Nestorian Christianity in the Tang Dynasty

As of late I've been reading about the Nestorian Christian (Jingjiao 景教) community that thrived in China from the early seventh to mid-ninth century. Their church was, it seems, largely responsible for transmitting Hellenistic astrology and even some Near Eastern occult practices into China, hence my present interest. Their active influence in Chinese religious history during this period is not always recognized, especially in Buddhist Studies. There are several documents from their movement preserved in Chinese, in addition to two steles that were unearthed in Chang'an and Luoyang, thus we know a fair amount about their church.

Nestorianism as a Christian movement initially developed in the fifth century starting from Nestorios (c.381–c.451), who was bishop of Constantinople between 428–431. The primary doctrine of Nestorianism is that Christ was comprised of two separate persons, one human and one divine. This was rejected as heretical by their opponents. The Nestorian bishops were condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The result was an eastward spread of the Nestorian movement. It eventually spread all across the Near East and Central Asia before reaching China in the year 635 when a mission led by Aluoben 阿羅夲 (also rendered as 阿羅本) arrived in the capital Chang’an 長安. His name in Chinese might have been a transliteration of 'Abraham'. This mission occurred towards the final years of the Sassanian dynasty (224–650), and was shortly after the first Arab invasions of Iran starting in 633.¹ This leads me to wonder if these early Christians in China might have been refugees.

By the late eighth century the Nestorian Christian community was thriving in China. We know this from a famous stele that was erected in the year 781, often called the 'Nestorian Stele' 大秦景教流行中國碑. The stele inscription describes the first Christian mission to China, some basic Christian doctrines and the names of clergymen in Chinese with parallel Syriac and Persian names written in Syriac script. It interestingly also provides dates according to the Chinese, Greek and Persian calendars. The text is composed in very elegant literary Chinese and was clearly written with elites in mind judging from its grammar and use of refined vocabulary.

The inscription on the stele was composed by a certain cleric named Adam 景淨 from Daqin-si 大秦寺. In one Buddhist source, to which we will return shortly, Adam is also identified as a 'Persian monk' 波斯僧.² 'Daqin-si' referred to a Nestorian Christian church, but in this case refers to the one in Chang'an. Normally, Buddhist monasteries are indicated by the suffix -si 寺 (temple), but throughout the Tang dynasty (618–907), Nestorian churches were also designated with this suffix. There were such churches in both capitals (Chang'an and Luoyang). They were originally called 'Persian temples' 波斯寺 due to the original missionaries in 635 having come from Persia, though in 745 an imperial edict had them renamed to Daqin-si. The following edict records this.

天寶四載九月詔曰：波斯經教，出自大秦，傳習而來，久行中國。爰初建寺，因以為名，將欲示人。必修其本。其兩京波斯寺，宜改為大秦寺。天下諸府郡置者，亦準此。

In lunar month nine of year four [745] in reign era Tianbao the following edict was issued. The scriptural teachings of Persia came from Daqin, and long have they been transmitted in China. They were named [as Persian temples] when they were first built so as to show people [their origin]. It is necessary to revise their origin. The Persian temples in the two capitals should be renamed to 'Daqin temples'. All prefectures and counties in which [such temples] are present will also follow suit.³

The 'Daqin' 大秦 ('Great Qin') in the name of the church is interesting as this term originally referred to the Roman empire in the early centuries CE, or more specifically its eastern territories, in particular Alexandria. In the eighth century, however, it does not appear to refer to the Byzantine empire, but rather to the Levant in general. The evidence to support this assertion is actually found in the stele from 781 as it provides the following hint:

神天宣慶，室女誕聖於大秦；㬌宿告祥，波斯覩耀以来貢。

The angel [Gabriel] proclaimed good tidings. The Virgin gave birth to the Sage in Daqin. The luminous asterism indicated a portent. The Persians witnessed the brilliance and came to pay tribute.

This of course is referring to the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. In light of this and the otherwise nebulous understanding of Daqin as being “west of the Western sea ​(i.e., the Caspian Sea),” I am convinced that 'Daqin' refers to the general geographic region of the Levant. It seems that Nestorians arriving in China all identified as either from Persia or Daqin, which is instructive since these territories were under the rule of the caliphates. They did not, so far as I know, identify as coming from Arabia. The word for Arabia in Chinese in this period was Dashi 大食, its Middle Chinese pronunciation reconstructed as dâiᶜ dźjək (Schuessler IPA). This is most certainly derived from Middle Persian word tāzīk / tāzīg, 'Arab'.⁴ One might imagine Nestorian Christians in China identifying their ethnicity as Syrian, Persian or Sogdian, but never Arab even when they had been born under a caliphate.

Incidentally, later on 'Daqin' was changed to 'Fulin' 拂菻. In Middle Chinese this is reconstructed as pʰjuət *ljəmᴮ (Schuessler IPA). This appears to be a transliteration of an Iranian pronunciation of 'Rome', such Sogdian frwn and brwn, or Middle Persian hrōm. How do we know that this refers to Byzantium specifically? The New History of the Tang 新唐書, the revised history of the Tang dynasty compiled in 1060, states the following.

拂菻，古大秦也，居西海上，一曰海西國。去京師四萬里，在苫西，北直突厥可薩部，西瀕海，有遲散城，東南接波斯。

Fulin in former times was Daqin. It is located on the western sea. One [account] calls it the 'Country on the Western Sea'. It is forty-thousand li from the capital [of Chang'an]. It is west of *Shan. To the north it meets the Turkish Khanate. To the west it approaches the sea, where there is *Alexandria.⁵ To the southeast it meets Persia.

The name Shan 苫 here most likely refers to Damascus. Its Middle-Chinese pronunciation is reconstructed as syem (Baxter-Sagart 2011). This seems to correspond to al-Shām, the Arabic name for Syria. A Chinese writer named Du Huan 杜環 travelled to the Abbasid Caliphate and returned to China in 762. His travelogue, the Jingxing ji 經行記, states that “the country of *Shan is on the western frontier of the Arab [state]” (苫國在大食西界).

