The Star of Bethlehem and Magi in Tang China (618–907)

As Christmas approaches, I thought we might again discuss Christianity in Tang China (618–907). In an earlier post (see here), we surveyed the basic history of this religion during the period in question, so I will direct readers to this earlier discussion if they are not already familiar with the topic. What I want to discuss in the current post is the references to the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi in Chinese sources from the Tang period. I believe these references can tell us something about how Christianity was first transmitted and what sort of direction it took over the course of its maturation in medieval China.

The earliest reference to the Star of Bethlehem – and to Jesus himself – is found in the Xuting Mishi suo jing 序聽迷詩所經 (T 2142), i.e., the Jesus-Messiah Scripture. This curious text was apparently rediscovered in the twentieth-century and purchased in China by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎. Although its authenticity is not entirely accepted by all modern scholars, I tend to think the text itself is authentic based on its content and vocabulary.

To give some background to the text, the so-called “Nestorian Stele” erected in 781 explains that in the year 635, a mission led by Aluoben 阿羅夲 from the country of Daqin 大秦 (a general term for the Levant) arrived in the Chinese capital Changan 長安. We also know that in 638, the “Persian monk” (波斯僧) Aluoben presented his scriptural teachings (經教) to the court as tribute. These new teachings were considered beneficial, and thus the court ordered the construction of a monastery in Chang’an, which marks the beginning of formal Christian activity in China. The Jesus-Messiah Scripture as it presently exists is not fully extant, although there is still ample content. This text describes the life of Jesus including the Virgin birth, his baptism by John, his miracles, arrest, crucifixion and resurrection, in addition to general Christian precepts for daily life. It also uses various foreign names and terms in Chinese apparently translated from Syriac (Jehovah 序娑, Messiah 彌師訶, Mary 末艶, Jesus 移鼠, Jerusalem 烏梨師𣫍, Jordan 述難, John 若昏, Pilatus 毘羅都思, Golgotha 訖句). The author of this text continually insists upon the virtue of filial piety, as well as including frequent respectful addresses to the Chinese Emperor, indicating a conscious adaptation to Chinese values.

In addition to these features, the Chinese grammar and vocabulary of this text are highly irregular, even employing Buddhist vocabulary, leading to the impression that it is probably a literal translation of something from another language, such as Middle Persian, with further editing to adequately convey religious ideas in Chinese. It might also not be a translation of a preexisting text, but rather could be a translation of an oral testimony concerning the history and basic doctrines of Christianity. It is quite evident that whoever translated was not a professional translator, but we should bear in mind that attempting to convey the ideas of a foreign religion into a new language for the first time would have been considerably difficult. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as scholars have already done, that the text stems from Aluoben’s mission to China in the 630s. If this is the case, then the first datable reference to the Star of Bethlehem in Chinese is around 638. The relevant line reads as follows, which includes a close translation of the Chinese:

此天尊在於天上,普署天地。當產移鼠迷師訶所在世間居見明果在於天地。辛星居知在於天上,星大如車輪。
This Divinely Honored One [i.e., God] is in Heaven, universally presiding over Heaven and Earth. When Jesus the Messiah was born, being present in the world, there appeared brilliant fruits [signs?] in Heaven and Earth. A new star was recognized in the sky above. The star was great like a wagon-wheel. 

Again, the Chinese is awkward, but it is clear that this is referring to the Star of Bethlehem, mentioned in the Book of Matthew (2:1–12), which signaled the birth of the Messiah. Curiously, the text states Jesus was born “in the city of Jerusalem in the park [=country] of Rome 拂林園烏梨師𣫍城中.” Here 烏梨師𣫍 is clearly from Syriac Urishlim, i.e., Jerusalem (see here for pronunciation of the Syriac). The character yuan (park) is a scribal error of guo (country). Bethlehem is actually a separate settlement south of Jerusalem, so this is anomalous. Fu lin 拂林 here would have been pronounced at the time in Middle Chinese as pʰjuət ljəm (Schuessler IPA) or something approximating this, which is the name “Rome” borrowed from an Iranian language, such as Sogdian frwn and brwn, or Middle Persian hrōm.

