-fan ["universal illu-minated, merciful and enlightened, preacher of Sanskrit canons"]was conferred on Fa-hu, a great master of the law and the Tripi-taka, of the Institute for Transmission of Dharma. Fa-hu was amonk from India in the west who possessed high virtue."67 "Whenhe died in the third year of Chia-yu [1058], a posthumous title ofyen-chiao ["master who expounded the religion"] was declared inhis honor."68One most interesting point we gain from these new sources isrelated to the linguistic training of the translators. As we haveseen, T'ien-hsi-tsai, or Dharmabhadra, had studied Sabdavidya;Danapala learned the regular and running-hand styles of thescripts prevailing in the five regions of India and knew the writ-ings of Simhalese, Khotanese, 8rivijaya, and Java; Dharmapalastudied Sabdavidydagstra and thoroughly investigated the originof Sanskrit words. This extensive and expert linguistic traininghad possibly played a great part in the organization of translatingworks. Their linguistic accomplishments left a strong imprint ontheir works. In this connection, the newly rediscovered cataloguesretain many evidences. For instance, Hsiang-fu fa-pao lu con-stantly notes which text comes from what language and script:Lo-shan chang-che ching and five other works "were in the CentralIndian language and written in Kuchan script." "Wei-ts'eng-yucheng-fa ching is in the Central Indian language and written inSimhalese script."69Similarly, in the other catalogue, there are also certain remarksabout the languages of original scriptures. For example, under thetitle of Pai-yi Chin-ch'ung erh P'o-lo-men yuan-ch'i ching it isnoted that "the original work was in western Indian script. Atpresent, it is translated into the Central Indian script first andthen translated into Chinese from the latter."70 It seems, due tothis linguistic complex, and although the work was only threefascicles in length, that the translation was a joint effort by threehands, namely, Danapala, who was trained in northwestern India,Dharma-pala, who studied in Central India, and Wei-ching, theirChinese colleague.67SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7893a. Bagchi had miscalculated this date as 1054 (Lecanon bouddhiqueen Chine, p. 605), and Chou Hsiang-kuang (op. cit., p. 165) statedincorrectly that this was in the third year of Chia-yu, or 1058.68SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892b.69HFLL, pp. 17a, 18a. The first text is not available at present, and thesecond text is included in T, No. 628.70 CYLL, p. 6a, 11. 3-4. The text is included in T, No. 10.

41



20/20

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung ChinaThe passages quoted above supply many interesting points toscholars of various disciplines. They not only help us to have abetter understanding of the textual problems of the canons butalso inform us about religious and linguistic divisions in theIndian subcontinent. They are very significant for future lingu-istic and literary research.

[To be concluded]

42

Documents

Buddhist Ralations Between India and Sung China