The Byzantine Empire c. 867

This change in name from Daqin to Fulin appears to reflect the ongoing loss of territory of the Byzantium empire. The Levant in the ninth century was no longer under the control of Byzantium state. Chinese scholars only possessed an approximate conception of the Near East's political and physical geography, which helps to explain why Alexandria is erroneously placed at its western side. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that Fulin is a transliteration of an Iranian pronunciation of 'Rome'. Nestorians initially identified themselves as having come from Persia. Later they identified as hailing from 'Daqin', a general term for the Levant, likely as a result of the demise of the Sassanian state by the mid-seventh century. Finally, at some point in the ninth century it seems that 'Daqin' was understood to be the former territories of 'Rome' occupied by the Arabs.

Returning back to Nestorianism in China, I want to discuss its interaction with Buddhism. There is an account of the aforementioned clergyman Adam translating a Buddhist text with the Buddhist monk Prajñā 般若.

請譯佛經。乃與大秦寺波斯僧景淨，依胡本六波羅蜜經譯成七卷。時為般若不閑胡語，復未解唐言，景淨不識梵文，復未明釋教。雖稱傳譯未獲半珠。... 察其所譯理昧詞疎。且夫，釋氏伽藍，大秦僧寺，居止既別，行法全乖。景淨應傳彌尸訶教，沙門釋子弘闡佛經，欲使教法區分，人無濫涉。

They requested he [Prajñā] translate Buddhist scriptures. Together with the Persian monk Adam of Daqin-si, he translated the *[Mahāyāna-naya-]ṣaṭ-pāramitā-sūtra in seven fascicles based on a Sogdian edition. At the time Prajñā did not understand Sogdian or Chinese, while Adam understood neither Sanskrit nor Buddhism. Although they were said to have translated it, they had yet to obtain the half-pearls [i.e., ascertain the meaning]. ... Upon investigating what had been translated, the reasoning was found to be unclear and the vocabulary off. The Buddhist monastery and Daqin church were to keep their residences separate and their practices entirely apart. Adam should transmit the teachings of the Messiah, while Buddhists shall propagate Buddhist scriptures, so as to keep the doctrines separate, and the peoples from excessive intermingling.⁶

This accounts suggests to me that while the state authorities respected both religions, they desired to keep them separate. In light of the elegant Chinese that Adam composed for the stele of 781, we can infer that he was quite learned in the Chinese classics, and therefore likely mingled with aristocrats in the capital. In such circles eminent Buddhist monks and Daoist priests were also active, thus there were many opportunities for elite religious thinkers to interact.

Another interesting fact about Nestorianism in China is that their clerics are on record as having practiced medicine in China. As to the type of medicine they practiced, I have reason to believe that it was actually Greek. Returning to the travelogue by Du Huan, he gives the following interesting account.

其大秦善醫眼及痢，或未病先見，或開腦出蟲。

The Daqin are adept in treating eyes and dysentery. Some can foresee illness before symptoms emerge. Some can perform trephinations and remove parasites.

The New History of the Tang also mentions such medical practices in Byzantium.

有善醫能開腦出蟲以愈目眚。

There are skilled physicians capable of performing trephinations and removing parasites to heal eye diseases.

Cranial surgery of this type was well known in ancient Greek medicine. As Arani and others note, “Cranial trepanation was first recorded by Hippocrates (460–355 BC).”⁷ This surgery was apparently performed in China as early as the late years of Emperor Gaozong 高宗 (r. 649 – 27 December 683). There is a story recorded in the Old Book of Tang 舊唐書, compiled in 945, and elsewhere that a cranial operation was performed on Gaozong.

上苦頭重不可忍，侍醫秦鳴鶴曰：「刺頭微出血，可愈。」天后帷中言曰：「此可斬，欲刺血於人主首耶！」上曰：「吾苦頭重，出血未必不佳。」即刺百會，上曰：「吾眼明矣。」

The Emperor was suffering intolerable headaches. His retainer physician Qin Minghe said, “It could be healed by piercing the head and drawing a bit of blood.” The Empress [Wu Zetian] behind a screen said, “He should be beheaded, wanting to draw blood from the leader of men!” The Emperor said, “My headaches are severe. Drawing blood is not necessarily bad.” The crown of the skull was pierced. The Emperor said, “My eyes has cleared up!”

The name Qin Minghe 秦鳴鶴 here possibly indicates a foreigner. The surname Qin could be derived from Daqin and in light of the surgery he performed he was likely from abroad. Huang (2002) and others attempt to identify him as an immigrant Nestorian clergyman.⁸ Although this is not certain, there are still other accounts that confirms the presence of Nestorian physicians in Tang China. In year 28 of reign era Kaiyuan 開元 (740), the clergyman Chongyi 僧崇一 healed the younger brother of Emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (r. 712–756).⁹ A report by Li Deyu 李德裕 (787–849) states that a certain Daqin cleric proficient in optometry (醫眼大秦僧一人) was present in Chengdu 成都 at one point.¹⁰

It is therefore clear that Nestorian clergyman did in fact practice medicine in China during the Tang dynasty, and moreover they most likely brought with them Greek medical techniques. They also introduced other foreign sciences and arts, such as astronomy and astrology. In 1980 in Xi'an the tombstone of a court astronomer was discovered. His name was Li Su 李素 (743–817) and he is identified as a Persian. It seems that he was a Christian clergyman from the community of Persians resident in Guangzhou. Sometime between 766–779 he was summoned to the court to work in the bureau of astronomy. Later his 'courtesy name' 字 of Wen Zhen 文貞 alongside the corresponding name 'Luka' in Syriac appears on the list of Christian clergymen on the stele of 781.¹¹ Although not immediately clear from his biographical information, he likely practiced Hellenistic astronomy in light of his ethnic and religious backgrounds. Earlier 'foreign' court astronomers, such as Gautama Siddhārtha, employed and even translated Indian astronomy. Li Su as a replacement for Gautama Siddhārtha was likely functioning as a 'second opinion' at court in matters related to astronomy and calendrical science, providing a perspective based on foreign methods.

