Buddhist Relations between India and Sung China Author(s): Jan Yn-hua Reviewed work(s): Source: History of Religions,

Vol. 6, No. 1 (Aug., 1966), pp. 24-42 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062095 . Accessed: 06/09/2012 07:48
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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Jan Yln-hua

RELATIONS BUDDHIST INDIA AND BETWEEN SUNG CHINA

Buddhist relations between India and China constitute one of the outstanding factors in the history of Chinese culture. From the time of the introduction of Buddhism to China until the northern Sung period (A.D. 960-1127), there were a number of Indian missionaries who went to China; and from the other end we find streams of Buddhist pilgrims visiting India from China. These contacts form one great chapter of the medieval civilization which had a strong impact on Chinese mind, culture, and society. It should also have had some degree of influence on Indian life, though the extent of this has yet to be fully studied and assessed.1 As far as the Chinese were concerned, the Buddhist monks of medieval times constantly gave due importance to their relations with 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 two instalments. The second instalment, including translations of documents and a lengthy glossary of Chinese characters and transliterations, will appear in the next number, November, 1966.-EDITORS.] 1 Apart from P. C. Bagchi's discussion of the possible Chinese influence on India (India and China, A Thousand Years of Cultural Relations [hereinafter cited as "India and China"] [New York: Philosophical Library, 1951], pp. 197ff.), two more attempts have been published during recent years. One is Chi Hsien-lin's Chung-yin wen-hua-kuan-hsi-shih lun-ts'ung ("Essays on Cultural and Historical Relations 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 Contacts. What India Received from China" (paper originally read before the Twenty-fifth International Congress of Orientalists, Moscow, 1960), Journal of the Asiatic Society (Calcutta), I, No. 1 (1959), 89-122. 24

Chinese Buddhists. It was from this source that they secured new ideas and theory, new systems of philosophy, new patterns of life, and new spirit and courage. With the help of this inspiration, they found ways to solve their problems spiritually and materially and learned many things that were not part of the old Chinese culture. With the help of this learning, they examined the situation, assimilated and developed these newly acquired doctrines, resystematized them, and created something new both to traditional Chinese culture and to traditional Indian Buddhism. This, I think, was the reason why the Chinese Buddhist biographers often gave the prime place to record the canonical translators in the histories written by them.2 And most of the translators were from or related to India. This is also the reason why Buddhist relations between these two countries comprise a subject of interest to many scholars. Compared with the earlier periods, the religious contact between India and Sung China is a subject less studied. Research published in European languages has stood rather still since the efforts made by E. Chavannes (1865-1918).3 The subject is also neglected both in China and Japan. Except for a few articles and reference books, there are no special studies on this aspect of history. As a result, there are certain confusions relating to the historical facts, certain significant points remain uninvestigated, 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 and influential.4 It was Nanjio who made the Chinese translation of
2 Cf. Hui-chiao (497-554) et al., serial works entitled Kao-seng chuan ("Biography of the Eminent Monks"), in Taisho Shinshu daizokyo (hereinafter referred to as "T"), Nos. 2059-61; and various Chinese catalogues of Buddhist canons compiled 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 were rendered into French by Bagchi in his book Le canon bouddhique en Chine (2 vols.; Paris and Calcutta, 1927, 1938). Some of these biographies have also been translated and annotated by many scholars in the field of the history of Buddhism in China. 3 E. Chavannes, "Les Inscriptions chinoises de bodh-gaya," Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, XXXIII (1896), 1-58; and "Notes sinologiques," Bulletin de L'flcole Francaise 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 Sung period in his articles collected in Fo-hsiieh yen-chiu shih-pa-p'ien ("Eighteen essays of Buddhist Studies") (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chii, 1941). Chang Hsinglang collected historical documents on Sino-Indian relations in his book, Chung-hsi chiao-t'ung-shih-liao Hui-pien ("Historical Materials of China-West Communications") (Peiping: Fu-jen ta-hsiieh, 1930), VI, pp. 439ff. Although related to India 25

