{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16847/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16847","id":"gutenberg_16847","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16847","summary":null,"tags":["Asia -- Religion","Buddhism","Category: History - Other","Category: History - Religious","Hinduism"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\nVolume 1 may be found at https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15255\n\nVolume 2 may be found at https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16546\n\n     Excerpts from the Preface to the book from Volume 1,\n     regarding the method of transcription used.\n\n     \"In the following pages I have occasion to transcribe words\n     belonging to many oriental languages in Latin characters.\n     Unfortunately a uniform system of transcription, applicable\n     to all tongues, seems not to be practical at present. It was\n     attempted in the Sacred Books of the East, but that system\n     has fallen into disuse and is liable to be misunderstood. It\n     therefore seems best to use for each language the method of\n     transcription adopted by standard works in English dealing\n     with each, for French and German transcriptions, whatever\n     their merits may be as representations of the original\n     sounds, are often misleading to English readers, especially\n     in Chinese. For Chinese I have adopted Wade's system as used\n     in Giles's Dictionary, for Tibetan the system of Sarat\n     Chandra Das, for Pali that of the Pali Text Society and for\n     Sanskrit that of Monier-Williams's Sanskrit Dictionary,\n     except that I write s instead of s. Indian languages however\n     offer many difficulties: it is often hard to decide whether\n     Sanskrit or vernacular forms are more suitable and in\n     dealing with Buddhist subjects whether Sanskrit or Pali\n     words should be used. I have found it convenient to vary the\n     form of proper names according as my remarks are based on\n     Sanskrit or on Pali literature, but this obliges me to write\n     the same word differently in different places, e.g.\n     sometimes Aj\u00e2tasatru and sometimes Aj\u00e2tasattu, just as in a\n     book dealing with Greek and Latin mythology one might employ\n     both Herakles and Hercules. Also many Indian names such as\n     Ramayana, Krishna, nirvana have become Europeanized or at\n     least are familiar to all Europeans interested in Indian\n     literature. It seems pedantic to write them with their full\n     and accurate complement of accents and dots and my general\n     practice is to give such words in their accurate spelling\n     (R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, etc.) when they are first mentioned and also in\n     the notes but usually to print them in their simpler and\n     unaccented forms. I fear however that my practice in this\n     matter is not entirely consistent since different parts of\n     the book were written at different times.\"\n\n\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS\n[From Volume 1]\n\nThe following are the principal abbreviations used:\n\nEp. Ind. Epigraphia India.\n\nE.R.E. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (edited by Hastings).\n\nI.A. Indian Antiquary.\n\nJ.A. Journal Asiatique.\n\nJ.A.O.S. Journal of the American Oriental Society.\n\nJ.R.A.S. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.\n\nP.T.S. Pali Text Society.\n\nS.B.E. Sacred Books of the East (Clarendon Press).\n\n    Volume 3 has a number of words in Chinese. These are\n    represented by the notation [Chinese: ] in the text files. In\n    html the words are included as image files.\n\n\n\n\n                         HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM\n\n                         AN HISTORICAL SKETCH\n\n\n\n\n                                  BY\n                           SIR CHARLES ELIOT\n\n\n                           In three volumes\n                              VOLUME III\n\n\n\n\n\n                      ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL LTD\n                  Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane,\n                            London, E.C.4.\n\n                                 1921\n\n\n\n\n                        _First published_ 1921\n                              _Reprinted_ 1954\n                              _Reprinted_ 1957\n                              _Reprinted_ 1962\n\n\n\n                      PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY\n                            LUND HUMPHRIES\n                            LONDON-BRADFORD\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nBOOK VI\n\n\nBUDDHISM OUTSIDE INDIA\n\nCHAPTER\n\nXXXIV. EXPANSION OF INDIAN INFLUENCE\n\nXXXV. CEYLON\n\nXXXVI. BURMA\n\nXXXVII. SIAM\n\nXXXVIII. CAMBOJA\n\nXXXIX. CHAMPA\n\nXL. JAVA AND THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO\n\nXLI. CENTRAL ASIA\n\nXLII. CHINA. INTRODUCTORY\n\nXLIII. CHINA (_continued_). HISTORY\n\nXLIV. CHINA (_continued_). THE CANON\n\nXLV. CHINA (_continued_). SCHOOLS OF CHINESE BUDDHISM\n\nXLVI. CHINA (_continued_). CHINESE BUDDHISM AT THE PRESENT DAY\n\nXLVII. KOREA\n\nXLVIII. ANNAM\n\nXLIX. TIBET. INTRODUCTORY\n\nL. TIBET (_continued_). HISTORY\n\nLI. TIBET (_continued_). THE CANON\n\nLII. TIBET (_continued_). DOCTRINES OF LAMAISM\n\nLIII. TIBET (_continued_). SECTS\n\nLIV. JAPAN\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII\n\nMUTUAL INFLUENCE OF EASTERN AND WESTERN RELIGIONS\n\n\nLV. INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\n\nLVI. INDIAN INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN WORLD\n\nLVII. PERSIAN INFLUENCE IN INDIA\n\nLVIII. MOHAMMEDANISM IN INDIA\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VI\n\nBUDDHISM OUTSIDE INDIA\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV\n\nEXPANSION OF INDIAN INFLUENCE\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\nThe subject of this Book is the expansion of Indian influence\nthroughout Eastern Asia and the neighbouring islands. That influence\nis clear and wide-spread, nay almost universal, and it is with justice\nthat we speak of Further India and the Dutch call their colonies\nNeerlands Indi\u00eb. For some early chapters in the story of this\nexpansion the dates and details are meagre, but on the whole the\ninvestigator's chief difficulty is to grasp and marshal the mass of\nfacts relating to the development of religion and civilization in this\ngreat region.\n\nThe spread of Hindu thought was an intellectual conquest, not an\nexchange of ideas. On the north-western frontier there was some\nreciprocity, but otherwise the part played by India was consistently\nactive and not receptive. The Far East counted for nothing in her\ninternal history, doubtless because China was too distant and the\nother countries had no special culture of their own. Still it is\nremarkable that whereas many Hindu missionaries preached Buddhism in\nChina, the idea of making Confucianism known in India seems never to\nhave entered the head of any Chinese.\n\nIt is correct to say that the sphere of India's intellectual conquests\nwas the East and North, not the West, but still Buddhism spread\nconsiderably to the west of its original home and entered Persia.\nStein discovered a Buddhist monastery in \"the terminal marshes of the\nHelmund\" in Seistan[1] and Bamian is a good distance from our\nfrontier. But in Persia and its border lands there were powerful state\nreligions, first Zoroastrianism and then Islam, which disliked and\nhindered the importation of foreign creeds and though we may see some\nresemblance between Sufis and Vedantists, it does not appear that the\nMoslim civilization of Iran owed much to Hinduism.\n\nBut in all Asia north and east of India, excluding most of Siberia but\nincluding the Malay Archipelago, Indian influence is obvious. Though\nprimarily connected with religion it includes much more, such as\narchitecture, painting and other arts, an Indian alphabet, a\nvocabulary of Indian words borrowed or translated, legends and\ncustoms. The whole life of such diverse countries as Tibet, Burma, and\nJava would have been different had they had no connection with India.