Nestorian clergymen clearly played important roles throughout the Tang dynasty. They were eliminated in China as an institution and religion in 845 when Emperor Wuzong 武宗 (840–846), a Daoist zealot, initiated a purge of foreign religions. Buddhism, Manichaeism and Christianity were, at least in the capital region, rapidly dismantled and their assets liquidated. Buddhist sangha members were defrocked, while Manichean priests were put to death.¹² Christianity was to a large part eliminated as a major religion in China until several centuries later under the Mongols.

Notes:

1 http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arab-ii

2《大唐貞元續開元釋教錄》卷1：「大秦寺波斯僧景淨」(CBETA, T55, no. 2156, p. 756, a20-21)

3 This is reported in fasc. 49 of the Tang huiyao 唐會要.

4 There were many ethnically Iranian persons in Tang China, including those identifying themselves as Persians, but also Sogdians and Bukharans.

5 Chisan 遲散 here refers to Alexandria. This is geographically problematic, but the Chinese understanding of the Near East was pieced together from multiple, often chronologically disparate, sources. See Yu Taishan, "China and the Ancient Mediterranean World: A Survey of Ancient Chinese Sources," Sino-Platonic Papers 242 (2013): 34. http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp242_china_mediterranean.pdf

6《貞元新定釋教目錄》卷17 . CBETA, T55, no. 2157, p. 892, a7-15.

7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876527/

8 Huang Lanlan 黃蘭蘭, “Tangdai Qin Minghe wei jingyi kao” 唐代秦鳴鶴為景醫考, Zhongshan Daxue xuebao 中山大學學報 42, no. 5 (2002): 61–67.

9 Jiu Tang shu 舊唐書 (fasc. 95).

10 See fasc. 703 of the Quan Tang wen 全唐文.

11 Rong Xinjiang 榮新江, “Yi ge shi Tangchao de Bosi Jingjiao jiazu” 一個仕唐朝的波斯景教家族, in Zhonggu Zhongguo yu wailai wenming 中古中國與外來文明 (Beijing: Sanlian Shudian, 2001), 255–257.

12 This is recorded in the journal of Japanese monk Ennin 圓仁 (794-864):【四月】中旬 敕下，令殺天下摩尼師。剃髮，令着袈裟，作沙門形而殺之。摩尼師即迴鶻所崇重也。

Where was Anxi 安息?

In Chinese dynastic histories, the earliest reference to Persia is Anxi-guo 安息國 (the ‘Country of Anxi’). 

The word in Chinese is a transliteration of the Persian Aškānīān, i.e., the Parthian dynasty, which existed from 250 BCE to about 226 CE when it fell and was replaced by the Sassanian dynasty. The Middle-Chinese pronunciation of the term is reconstructed as Ɂân sjək  (Schuessler IPA).

In the Han dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE), Anxi referred to Parthia (see fasc. 88 of the Hou Han shu 後漢書), but in later times we still see the term Anxi being used despite the Parthian empire having fallen in the year 226. It also appears in Buddhist literature, such as the Dazhidu lun 大智度論 (T 1509) – *Mahāprajñā-pāramitōpadeśa – as translated by Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什 (344–413) in the early fifth century, an extensive commentary on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra attributed to Nāgārjuna:

《大智度論》卷91〈照明品81〉：「如安息國諸邊地生者，皆是人身，愚不可教化」(CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 705, a22-23)

… Such as those born in various frontier lands such as Anxi. They all are of human forms, yet ignorant and unable to be taught and transformed.

In this Indian context (assuming it was written in India), Anxi clearly refers to a land outside the “Middle Country” 中國 (i.e., India) and most likely refers to the general geographical region of what we call Iran. It is curious though that the term Anxi was still used at this point in Chinese despite the Parthians having been replaced by the Sassanians.

In Chinese literature, the term that most certainly refers to Sassanian Iran is Bosi 波斯 (Middle-Chinese: puâ sie), i.e., Fars. In English, the word ‘Persia’ (Greek: Persis) is also derived from the old name for Persia: Parsa (see http://www.etymonline.com/). We knows this because in the Zhou shu 周書 (fasc. 50), a history of the Northern Zhou dynasty compiled in 636, Anxi is said to border Persia 波斯 and is also included under a separate heading from the latter. In the year 567 (天和二年), Anxi is recorded as having sent tribute to the Chinese court.

So, if Anxi was not Sassanian Iran, who were they in the mid-sixth century? Saitō (1998) convincingly argues that from around the mid-sixth century, Anxi refers to Bukhara in Central Asia. Later (2007) he pointed out that from the 1st to 3rd century, the surname An 安 was used by people in China originally from the Parthian empire, but later it appears that Sogdians from Bukhara began using this surname. He suggests that the Chinese identification of Bukhara with Anxi was a result of said Sogdians using the surname An. 

Saitō's thesis is supported by the account of Anguo 安國 in the Sui shu 隋書 (fasc. 83), the history of the Sui dynasty (581–617), in which An-guo is also identified under a separate heading from Bosi 波斯 (Persia).

安國，漢時安息國也。王姓昭武氏，與康國王同族，字設力登。妻，康國王女也。都在那密水南，城有五重，環以流水。

An-guo was Anxi-guo in Han times. The king’s surname is Zhaowu ('Brilliant Martial Virtue'?). He has the same clan as the king of Kang-guo [Samarkand]. His courtesy name is *She-li-deng [MC: śjät ljək təŋ]. His wife is a princess of Kang-guo. The capital is south of the *Nami River. The city walls have five layers and are surrounded by flowing water.

Here *Nami 那密 is no doubt a transliteration of Nūmijkat, another name for Bukhara in Sogdian. The first reference to Bukhara using this term specifically in Chinese is as Niumi 忸密國 in the Wei shu 魏書 (fasc. 102), compiled in 559, the Middle-Chinese pronunciation being ṇjuk mjet (Schuessler IPA), which corresponds to Nūmijkat. The river mentioned here is the Zeravshan River as it is presently known.