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

the Buddhist Tripitaka known to European scholars and who attempted to restore certain Sanskrit names from Chinese transcription to Roman script. Chavannes' article, "Les inscriptions Chinoises de bodh-gaya," and his contribution on Chi-yeh's journey to India are the major attempts on later Sino-Indian Buddhist history. Mochizuki's contribution, though more accurate, is limited to scholars who know Japanese, and the references made by Chang Hsing-lang and Huang Ch'an-hua were overshadowed by other topics discussed in their books. There should be no doubt about the competence of these earlier efforts. They had long-lasting influence, and most of their conclusions were accepted and followed by others. Even in recent publications, including certain textbooks, the research results of these pioneers are still repeated.5 But when one checks these earlier researches against original sources, especially the texts newly rediscovered during the last few decades, there are a number of factors that disprove certain earlier conclusions, clarify certain existing confusions, and enrich our knowledge. The purpose of this paper is (1) to discuss the value and authenticity of these rediscoveries, using these new materials; (2) to rectify certain confusions related to the Institute for Canonical Translations and (3) the life of the Indian translators working in the Sung Court; (4) to discuss the problems concerning the assessment of Sino-Indian Buddhist relations during the Sung period; and finally, (5) to compile a new chronological document on the Buddhist contacts between India and Sung China. This new attempt should put us in a better position to understand the history of the period, and it may be useful to those scholars who
and Sung China, the book was published before the rediscovery of the lost texts concerned. Huang Ch'an-hua had a brief survey on the topic, but it was not the main subject in his book Chung-kuofo-chiao shih ("History of Buddhism in China") (Changsha: Commercial Press, 1940), pp. 316ff. Chou Ta-fu's contribution, "Kaicheng Fa-kuo Han-hsiieh-chia Sha-wan tui Yin-tu ch'u-t'u Han-wen-pei te wushih" ("Corrections of Chavannes' interpretation of the Chinese stone inscriptions unearthed in India"), Li-shih yen-chiu, No. 6 (1957), 79-82, is mainly on epigraphical 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 of Chinese Buddhism (Allahabad: Indo-Chinese Literature Publications, 1955), pp. 163-66, and Prabhash Chandra Majumdar, "A Few Chinese Travellers visited India 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 of Cultural Relations (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1957). Bhasker Ananda Saletore discussed the problem, but his materials are limited only to the early references such as Nanjio, Chavannes, and Chou Hsiang-kuang, thus reaffirming old statements (India's Diplomatic Relations with the East [Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1960], pp. 335ff.). 26

are interested in the history of Buddhism in India; there are also certain points which would supplement the official histories of the Sung dynasty. I The rediscovered sources I have mentioned comprise four works. The first, Hsiang-fufa-pao lu ("A Catalogue of the Precious Books of Dharma, Compiled during the age of Ta-chung-hsiang-fu"), was compiled in A.D. 1013 by Chao An-jen (958-1018), Yang Yi (9741020), and others. The second, Ching-yu fa-pao lu ("A Catalogue of the Precious Books of Dharma compiled during the age of Ching-yu") was forwarded to the Sung emperor in 1036 by Lii Yi-chien (978-1043), Sung Shou (991-1040), etc. Apart from the records of titles, volumes, classifications, and reference remarks of the translated literatures, the former catalogue also recorded certain events related to the Institute for Canonical Translations, including the arrival of the western monks to the court during the period 974-1011. The second catalogue gave more attention to the Buddhist relations with India. It provided four chapters (xvi-xix) to record the topic. Except for some damaged parts, most portions of this record are available. Both these works were once regarded as lost books, and they were not included in any collection, Ta-tsang-ching, or other serial publications (ts'ung-shu) at the time of Nanjio, Chavannes, etc. This situation continued until 1933, when a set of the Chin edition of Ta-tsang-ching was surprisingly rediscovered from the Kuang-sheng monastery of Chao-ch'eng county in Shansi province, China.6 In spite of certain damages to this edition, the three long-lost catalogues are found in this collection.7 Though the original copies printed in the twelfth century are fragmentary, they still contain important materials about which scholars had known nothing since the thirteenth century. Soon after the news of rediscovery spread, the Chih-na Nei-hsiieh Yuan (Chinese Institute for Buddhist Studies) reconstructed and published two of the catalogues under the titles Hsiang-fufa-pao lu lieh-ch'u ("A Digest of 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 by Tsukamoto Zenryu was a competent account of that time. Cf. "Kin-koku Daizo no hatsugen to sono kanko" ("The Discovery of the Chin Edition of Tripitaka and Its Reprinting"), Nikka bukkyo Kenkyi-kai nempo ("Annual of the Society of Nihon-China Buddhist Studies"), I (1934), 167-91. 7 Apart from the two catalogues mentioned below, a fragmentary text of another catalogue, T'ien-sheng shih-chiao lu (compiled by Wei-ching in 1027) has also been rediscovered, but the fragment is not available to me at the moment. 27

