Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch Volume III Part 34

[Footnote 751: See Nanjio, Cat. p. xxii.]

[Footnote 752: [Chinese: ]]

[Footnote 753: [Chinese: ]]

[Footnote 754: Also called Do-ko.]

[Footnote 755: The earlier collections of the Tripitaka seem to have been known in Korea and about 1000 A.D. the king procured from China a copy of the Imperial Edition, presumably the eighth collection (971 A.D.). He then ordered a commission of scholars to revise the text and publish an edition of his own. The copy of this edition, on which the recent Tokyo edition was founded, was brought to j.a.pan in the Bun-mei period 1469-1486.]

[Footnote 756: A supplement to the Tripitaka containing non-canonical works in 750 volumes (Dai Nippon Zoku-Zokyo) was published in 1911.]

[Footnote 757: The Peking Tripitaka catalogued by Forke appears to be a set of 1223 works represented by copies taken from four editions published in 1578, 1592, 1598 and 1735 A.D., all of which are editions of the collections numbered 11 and 12 above.]

[Footnote 758: For two interesting lives of translators see the _T'oung Pao_, 1909, p. 199, and 1905, p. 332, where will be found the biographies of Sng Hui, a Sogdian who died in 280 and Jinagupta a native of Gandhra (528-605).]

[Footnote 759: But between 266 and 313 Dharmaraksha translated the Saddharmapundarka (including the additional chapters 21-26) and the Lalitavistara. His translation of the Prajpramit is incomplete.]

[Footnote 760: In the translations of Lokksh 147-186, Chih-Ch'ien 223-243, Dharmaraksha 266-313.]

[Footnote 761: But his translation of the Lotus won admiration for its literary style. See Anesaki Nichiren, p. 17. Wieger (_Croyances_, p.

367) says that the works of An-s.h.i.+h-kao ill.u.s.trate the various methods of translation: absolutely literal renderings which have hardly any meaning in Chinese: word for word translations to which is added a paraphrase of each sentence in Chinese idiom: and elegant renderings by a native in which the original text obviously suffers.]

[Footnote 762: Yet it must have been intended as such. The t.i.tle expressly describes the work as composed by the Bodhisattva Ma-Ming (Asvaghosha) and translated by Dharmaraksha. Though his idea of a translation was at best an amplified metrical paraphrase, yet he coincides verbally with the original so often that his work can hardly be described as an independent poem inspired by it.]

[Footnote 763: [Chinese: ] No. 203.]

[Footnote 764: See Sukhvatvyha, ed. Max Mller and Bunyiu Nanjio, Oxford, 1883. In the preface, pp. vii-ix, is a detailed comparison of several translations and in an appendix, pp. 79 ff., a rendering of Sanghavarman's Chinese version of verses which occur in the work.

Chinese critics say that Tao-an in the third century was the first to introduce a sound style of translation. He made no translations himself which have survived but was a scholar and commentator who influenced others.]

[Footnote 765: This is an anthology (edited by Beckh, 1911: translated by Rockhill, 1892) in which 300 verses are similar to the Pali Dhammapada.]

[Footnote 766: [Chinese: ] No. 1365.]

[Footnote 767: [Chinese: ] No. 1353.]

[Footnote 768: [Chinese: ] No. 1321.]

[Footnote 769: [Chinese: ] Fa-chi-yao-sung-ching, No. 1439.]

[Footnote 770: There seem to be at least two other collections.

Firstly a Prkrit anthology of which Dutreuil de Rhins discovered a fragmentary MS. in Khotan and secondly a much amplified collection preserved in the Korean Tripitaka and reprinted in the Tokyo edition (xxiv.'g). The relation of these to the other recensions is not clear.]

[Footnote 771: Nanjio, Cat. 1358. See Pelliot, _J.A._ 1914, II. p.

379.]

[Footnote 772: [Chinese: ] For the relations of the Chinese translations to the Pali Tripitaka, and to a Sanskrit Canon now preserved only in a fragmentary state, see _inter alia_, Nanjio, Cat.

pp. 127 ff., especially Nos. 542, 543, 545. Anesaki, _J.R.A.S._ 1901, p. 895; _id_. "On some problems of the textual history of the Buddhist scriptures," in _Trans. A. S. j.a.pan_, 1908, p. 81, and more especially his longer article ent.i.tled, "The Four Buddhist Agamas in Chinese" in the same year of the _Trans.; id._ "Traces of Pali Texts in a Mahyana Treatise," _Muson_, 1905. S. Lvi, Le Samyuktgama Sanskrit, _T'oung Pao_, 1904, p. 297.]

[Footnote 773: No. 544.]

[Footnote 774: Thus seventy stras of the Pali Anguttara are found in the Chinese Madhyama and some of them are repeated in the Chinese Ekottara. The Pali Majjhima contains 125 stras, the Chinese Madhyamgama 222, of which 98 are common to both. Also twenty-two Pali Majjhima dialogues are found in the Chinese Ekottara and Samyukta, seventy Chinese Madhyama dialogues in Pali Anguttara, nine in Digha, seven in Samyutta and five in Khuddaka. Anesaki, _Some Problems of the textual history of the Buddhist Scriptures_. See also Anesaki in _Muson_, 1905, pp. 23 ff. on the Samyutta Nikya.]