This Chinese identification of Anxi with Bukhara from the mid-sixth century is important to Buddhism because many monks with the surname An 安 or having come from Anxi were active in China. Again, if they were not Persian, who were they? 

One of the most critical misunderstandings in this respect has been the longstanding mistake that the ancestors of Jizang 吉藏 (549–623), a prolific author on Chinese Madhyamaka and patriarch of the Sanlun lineage 三論宗, were Persian given that his biographical details identify them as having come from Anxi. In reality, the evidence shows that his ancestors were likely Sogdians from Bukhara. It becomes easy to conclude that there must have been some significant Buddhist presence in late Sassanian Iran if Anxi is understood as Persia, but in reality this is mistaken.

From the sixth century onward, the Persians who did settle in China tended to be Zoroastrians, Nestorian Christians and Manichaeans, and not Buddhists.

*All Encyclopaedia Iranica content is available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/.

For details on the Parthians see “Arsacids” in Encyclopaedia Iranica (vol. II/5, 525–546).

For details on pre-Islamic Bukhara see Encyclopaedia Iranica (vol. IV/5, 511–513).

Saitō Tatsuya 斉藤達也. “Ansokukoku Ankoku to Sogudojin” 安息国・安国とソグド人. Kokusai Bukkyōgaku Daigakuin Daigaku kenkyū kiyō 国際仏教学大学院大学研究紀要 11 (2007): 1–32.

Saitō Tatsuya 斉藤達也. “Gishin nanboku chōdai no Ansokukoku to Ansokukei no Bukkyō sō” 魏晋南北朝時代の安息国と安息系仏教僧. Kokusai Bukkyōgaku Daigakuin Daigaku kenkyū kiyō 国際仏教学大学院大学研究紀要 1 (1998): 152–176.

A Sanskrit Fragment from the Mahāvairocana-sūtra

Matsunaga Yūkei 松長有慶 (b. 1929), a scholar of Shingon Buddhism and up until recently the chief at Kōyasan, in 1966 published an article (see here in Japanese) that pointed out the existence of some Sanskrit fragments of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra 大日經. Although no extant Sanskrit version of the text is known to exist, one fragment from the text is found in a citation in the Bhāvanā-krama by Kamalaśīla 蓮華戒 (fl. 8^th century). It is the core phrase of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra which in Chinese reads as follows:

「菩提心為因。悲為根本。方便為究竟。」(CBETA, T18, no. 848, p. 1, b29-c1)
Bodhicitta is the cause, compassion is the root, and expedient means (upāya) are the conclusion.

The Sanskrit fragment in the Bhāvanā-krama reads:

tad etat sarvajñānaṃ karuṇāmūlaṃ bodhicittahetukam upāyaparyavasānam iti |

As Matsunaga points out, the first two phrases are reversed: in the Sanskrit karuṇā is mentioned before bodhicitta. The Song-era translation of the Bhāvanā-krama by Dānapāla 施護 (d. 1017) follows the order of the Sanskrit:

「如毘盧遮那成佛經說。所有一切智智。悲心為根本。從悲發生大菩提心。然後起諸方便。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1664, p. 565, b8-10)
As the *Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi-sūtra states, ‘Omniscience: compassion is the root; great bodhicitta is produced from compassion, thereafter giving rise to expedient means.’

Matsunaga suggests this shift to citing compassion first reflects the tendency of the Bhāvanā-krama to focus on compassion (the introduction states that compassion comes before bodhicitta). This stands in contrast to the original Mahāvairocana-sūtra which is oriented around a Madhyamaka framework with an emphasis on śūnyatā. The Chinese commentary also reflects this understanding (此菩提心為後二句因).

In light of that, the Sanskrit fragment is perhaps not a direct quotation, but rather a paraphrasing of the original.

Where was Jibin 罽賓?

The Han shu 漢書 – a history of the western or former Han dynasty compiled around 82 CE – provides details on a certain country named Jibin 罽賓 as one of many nations in the Western Regions 西域. As was common in Chinese dynastic histories, a section of the Han shu details the relative locations, customs and commodities of numerous countries as well as their respective relationships with the Chinese court. The text positions the Great Yuezhi 大月氏 to the northwest of Jibin, which means Jibin was somewhere in northwestern India.

Jibin is significant to Buddhist history because many of the early Indian monks in the fourth and early fifth centuries who taught Buddhism in China were either from or had studied in Jibin (for instance, Jibin monks had a significant role in the translation of the Āgama and Vinaya texts). Jibin was also the center of the Sarvāstivāda school. According to the Han shu, its first diplomatic contact with China occurred under Emperor Wu 武帝 (r. 140–87 BCE). This would have been before the Kuṣāṇa empire during the Indo-Scythian period. The Han shu also seems to suggest the people of Jibin were originally Saka or Scythians:

昔匈奴破大月氏，大月氏西君大夏，而塞王南君罽賓。塞種分散，往往為數國。

Long ago the Xiongnu destroyed the Great Yuezhi. The Great Yuezhi Western Lord [governed] Daxia while the Saka King the Southern Lord [governed] Jibin. The Saka peoples scattered and became numerous countries all over.

The identification of Jibin has thus been important in reconstructing the Buddhism taught and practiced in northwestern India in these early centuries, especially in the large absence of materials from India itself. Modern scholarship on Buddhism often heavily depends on Indian literature translated into Chinese as well as Chinese accounts of India. Chinese materials are thus quite important to the study of ancient India in the first millennium CE. Tibetan materials only become available from around the seventh and eighth centuries.

This country of Jibin was thus an important source of Buddhism in China early on, but where was it? The capital was Xunxian 循鮮城 as it was rendered into Chinese. The modern Japanese scholar Shiratori Kurakichi 白鳥庫吉 (1865–1942) believed this was the ancient capital of Gandhāra, which is Pushkalavati in modern Peshawar. However, the Sinologist and linguist Edwin Pulleyblank (1922–2013), who specialized in the reconstruction of old and middle Chinese, identified Jibin as “*Kaspir for Kashmir.”¹ Pushkalavati is about 280 km from modern Srinagar in the Kashmir valley. 