\n\nIn these and many other regions the Hindus must have found a low state\nof civilization, but in the Far East they encountered a culture\ncomparable with their own. There was no question of colonizing or\ncivilizing rude races. India and China met as equals, not hostile but\nalso not congenial, a priest and a statesman, and the statesman made\nlarge concessions to the priest. Buddhism produced a great\nfermentation and controversy in Chinese thought, but though its\nfortunes varied it hardly ever became as in Burma and Ceylon the\nnational religion. It was, as a Chinese Emperor once said, one of the\ntwo wings of a bird. The Chinese characters did not give way to an\nIndian alphabet nor did the Confucian Classics fall into desuetude.\nThe subjects of Chinese and Japanese pictures may be Buddhist, the\nplan and ornaments of their temples Indian, yet judged as works of art\nthe pictures and temples are indigenous. But for all that one has only\nto compare the China of the Hans with the China of the T'angs to see\nhow great was the change wrought by India.\n\nThis outgrowing of Indian influence, so long continued and so wide in\nextent, was naturally not the result of any one impulse. At no time\ncan we see in India any passion of discovery, any fever of conquest\nsuch as possessed Europe when the New World and the route to the East\nround the Cape were discovered. India's expansion was slow, generally\npeaceful and attracted little attention at home. Partly it was due to\nthe natural permeation and infiltration of a superior culture beyond\nits own borders, but it is equally natural that this gradual process\nshould have been sometimes accelerated by force of arms. The Hindus\nproduced no Tamerlanes or Babers, but a series of expeditions, spread\nover long ages, but still not few in number, carried them to such\ndistant goals as Ceylon, Java and Camboja.\n\nBut the diffusion of Indian influence, especially in China, was also\ndue to another agency, namely religious propaganda and the deliberate\ndespatch of missions. These missions seem to have been exclusively\nBuddhist for wherever we find records of Hinduism outside India, for\ninstance in Java and Camboja, the presence of Hindu conquerors or\ncolonists is also recorded.[2] Hinduism accompanied Hindus and\nsometimes spread round their settlements, but it never attempted to\nconvert distant and alien lands. But the Buddhists had from the\nbeginning the true evangelistic temper: they preached to all the world\nand in singleness of purpose: they had no political support from\nIndia. Many as were the charges brought against them by hostile\nConfucians, it was never suggested that they sought political or\ncommercial privileges for their native land. It was this simple\ndisinterested attitude which enabled Buddhism, though in many ways\nantipathetic to the Far East, to win its confidence.\n\nCeylon is the first place where we have a record of the introduction\nof Indian civilization and its entry there illustrates all the\nphenomena mentioned above, infiltration, colonization and propaganda.\nThe island is close to the continent and communication with the Tamil\ncountry easy, but though there has long been a large Tamil population\nwith its own language, religion and temples, the fundamental\ncivilization is not Tamil. A Hindu called Vijaya who apparently\nstarted from the region of Broach about 500 B.C. led an expedition to\nCeylon and introduced a western Hindu language. Intercourse with the\nnorth was doubtless maintained, for in the reign of Asoka we find the\nKing of Ceylon making overtures to him and receiving with enthusiasm\nthe missionaries whom he sent. It is possible that southern India\nplayed a greater part in this conversion than the accepted legend\nindicates, for we hear of a monastery built by Mahinda near\nTanjore.[3] But still language, monuments and tradition attest the\nreality of the connection with northern India.\n\nIt is in Asoka's reign too that we first hear of Indian influence\nspreading northwards. His Empire included Nepal and Kashmir, he\nsent missionaries to the region of Himavanta, meaning apparently the\nsouthern slopes of the Himalayas, and to the Kambojas, an ambiguous\nrace who were perhaps the inhabitants of Tibet or its border lands.\nThe Hindu Kush seems to have been the limit of his dominions but\ntradition ascribes to this period the joint colonization of Khotan\nfrom India and China.\n\nSinhalese and Burmese traditions also credit him with the despatch of\nmissionaries who converted Suvar\u1e47abh\u00fbmi or Pegu. No mention of this\nhas been found in his own inscriptions, and European critics have\ntreated it with not unnatural scepticism for there is little\nindication that Asoka paid much attention to the eastern frontiers of\nhis Empire. Still I think the question should be regarded as being\n_sub judice_ rather than as answered in the negative.\n\nIndian expeditions to the East probably commenced, if not in the reign\nof Asoka, at least before our era. The Chinese Annals[4] state that\nIndian Embassies reached China by sea about 50 B.C. and the Questions\nof Milinda allude to trade by this route: the Ramayana mentions Java\nand an inscription seems to testify that a Hindu king was reigning in\nChampa (Annam) about 150 A.D. These dates are not so precise as one\ncould wish, but if there was a Hindu kingdom in that distant region in\nthe second century it was probably preceded by settlements in nearer\nhalting places, such as the Isthmus of Kra[5] or Java, at a\nconsiderably anterior date, although the inscriptions discovered there\nare not earlier than the fifth century A.D.\n\nJava seems to have left some trace in Indian tradition, for instance\nthe proverb that those who go to Java do not come back, and it may\nhave been an early distributing centre for men and merchandize in\nthose seas. But Ligor probably marks a still earlier halting place. It\nis on the same coast as the Mon kingdom of Thaton, which had\nconnection with Conjevaram by sea and was a centre of Pali Buddhism.\nAt any rate there was a movement of conquest and colonization in these\nregions which brought with it Hinduism and Mahayanism, and established\nHindu kingdoms in Java, Camboja, Champa and Borneo, and another\nmovement of Hinayanist propaganda, apparently earlier, but of\nwhich we know less.[6] Though these expeditions both secular and\nreligious probably took ship on the east coast of India, _e.g._ at\nMasulipatam or the Seven Pagodas, yet their original starting point\nmay have been in the west, such as the district of Badami or even\nGujarat, for there were trade routes across the Indian Peninsula at an\nearly date.[7]\n\nIt is curious that the early history of Burma should be so obscure and\nin order not to repeat details and hypotheses I refer the reader to\nthe chapter dealing specially with this country. From an early epoch\nUpper Burma had connection with China and Bengal by land and Lower\nBurma with Orissa and Conjevaram by sea. We know too that Pali\nBuddhism existed there in the sixth century, that it gained greatly in\npower in the reign of Anawrata (_c._ 1060) and that in subsequent\ncenturies there was a close ecclesiastical connection with Ceylon.\n\nSiam as a kingdom is relatively modern but like Burma it has been\nsubject to several influences. The Siamese probably brought some form\nof Buddhism with them when they descended from the north to their\npresent territories. From the Cambojans, their neighbours and at one\ntime their suzerains, they must have acquired some Hinduism and\nMahayanism, but they ended by adopting Hinayanism. The source was\nprobably Pegu but learned men from Ligor were also welcomed and the\necclesiastical pre-eminence of Ceylon was accepted.\n\nWe thus see how Indian influence conquered Further India and the Malay\nArchipelago and we must now trace its flow across Central Asia to\nChina and Japan, as well as the separate and later stream which\nirrigated Tibet and Mongolia.\n\nTradition as mentioned ascribes to Asoka some connection with Khotan\nand it is probable that by the beginning of our era the lands of the\nOxus and Tarim had become Buddhist and acquired a mixed civilization\nin which the Indian factor was large. As usual it is difficult to give\nprecise dates, but Buddhism probably reached China by land a little\nbefore rather than after our era and the prevalence of Gandharan art\nin the cities of the Tarim basin makes it likely that their\nefflorescence was not far removed in time from the Gandharan epoch of\nIndia. The discovery near Khotan of official documents written in\nPrakrit makes colonization as well as religious missions probable.\nFurther, although the movements of Central Asian tribes commonly took\nthe form of invading India, yet the current of culture was, on the\nwhole, in the opposite direction. The Kushans and others brought with\nthem a certain amount of Zoroastrian theology and Hellenistic art, but\nthe compound resulting from the mixture of these elements with\nBuddhism was re-exported to the north and to China.