[Footnote 775: Anesaki, "Traces of Pali Texts," _Muson_, 1905, shows that the Indian author of the Mahprajnpramit Sstra may have known Pali texts, but the only certain translation from the Pali appears to be Nanjio, No. 1125, which is a translation of the Introduction to Buddhaghosa's Samanta-psdik or commentary on the Vinaya. See Takakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1896, p. 415. Nanjio's restoration of the t.i.tle as Sudarsana appears to be incorrect.]

[Footnote 776: See _Epigraphia Indica_, vol. II. p. 93.]

[Footnote 777: In support of this it may be mentioned that Fa-Hsien says that at the time of his visit to India the Vinaya of the Sarvstivdins was preserved orally and not committed to writing.]

[Footnote 778: The idea that an important book ought to be in Sanskrit or deserves to be turned into Sanskrit is not dead in India. See Grierson, _J.R.A.S._ 1913, p. 133, who in discussing a Sanskrit version of the Rmyana of Tulsi Das mentions that translations of vernacular works into Sanskrit are not uncommon.]

[Footnote 779: _J.R.A.S._ 1916, p. 709. Also, the division into five Nikyas is ancient. See Bhler in _Epig. Indica_, II. p. 93. Anesaki says (_Trans. A.S. j.a.pan_, 1908, p. 9) that Nanjio, No. 714, Pn s.h.i.+h is the Itivuttakam, which could not have been guessed from Nanjio's entry. Portions of the works composing the fifth Nikya (_e.g._ the Sutta Nipata) occur in the Chinese Tripitaka in the other Nikyas. For mentions of the fifth Nikya in Chinese, see _J.A._ 1916, II. pp.

32-33, where it is said to be called Tsa-Tsang. This is also the designation of the last section of the Tripitaka, Nanjio, Nos. 1321 to 1662, and as this section contains the Dharmapada, it might be supposed to be an enormously distended version of the Kshudraka Nikya. But this can hardly be the case, for this Tsa-Tsang is placed as if it was considered as a fourth Pit?aka rather than as a fifth Nikya.]

[Footnote 780: [Chinese: ]]

[Footnote 781: See Watters, _Essays on the Chinese Language_, pp. 36, 51, and, for the whole subject of transcription, Stanislas Julien, _Mthode pour dchiffrer et transcrire les noms Sanscrits qui se rencontrent dans les livres chinois_.]

[Footnote 782: Entire Sanskrit compositions were sometimes transcribed in Chinese characters. See Kien Ch'ui Fan Tsan, _Bibl. Budd_. XV. and Max Mller, _Buddhist Texts from j.a.pan_, III. pp. 35-46.]

[Footnote 783: _L.c._ pp. 83-232.]

[Footnote 784: See _inter alia_ the Preface to K'ang Hsi's Dictionary.

The _fan-ch'ieh_ [Chinese: ] system is used in the well-known dictionary called Y-Pien composed 543 A.D.]

[Footnote 785: Even in modern Cantonese Fo is p.r.o.nounced as Fat.]

[Footnote 786: [Chinese: ]]

[Footnote 787: Nanjio, Cat. No. 1640.]

[Footnote 788: History repeats itself. I have seen many modern Burmese and Sinhalese MSS. in Chinese monasteries.]

[Footnote 789: _Buddhist Texts from j.a.pan_, ed. Max Mller in _Anecdota Oxoniensia_, Aryan Series, I, II and III. For the Lanja printed text see the last facsimile in I, also III. p. 34 and _Bibl.

Budd._ XIV (Kuan-si-im Pusar), pp. vi, vii. Another copy of this Lanja printed text was bought in Kyoto, 1920.]

CHAPTER XLV

CHINA (_continued_)

SCHOOLS[790] OF CHINESE BUDDHISM

The Schools (Tsung) of Chinese Buddhism are an intricate subject of little practical importance, for observers agree that at the present day all salient differences of doctrine and practice have been obliterated, although the older monasteries may present variations in details and honour their own line of teachers. A particular Bodhisattva may be singled out for reverence in one locality or some religious observance may be specially enjoined, but there is little aggressiveness or self a.s.sertion among the sects, even if they are conscious of having a definite name: they each tolerate the deities, rites and books of all and pay attention to as many items as leisure and inertia permit. There is no clear distinction between Mahyna and Hnayna.

The main division is of course into Lamaism on one side and all remaining sects on the other. Apart from this we find a record of ten schools which deserve notice for various reasons. Some, though obscure in modern China, have flourished after transportation to j.a.pan: some, such as the T'ien-t'ai, are a memorial of a brilliant epoch: some represent doctrines which, if not now held by separate bodies, at least indicate different tendencies, such as magical ceremonies, mystical contemplation, or faith in Amitbha.