 As Enomoto notes, “Previous studies have showed that Jibin indicated Gandhāra up to the beginning of the 4^th cent.”² Kāśmīra and Gandhāra are strictly speaking separate regions, though they are relatively close to each other. This brings to mind the possibility that travelers to China from this general area identified it *Kaspir.

In the Eastern Jin (317–420) and Northern and Southern Dynasties (420–589) periods, Jibin was at least in some cases very clearly identified as Kāśmīra. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya 倶舍論 (T 1559) translated by Paramārtha 眞諦 (499–569) translates Kāśmīra as Jibin 罽賓, whereas Xuanzang 玄奘 (685–762) phonetically transliterates Kāśmīra into Chinese.

eṣa tu kāśmīravaibhāṣikāṇāṃ siddhāntaḥ

【真諦】 罽賓國毘婆沙師悉檀判如此

【玄奘】 然迦濕彌羅國毘婆沙宗說

Enomoto's work however notes that “Ji-bin found in the works of Chinese Buddhist monks between the 4^th and 6^th centuries indicated a wider area including Kashmir, Gandhāra and possibly Tokharistan, that is to say, the whole of north and north-west India.”³ This therefore requires one to be cautious in assuming that Jibin must refer to Kāśmīra simply because Paramārtha translated it as such. 

Ancient Chinese geography was only approximate and based on hearsay rather than on objective surveys. Just as an example, consider the following map in a later historical account of Buddhism, the Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 (fasc. 32), by Song dynasty monk Zhipan 志磐 (1220-1275) which provides a map of the regions west of India based on Xuanzang's account. The map notes it is only approximate. Note that the Himalayas are on the right, the top represents Central Asia and the bottom right is SE Asia. The sea is the Indian Ocean.

As to Jibin's culture, the number of monks from there visiting China in the early centuries immediately indicates a significant Buddhist presence. There is an interesting account of Jibin, likely from between 265–420, found in the Zhiseng zai 支僧載, Waiguo shi 外國事 (“Accounts of Foreign Countries”) preserved in fascicle 76 of the Yiwen leiju 藝文類聚 (compiled in 624):

罽賓國在舍衛之西。國王民人悉奉佛。道人及沙門，到冬未，中前飲少酒，過中不復飯．

The country of Jibin is west of Śrāvastī. The king and people all venerate the Buddha. Religious practitioners and śramaṇa-s in the winter drink a little alcohol before noon. After noon they do not eat again.

This brings to mind the issue of wine consumption in India (see here) and in particular Falk's research on wine production in Gandhāra by Buddhist monastics. This account might indicate that monks in Kāśmīra also consumed wine at least ostensibly in the winter.

Over the course of the Sui-Tang period (581–907), Jibin largely ceased referring to Kāśmīra and instead referred to Kapiśā which is west of Gandhāra in modern Afghanistan. A Chinese-Sanskrit lexicon from the Tang period – the Fanyu zaming 梵語雜名 (T 2135) – defines Jibin as Karpiśaya 劫比舍也. A Buddhist catalog of texts from the year 800 also has a note stating that Jibin (as a homeland of a monk) is a mistaken abbreviation of Kapiśā 迦畢試, which is on the border of northern India (it seems it was not considered a part of India proper).⁴

This shift westward away from Gandhāra is noteworthy. As is well known in Buddhist Studies, by the time Xuanzang visited in the seventh century, many old Buddhist sites were in ruins and the religion was visibly in decline. The collapse of Gandhāran Buddhism and the migration of Buddhist monks along with Buddhist trading routes to outlying areas due to Brahmanical colonization and hostility is something Verardi has discussed (see here for the paper).⁵ Curiously, the Sui shu 隋書 (fasc. 83) – the history of the Sui compiled in 629 – identifies Caoguo 漕國 (*Zabula) as the Jibin of Han times. As Verardi notes, Zabula continued to host Buddhist communities while the religion was attacked elsewhere.⁶ Monks from 'Jibin' visiting China might therefore have been coming from even Zabula rather than Gandhāra and Kāśmīra. In other words, the seeming 'westward shift' of the definition of Jibin perhaps reflects the movement of Buddhist clergy over time due to external pressures. If Verardi's thesis is correct, this westward movement of Buddhist centers was caused primarily by hostility from Brahmanical traditions and the nobility which supported them.

Much later the understanding of Jibin's location changed again as the Ming shi 明史 (fasc. 332) – compiled in 1729 – identifies Samarkand 撒馬兒罕 as Jibin!

Notes:

1 E.G. Pulleyblank, “The Consonantal System of Old Chinese. Part II,” Asia Major 9, part 2 (1962): 218.

2 ENOMOTO Fumio, “A Note on Kashmir as Referred to in Chinese Literature: Ji-bin,” in A Study on the Nīlamata: Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir, ed. Yasuke IKARI (Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, 1994), 357.

3 Ibid., 361.

4 《貞元新定釋教目錄》卷17：「北天竺境迦畢試國人也(言罽賓者訛略)」(CBETA, T55, no. 2157, p. 891, c10)

5 Giovanni Verardi, “Buddhism in North-western India and Eastern Afghanistan, Sixth to Ninth Century AD,” ZINBUN 43 (2012): 147–183.

6 Ibid., 165.

After Xuanzang: Monk Wuxing and Early Tantra in India

Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) is likely the most famous of Chinese Buddhist monks who traveled to India to pursue studies and retrieve texts. He stayed in India between 633–645 and upon returning to China enjoyed patronage from an imperial government engaged in aggressive expansionist conquests (see here). There were therefore ample resources directed his way to support his translation work. In the following decades another generation or two of Chinese monks followed in his footsteps and made their way to India. None of them became as famous as Xuanzang, but nevertheless some of them made significant contributions to the development of Buddhism in East Asia. The modern historian can also learn a great deal about the India of the time from not only their direct accounts and travelogues, but also short remarks in margins and colophons. One problem in reconstructing the history of ancient India is the paucity of contemporary accounts and historical documents, which is why Indologists since the nineteenth century have often had to rely on surviving accounts by Chinese travelers.