\n\nI shall discuss below the grounds for believing that Buddhism was\nknown in China before A.D. 62, the date when the Emperor Ming Ti is\nsaid to have despatched a mission to enquire about it. For some time\nmany of its chief luminaries were immigrants from Central Asia and it\nmade its most rapid progress in that disturbed period of the third and\nfourth centuries when North China was split up into contending Tartar\nstates which both in race and politics were closely connected with\nCentral Asia. Communication with India by land became frequent and\nthere was also communication _vi\u00e2_ the Malay Archipelago, especially\nafter the fifth century, when a double stream of Buddhist teachers\nbegan to pour into China by sea as well as by land. A third tributary\njoined them later when Khubilai, the Mongol conqueror of China, made\nLamaism, or Tibetan Buddhism, the state religion.\n\nTibetan Buddhism is a form of late Indian Mahayanism with a\nconsiderable admixture of Hinduism, exported from Bengal to Tibet and\nthere modified not so much in doctrine as by the creation of a\npowerful hierarchy, curiously analogous to the Roman Church. It is\nunknown in southern China and not much favoured by the educated\nclasses in the north, but the Lamaist priesthood enjoys great\nauthority in Tibet and Mongolia, and both the Ming and Ch\u0301ing\ndynasties did their best to conciliate it for political reasons.\nLamaism has borrowed little from China and must be regarded as an\ninvasion into northern Asia and even Europe[8] of late Indian religion\nand art, somewhat modified by the strong idiosyncrasy of the Tibetan\npeople. This northern movement was started by the desire of imitation,\nnot of conquest. At the beginning of the seventh century the King\nof Tibet, who had dealings with both India and China, sent a mission\nto the former to enquire about Buddhism and in the eighth and eleventh\ncenturies eminent doctors were summoned from India to establish the\nfaith and then to restore it after a temporary eclipse.\n\nIn Korea, Annam, and especially in Japan, Buddhism has been a great\nethical, religious and artistic force and in this sense those\ncountries owe much to India. Yet there was little direct communication\nand what they received came to them almost entirely through China. The\nancient Champa was a Hindu kingdom analogous to Camboja, but modern\nAnnam represents not a continuation of this civilization but a later\ndescent of Chinese culture from the north. Japan was in close touch\nwith the Chinese just at the period when Buddhism was fermenting their\nwhole intellectual life and Japanese thought and art grew up in the\nglow of this new inspiration, which was more intense than in China\nbecause there was no native antagonist of the same strength as\nConfucianism.\n\nIn the following chapters I propose to discuss the history of Indian\ninfluence in the various countries of Eastern Asia, taking Ceylon\nfirst, followed by Burma and Siam. Whatever may have been the origin\nof Buddhism in these two latter they have had for many centuries a\nclose ecclesiastical connection with Ceylon. Pali Buddhism prevails in\nall, as well as in modern Camboja.\n\nThe Indian religion which prevailed in ancient Camboja was however of\na different type and similar to that of Champa and Java. In treating\nof these Hindu kingdoms I have wondered whether I should not begin\nwith Java and adopt the hypothesis that the settlements established\nthere sent expeditions to the mainland and Borneo.[9] But the history\nof Java is curiously fragmentary whereas the copious inscriptions of\nCamboja and Champa combined with Chinese notices give a fairly\ncontinuous chronicle. And a glance at the map will show that if there\nwere Hindu colonists at Ligor it would have been much easier for\nthem to go across the Gulf of Siam to Camboja than _vi\u00e2_ Java. I have\ntherefore not adopted the hypothesis of expansion from Java (while\nalso not rejecting it) nor followed any chronological method but have\ntreated of Camboja first, as being the Hindu state of which on the\nwhole we know most and then of Champa and Java in comparison with it.\n\nIn the later sections of the book I consider the expansion of Indian\ninfluence in the north. A chapter on Central Asia endeavours to\nsummarize our rapidly increasing knowledge of this meeting place of\nnations. Its history is closely connected with China and naturally\nleads me to a somewhat extended review of the fortunes and\nachievements of Buddhism in that great land, and also to a special\nstudy of Tibet and of Lamaism. I have treated of Nepal elsewhere. For\nthe history of religion it is not a new province, but simply the\nextreme north of the Indian region where the last phase of decadent\nIndian Buddhism which practically disappeared in Bengal still retains\na nominal existence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: _Geog. Jour_. Aug., 1916, p. 362.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The presence of Brahmans at the Courts of Burma and Siam\nis a different matter. They were expressly invited as more skilled in\nastrology and state ceremonies than Buddhists.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chuang_, vol. II. p. 228.]\n\n[Footnote 4: But not contemporary Annals. The Liang Annals make the\nstatement about the reign of Hs\u00fcan Li 73-49 B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Especially at Ligor or Dharmaraja.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The statement of I-Ching that a wicked king destroyed\nBuddhism in Funan is important.]\n\n[Footnote 7: See Fleet in _J.R.A.S._ 1901, p. 548.]\n\n[Footnote 8: There are settlements of Kalmuks near Astrakhan who have\nLama temples and maintain a connection with Tibet.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The existence of a Hindu kingdom on the _East_ Coast of\nBorneo in 400 A.D. or earlier is a strong argument in favour of\ncolonization from Java. Expeditions from any other quarter would\nnaturally have gone to the _West_ Coast. Also there is some knowledge\nof Java in India, but apparently none of Camboja or Champa. This\nsuggests that Java may have been the first halting place and kept up\nsome slight connection with the mother country.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV\n\nCEYLON\n\n1\n\n\nThe island of Ceylon, perhaps the most beautiful tropical country in\nthe world, lies near the end of the Indian peninsula but a little to\nthe east. At one point a chain of smaller islands and rocks said to\nhave been built by Rama as a passage for his army of monkeys leads to\nthe mainland. It is therefore natural that the population should have\nrelations with southern India. Sinhalese art, religion and language\nshow traces of Tamil influence but it is somewhat surprising to find\nthat in these and in all departments of civilization the influence of\nnorthern India is stronger. The traditions which explain the\nconnection of Ceylon with this distant region seem credible and the\nSinhalese, who were often at war with the Tamils, were not disposed to\nimitate their usages, although juxtaposition and invasion brought\nabout much involuntary resemblance.\n\nThe school of Buddhism now professed in Ceylon, Burma and Siam is\noften called Sinhalese and (provided it is not implied that its\ndoctrines originated in Ceylon) the epithet is correct. For the school\nceased to exist in India and in the middle ages both Burma and Siam\naccepted the authority of the Sinhalese Sangha.[10] This Sinhalese\nschool seems to be founded on the doctrines and scriptures accepted in\nthe time of Asoka in Magadha and though the faith may have been\ncodified and supplemented in its new home, I see no evidence that it\nunderwent much corruption or even development. One is inclined at\nfirst to think that the Hindus, having a continuous living tradition\nconnecting them with Gotama who was himself a Hindu, were more likely\nthan these distant islanders to preserve the spirit of his teaching.