The Christian community was formally established in China in the 630s, but it was generally insignificant in terms of cultural and religious influence until the late-eighth century. Their community would have been mostly comprised of ethnically Iranian people as well as a few other foreigners who had traveled from the Near East. It is noteworthy that the first datable reference to the seven-day week in Chinese is also found in the text at hand: “On that day, they took the Messiah and tied him to wood [i.e., a cross] for five hours. This was on the sixth fasting day [Friday] 其日將彌師訶木上縛著五時是六日齋.” Nevertheless, the custom of the seven-day week was still unknown to most Chinese until the following century, when it was Buddhists who implemented its widespread use in East Asia. This point illustrates that the early Chinese Christian community was limited in its influence.

This community, however, later rose to more significant prominence in the late eighth-century. The clergyman Li Su 李素 (743817), for instance, worked as a court astronomer in the capital. The mature Tang Christian community also appears to have become increasingly Sinicized, which is evident from the so-called Nestorian Stele that was erected in 781. The stele describes Christ’s birth, Christian doctrine, a short history of the faith in China from the arrival of the first mission in 635, a eulogy, and a list of names of clergymen. We also see in the inscription the second known reference to the star of Bethlehem:

神天宣慶,室女誕聖於大秦。景宿告祥,波斯覩耀以来貢。
The angel proclaimed good tidings. The Virgin gave birth to the Sage in Daqin [the Levant]. The luminous asterism indicated a portent. The Persian(s) witnessed the brilliance and came to pay tribute.

This is in reference to the Book of Matthew (2:1–2):

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (King James Version)

There are two things I would like to note here.

Magi bear gifts to an infant Jesus.
3rd Century Sarcophagus.
Vatican Museum (Rome).
Wikimedia Commons
First, in contrast to the stele that reads “Persian(s)” (Bosi 波斯), Matthew 2:1 in Greek reads μάγοι, i.e., Magi, which was translated in the King James Version (completed in 1611) as “wise men” (see here). The Peshitta, the standard version of the Bible in Syriac, gives “Magoshi” (see English translation at available at http://www.peshitta.org/). The Magi, of course, hail from Persia, so the stele’s choice of vocabulary is not entirely erroneous, although it is curious. 

I suspect the author of the inscription, the famous translator Adam 景淨, decided to use a term which would have been immediately recognizable to Chinese readers, rather than using a transliteration of Magoshi or some other functional equivalent from the Buddhist or Daoist lexicons (Fashi 法師 “Dharma Master” or Daoshi 道士 “Daoist Lord” might have worked well in capturing the idea of a figure adept in rituals and religious lore).

Depiction of a Persian (6th cent.)
Zhigong tu 職貢圖
Wikimedia Commons
The problem here, however, is that the term they used has no such religious or occult sense to it. In fact, Bosi 波斯 in this period had a significantly different connotation: Persians were stereotyped as wealthy merchants. The author Li Shangyin 李商隱 (813858) gives a list of things that are considered “unsuitable” or “unreasonable” (meant to be humorous), the first of which is a “poor Persian” (窮波斯). He also mentions “an ill physician” (病醫人) and “a teacher illiterate and a butcher reciting sūtras” (先生不識字屠家念經). The idea here is that such things ought not to happen, so it would be amusing if they did. The stereotype about Persians being wealthy no doubt reflects their status as merchants in Tang Chinese society.

The point to take away here is that Adam’s choice of word to describe the Magi was, in reality, a bit off. What does this indicate? It seems to suggest that Adam simply understood the Magi as Persians who came to offer tribute to the Messiah when he was born. Although this might be reading too much into the text on my part, there is another part of the cited passage from the stele that caught my attention.

The word in Biblical Greek for “star” in Matthew 2:2 is ἀστήρ (astér), which simply means “star” (see here). The corresponding Chinese term, which I translate as “luminous asterism” is jing xiu 景宿. The latter character in any astronomical context normally refers to the twenty-eight Chinese lunar stations (i.e., constellations through which the Moon transits) or, especially in the Buddhist context, the twenty-seven or twenty-eight nakṣatras, which are also constellations through which the Moon transits over the course of its monthly circuit (in China the indigenous model was used as a functional equivalent when translating the Indian terms). 

In the year 781 when the stele was erected, Adam should have presumably understood that this character does not refer to a star in the singular. Although this variance might merely have been a stylistic decision, I have to wonder if there is more to this than just that.

It is quite likely that the Chinese Christian community in the later part of the Tang dynasty had become quite Sinicized. As the available evidence indicates, it does not appear that their community translated the Bible in its entirety into Chinese. Although we can probably safely guess that the clergy possessed the Bible in Syriac, we might speculate that their clerics originally born in China were not necessarily fully literate in Syriac.