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

Digest of Ching-yu fa-pao lu").8 This put scholars in a much better position than that of the pioneer researchers. The third source only recently available to scholars is Wenchuang chi, a collection of Hsia Sung's writings. Hsia Sung (9841050) was a famous man of politics and literature in the northern Sung court. There were occasions when he was asked by the emperor to conduct or to write certain records in connection with Buddhism. Though his renowned essay on monk Huai-wen's three trips to India is still missing from the collection,9 nevertheless, the epigraphical texts of Chuan-fa-yian Pei-ming ("Inscribed Record of the Institute for Transmission of Buddha-Truth") and other pieces are preserved. This collection was only in manuscript form within the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu collection, and except for those who could go to the National Library of Peking it did not reach scholars. Later, when the "Ssu-k'u chen-pen" series ("Rare books from the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu") was published,1? such new materials of Buddhist history became available to us. The fourth important reference, only recently reprinted, is Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao ("Drafts of Different Collections of the Sung Statutes),1l edited by Hsii Sung (1781-1848) and based on earlier scattered sources. Two hundred sets of the book were first printed in 1936, but because the Sino-Japanese war was imminent they were not circulated extensively. But in 1957 it was photographically reprinted, thus supplying many new sources on the history of the Sung period. In the past, source materials for Buddhist relations between northern Sung China and other countries depended mainly on information contained in Fo-tsu t'ung-chi (compiled 1258-69);12 Sung-shih (the official history of the Sung dynasty),13 which was compiled between A.D. 1343 and 1345; and a few other Buddhist
8 Hereafter, they are referred to as "HFLL" and "CYLL," respectively. About the historiographical value of the catalogues, see my paper "Buddhist Historiography 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. 11 Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao (hereinafter referred to as "SHY") (Shanghai: Chunghua shu-chii, 1957). 12 About the merit and defect of FTTC, see the author's article, "Fo-tsu t'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 poorest among the dynastic histories of China. Cf. Feng Chia-sheng's assessment in his book, Liao-shih cheng-wu san-chung ("Corrections on the History of the Liao Dynasty") (Shanghai: Chung-hua shu-chii, 1959), pp. 19-24. 28

histories written during the Yuan and the Ming periods.14 Most of these later works were compiled or written about two to three hundred years after the end of the northern Sung period. And they contained certain confusions and mistakes about historical events. As compared with these later works, the above-mentioned rediscoveries are more valuable and explicit. The original authors and compilers of those books were not only contemporaries but were all "on the spot" when the events took place and had personal and close connections with Buddhist affairs of the age. Their writings, therefore, should be regarded as the first-hand materials. Their authenticity has been proved to be unequivocal. There is plentiful evidence to show the reliability and accuracy of the statements preserved in them. In fact, these rediscovered early works were the sources of later compilations, but because of time, and possibly also because of mistakes in copying, the later works confused the matter. In the catalogue Hsiang-fu fa-pao lu there is a passage recorded under the fourth year of Ching-te (1007), which reads as follows: This year, an edict has been proclaimed again. It stated that according to a memorial submitted by the Institute for Compilationof History [Hsiu-shih kuan], the religion from India and Gandhara [Buddhism] has been long practiced by the ancestral emperors.The protection given by the Great Mercy [Buddhist gods] is benevolent. The skilful help and the love of living beings are meritorious.We have seen with great respect that His Majesty, Emperor T'ai-tsung, has established the Institute for Canonical Translations, and the work done in the institute follows. It has therefore been prayed that the events of the institute should be registered in a veritable record [shih-lu], which should be submitted accordingly. During the seventh month of the next year [1008], the compilation of the record was completed, comprising eleven fascicles, and was forwarded to the Institute for Compilation of History.15 This clearly proves that even the Institute for Compilation of History was dependent on the sources given by the Buddhist institute. In this connection, one has to bear in mind that the Institute for Compilation of History supplied most of the materials contained in the dynastic history.16
14 I.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 ("Supplementary 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 passages quoted in this paper are the author's translations. 16 Cf. Yang Lien-sheng, "The Organization of Chinese Official Historiography," in Historians of China and Japan, ed. W. G. Beasley et al. (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 45ff. 29

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

Another instance may be worthwhile to quote, which, though relatively unimportant, still shows how accurate and reliable these rediscoveries are. The example concerns the authorship of Sung Kao-seng-chuan ("Sung Collection of the Biographies of Eminent Monks"). Usually this work is ascribed to Tsan-ning (919-1001).17 But 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 monastery in the capital, and a monk called Chih-lun, of Ta-hsiang-kuo monastery, wrote the work. It was completed in thirty fascicles and submitted to the throne at the beginning of the Tuan-kung age [A.D. 988-89].'18 The statement of joint authorship of Sung Kaoseng-chuan was confirmed by the memorial submitted by Tsanning himself. This shows the authenticity of the new sources. Hsia Sung's writings about Buddhist events are also very reliable. Hsia not only was a contemporary of and had personal connections with the events, but also his writings were usually done under the royal edict for official and formal commemorations.19 The compilation of the Sung statutes was a constant official effort made by the Sung government.20 During the period of the dynasty, more than ten collections of the statutes were compiled from time to time. These were again the sources upon which both Sung-shih and Fo-tsu t'ung-chi depended, but most of the materials were omitted by these two later works.21 Under such circumstances, the reprinted Sung-hui-yao, especially its information about government's policies towards Buddhists, added many new points to our knowledge. As it is an official document, and the information is very precise and substantial, their reliability is undoubtable. The new points we obtained from the above-mentioned sources are related to many aspects of history. Some are concerned with the functions of the government institutions, some with the religious missions from India, some with the lives and names of Indian translators, some with the appointment of government personnel concerned with Buddhist affairs, and some with the missions of Chinese pilgrims. II In the past, our knowledge about Yi-ching Yiian (Institute for Canonical Translations) depended mainly on Fo-tsu t'ung-chi.
E.g., Nanjio, op. cit., No. 1495, and other later Chinese catalogues. p. 29b. About Tsan-ning's statement mentioned below see 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. 21 Ibid., p. 2a; FTTC, "T'ung-li," p. 132a, 1. 13.
18 Quoted from HFLL,
17