\nBut there is another side to the question. The Hindus being\naddicted to theological and metaphysical studies produced original\nthinkers who, if not able to found new religions, at least modified\nwhat their predecessors had laid down. If certain old texts were held\nin too high esteem to be neglected, the ingenuity of the commentator\nrarely failed to reinterpret them as favourable to the views popular\nin his time. But the Sinhalese had not this passion for theology. So\nfar as we can judge of them in earlier periods they were endowed with\nan amiable and receptive but somewhat indolent temperament, moderate\ngifts in art and literature and a moderate love and understanding of\ntheology. Also their chiefs claimed to have come from northern India\nand were inclined to accept favourably anything which had the same\norigin. These are exactly the surroundings in which a religion can\nflourish without change for many centuries and Buddhism in Ceylon\nacquired stability because it also acquired a certain national and\npatriotic flavour: it was the faith of the Sinhalese and not of the\ninvading Tamils. Such Sinhalese kings as had the power protected the\nChurch and erected magnificent buildings for its service.\n\nIf Sinhalese tradition may be believed, the first historical contact\nwith northern India was the expedition of Vijaya, who with 700\nfollowers settled in the island about the time of the Buddha's death.\nMany details of the story are obviously invented. Thus in order to\nexplain why Ceylon is called Sinhala, Vijaya is made the grandson of\nan Indian princess who lived with a lion. But though these legends\ninspire mistrust, it is a fact that the language of Ceylon in its\nearliest known form is a dialect closely connected with Pali (or\nrather with the spoken dialect from which ecclesiastical Pali was\nderived) and still more closely with the Mah\u00e2r\u00e2shtri Prakrit of\nwestern India. It is not however a derivative of this Prakrit but\nparallel to it and in some words presents older forms.[11] It does not\nseem possible to ascribe the introduction of this language to the\nlater mission of Mahinda, for, though Buddhist monks have in many\ncountries influenced literature and the literary vocabulary, no\ninstance is recorded of their changing the popular speech.[12] But\nVijaya is said to have conquered Ceylon and to have slaughtered\nmany of its ancient inhabitants, called Yakkhas,[13] of whom we\nknow little except that Sinhalese contains some un-Aryan words\nprobably borrowed from them. According to the D\u00eepava\u1e43sa,[14]\nVijaya started from Bharukaccha or Broach and both language and such\nhistorical facts as we know confirm the tradition that some time\nbefore the third century B.C. Ceylon was conquered by Indian\nimmigrants from the west coast.\n\nIt would not be unreasonable to suppose that Vijaya introduced into\nCeylon the elements of Buddhism, but there is little evidence to\nindicate that it was a conspicuous form of religion in India in his\ntime. Sinhalese tradition maintains that not only Gotama himself but\nalso the three preceding Buddhas were miraculously transported to\nCeylon and made arrangements for its conversion. Gotama is said to\nhave paid no less than three visits:[15] all are obviously impossible\nand were invented to enhance the glory of the island. But the legends\nwhich relate how Pa\u1e47\u1e0duv\u00e2sudeva came from India to succeed\nVijaya, how he subsequently had a Sakya princess brought over from\nIndia to be his wife and how her brothers established cities in\nCeylon,[16] if not true in detail, are probably true in spirit in so\nfar as they imply that the Sinhalese kept up intercourse with India\nand were familiar with the principal forms of Indian religion. Thus we\nare told[17] that King Pa\u1e47\u1e0duk\u00e2bhaya built religious edifices for\nNiga\u1e47\u1e6dhas (Jains), Brahmans, Paribb\u00e2jakas (possibly Buddhists)\nand \u00c2j\u00eevikas. When Dev\u00e2nampiya Tissa ascended the throne (_circ._ 245\nB.C.) he sent a complimentary mission bearing wonderful treasures to\nAsoka with whom he was on friendly terms, although they had never met.\nThis implies that the kingdom of Magadha was known and respected in\nCeylon, and we hear that the mission included a Brahman. The answer\nattributed to Asoka will surprise no one acquainted with the\ninscriptions of that pious monarch. He said that he had taken\nrefuge in the law of Buddha and advised the King of Ceylon to find\nsalvation in the same way. He also sent magnificent presents\nconsisting chiefly of royal insignia and Tissa was crowned for the\nsecond time, which probably means that he became not only the disciple\nbut the vassal of Asoka.\n\nIn any case the records declare that the Indian Emperor showed the\ngreatest solicitude for the spiritual welfare of Ceylon and, though\nthey are obviously embellished, there is no reason to doubt their\nsubstantial accuracy.[18] The Sinhalese tradition agrees on the whole\nwith the data supplied by Indian inscriptions and Chinese pilgrims.\nThe names of missionaries mentioned in the D\u00eepa and Mah\u00e2vamsas recur\non urns found at Sanchi and on its gateways are pictures in relief\nwhich appear to represent the transfer of a branch of the Bo-tree in\nsolemn procession to some destination which, though unnamed, may be\nconjectured to be Ceylon.[19] The absence of Mahinda's name in Asoka's\ninscriptions is certainly suspicious, but the Sinhalese chronicles\ngive the names of other missionaries correctly and a mere _argumentum\nex silentio_ cannot disprove their testimony on this important point.\n\nThe principal repositories of Sinhalese tradition are the D\u00eepavamsa, the\nMah\u00e2vamsa, and the historical preface of Buddhaghosa's Samanta-p\u00e2s\u00e2dik\u00e2.\n[20] All later works are founded on these three, so far as concerns\nthe conversion of Ceylon and the immediately subsequent period,\nand the three works appear to be rearrangements of a single\nsource known as the A\u1e6d\u1e6dhakath\u00e2, Sihala\u1e6d\u1e6dhakath\u00e2, or the words of the\nPor\u00e2\u1e47a (ancients). These names were given to commentaries on the\nTipi\u1e6daka written in Sinhalese prose interspersed with Pali verse and\nseveral of the greater monasteries had their own editions of them,\nincluding a definite historical section.[21] It is probable that at the\nbeginning of the fifth century A.D. and perhaps in the fourth century\nthe old Sinhalese in which the prose parts of the Atthakath\u00e2 were\nwritten was growing unintelligible, and that it was becoming more and\nmore the fashion to use Pali as the language of ecclesiastical\nliterature, for at least three writers set themselves to turn part of\nthe traditions not into the vernacular but into Pali. The earliest and\nleast artistic is the unknown author of the short chronicle called\nD\u00eepavamsa, who wrote between 302 A.D. and 430 A.D.[22] His work is weak\nboth as a specimen of Pali and as a narrative and he probably did little\nbut patch together the Pali verses occurring from time to time in the\nSinhalese prose of the Atthakath\u00e2. Somewhat later, towards the end of\nthe fifth century, a certain Mah\u00e2n\u00e2ma arranged the materials out of\nwhich the D\u00eepavamsa had been formed in a more consecutive and artistic\nform, combining ecclesiastical and popular legends.[23] His work, known\nas the Mah\u00e2vamsa, does not end with the reign of E\u1e37\u00e2ra, like the\nD\u00eepavamsa, but describes in 15 more chapters the exploits of\nDu\u1e6d\u1e6dhag\u00e2ma\u1e47i and his successors ending with Mah\u00e2sena.[24] The third\nwriter, Buddhaghosa, apparently lived between the authors of the two\nchronicles. His voluminous literary activity will demand our attention\nlater but so far as history is concerned his narrative is closely\nparallel to the Mah\u00e2vamsa.[25]\n\nThe historical narrative is similar in all three works. After the\nCouncil of Pataliputra, Moggaliputta, who had presided over it, came\nto the conclusion that the time had come to despatch missionaries to\nconvert foreign countries. Sinhalese tradition represents this\ndecision as emanating from Moggaliputta whereas the inscriptions of\nAsoka imply that the king himself initiated the momentous project. But\nthe difference is small. We cannot now tell to whom the great idea\nfirst occurred but it must have been carried out by the clergy with\nthe assistance of Asoka, the apostle selected for Ceylon was his[26]\nnear relative Mahinda who according to the traditions of the\nSinhalese made his way to their island through the air with six\ncompanions. The account of Hs\u00fcan Chuang hints at a less miraculous\nmode of progression for he speaks of a monastery built by Mahinda\nsomewhere near Tanjore.\n\nThe legend tells how Mahinda and his following alighted on the Missaka\nmountain[27] whither King Dev\u00e2nampiya Tissa had gone in the course of\na hunt. The monks and the royal cortege met: Mahinda, after testing\nthe king's intellectual capacity by some curious dialectical puzzles,\nhad no difficulty in converting him.