We can draw a parallel here with the Buddhist tradition and their approach to Sanskrit. China in the eighth and ninth centuries had tens if not hundreds of thousands of Buddhist monks, but very few of them could read and comprehend Sanskrit. Japan preserves many Sanskrit documents written in siddhaṃ script that were brought over from Tang China. These are often accompanied by transliterations of the siddhaṃ lines into Chinese characters, which shows that on the mainland some Buddhist monks were, in fact, reading out loud Sanskrit texts. 

The question remains, however, how much did they actually comprehend without reference to existing Chinese translations? East Asian Buddhism as a whole, despite the achievements of monks such as Xuanzang and Yijing who became fully literate in Sanskrit, never developed traditions of Sanskrit scholarship, and instead relied almost exclusively on Chinese translations.

Did something similar occur with the Chinese Christian community? Although Adam was famous for his translations of Christian literature into Chinese, how many of the native-born clerics – even those of Sogdian backgrounds – were literate in Syriac? 

It is unfortunate that only a handful of documents survive from Tang Christianity, otherwise we might be able to say more about this community. Hopefully in the future more documents from the Christian tradition will be rediscovered in China.

Do Buddhists Believe in a Flat Earth?

Mount Sumeru and the Four Continents (1921)
(Wikimedia Commons)
When I was traveling around India and Nepal a few years ago, I was told by some monks that plenty of people in the Himalayas believe that the world is flat and moreover that many monastic lectures still teach traditional Buddhist cosmology, especially as it is explained in texts such as the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya by Vasubandhu (chapter 3 deals with cosmology or lokanirdeśaḥ, part of which discusses the physical world). However, some monks also get sent to study modern science and then express upset over the fact that they spent so much time learning Buddhist cosmology, only to learn that the rest of the world mostly accepts a heliocentric spherical-earth model of cosmology.

When I say “mostly accepts”, I mean that there is a movement with quite a large following online that argues that our physical world is comprised of a stationary flat-earth, atop which the Sun and Moon orbit. The proponents of this movement often assert that images of the Earth taken from space by NASA and other agencies are fabrications, and that spherical-earth cosmology amounts to one giant fraud. 

This movement is still perhaps fringe, but it is growing in significance. A few weeks ago, there was a Flat Earth International Conference in North Carolina (http://fe2017.com/). The Guardian and other sources are reporting that a man in California is planning to launch himself into the air using a homemade rocket and reach 1,800ft (550 metres), where he will be able to make observations. The Guardian (see here) also quotes a “flat-earth convert” who states, “It’s almost like the beginning of a new religion.” This particular comment interests me as a researcher of religions.

Scanning online forums on the topic of a flat-earth, I've observed that the inspiration behind belief in this is often stated to be religious – predominately Christian – in orientation. At present, I am unaware of any modern Buddhist teacher of note insisting on flat-earth cosmology, but it still might surprise some Buddhists to know that their religion's cosmology has much in common with modern proponents of flat-earth cosmology.

In a past post (see here), I discussed the Buddhist flat-earth theory. In brief, historically until relatively recently, most Buddhists in any country believed that the physical world is comprised of a disc-shaped landmass covered in water with four continents surrounding an enormous Mount Meru at the center of the disc, atop which gods such as Indra and his retinue reside. Around the periphery of the disc is a chain of mountains called Cakravāḍa, made of iron. This model differs from what I've observed among present flat-earth proponents. For instance, they generally insist that a wall of ice surrounds the world, rather than a ring of mountains. Their models also don't include a Mount Sumeru. Still, their models of the orbital paths of the Sun and Moon are generally identical. See the following model:



In a Buddhist model, Mount Meru would stand at the center of the Earth, and its height would surpass the altitudes of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars. If you stood atop the mountain, you would be able to look down at all the luminous bodies circling the disc-shaped earth below.

What I would like to consider is what the flat-earth cosmology means in relation to modern Buddhism.


Azimuthal equidistant projection of the entire spherical Earth.
(Wikimedia Commons)
After exploring the Buddhist experience of astrology over the ages, it occurred to me that modern Buddhists have quietly overlooked the original features of their own cosmology. This isn't necessarily surprising, given that from the twentieth-century onward, much attention has been placed on areas such as the nature of mind, meditation and Buddhist philosophy. Nevertheless, Buddhist cosmology is a big part of the religion and always has been. Mount Meru and the four continents are frequently mentioned in scriptures. According to Buddhism, you could, in theory, travel to Mount Meru or the other continents if you possessed sufficient spiritual powers (we live on Jambudvīpa, the southern continent).