30

From this we know that the establishment of the institute began in 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 (Institute for Transmission of Dharma). The same source also informed scholars about activities and procedures of the translations and honors bestowed on members of the institute. But when one inquires into more details concerned with the official statues, appointment of personnel, and certain other points, the information becomes scanty. Now, with the help of the new discoveries and Sung-shih, our knowledge has been enriched. According to Sung-shih, the institute was a regular bureau under the department of Hung-lu Ssu (Court of Diplomatic Receptions). This indicates that during the Sung period this Buddhist institute constituted an official department, a regular and permanent rather than a temporary or irregular arrangement, as had been the case during the previous dynasties. The official record is as follows: "The Institute for Transmission of Dharma controls the works of translation and literary revisions [of Buddhist canons]."23 This statement has also been strengthened by a similar one in Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao.24 Regarding the later history of the institute, our knowledge is again insufficient, as the previous records stressed only the great and active period of the institute. Yet, since the department constituted a regular office, the abolition or alteration of it should not have remained unnoticed in official documents. However, this point was missed in Sung-shih. But Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao again comes to our assistance. It states: On the twenty-third day of the second month of the second year, under the reign of Shun-hsi [March 17, 1175], the monk Chih-chiieh of the Institute for Transmission of Dharma prayed that his institute be originally located in the T'ai-p'ing hsing-kuo monastery at the right street of the eastern capital [K'ai-feng]. At the beginning of the Shaohsing age [ca. 1131-40] there were monks who accompanied the royal carriage and came to this place [i.e., Lin-an or Hang-chou] and established monastic palaces and other buildings. Therefore, he prayed that the throne should name the new establishment T'ai-p'ing hsing-kuo Ch'uan-fa ssu. The prayer was assented to.25 Though Chih-p'an, the author of Fo-tsu t'ung-chi, did not record this story in his book, he wrote a short note when he was narrating
22

23 From SS, chap. clxv, p. 5b. 24 SHY, Vol. III, p. 2915a. 25 Ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 7893a.

FTTC, p. 398a.

2-H.O.R.

31

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

the work of the institute during the year 983. He noted that "the present Institute for Transmission of Dharma at Lin-an is the Institute for Canonical Translations. But now it is only working for religious service in the royal palace."26 This evidence shows that even when the Sung government lost its original capital in northern China and shifted to the south, the institute was still continued as a government department, though its functions were different from its early ones. Thus its history was much longer than has been usually presumed. Another point related to the institute is concerned with the official honors bestowed on its members. Some scholars have already drawn our attention to the titular designations given by the throne to the monk-translators.27 But our interest has yet to be directed to the lay members of the institute. In Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao there is a passage which may be translated as follows: In this year [1020], a top-ranking minister named Ting Wei [9621033] was made the commissioner of [Buddhist] translations. This was an extra duty of his office, and the number of this titular post was only one. During the age of T'ien-hsi [1017-21], when two academicians of Hanlin Academy, namely, Ch'ao Chiung [948-1031] and Li Wei [ca. 985], were appointed as the officers for polishing the translated literatures, the number of the post thus increased to two. After Ting Wei resigned, the commissionership remained vacant for some time, until the third year of T'ien-sheng [1025], when Wang Ch'in-jo [962-1025] was the premier and was again designated with the titular title of commissioner. The post, though, was continuously held by the succeeding prime ministers; nevertheless, such honor was not allowed to be recorded in the obituary notes. In some cases, the second privy councillors and commissionersof military affairs were also honored with the titular title of the officer for polishing the translated literatures.28 The same source also stated that after Lu Yi-chien retired from the prime ministership, Chang Te-hsiang (978-1048) succeeded as the commissioner. "Thereafter, the titular designation of the commissionership was allowed to enter into official and obituary records."29 Considering this information along with the record in the table of prime ministers contained in Sung-shih,30 the passage quoted and translated above would be more significant and true to the historical facts. This again disproves a generally accepted notion that during the whole period of the Sung dynasty Buddhism
26

28 SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892b. 29 Ibid. 30 SS, chap. ccxi, "Piao" (ii)-"Tsai-fu" till the second year of Hsi-ning (1069).

27 Cf. Bagchi, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, pp. 585, 595, 597, etc.

T, Vol. XLIX, p. 398c.