[28] Next morning he proceeded to\nAnuradhapura and was received with all honour and enthusiasm. He\npreached first in the palace and then to enthusiastic audiences of the\ngeneral public. In these discourses he dwelt chiefly on the terrible\npunishment awaiting sinners in future existences.[29]\n\nWe need not follow in detail the picturesque account of the rapid\nconversion of the capital. The king made over to the Church the\nMah\u00e2megha garden and proceeded to construct a series of religious\nedifices in Anuradhapura and its neighbourhood. The catalogue of them\nis given in the Mah\u00e2vamsa[30] and the most important was the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra monastery, which became specially famous and influential in\nthe history of Buddhism. It was situated in the Mah\u00e2megha garden close\nto the Bo-tree and was regarded as the citadel of orthodoxy. Its\nsubsequent conflicts with the later Abhayagiri monastery are the chief\ntheme of Sinhalese ecclesiastical history and our version of the Pali\nPi\u1e6dakas is the one which received its imprimatur.\n\nTissa is represented as having sent two further missions to India. The\nfirst went in quest of relics and made its way not only to Pataliputra\nbut to the court of Indra, king of the gods, and the relics obtained,\nof which the principal was the Buddha's alms-bowl,[31] were deposited\nin Anuradhapura. The king then built the Thupar\u00e2ma dagoba over them\nand there is no reason to doubt that the building which now bears\nthis name is genuine. The story may therefore be true to the extent\nthat relics were brought from India at this early period.\n\nThe second mission was despatched to bring a branch of the tree[32]\nunder which the Buddha had sat when he obtained enlightenment. This\nnarrative[33] is perhaps based on a more solid substratum of fact. The\nchronicles connect the event with the desire of the Princess Anul\u00e2 to\nbecome a nun. Women could receive ordination only from ordained nuns\nand as these were not to be found on the island it was decided to ask\nAsoka to send a branch of the sacred tree and also Mahinda's sister\nSanghamitt\u00e2, a religieuse of eminence. The mission was successful. A\nbranch from the Bo-tree was detached, conveyed by Asoka to the coast\nwith much ceremony and received in Ceylon by Tissa with equal respect.\nThe princess accompanied it. The Bo-tree was planted in the Meghavana\ngarden. It may still be seen and attracts pilgrims not only from\nCeylon but from Burma and Siam. Unlike the buildings of Anuradhapura\nit has never been entirely neglected and it is clear that it has been\nvenerated as the Bo-tree from an early period of Sinhalese history.\nBotanists consider its long life, though remarkable, not impossible\nsince trees of this species throw up fresh shoots from the roots near\nthe parent stem. The sculptures at Sanchi represent a branch of a\nsacred tree being carried in procession, though no inscription attests\nits destination, and Fa-Hsien says that he saw the tree.[34] The\nauthor of the first part of the Mah\u00e2vamsa clearly regards it as\nalready ancient, and throughout the history of Ceylon there are\nreferences to the construction of railings and terraces to protect it.\n\n\nDev\u00e2nampiya Tissa probably died in 207 B.C. In 177 the kingdom passed\ninto the hands of Tamil monarchs who were not Buddhists, although the\nchroniclers praise their justice and the respect which they showed to\nthe Church. The most important of them, E\u1e37\u00e2ra, reigned for\nforty-four years and was dethroned by a descendant of Tissa, called\nDu\u1e6d\u1e6dhag\u00e2ma\u1e47i.[35]\n\nThe exploits of this prince are recorded at such length in the\nMah\u00e2vamsa (XXII.-XXXII.) as to suggest that they formed the subject of\na separate popular epic, in which he figured as the champion of\nSinhalese against the Tamils, and therefore as a devout Buddhist. On\nascending the throne he felt, like Asoka, remorse for the bloodshed\nwhich had attended his early life and strove to atone for it by good\nworks, especially the construction of sacred edifices. The most\nimportant of these were the Lohapas\u00e2da or Copper Palace and the\nMah\u00e2th\u00fbpa or Ruwanweli Dagoba. The former[36] was a monastery roofed\nor covered with copper plates. Its numerous rooms were richly\ndecorated and it consisted of nine storeys, of which the four\nuppermost were set apart for Arhats, and the lower assigned to the\ninferior grades of monks. Perhaps the nine storeys are an\nexaggeration: at any rate the building suffered from fire and\nunderwent numerous reconstructions and modifications. King Mah\u00e2sena\n(301 A.D.) destroyed it and then repenting of his errors rebuilt it,\nbut the ruins now representing it at Anuradhapura, which consist of\nstone pillars only, date from the reign of Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu I (about\nA.D. 1150). The immense pile known as the Ruwanweli Dagoba, though\noften injured by invaders in search of treasure, still exists. The\nsomewhat dilapidated exterior is merely an outer shell, enclosing a\nsmaller dagoba.[37] This is possibly the structure erected by\nDu\u1e6d\u1e6dhag\u00e2ma\u1e47i, though tradition says that there is a still\nsmaller edifice inside. The foundation and building of the original\nstructure are related at great length.[38] Crowds of distinguished\nmonks came to see the first stone laid, even from Kashmir and\nAlasanda. Some have identified the latter name with Alexandria in\nEgypt, but it probably denotes a Greek city on the Indus.[39] But in\nany case tradition represents Buddhists from all parts of India as\ntaking part in the ceremony and thus recognizing the unity of Indian\nand Sinhalese Buddhism.\n\nOf great importance for the history of the Sinhalese Church is the\nreign of Va\u1e6d\u1e6dag\u00e2ma\u1e47i Abhaya who after being dethroned by Tamils\nrecovered his kingdom and reigned for twelve years.[40] He built a new\nmonastery and dagoba known as Abhayagiri,[41] which soon became the\nenemy of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra and heterodox, if the latter is to be considered\northodox. The account of the schism given in the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa[42] is\nobscure, but the dispute resulted in the Pi\u1e6dakas, which had hitherto\nbeen preserved orally, being committed to writing. The council which\ndefined and edited the scriptures was not attended by all the\nmonasteries of Ceylon, but only by the monks of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, and the\ntext which they wrote down was their special version and not universally\naccepted. It included the Pariv\u00e2ra, which was apparently a recent manual\ncomposed in Ceylon. The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa says no more about this schism, but\nthe Nik\u00e2ya-Sangrahawa[43] says that the monks of the Abhayagiri\nmonastery now embraced the doctrines of the Vajjiputta school (one of\nthe seventeen branches of the Mah\u00e2sanghikas) which was known in Ceylon\nas the Dhammaruci school from an eminent teacher of that name. Many\npious kings followed who built or repaired sacred edifices and Buddhism\nevidently flourished, but we also hear of heresy. In the third century\nA.D.[44] King Voharaka Tissa suppressed[45] the Vetulyas. This sect was\nconnected with the Abhayagiri monastery, but, though it lasted until the\ntwelfth century, I have found no Sinhalese account of its tenets. It is\nrepresented as the worst of heresies, which was suppressed by all\northodox kings but again and again revived, or was reintroduced from\nIndia. Though it always found a footing at the Abhayagiri it was not\nofficially recognized as the creed of that Monastery which since the\ntime of Va\u1e6d\u1e6dag\u00e2ma\u1e47i seems to have professed the relatively orthodox\ndoctrine called Dhammaruci.