One Chinese traveler to India who is less known but nevertheless was quite important was a certain monk by the name of Wuxing 無行 (b. 630). He was from Jiangling 江陵 in Jingzhou 荊州 (modern Hubei). He also had a Sanskrit name of Prajñādeva, a custom which seems to have been fairly common among Chinese monks in the Tang dynasty. It seems he was an erudite scholar monk, having studied under Huiying 慧英, who was a disciple of the Chinese Madhyamaka author Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). He also traveled or wandered around China before also studying under Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), who was the leading scholar and advocate of the vinaya in China.

At some point he decided to travel to India. His account is preserved in a collection of biographies of monks in the early Tang who went to India in pursuit of the Dharma (大唐西域求法高僧傳; T 2066), which was compiled by Yijing 義淨 (635–713). Yijing himself was a very successful scholar and translator. Like Xuanzang, he studied in India and returned to translate an enormous quantity of Buddhist literature into Chinese, in particular the entire Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and related texts. He also penned a lengthy travelogue detailing his own journey through India. This was incidentally translated into English 1896 by Takakusu and can be viewed here.

Yijing left China in 671 and returned in 695, spending time in both India and the Indonesian archipelago. The latter at the time had a thriving Buddhist sangha apparently closely modeled on the Indian system. Just like in the Tarim Basin Buddhist states, they also studied Sanskrit to full literacy. Chinese monks, we are told, would go there to learn Sanskrit before traveling onward to India. My impression is that given its central location between the sea routes linking trade between India and China, they probably had sufficient numbers of bilingual scholars to provide a suitable environment for Chinese monks to learn sufficient Sanskrit, both its spoken and written forms. The elites were also favorable towards Chinese interests, which likely stemmed from the lucrative trade and prestige provided by China.

Wuxing also traveled to India through SE Asia. Together with another monk named Zhihong 智弘 he initially arrived in *Śrībhuja 室利佛逝 before sailing onward to eastern India. He initially had to find a benefactor, which Yijing said was “somewhat difficult” in the western country. A guest monk was entitled to be fed, but nothing more. We can imagine locals happily surprised to meet a bhikṣu from the remote land of Mahācīna ('Great China'), but one has to wonder to what extent they would have been regarded as capable scholars. Even if they were well read in Buddhist literature in Chinese translation, how well could they communicate in Sanskrit or local languages? Although they had traveled a great distance, we might imagine locals not necessarily feeling inclined to pay for their education and living expenses at a prestigious institution like Nālandā.

Wuxing nevertheless managed to find a patron and studied a number of subjects at Nālandā including Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya and the vinaya. This might also indicate the primary or popular subjects being studied there in the second half of the seventh century. Later he moved to a nearby monastery *Tilaśākya 羝羅荼寺 where he studied logic including the works of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti.

Sometime during his stay in this area he also met his compatriot Yijing. Wuxing and Yijing were just two of apparently several other known Chinese monks studying and wandering around India at the time. At the time there were three main routes to reach India from China:

- Through the Tarim Basin and then coming down through the Hindu Kush or western Himalayas.

- Through Tibet and Nepal and then south into India, though this route was only generally available when diplomatic relations allowed for it as Tang China and Yarlung Tibet were often at war.

- Coming down from southern China by sea to Indonesia and then sailing west to Sri Lanka or the eastern Indian coast.

In the seventh century there were also several diplomatic envoys from China that reached India (for some details see here).

Yijing tells us that he went with Wuxing to visit Gṛdhrakūṭa (Vulture's Peak). The distance between Nālandā and Gṛdhrakūṭa is around 15 km, so it probably took them a day to walk there. It was a memorable experience for Yijing and he remarks how they lamented being born so late and only seeing the ruins of places mentioned in scriptures.

Wuxing also told Yijing that he wanted to stay in India, but he was also inclined to return to China through northern India. When Yijing left Nālandā, Wuxing saw him off. Wuxing at the time was fifty-six years old. This parting happened in year 1 of Chuigong 垂拱元年 (685) and Yijing notes at the time of writing in 691 that he was unaware of where Wuxing was or if he was still alive.

This is not however the last we hear of Wuxing. Zhisheng 智昇 (669–740) in his catalog of Buddhist texts compiled in 730 (開元釋教錄 T 2154) reports the following:

「沙門無行西遊，天竺學畢言歸迴。至北天不幸而卒。所將梵本有勅迎歸。比在西京華嚴寺收掌。無畏與沙門一行，於彼簡得數本梵經，並總持妙門，先未曾譯。至十二年隨駕入洛，於大福先寺安置。遂為沙門一行譯大毘盧遮那經。」

The śramaṇa Wuxing had traveled west and upon completing his studies in India said he would return. He unfortunately died in northern India. It was ordered that the Sanskrit texts he carried be retrieved. These were deposited at Huayan-si in the western capital [Chang'an]. Śubhakarasiṃha [637–735] and Yixing 一行 [683–727] selected a number of Sanskrit scriptures there plus dhāraṇī practices. They had previously never been translated. In year 12 [724] they followed the emperor to Luoyang where they were posted to the temple Dafuxian-si. The Mahāvairocana-sūtra was subsequently translated by śramaṇa Yixing [and Śubhakarasiṃha].¹

It therefore would appear that the Sanskrit edition of Mahāvairocana-sūtra that Śubhakarasiṃha's team translated into Chinese was based on the edition carried by Wuxing who had perished in northern India. Although this account may be spurious, all of the modern scholars I have surveyed so far accept it as plausible. I think it is plausible too because the account was written down only a few years after the translation was completed. In addition, there is a seldom cited source which is the letter Wuxing sent to China from India.