Modern proponents of Buddhism often insist that Buddhism is scientific and always has been. I recently read an article by Natalie Quli titled “Multiple Buddhist Modernisms: Jhāna in Convert Theravāda.”Quli outlines the general approach to meditation on the part of traditionally non-Buddhist peoples in modern times. Some of the features of Buddhist modernism that she describes include “the extolling of reason and rationality”, “a belief in the compatibility of Buddhism and modern science” and “a desire to return to the 'original' teachings of the Buddha, particularly as ascribed to the Pāli canon”. When dealing with the science of mind, it is perhaps easy and plausible to open a discussion between modern scientists and proponents of a Buddhist school, and suggest that the Buddhists have always embraced a scientific approach to reality.

This empowers Buddhism with a kind of elevated social status that other religious traditions seldom enjoy, but these discussions also ignore long-standing Buddhist theories about the physical world. Historically speaking the Buddhists of ancient India seem to have generally ignored or rejected their contemporary Indian astronomers – all of whom wrote in the lingua franca of Sanskrit – who provided mathematical proofs that the world is spherical. This is an indication that Buddhist thinkers preferred scriptural authority over scientific investigations.

What are the implications of all this? If we point out that the Buddha taught a flat-earth cosmology, and his word within a Buddhist context is supposed to be infallible, then we have demonstrable proof that he got something – and something very significant – completely wrong. If he was wrong about the physical shape of the world, is it possible he was also wrong about karma and/or the nature and causes of suffering?

If a Buddhist proponent accepts the fallibility of scripture, then they surrender the right to exercise śabda-pramāṇa, i.e., the means to knowing something through the testimony of a valid authority, such as one whose account is recorded in scripture. That means they cannot defer to the testimony of the Buddha in the context of a debate. It also hampers attempts to scout for apparent scientific facts in Buddhist scripture.

The fact that Buddhists have historically insisted upon a flat-earth cosmology as physically descriptive and real stands to challenge modern assumptions that Buddhism is, or ought to be, considered compatible with science. I would wonder, too, if the modern Buddhist tendency to associate itself with science is what prevents even the most traditionalist of Buddhists from aligning themselves with the contemporary flat-earth movement. If that is true, then modern Buddhist cosmology is entirely shaped, guided and defined by materialist science. It goes without saying that other Buddhist beliefs are likely to end up entirely reevaluated in the same manner.

Pacific World Journal 10, no. 1 (2008): 225-249.

Where was "Western India" 西天竺?

In past posts we have discussed the geographic locations of Anxi 安息(Bukhara), Jibin 罽賓 and Daqin 大秦(the Levant) during the Tang Dynasty (618–907), showing that the definitions of these place names changed over time. Anxi, for example, originally referred to the Parthian empire in the first centuries CE, but the name in Chinese remained in use for several more centuries, even after the Parthian state was toppled by the Sassanians in the early third century. During the Tang Dynasty, Anxi actually referred to Bukhara. Daqin originally referred to the eastern part of the Roman empire in the early centuries CE, but later came to specifically refer to the general geographic area of the Levant and Syria. It later referred to the Byzantium empire, which had lost its hold on the Levant. 

Here I want to discuss the geographic location of “Western India” 西天竺 in some Tang sources. The Chinese Tianzhu 天竺 is an approximate transcription of sindhu in some Central Asian language (it was not derived from Sanskrit). The name Tianzhu is attested in the Hou Han shu 後漢書 (Book of the Later Han), the history of the later Han (25–220), states the following:

天竺國,一名身毒,在月氏之東南數千里。俗與月氏同。
The country of Tianzhu: another name is Shendu. It is located thousands of miles southeast of the Yuezhi. Their customs are the same as the Yuezhi.

At this point in time, Tianzhu refers to the territories of the Kuṣāṇa dynasty (1st – 3rd centuries CE). In a later century, the famous Chinese monk Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664), who was proficient in Sanskrit and had studied at Nālanda, rejected this name for India:

《大唐西域記》卷2:「詳夫天竺之稱,異議糺紛,舊云身毒,或曰賢豆,今從正音,宜云印度。... 印度者,唐言月。月有多名,斯其一稱。」(CBETA, T51, no. 2087, p. 875, b16-20)
Now with consideration of the names of Tianzhu, there are numerous disputes on the matter. It was formerly called Shendu, or otherwise Xiandou [Middle Chinese: hen duwH]. Now we will follow the correct pronunciation. It should be called Yindu [Middle Chinese: jinH duH]. … “Yindu” in Chinese means moon. The moon has many names. This is one of its appellations.