\n\nMention is made in the Kath\u00e2-vatthu of heretics who held that the\nBuddha remained in the Tusita heaven and that the law was preached on\nearth not by him but by Ananda and the commentary[46] ascribes these\nviews to the Vetulyakas. The reticence of the Sinhalese chronicles\nmakes it doubtful whether the Vetulyakas of Ceylon and these heretics\nare identical but probably the monks of the Abhayagiri, if not\nstrictly speaking Mahayanist, were an off-shoot of an ancient sect\nwhich contained some germs of the Mahayana. Hs\u00fcan Chuang in his\nnarrative[47] states (probably from hearsay) that the monks of the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra were Hinayanists but that both vehicles were studied at the\nAbhayagiri. I-Ching on the contrary says expressly that all the\nSinhalese belonged to the \u00c2ryasthavira Nik\u00e2ya. Fa-Hsien describes the\nBuddhism of Ceylon as he saw it about 412 A.D., but does not apply to\nit the terms Hina or Mahayana. He evidently regarded the Abhayagiri as\nthe principal religious centre and says it had 5000 monks as against\n3000 in the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, but though he dwells on the gorgeous\nceremonial, the veneration of the sacred tooth, the representations of\nGotama's previous lives, and the images of Maitreya, he does not\nallude to the worship of Avalokita and Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee or to anything that\ncan be called definitely Mahayanist. He describes a florid and\nsomewhat superstitious worship which may have tended to regard the\nBuddha as superhuman, but the relics of Gotama's body were its chief\nvisible symbols and we have no ground for assuming that such teaching\nas is found in the Lotus s\u00fbtra was its theological basis. Yet we may\nlegitimately suspect that the traditions of the Abhayagiri remount to\nearly prototypes of that teaching.\n\nIn the second and third centuries the Court seems to have favoured the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra and King Go\u1e6dh\u00e2bhaya banished monks belonging to the\nVetulya sect,[48] but in spite of this a monk of the Abhayagiri named\nSanghamitta obtained his confidence and that of his son, Mah\u00e2sena, who\noccupied the throne from 275 to 302 A.D. The Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra was destroyed\nand its occupants persecuted at Sanghamitta's instigation but he was\nmurdered and after his death the great Monastery was rebuilt. The\ntriumph however was not complete for Mah\u00e2sena built a new monastery\ncalled Jetavana on ground belonging to the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra and asked the\nmonks to abandon this portion of their territory. They refused and\naccording to the Mah\u00e2vamsa ultimately succeeded in proving their\nrights before a court of law. But the Jetavana remained as the\nheadquarters of a sect known as Sagaliyas. They appear to have been\nmoderately orthodox, but to have had their own text of the Vinaya for\naccording to the Commentary[49] on the Mah\u00e2vamsa they \"separated the\ntwo Vibhangas of the Bhagav\u00e2[50] from the Vinaya ... altering their\nmeaning and misquoting their contents.\" In the opinion of the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra both the Abhayagiri and Jetavana were schismatical, but the\nlaity appear to have given their respect and offerings to all three\nimpartially and the Mah\u00e2vamsa several times records how the same\nindividual honoured the three Confraternities.\n\nWith the death of Mah\u00e2sena ends the first and oldest part of the\nMah\u00e2vamsa, and also in native opinion the grand period of Sinhalese\nhistory, the subsequent kings being known as the C\u00fblava\u1e43sa or minor\ndynasty. A continuation[51] of the chronicle takes up the story and\ntells of the doings of Mah\u00e2sena's son Sirimeghava\u1e47\u1e47a.[52] Judged\nby the standard of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, he was fairly satisfactory. He\nrebuilt the Lohapas\u00e2da and caused a golden image of Mahinda to be made\nand carried in procession. This veneration of the founder of a\nlocal church reminds one of the respect shown to the images of\nhalf-deified abbots in Tibet, China and Japan. But the king did not\nneglect the Abhayagiri or assign it a lower position than the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra for he gave it partial custody of the celebrated relic\nknown as the Buddha's tooth which was brought to Ceylon from Kalinga\nin the ninth year of his reign and has ever since been considered the\npalladium of the island.\n\n2\n\n\nIt may not be amiss to consider here briefly what is known of the\nhistory of the Buddha's relics and especially of this tooth. Of the\nminor distinctions between Buddhism and Hinduism one of the sharpest\nis this cultus. Hindu temples are often erected over natural objects\nsupposed to resemble the footprint or some member of a deity and\nsometimes tombs receive veneration.[53] But no case appears to be\nknown in which either Hindus or Jains show reverence to the bones or\nother fragments of a human body. It is hence remarkable that\nrelic-worship should be so wide-spread in Buddhism and appear so early\nin its history. The earliest Buddhist monuments depict figures\nworshipping at a stupa, which was probably a reliquary, and there is\nno reason to distrust the traditions which carry the practice back at\nleast to the reign of Asoka. The principal cause for its prevalence\nwas no doubt that Buddhism, while creating a powerful religious\ncurrent, provided hardly any objects of worship for the faithful.[54]\nIt is also probable that the rudiments of relic worship existed in the\ndistricts frequented by the Buddha. The account of his death states\nthat after the cremation of his body the Mallas placed his bones in\ntheir council hall and honoured them with songs and dances. Then eight\ncommunities or individuals demanded a portion of the relics and over\neach portion a cairn was built. These proceedings are mentioned as if\nthey were the usual ceremonial observed on the death of a great man\nand in the same Sutta[55] the Buddha himself mentions four classes\nof men worthy of a cairn or dagoba.[56] We may perhaps conclude that\nin the earliest ages of Buddhism it was usual in north-eastern India\nto honour the bones of a distinguished man after cremation and inter\nthem under a monument. This is not exactly relic worship but it has in\nit the root of the later tree. The Pi\u1e6dakas contain little about the\npractice but the Milinda Pa\u00f1ha discusses the question at length and in\none passage[57] endeavours to reconcile two sayings of the Buddha,\n\"Hinder not yourselves by honouring the remains of the Tath\u00e2gatha\" and\n\"Honour that relic of him who is worthy of honour.\" It is the first\nutterance rather than the second that seems to have the genuine ring\nof Gotama.\n\nThe earliest known relics are those discovered in the stupa of Pipr\u00e2v\u00e2\non the borders of Nepal in 1898. Their precise nature and the date of\nthe inscription describing them have been the subject of much\ndiscussion. Some authorities think that this stupa may be one of those\nerected over a portion of the Buddha's ashes after his funeral. Even\nBarth, a most cautious and sceptical scholar, admitted[58] first that\nthe inscription is not later than Asoka, secondly that the vase is a\nreliquary containing what were believed to be bones of the Buddha.\nThus in the time of Asoka the worship of the Buddha's relics was well\nknown and I see no reason why the inscription should not be anterior\nto that time.\n\nAccording to Buddhaghosa's _Sumangalavil\u00e2sin\u00ee_ and Sinhalese texts\nwhich though late are based on early material[59], Mah\u00e2kassapa\ninstigated Aj\u00e2tasattu to collect the relics of the Buddha, and to\nplace them in a stupa, there to await the advent of Asoka. In Asoka's\ntime the stupa had become overgrown and hidden by jungle but when the\nking was in search of relics, its position was revealed to him. He\nfound inside it an inscription authorizing him to disperse the\ncontents and proceeded to distribute them among the 84,000\nmonasteries which he is said to have constructed.\n\nIn its main outlines this account is probable. Aj\u00e2tasattu conquered\nthe Licchavis and other small states to the north of Magadha and if he\nwas convinced of the importance of the Buddha's relics it would be\nnatural that he should transport them to his capital, regarding them\nperhaps as talismans.[60] Here they were neglected, though not\ndamaged, in the reigns of Brahmanical kings and were rescued from\noblivion by Asoka, who being sovereign of all India and anxious to\nspread Buddhism throughout his dominions would be likely to distribute\nthe relics as widely as he distributed his pillars and inscriptions.\nBut later Buddhist kings could not emulate this imperial impartiality\nand we may surmise that such a monarch as Kanishka would see to it\nthat all the principal relics in northern India found their way to his\ncapital. The bones discovered at Peshawar are doubtless those\nconsidered most authentic in his reign.