At one point in India he translated an account excerpted from the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 一切有部律 of the Tathāgata's nirvāṇa 涅槃 in three fascicles which was forwarded to China. It is unclear to me who conveyed this back to China (it was perhaps Yijing). He might also have forwarded his letter to the Chinese sangha with this text. Regardless of who delivered it to China, it was preserved and eventually more than a century later a copy of it was brought back to Japan by the Tendai monk Ennin 圓仁 (794–864). He includes Wuxing’s letter to China from India (南荊州沙門無行在天竺國致於唐國書一卷) in his record of texts brought back from China.

Unfortunately, it seems the letter is not extant. However, a single line from it is fortunately quoted by the Japanese monk Annen 安然 (841–915?) in his Shingon shūkyō jigi 眞言宗教時義: “Recently the new Mantra teachings have become revered in the country” 近者新有眞言教法擧國崇仰.²

This simple remark is actually very historically significant. Xuanzang, who returned to China in 645, never mentions Mantrayāna in India. Some have speculated this might have been because he was interested in other subjects, but he was also interested in dhāraṇī practice so it is unlikely in his detailed account of India that he would have excluded mentioning Mantrayāna if it had existed at the time. Wuxing, however, was already living in India for awhile before 685. It would seem that between 645 and 685 there emerged an identifiable tradition of Mantrayāna. Wuxing also recognized this as a new development.

This actually corresponds well with the traditional lineage of the Mahāvairocana-sūtra in East Asia that we have discussed before (see here). Śubhakarasiṃha's guru was a certain Dharmagupta from Nālandā who received the text or its associated Dharma from Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, which suggests he might have been the compiler or author of the text. Disregarding the legend that he was eight-hundred years old, he would have presumably been senior to Śubhakarasiṃha who was born around 637. Dharmagupta therefore likely lived around the time when Mantrayāna was emerging and perhaps was one of its leading early proponents. A case can therefore be made that Mantrayāna as an identifiable tradition emerged in the latter half of the seventh century.

It is significant that Dharmagupta was identified with Nālandā because Wuxing lived in that area as well, so presumably the bulk of the texts he carried back with him also came from the region of 'Greater Magadha'. It seems more and more likely to me that the early Tantric tradition was a product of that region. The archaeological evidence from what is now Bihar and Orissa also support this theory (see Yoritomi 1999).

Nālandā

It begs the question why did early Tantra arise around Nālandā and the neighboring regions? Was it a response to some outside influence or pressure, or simply the result of several centuries of creative development? We know that Nālandā scholars studied more or less the entirety of Buddhist learning including philosophy and logic, and the more conventional monastic subjects like the vinaya. Was this insufficient or felt to be lacking in practical application? The question of why Tantra emerged is an intriguing question on which much has been already written. Here I just want to point out that its early form seems to have been connected with Nālandā, which was only one of several major centers of Buddhist learning on the subcontinent.

So, although Wuxing never made it back to China, his deeds still echoed throughout history. If Śubhakarasiṃha had not translated the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, Buddhist history in East Asia would have taken on a very different form.

Notes:

1 T 2154, 55: 572a15-21.

2 T 2396, 75: 431a11.

Yamamoto Shōichirō 山本 匠一郎. “Dainichikyō no shiryō to kenkyūshi gaikan” 『大日經』の資料と研究史概觀. Gendai mikkyō 現代密教 23 (2012): 73–102.

Yoritomi Motohiro 頼富本宏. “Mikkyō no kakuritsu” 密教の確立. In Indo mikkyō インド密教, ed. Tachikawa Musashi 立川武蔵 and Yoritomi Motohiro, 32–56. Tōkyō: Shunjūsha 春秋社, 1999.

Zodiac Signs of the Buddhist Maṇḍala

*Garbhadhātu-maṇḍala 

The zodiac signs as we presently know them were devised around the year 500 BCE in Mesopotamia based on an earlier model of eighteen signs. Within a few centuries the Greeks were deeply involved in the study of astronomy and astrology. Hellenistic astrology, which was the foundation for later European and Islamic traditions of astrology, was largely produced in Alexandria in Egypt starting around the second century BCE. Alexander died in 323 and Ptolemy took control of Egypt. The Ptolemaic Kingdom (305–30 BCE) ruled over Egypt until it came under Roman domination after the death of Cleopatra (69–30 BCE). The Romans subsequently took a deep interest in astrology and in the late Republic of the first century BCE it served as an exotic and alternative system of divination in competition with traditional Roman divination (augury and so forth). Although the chronology is somewhat unclear, between the second to fifth centuries CE, Hellenistic astrology was introduced to India and in various ways blended with the native systems of religious lore and astrology based on the twenty-seven or twenty-eight nakṣatra-s (lunar stations). 

The scientific astronomy of the Greeks was likewise introduced in these centuries. The tradition of Indian jyotiṣa produced eminent figures like Āryabhaṭa (b. 476) in the Gupta dynasty, whose work on astronomy entitled Āryabhaṭa-siddhānta circulated throughout even the Iranian Sāsānian dynasty (224–651). It seems, however, that Buddhist institutions did not participate much, if at all, in the development of Indian astronomy. Buddhist Mount Meru cosmology, particularly that outlined in Abhidharma literature, is unscientific and based on authoritative statements in scripture. The world is conceived of as a flat disc with four continents of different shapes surrounding an hourglass-shaped Mount Meru with the sun and moon circuiting around it propelled by winds (for some details on this see here).