(ii), p. 8ff. This tradition continued 32

was looked down upon by the Confucian officers as a result of the revival of Confucianism. That notion was true only in the later part of the epoch and cannot be fully applied to the history of the earlier period. The reason is that during the early days NeoConfucianism itself was developing. Its influence was still limited to certain members of intellectual circles and did not yet have a strong impact on the rest of the officers and scholars. It is worth mentioning that one of the most important achievements of the institute was the organizational development of translation. Both Fo-tsu t'ung-chi and Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao have clearly recorded how detailed and scientific was the division of works in translation. The process of translating a Buddhist text was usually handled by different persons in their respective capacities, that is, the chief translator (yi-chu), the philosophical assistant (cheng-yi), the linguistic assistant in Sanskrit (cheng-wen), the transcriber (shu-tzu fan-hsieh seng), the scribe-cum-translatorial assistant (pei-shu), the Chinese-text editor (chieh-wen), the joint translator (ch'an-yi), the final drafter (k'an-ting), and the officer for polishing the translated literature (jui-wen).31 Though such divisions for translating works were there during the previous periods, they were more systematic in the Sung institute. This was one reason why the monks could translate a large number of works within a short space of time, and it is also the reason why we believe the Sung translations of Buddhist texts are more literary and accurate than many early translations. Of course, a good translation depends on many factors, especially the chief translator. The work of a large group of scholars may or may not be better than a single hand or the co-operation of a few competent scholars. But when such masterly hands were not available, teamwork was the only possible method. In this connection, one has to note that the organizational development was, in fact, a result of such a situation. During this period neither the Indian nor the Chinese monks could master the other's language. Therefore, the works translated during the period, though under an individual name or names, were actually done by a team. This is also proved by the fact that "after the death of Jih-ch'eng, the subtranslator monk, Hui-hsiin, and others, were all unable to
31 Cf. the author's paper, "Organizational development of the Translation of Buddhist texts into Chinese," (a contribution to the All-India Oriental Conference, nineteenth session, New Delhi, 1957). A more detailed study on this topic has been published recently by Tso Szu-bong, "Lun Chung-kuo fo-chiao yi-ch'ang chih yi-ching fang-shih yii ch'eng-hsi" ("Methods and procedures used in Translating Buddhist Sutras at Translation Centers in China during the Dynasties from Han to Sung"), New Asia Journal, V (1963), 239ff., esp. 310ff. 33

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

continue the work. So they pleaded to abolish the Institute for Canonical Translations. In response, an edict ordered them to continue the compilation of catalogues in the institute. Let us wait until some well-learned Indian monk comes, and then the work of translation will be revived."32 This clearly indicates that this was the actual situation. It is obvious that unless there was teamwork or international co-operation, no work could be translated successfully. III Previously, sketches concerning the eminent Buddhist translators of the Sung period have been brief and confused. Fo-tsu t'ung-chi and other Buddhist histories written during the Yuian and the Ming periods gave only short notes on those translators, and mostly on their works in China. This lack of reference material was a constant handicap to researchers. We did not know about the training of those Indian monks working in China, or the background of their lives, so essential for the study and assessment of their works. In this respect the new materials help to clarify certain serious mistakes existing in the field.
A

The greatest mistake was the identification of Fa-hsien (Dharmabhadra). According to early research, Fa-hsien was a Chinese name given by the Sung emperor to Fa-t'ien (Dharmadeva), to reward the latter's translations. This reference was first recorded in Fo-tsu t'ung-chi in the thirteenth century33 and subsequently was followed by all scholars until recently. Therefore, whenever one goes through references such as Nanjio's catalogue,34 articles and books by Chavannes, P. C. Bagchi,35 and famous dictionaries by Mochizuki and others,36 all of them unanimously state that Fa32 SHY, 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, Le canon 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 (supplementary vol.; Tokyo, 1931), p. 138b, s.v. "Hoken." Soon after the Chin edition of Ta-tsang-ching was discovered, Tsukamoto Zenryu pointed out the mis-identification of Fa-hsien with Fa-t'ien; cf. "Bukkyo shiryo to shite Kin koku zokyo" ("The Newly Discovered Chin Edition of the Tripitaka in Chinese"), Toho gakuho (Kyoto), VI (1934), pp. 26-100. The reference available to me is the summary in Sodai kenkyu bunken teiyo (Tokyo; T6oy bunko, 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