Xuanzang tried to introduce new terminology and transcriptions of Indian terms into Chinese, and while he succeeded to some degree, a lot of the old vocabulary remained in use. Throughout the Tang Dynasty, the name Tianzhu was still widely used by Chinese authors. The Tongdian 通典 (the Comprehensive Chronicle), compiled in 801 by Du You 杜佑 (735–812), draws upon numerous accounts of Tianzhu. The Chinese image of India's geography at this point in time had become rather complex. The Tongdian provides the following details:

天竺,後漢通焉,即前漢時身毒國。初,張騫使大夏,見邛竹杖、蜀布。問曰:「安得此?」大夏國人曰:「吾賈人往身毒國市之。」即天竺也。或云摩伽陀,或云婆羅門。在蔥嶺之南,去月氏東南數千里,地方三萬餘里。其中分為五天竺:一曰中天竺,二曰東天竺,三曰南天竺,四曰西天竺,五曰北天竺,地各數千里,城邑數百。南天竺際大海。北天竺距雪山,四周有山為壁,南面一谷,通為國門。東天竺東際大海,與扶南、林邑鄰接,但隔小海而已。西天竺與罽賓、波斯相接。中天竺據四天竺之閒。國並有王。
The later Han had contact with Tianzhu, which was the country of Shendu during the former Han. In the beginning, Zhang Qian [d. 114 BCE] was sent as an envoy to Daxia [Bactria], where he saw Chinese bamboo staves and fabrics from Sichuan. He asked, “Where did you get these?” The men of Daxia said, “Our merchants go to the country of Shendu and trade for them.” This is referring to Tianzhu. Some call it “Magadha” or “Brahman”. It is south of the Conglin range [Pamirs]. It is thousands of miles southeast of the Yuezhi, and its lands are over thirty-thousand miles. It is divided into “Five Tianzhus” [Indias]: Central, Eastern, Southern, Western and Northern. Each land is made up of thousands of miles with hundreds of cities. Southern India borders a great sea. Northern India meets snowy mountains [the Himalayas] and is walled in on all four sides by mountains, with a great valley at its southern face acting as an entryway into the country.1 Eastern India borders a great sea to its east. It is connected to Funan and Linyi [Southeast Asian polities] with just a small sea in between [the Bay of Bengal]. Western India connects to Jibin and Persia. Middle India is positioned between the four Indias. The countries all have their kings.

The “Five Indias” roughly correspond to modern geographical regions as follows:

Central India: Bihar and Jharkhand.
Southern India: Odisha (Orissa).
Northern India: Kashmir valley.
Eastern India: Bengal.
Western India: Sindh.

The political landscape of India described by Du You is simplistic and uninformed as a result of relying on chronologically disparate sources (the Yuezhi were extinct long before the Tang Dynasty). A point relevant to the present discussion is that he states that Western India borders Jibin and Persia. In the year 801, however, Persia did not exist as a polity any longer. The Sassanian empire was conquered by the Arabs in the mid-seventh century.2 Interestingly, Du You was actually aware that Persia no longer existed. He cites the travelogue, titled simply Jingxing ji 經行記 (Travel Account), of the Chinese author Du Huan 杜環, who traveled to the Abbasid Caliphate and returned to China in 762:

自被大食滅,至天寶末已百餘年矣。
[Persia] was destroyed by the Arabs. At the end of the Tianbao reign era [742–756], it had already been over a century.

We actually have another contemporary East Asian from the eighth century who attests to the destruction of Persia by the Arabs. The Korean monk Hyecho 慧超 (704–787) traveled from China to India between 723–729. His travelogue3 has the following comment:

《遊方記抄》卷1:「從吐火羅國,西行一月,至波斯國。此王先管大𥦽。大𥦽是波斯王放駝戶。於後叛,便殺彼王,自立為主。然今此國,却被大𥦽所吞。」(CBETA, T51, no. 2089, p. 978, a27-b1)
Traveling for one month from Tokhara, you arrive in the country of Persia. The king earlier governed the Arabs. The Arabs raised camels for the Persian king. Later there was an insurrection and they killed the king, establishing themselves as rulers. Now this country has been absorbed by the Arabs.