\n\nNext to the tooth, the most interesting relic of the Buddha was his\n_patra_ or alms-bowl, which plays a part somewhat similar to that of\nthe Holy Grail in Christian romance. The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa states that\nAsoka sent it to Ceylon, but the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien[61] saw it\nat Peshawar about 405 A.D. It was shown to the people daily at the\nmidday and evening services. The pilgrim thought it contained about\ntwo pecks yet such were its miraculous properties that the poor could\nfill it with a gift of a few flowers, whereas the rich cast in myriads\nof bushels and found there was still room for more. A few years later\nFa-Hsien heard a sermon in Ceylon[62] in which the preacher predicted\nthat the bowl would be taken in the course of centuries to Central\nAsia, China, Ceylon and Central India whence it would ultimately\nascend to the Tusita heaven for the use of the future Buddha. Later\naccounts to some extent record the fulfilment of these predictions\ninasmuch as they relate how the bowl (or bowls) passed from land to\nland but the story of its wandering may have little foundation since\nit is combined with the idea that it is wafted from shrine to shrine\naccording as the faith is nourishing or decadent. Hs\u00fcan Chuang says\nthat it \"had gone on from Peshawar to several countries and was\nnow in Persia.[63]\" A Mohammedan legend relates that it is at Kandahar\nand will contain any quantity of liquid without overflowing. Marco\nPolo says Kublai Khan sent an embassy in 1284 to bring it from Ceylon\nto China.[64]\n\nThe wanderings of the tooth, though almost as surprising as those of\nthe bowl, rest on better historical evidence, but there is probably\nmore continuity in the story than in the holy object of which it is\nrelated, for the piece of bone which is credited with being the left\ncanine tooth of the Blessed One may have been changed on more than one\noccasion. The Sinhalese chronicles,[65] as mentioned, say that it was\nbrought to Ceylon in the ninth year of Sirimeghava\u1e47\u1e47a.[66] This\ndate may be approximately correct for about 413 or later Fa-Hsien\ndescribed the annual festival of the tooth, during which it was\nexposed for veneration at the Abhayagiri monastery, without indicating\nthat the usage was recent.\n\nThe tooth did not, according to Sinhalese tradition, form part of the\nrelics distributed after the cremation of the Buddha. Seven bones,\nincluding four teeth,[67] were excepted from that distribution and\nthe Sage Khema taking the left canine tooth direct from the funeral\npyre gave it to the king of Kalinga, who enshrined it in a gorgeous\ntemple at Dantapura[68] where it is supposed to have remained 800\nyears. At the end of that period a pious king named Guhasiva\nbecame involved in disastrous wars on account of the relic, and, as\nthe best means of preserving it, bade his daughter fly with her\nhusband[69] and take it to Ceylon. This, after some miraculous\nadventures, they were able to do. The tooth was received with great\nceremony and lodged in an edifice called the Dhammacakka from which it\nwas taken every year for a temporary sojourn[70] in the Abhayagiri\nmonastery.\n\nThe cultus of the tooth flourished exceedingly in the next few\ncenturies and it came to be regarded as the talisman of the king and\nnation. Hence when the court moved from Anuradhapura to Pollunaruwa it\nwas installed in the new capital. In the troubled times which followed\nit changed its residence some fifteen times. Early in the fourteenth\ncentury it was carried off by the Tamils to southern India but was\nrecovered by Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu III and during the commotion created by\nthe invasions of the Tamils, Chinese and Portuguese it was hidden in\nvarious cities. In 1560 Dom Constantino de Bragan\u00e7a, Portuguese\nViceroy of Goa, led a crusade against Jaffna to avenge the alleged\npersecution of Christians, and when the town was sacked a relic,\ndescribed as the tooth of an ape mounted in gold, was found in a\ntemple and carried off to Goa. On this Bayin Naung, King of Pegu,\noffered an enormous ransom to redeem it, which the secular government\nwished to accept, but the clergy and inquisition put such pressure on\nthe Viceroy that he rejected the proposal. The archbishop of Goa\npounded the tooth in a mortar before the viceregal court, burned the\nfragments and scattered the ashes over the sea.[71]\n\nBut the singular result of this bigotry was not to destroy one sacred\ntooth but to create two. The king of Pegu, who wished to marry a\nSinhalese princess, sent an embassy to Ceylon to arrange the match.\nThey were received by the king of Cotta, who bore the curiously\ncombined name of Don Juan Dharmap\u00e2la. He had no daughter of his own\nbut palmed off the daughter of a chamberlain. At the same time he\ninformed the king of Pegu that the tooth destroyed at Goa was not\nthe real relic and that this still remained in his possession. Bayin\nNaung was induced to marry the lady and received the tooth with\nappropriate ceremonies. But when the king of Kandy heard of these\ndoings, he apprized the king of Pegu of the double trick that had been\nplayed on him. He offered him his own daughter, a veritable princess,\nin marriage and as her dowry the true tooth which, he said, was\nneither that destroyed at Goa nor yet that sent to Pegu, but one in\nhis own possession. Bayin Naung received the Kandyan embassy politely\nbut rejected its proposals, thinking no doubt that it would be awkward\nto declare the first tooth spurious after it had been solemnly\ninstalled as a sacred relic. The second tooth therefore remained in\nKandy and appears to be that now venerated there. When Vimala Dharma\nre-established the original line of kings, about 1592, it was accepted\nas authentic.\n\nAs to its authenticity, it appears to be beyond doubt that it is a\npiece of discoloured bone about two inches long, which could never\nhave been the tooth of an ordinary human being, so that even the\nfaithful can only contend that the Buddha was of superhuman stature.\nWhether it is the relic which was venerated in Ceylon before the\narrival of the Portuguese is a more difficult question, for it may be\nargued with equal plausibility that the Sinhalese had good reasons for\nhiding the real tooth and good reasons for duplicating it. The\nstrongest argument against the authenticity of the relic destroyed by\nthe Portuguese is that it was found in Jaffna, which had long been a\nTamil town, whereas there is no reason to believe that the real tooth\nwas at this time in Tamil custody. But, although the native\nliterature always speaks of it as unique, the Sinhalese appear to have\nproduced replicas more than once, for we hear of such being sent to\nBurma and China.[72] Again, the offer to ransom the tooth came not\nfrom Ceylon but from the king of Pegu, who, as the sequel shows, was\ngullible in such matters: the Portuguese clearly thought that they had\nacquired a relic of primary importance; on any hypothesis one of the\nkings of Ceylon must have deceived the king of Pegu, and finally\nVimala Dharma had the strongest political reasons for accepting as\ngenuine the relic kept at Kandy, since the possession of the true\ntooth went far to substantiate a Sinhalese monarch's right to the\nthrone.\n\nThe tooth is now preserved in a temple at Kandy. The visitor looking\nthrough a screen of bars can see on a silver table a large jewelled\ncase shaped like a bell. Flowers scattered on the floor or piled on\nother tables fill the chamber with their heavy perfume. Inside the\nbell are six other bells of diminishing size, the innermost of which\ncovers a golden lotus containing the sacred tooth. But it is only on\nrare occasions that the outer caskets are removed. Worshippers as a\nrule have to content themselves with offering flowers[73] and bowing\nbut I was informed that the priests celebrate _puja_ daily before the\nrelic. The ceremony comprises the consecration and distribution of\nrice and is interesting as connecting the veneration of the tooth with\nthe ritual observed in Hindu temples. But we must return to the\ngeneral history of Buddhism in Ceylon.\n\n3\n\n\nThe kings who ruled in the fifth century were devout Buddhists and\nbuilders of vih\u00e2ras but the most important event of this period, not\nmerely for the island but for the whole Buddhist church in the south,\nwas the literary activity of Buddhaghosa who is said to have resided\nin Ceylon during the reign of Mah\u00e2n\u00e2ma. The chief authorities for his\nlife are a passage in the continuation of the Mah\u00e2vamsa[74] and the\nBuddhaghosuppatti, a late Burmese text of about 1550, which, while\nadding many anecdotes, appears not to come from an independent\nsource.