hsien is Fa-t'ien. Though during the thirties and forties of the present century there were scholars who attempted to rectify this mistake with the help of new discoveries, their effort has yet to be noticed by others.37 Even in some recent publications the old mistake remains unchanged.38 The incorrect identification of Fa-hsien with Fa-t'ien has been a great confusion to scholars. Though both Nanjio and S. Matsunaga listed the translations done by Fa-t'ien and Fa-hsien separately, they nevertheless agreed that the two names belonged to one person.39 Later, when G. Ono and others were compiling the famous catalogue Showa hobo somokuroku ("General Catalogue of Buddhist Canons Compiled during the Age of Showa"), certain doubts arose about the identification of Fa-hsien. They noted: "Fa-hsien, of the Sung dynasty. He was honored with the title of Ming-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 of Yung-hsi, Fa-t'ien was renamed Fa-hsien. But in the text of Tsunsheng 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, yet it could not prove the suggestion put forward by them, nor did it clear up the old mistake and confusion. On the contrary, it still connected the date and title of Fa-t'ien with Fa-hsien and put Fa-t'ien, Fa-hsien and T'ien-hsi-tsai in three places as if they were different persons.41 Thus, the matter was further complicated. Now the new sources have supplied some points of great significance on this problem. These texts clearly record that Fa-hsien is not Fa-t'ien but was a name given by the Sung emperor to T'ienhsi-tsai, a contemporary and colleague of Fa-t'ien. The following extracts are from the newly recovered texts: (1) In the text of an
of Buddhist Canons") (Kyoto, 1946), pp. 171ff., 188ff. Though the new edition of Bukkyo daijiten has been published along with supplementary volumes, I am not certain 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 in China, 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 Taoist Thought 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, India and China, pp. 145, 208; Weng T'ung-wen, Repertoire des dates des hommes celdbres des 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., and 678c. pp. 687b, 689%, 35

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

inscription written by Hsia Sung, there is recorded "a new name, Fa-hsien [Dharmabhadra, or Virtue of Buddha-Truth], bestowed on T'ien-hsi-tsai by His Majesty the Emperor."42 (2) A similar statement is also found in other texts. It is stated in Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao that "in the fourth year of Yung-hsi [987], under a royal instruction, his [T'ien-hsi-tsai's] name was altered to Fa-hsien, and he continuously held the titular honor of probationary lord of imperial banquets with the rank of ch'ao-feng Ta-fu."43 (3) In another place the same work recorded that "he [Fa-hsien] died in the eighth month of the third year of Hsien-p'ing [A.D. 1000]. A posthumous title of hui-pien ["wise and able in argument"] has been declared to honor him."44 Apart from the extracts quoted above, there are more evidences to support this new identification. For instance, the catalogue Hsiang-fu fa-pao lu recorded three translators, namely, T'ien-hsitsai, Fa-t'ien, and Shih-hu, during the period up to A.D. 988. But from 989 to 1000 the translators' names were constantly registered as Fa-hsien, Fa-t'ien, and Shih-hu. The replacement of T'ien-hsitsai by Fa-hsien clearly indicates that they are the same person.45 The continuous mentioning of Fa-hsien and Fa-t'ien side by side indicates that they are not the same but two different monks. Moreover, the same catalogue also recorded that (a) Fa-hsien died on the fourth day of the eighth month in the autumn of the third year of Hsien-p'ing (September 4, 1000),46 while (b) Fa-t'ien passed way on the eighteenth day of the fifth month in the summer of the fourth year of the same era, or June 12, 1001.47 This again proves they were two different persons, and the date of Fahsien's death is identical with that of T'ien-hsi-tsai as mentioned in other sources, including Fo-tsu t'ung-chi.48 These new findings have led us to the conclusion that Fa-hsien is T'ien-hsi-tsai and not Fa-t'ien. This identification has strong and authentic sources for support; it seems without doubt. If this is acceptable, then the great confusion that was made about seven hundred years ago has now been clarified by these new discoveries. The texts also supply more material about the life of Dharmabhadra, or Fa-hsien. One of the texts states that he was a monk
43 SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892a, 1. 4. 44 Ibid., 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 still wrongly recorded Fa-t'ien as Fa-hsien. 36
42 Wen-chuang chi, chap. xxvi, p. 3a, 1. 3.

from Kashmir. He studied Sabdavidyd [the science of Sanskrit language] at Mi-lin monastery of his country at the age of twelve. As his elder paternal cousin Shih-hu [Danapala] had also renounced family life and was a monk, so Dharmabhadra told his cousin: 'All the sages and saints of the past considered the translation of Sanskrit canons into Chinese as the means to preach Buddhism.' Therefore, they began their journey together from the countries of northern India for the east. When they arrived at Tun-huang they were detained by the local ruler for a few months. They were forced to cast aside their staffs, water jars, and other things, but took Sanskrit manuscripts with them and eventually arrived at the Sung court.49 This passage relating to the forward journey of Fa-hsien or T'ien-hsi-tsai was unknown to scholars. Such information, though fragmentary, is valuable for the studies of Buddhism in the region concerned because there is so little information. Of course, another problem still remains unsolved, that is, the native country of Fahsien. Previously, he was described as "a Sramana of Jalandhara of northern India, or of Kasmira of northern India."50 On the one hand, the new findings re-affirm that he is a native of Kashmir;51 on the other, it is also stated that he studied at "Mi-lin monastery of his country." According to Hsiian-tsang, there was a monastery called Tamasavana-safigharama, which meant Mi-lin or An-lin (dark forest), and was not far from the city of Jalandhara.52 But Jalandhara was not included within the territory of Kashmir kingdom during the tenth century.53 Whether there was another Mi-lin monastery founded in Kashmir during the early decades of the tenth century, or Jalandhara was under the rule of Kashmiri kings, or the Chinese mis-identified Mi-lin monastery with An-lin monastery of Jalandhara is uncertain. No clear answer can be offered, and the problem remains open for further discussion.
B

Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao also contains certain new information about other Buddhist translators of the Sung period. On Shih-hu or Danapala, it states: "At the age of fifteen, Shih-hu studied under
49 SHY, Vol. VIII, pp. 7891b-7892a. 50 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 452, and Demieville et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 151a. 51 SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7891a. 52 Ibid., 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 History and Culture of the Indian People," Vol. IV [Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavana, 1955]), pp. 118ff. 37

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

Sramana Pei-hsien [Karuna-bhadra?] of Ti-shih-kung monastery. He learned the regular and running-hand styles of the scripts prevailing in the five regions of India. He also knew the writings of Simhalese, Khotanese, and those of Srivijaya and Java [Chep'o]."54 Similarly, there was no record about the age of Shih-hu in other reference books.55 But now, in the catalogue Chin-yu fa-pao lu, there is preserved a note which reads as follows: "Shihhu fell ill. It has been reported that he entered into nirvana on the twenty-sixth of this month."56 This note was recorded under the heading of the twelfth month of the first year in the T'ienhsi age, which is identical with January 15, 1018.
c

Apart from the problem as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, our knowledge about Fa-t'ien has also been enriched by the rediscoveries. In the past, we knew only that he was "a Sramana of the Nalanda monastery of Magadha in Central India";57 but nothing was said about his journey to Sung China, though his works and honors in the Sung court were comparatively well registered in documents. Now the Sung-hui-yao Chi-kao informs us that Fa-t'ien originally belonged to the ksatriya caste and thoroughly studied the Tripitaka. He and his brother Ta-li-mo lo-ch'a-to [Dharmalaksana?], along with Ni-lo [Nara?]-a monk from western Indiaand a southern Indian monk called Ni-mo-t'o-chi-li-ti [Nirmanarati-kirti?], four members in all, began their journey to China. Only Fa-t'ien and his brother could reach the destination; on the way the other two died. Fa-t'ien brought some Sanskrit texts with him. By chance he met Fa-chin, a monk of Ho-chung-fu wellversed both in the Sanskrit language and Buddhist sciptures.58 Thereafter he translated three canons at Fu-chou. In these translations, Fa-chin acted as assistant translator-cum-scribe; Wang Kuei-ts'ung, the administrator of the prefecture, polished the literature of these translations. This event was reported to the
54 SHY, 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 canon bouddhique 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 Chinese Buddhists") (rev. ed.; Peking, 1964), and Weng, op. cit., etc. None gives the date of Shih-hu or Danapala. 56 CYLL, p. 13'. 57 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 450; Bagchi, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, p. 585; Mochizuki, Bukkyo daijiten, p. 4631b; Ming-ho, op. cit., p. 23c; Chou Hsiang-kuang, op. cit., p. 163. 58 SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7891a. 38

throne in the seventh year of K'ai-pao (A.D. 974). "Fa-t'ien prayed that he might be allowed to go to Wu-t'ai mountain to pay homage to Bodhisattva Mafijusri, and also to travel to Kiangsu, Chekiang [in East China], South China, and the regions of Pa and Shu [Ssu-chwan]. The request was granted."59 Whether Fa-t'ien had undertaken this pilgrimage we do not know. We only know that his activities of translations at Fu-chou had been reported to the Sung emperor about 974, and he was probably summoned to the capital during 979 or 980. His activities and whereabouts during the period between 974 and 980 are unrecorded. It is possible that he went on a pilgrimage to Wu-t'ai mountain, as he prayed, but his journey to East and South China seems doubtful, as the annexation of the Sung empire to these parts 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 toward the end of the last century, his suggestion was long accepted by many scholars.60 All reference books now available unanimously record Fa-hu alias Dharmaraksha. Nanjio's suggestion was quite reasonable as there had been an earlier Fa-hu, which was undoubtedly a translation of the Sanskrit words dharmaraksha.61 But the situation has changed now, as the rediscoveries disprove 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 of Buddhism 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 This clearly indicates that the original name of the monk was not Dharmaraksha but Dharmapala. Similarly, in all previous references Fa-hu has been described as a "8ramana of Magadha of Central India."63 Now the new texts inform us: He was a native of Kashmir of northern India. His family belonged
59 Ibid. 60 Nanjio, op. cit., p. 455; Ono et al., op. cit., Vol. I, p. 688b; Mochizuki, Bukkyo daijiten, 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 contained in SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892". 83 Cf. n. 57, above. 39