Later on around the early eleventh century when the Kālacakra literature was being produced (the Śrī-kālacakra tantra and its commentary the Vimalaprabhā), Buddhist authors demonstrated knowledge of advanced observational astronomy. The Śrī-kālacakra (ninth section of chapter one) discusses astronomy for instance. It describes the corruption of siddhānta-s (astronomical treatises), which the commentary identifies as those of Brahma, Sauram, Yamanakam and Romakam. The former two are Indian, but so far as I know, not Buddhist. It seems in any case there were no notable specifically Buddhist schools of astronomy. The latter two mean Yavana (Ionian or “Greek”, or later meaning other foreign cultures) and Roman, which highlight their foreign origins. The Kālacakra also uses the tropical zodiac rather than sidereal zodiac, which is significant because originally it was only late Hellenistic traditions of astronomy that used the tropical zodiac while Indians continued using the sidereal model (see Edward Henning's article here). This use of the tropical zodiac in the early eleventh century in India could possibly indicate an Islamic source for that element in light of the vibrant tradition of astronomy in Baghdad and other such centers of learning which Indian traditions were aware of. Islamic learning was not at all remote from India in those years.

Although Indian Buddhist institutions had limited interest in astronomy for most of their history, they still took an interest in astrology. There are plenty of early Buddhist texts that display a passive belief in astrological determinism, which is a topic of a paper I recently wrote (it is presently under review for publication). Astrological determinism is the belief that events and qualities of people are somehow influenced or signaled by celestial bodies. The belief that certain days are auspicious and conducive to some favorable outcome is an example of this.

The Buddhist poṣadha (sangha gathering to recite the precepts and carry out business) occurs according to the Indian lunar (nakṣatra) calendar on specific days of the cycle which are deemed favorable (such as the full and new moons). Although one might assume it was merely a convenient way to keep track of time, the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya (translated into Chinese in the early fifth century) has the Buddha stating that a specific day “agrees with the nakṣatra-s” which is effectively electional astrology (selecting a time to do something based on astrological considerations). The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya – even in the early fifth century when the Chinese monk Faxian 法顯 picked up a copy in Pāṭaliputra (modern Patna) – was considered in ancient India to be the oldest recension of the vinaya and some modern scholarship agrees that this is likely true. That would mean the early Buddhist sangha believed in astrology or at least a system of electional astrology based on the nakṣatra calendar. Perhaps even the Buddha himself believed in astrology.

There were therefore few ideological or philosophical obstacles in Buddhism to adopting elements from foreign systems of astrology, such as the twelve zodiac signs, from around the sixth century onward. As we discussed earlier in an earlier post (see here), it seems the teacher of Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637–735), a certain Dharmagupta of Nālandā, was the original human author behind the Mahāvairocana-sūtra, an early text in the tantric tradition. Śubhakarasiṃha's commentary on the text briefly mentions the twelve zodiac signs or houses, but goes into no details. The *Garbhadhātu-maṇḍala associated with the text does however depict these figures around the perimeter and they are understood as deities, albeit minor ones.

The concept of star worship was by no means alien to Buddhism as the aforementioned Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya has an invocation of nakṣatra deities. I tend to think that the practice of astral magic was actually native to Magadha originally. Early Brahmanism on the other hand had a low opinion of astrologers and forbid them from attending sacrifices. The Manusmṛti (chapter three) has the following code:

162. A trainer of elephants, oxen, horses, or camels, he who subsists by astrology, a bird-fancier, and he who teaches the use of arms, ... (all these) must be carefully avoided.

Nevertheless, the importance of observing astrological considerations is highlighted:

277. He who performs it on the even (lunar) days and under the even constellations, gains (the fulfilment of) all his wishes; he who honours the manes on odd (lunar days) and under odd (constellations), obtains distinguished offspring.

Although astrologers might have been disparaged, the validity of astrology itself was not questioned. There are some examples in Buddhist literature of astrology's validity being attacked, but in general most of the texts that I have surveyed indicate a passive belief in astrology despite the monastic prohibitions against practicing astrology.

The zodiac signs as they were depicted in China are preserved in an important document in Japan, the Taizō zuzō 胎藏圖象, which visually represents the deities of the *Garbhadhātu-maṇḍala. These representations are based on those brought to Japan from China by Enchin 圓珍 (814–891). He copied them in 855 in Chang’an at Qinglong-si 青龍寺, a center of learning for esoteric Buddhism. It is believed that these icons were first produced by Śubhakarasiṃha. The icons therefore have been recopied several times by Japanese and Chinese hands, but assuming they were faithful to the originals, we perhaps have a set of zodiac icons as they were generally envisioned by Śubhakarasiṃha, who represents the late seventh century Nālandā tradition of Buddhism, though at the same time we must concede that the icons as we presently have them show Central Asian and Chinese influences. One might even imagine that Śubhakarasiṃha had the icons in some manuscript from India and then asked a local artist to reproduce them. Not being an art historian myself, I will not make any judgments about this and will just present them here.

1. Aries - Meṣa

2. Taurus - Vṛṣabha

3. Gemini - Mithuna

4. Cancer - Karkaṭa

5. Leo - Siṃha

6. Virgo - Kanyā

7. Libra - Tulā

8. Scorpio - Vṛścika

9. Sagittarius - Dhanus

10. Capricorn - Makara

11. Aquarius - Kumbha

12. Pisces - Mīna

The depiction of Capricorn as a Makara is interesting. Monier-Williams defines makara as follows:

m. a kind of sea-monster (sometimes confounded with the crocodile , shark , dolphin &c ; regarded as the emblem of kāma-deva [cf. mokara-ketana &c below] or as a symbol of the 9th arhat of the present avasarpiṇī ; represented as an ornament on gates or on head-dresses).

As I mentioned earlier, the zodiac signs were treated as deities and there are also mantras for addressing them collectively with other astral deities. It should be noted that they were minor figures. However, it is interesting that in Buddhist literature they are regarded as deities alongside the planets because in the Greco-Egyptian tradition of astral magic, so far as I know, only the planets are regarded as gods (this was carried over into Latin which is why we still in English say Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn). 

In Hellenistic astrology, the zodiac houses serve as domiciles which planets rule over, but in the associated magical tradition, at least as it is preserved in extant papyri, I am unaware of zodiac signs being treated as sentient gods. The nakṣatra-s had already long been regarded as sentient gods for many centuries in Magadha, so transforming the zodiac signs into such figures was perhaps a natural progression.