It is clear that the Chinese by the mid-eighth century were aware that Persia as a polity had been eliminated. This is important to bear in mind when we consider the introduction of Hellenistic astrology into China around the turn of the ninth century. 

The Xin Tang shu 新唐書 (New Book of Tang), the revised record of the Tang Dynasty compiled in 1060, lists the following text and account in its bibliographical catalog (fasc. 59):

都利聿斯經,二卷,貞元中,都利術士李彌乾傳自西天竺,有璩公者譯其文
Duli yusi jing. 2 fascicles. In the Zhenyuan period [785–805] the duli diviner Li Miqian transmitted it from Western India. There was someone [named] Qu Gong who translated the text.

Although this text is not extant, we know from its fragments and later astrological manuals that it was a translation of the work of Dorotheus of Sidon (c. 75), a major Hellenistic astrologer. 

It is curious that the account here states that Li Miqian hailed from Western India because Dorotheus’ work was first translated into Pahlavī (Middle Persian) from its original Greek under the Sassanians between 222–267. Its content was later expanded sometime between 531–578. This Pahlavī version was translated into Arabic around the year 800, which was also around the same time when the Chinese translation was produced (a very curious coincidence).4 

So far as I know, there was never a Sanskrit translation of Dorotheus. Li Miqian was most likely Persian, given his surname Li. Other ethnically Persian men resident in China during these years also had the surname Li, such as the court astronomer Li Su 李素 (743–817). Li Su was actually from Guangzhou, but his ancestors came from Persia. He arrived in Chang'an sometime during the Dali 大曆 reign era (766–779). Li Miqian was clearly Persian and, therefore, most certainly translated Dorotheus from Pahlavī.

This leads me to wonder why he would identify himself, or be identified, as hailing from Western India. As we discussed in an earlier article (see here), Nestorian (East Syrian) Christian clergymen originally identified themselves as coming from Persia in the seventh century, but later from around the year 745, when China was becoming truly aware that Persia no longer existed, started identifying themselves with Daqin, even though it was under the domination of the Arabs. In other words, the Nestorian clerics in China did not want to identify with the Arab Abbasid empire. 

In the case of Li Miqian, we might imagine that he also did not want to identify with the Arab state. Instead, he chose to identify himself with the vague geographical area of Western India. We might even imagine him attempting to explain to the Chinese court through an interpreter that he was not Arab, but actually Persian, even though the Persian state was long gone. By the time he arrived, the court was well aware this fact. If he were Sogdian, he would have probably been identified with Samarkand or Bukhara, and not taken the surname Li.

Of course, I might be mistaken, and, in fact, he did come from Western India, in which case this leads to another interesting point: we would have evidence of a practitioner of Hellenistic astrology originating from the western Indosphere in the late eighth century. 

Abbasid Caliphate c. 850 (Wikimedia Commons)
At present, however, I strongly sense that the expatriates from the Near and Middle East residing in China during the eighth and early ninth centuries probably did not feel particularly inclined to identify with the Abbasid Caliphate, which ruled over territories from the Levant to the borderlands of western India. There would have been multiple religious, linguistic, ethnic and political reasons for such sentiments. This still requires further investigation.

The activities of these men in China have become of increasing interest in my present research. I continually find more and more evidence that these men transmitted a great deal of religious lore and practices, as well as scientific knowledge. The problem, however, is that identifying from where exactly they came is difficult. In the case of Indians, it is sometimes expressly stated in their biographies that they came from definite places such as Magadha, but Iranians (both Sogdians and Persians) and Syrians are seldom identified with specific polities. The Chinese knew the general geographic layout of India thanks to accounts by figures such as Xuanzang, but their knowledge of the areas west of India during the Tang was much less detailed.

Notes:

1 Nepal, which originally just referred to the Kathmandu valley, was positioned in “Northern India” during the Tang Dynasty. However, this is most certainly referring to the Kashmir valley. For details on Nepal in this period see my earlier article:

2 For a reliable history of the Sassanian empire, see Iranica Online:

3 For a complete translation see vol. 10 of the “Collected Works of Korean Buddhism”. http://www.acmuller.net/kor-bud/collected_works.html. I do not always agree with this translation. I interpret Hyecho's accounts of the Near East as recorded hearsay, rather than being a record of a journey there.


4 David Pingree, “Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1989): 229.