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

to a Brahmana caste, and his original surname was Chiao-ssu-chia [probably the Kausikas, a Brahmana clan of Kashmir]. His nature was very simple, his look was handsome, he was very brilliant from his childhood. During his younger days he studied the four Vedas as well as historical records [Puranas?] and Sastras. Later, he went to Magadha, became a monk, and learned different subjects at the Chien-ku-k'aiKung monastery, under the supervision of Sramana Su-o-to Shih-li-po-lo [Sugata Sripala]; in Chinese, the latter's name means Shan-shih Chi-hsiang-hu.64 It appears likely that Dharmapala's name was partly derived from his teacher's title, pdla. The same source also stated that he formally renounced family life and joined the Safigha while he was in the Chien-ku-k'ai Kung monastery. The same source further stated that "after he attained maturity he received the commandments in full. He was admitted to the dchdrya degree and studied the Vinaya-pitaka, the collection of scriptures of monastic disciplines, under the guide of Sramana Hsi-yu-ch'eng [Adbhutam-yana?], 8ramana Miao-yi-tsun [Varahmanas-pradhanam?], and 8ramana Pu-shih-k'ai [Dana-varma]. He also studied Sabdavidyasdstra, thoroughly investigated the origin of Sanskrit words, and became skilful in eight tones of recitation and well-versed in the studies of the Three Vehicles [of Buddhism]. Afterwards, he further visited eminent teachers, received education in Mahayana suitras and sastras. His composition of prose and verse are both fine."65 All these points are new to our knowledge. With the accession of this information, we now know him much better than did scholars of past generations. The new findings about Fa-hu's life in China confirm the information supplied by Fo-tsu t'ung-chi and other related Buddhist historical texts. But the new sources have a clearer record about the various titles with which Fa-hu was honored by the Sung emperor. To give a short account of this aspect would make our knowledge more precise. "In the eleventh month of the fourth year [of Ching-te, 1007], the title of ch'uan-fan ta-shih ["great master who preaches Sanskrit canons"] was bestowed on him. During the second year of Ta-chung-hsiang-fu [1009], he was made a subtranslator, as His Majesty the Emperor considered that the literary pursuits and scholarship of Fa-hu were sound and brilliant and fit for the preaching of religion and the translation of canons."66 Another source recorded that "On the eighth of the
64 HFLL, p. 23a.
65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., p. 23b.

40

twelfth month of the first year of Chih-ho [January 8, 1055], a six-word title of p'u-ming tz'u-chieh ch'uan-fan ["universal illuminated, merciful and enlightened, preacher of Sanskrit canons"] was conferred on Fa-hu, a great master of the law and the Tripitaka, of the Institute for Transmission of Dharma. Fa-hu was a monk from India in the west who possessed high virtue."67 "When he died in the third year of Chia-yu [1058], a posthumous title of yen-chiao ["master who expounded the religion"] was declared in his honor."68 One most interesting point we gain from these new sources is related to the linguistic training of the translators. As we have seen, T'ien-hsi-tsai, or Dharmabhadra, had studied Sabdavidya; Danapala learned the regular and running-hand styles of the scripts prevailing in the five regions of India and knew the writings of Simhalese, Khotanese, 8rivijaya, and Java; Dharmapala studied Sabdavidydagstra and thoroughly investigated the origin of Sanskrit words. This extensive and expert linguistic training had possibly played a great part in the organization of translating works. Their linguistic accomplishments left a strong imprint on their works. In this connection, the newly rediscovered catalogues retain many evidences. For instance, Hsiang-fu fa-pao lu constantly notes which text comes from what language and script: Lo-shan chang-che ching and five other works "were in the Central Indian language and written in Kuchan script." "Wei-ts'eng-yu cheng-fa ching is in the Central Indian language and written in Simhalese script."69 Similarly, in the other catalogue, there are also certain remarks about the languages of original scriptures. For example, under the title of Pai-yi Chin-ch'ung erh P'o-lo-men yuan-ch'i ching it is noted that "the original work was in western Indian script. At present, it is translated into the Central Indian script first and then translated into Chinese from the latter."70 It seems, due to this linguistic complex, and although the work was only three fascicles in length, that the translation was a joint effort by three hands, namely, Danapala, who was trained in northwestern India, Dharma-pala, who studied in Central India, and Wei-ching, their Chinese colleague.
67 SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7893a. Bagchi had miscalculated this date as 1054 (Le canon bouddhique en Chine, p. 605), and Chou Hsiang-kuang (op. cit., p. 165) stated that this was in the third incorrectly year of Chia-yu, or 1058. 68 SHY, Vol. VIII, p. 7892b. 69 HFLL, pp. 17a, 18a. The first text is not available at present, and the second text is included in T, No. 628. 70 CYLL, p. 6a, 11. 3-4. The text is included in T, No. 10. 41

Buddhist Relations Between India and Sung China

The passages quoted above supply many interesting points to scholars of various disciplines. They not only help us to have a better understanding of the textual problems of the canons but also inform us about religious and linguistic divisions in the Indian subcontinent. They are very significant for future linguistic and literary research. [To be concluded]

42