[75] The gist of their account is that he was born in a Brahman\nfamily near Gaya and early obtained renown as a disputant. He was\nconverted to Buddhism by a monk named Revata and began to write\ntheological treatises.[76] Revata observing his intention to\ncompose a commentary on the Pi\u1e6dakas, told him that only the text\n(p\u00e2limattam) of the scriptures was to be found in India, not the\nancient commentaries, but that the Sinhalese commentaries were\ngenuine, having been composed in that language by Mahinda. He\ntherefore bade Buddhaghosa repair to Ceylon and translate these\nSinhalese works into the idiom of Magadha, by which Pali must be\nmeant. Buddhaghosa took this advice and there is no reason to distrust\nthe statement of the Mah\u00e2vamsa that he arrived in the reign of\nMah\u00e2n\u00e2ma, who ruled according to Geiger from 458 to 480, though the\nusual reckoning places him about fifty years earlier. The fact that\nFa-Hsien, who visited Ceylon about 412, does not mention Buddhaghosa\nis in favour of Geiger's chronology.[77]\n\nHe first studied in the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra and eventually requested permission\nto translate the Sinhalese commentaries. To prove his competence for\nthe task he composed the celebrated Visuddhi-magga, and, this being\nconsidered satisfactory, he took up his residence in the Ganth\u00e2kara\nVih\u00e2ra and proceeded to the work of translation. When it was finished\nhe returned to India or according to the Talaing tradition to Thaton.\nThe Buddhaghosuppatti adds two stories of which the truth and meaning\nare equally doubtful. They are that Buddhaghosa burnt the works\nwritten by Mahinda and that his knowledge of Sanskrit was called in\nquestion but triumphantly proved. Can there be here any allusion to a\nSanskrit canon supported by the opponents of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra?\n\nEven in its main outline the story is not very coherent for one would\nimagine that, if a Buddhist from Magadha went to Ceylon to translate\nthe Sinhalese commentaries, his object must have been to introduce\nthem among Indian Buddhists. But there is no evidence that Buddhaghosa\ndid this and he is for us simply a great figure in the literary and\nreligious history of Ceylon. Burmese tradition maintains that he was a\nnative of Thaton and returned thither, when his labours in Ceylon were\ncompleted, to spread the scriptures in his native language. This\nversion of his activity is intelligible, though the evidence for it is\nweak.\n\nHe composed a great corpus of exegetical literature which has been\npreserved, but, since much of it is still unedited, the precise extent\nof his labours is uncertain. There is however little doubt of the\nauthenticity of his commentaries on the four great Nik\u00e2yas, on the\nAbhidhamma and on the Vinaya (called Samanta-p\u00e2s\u00e2dik\u00e2) and in them[78]\nhe refers to the Visuddhi-magga as his own work. He says expressly\nthat his explanations are founded on Sinhalese materials, which he\nfrequently cites as the opinion of the ancients (por\u00e2n\u00e2). By this word\nhe probably means traditions recorded in Sinhalese and attributed to\nMahinda, but it is in any case clear that the works which he consulted\nwere considered old in the fifth century A.D. Some of their names are\npreserved in the Samanta-p\u00e2s\u00e2dik\u00e2 where he mentions the great\ncommentary (Mah\u00e2-A\u1e6d\u1e6dhakath\u00e2), the Raft commentary (Paccari, so\ncalled because written on a raft), the Kurundi commentary composed at\nKurunda-Velu and others[79]. All this literature has disappeared and\nwe can only judge of it by Buddhaghosa's reproduction which is\nprobably not a translation but a selection and rearrangement. Indeed\nhis occasional direct quotations from the ancients or from an\nA\u1e6d\u1e6dhakath\u00e2 imply that the rest of the work is merely based on\nthe Sinhalese commentaries.\n\nBuddhaghosa was not an independent thinker but he makes amends for his\nwant of originality not only by his industry and learning but by his\npower of grasping and expounding the whole of an intricate subject.\nHis Visuddhi-magga has not yet been edited in Europe, but the extracts\nand copious analysis[80] which have been published indicate that it is\na comprehensive restatement of Buddhist doctrine made with as free a\nhand as orthodoxy permitted. The Mah\u00e2vamsa observes that the Theras\nheld his works in the same estimation as the Pi\u1e6dakas. They are in\nno way coloured by the Mahayanist tenets which were already prevalent\nin India, but state in its severest form the Hinayanist creed, of\nwhich he is the most authoritative exponent. The Visuddhi-magga is\ndivided into three parts treating of conduct (s\u00eelam), meditation\n(sam\u00e2dhi) and knowledge (pa\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2), the first being the necessary\nsubstratum for the religious life of which the others are the two\nprincipal branches. But though he intersperses his exposition with\nmiraculous stories and treats exhaustively of superhuman powers, no\ntrace of the worship of Mahayanist Bodhisattvas is found in his works\nand, as for literature, he himself is the chief authority for the\ngenuineness and completeness of the Pali Canon as we know it.\n\nWhen we find it said that his works were esteemed as highly as the\nPi\u1e6dakas, or that the documents which he translated into Pali were\nthe words of the Buddha[81], the suspicion naturally arises that the\nPali Canon may be in part his composition and it may be well to review\nbriefly its history in Ceylon. Our knowledge appears to be derived\nentirely from the traditions of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra which represent Mahinda\nas teaching the text of the Pi\u1e6dakas orally, accompanied by a\ncommentary. If we admit the general truth of the narrative concerning\nMahinda's mission, there is nothing improbable in these statements,\nfor it would be natural that an Indian teacher should know by heart\nhis sacred texts and the commentaries on them. We cannot of course\nassume that the Pi\u1e6dakas of Mahinda were the Pali Canon as we know\nit, but the inscriptions of Asoka refer to passages which can be found\nin that canon and therefore parts of it at any rate must have been\naccepted as scripture in the third century B.C. But it is probable\nthat considerable variation was permitted in the text, although the\nsense and a certain terminology were carefully guarded. It was not\ntill the reign of Va\u1e6d\u1e6dag\u00e2ma\u1e47i, probably about 20 B.C., that\nthe canon was committed to writing and the Pariv\u00e2ra, composed in\nCeylon[82], was included in it.\n\nIn the reign of Buddhad\u00e2sa[83] a learned monk named Mah\u00e2dhammakathi is\nsaid to have translated the Suttas into Sinhalese, which at this time\nwas esteemed the proper language for letters and theology, but in the\nnext century a contrary tendency, probably initiated by Buddhaghosa,\nbecomes apparent and Sinhalese works are rewritten in Pali.[84] But\nnothing indicates that any part of what we call the Pali Canon\nunderwent this process. Buddhaghosa distinguishes clearly between text\nand comment, between Pali and Sinhalese documents. He has a coherent\nhistory of the text, beginning with the Council of R\u00e2jagaha; he\ndiscusses various readings, he explains difficult words. He treated\nthe ancient commentaries with freedom, but there is no reason to think\nthat he allowed himself any discretion or right of selection in\ndealing with the sacred texts accepted by the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, though it\nmight be prudent to await the publication of his commentaries on all\nthe Nik\u00e2yas before asserting this unreservedly.\n\nTo sum up, the available evidence points to the conclusion that in the\ntime of Asoka texts and commentaries preserved orally were brought to\nCeylon. The former, though in a somewhat fluid condition, were\nsufficiently sacred to be kept unchanged in the original Indian\nlanguage, the latter were translated into the kindred but still\ndistinct vernacular of the island. In the next century and a half\nsome additions to the Pali texts were made and about 20 B.C. the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, which proved as superior to the other communities in\nvitality as it was in antiquity, caused written copies to be made of\nwhat it considered as the canon, including some recent works. There is\nno evidence that Buddhaghosa or anyone else enlarged or curtailed the\ncanon, but the curious tradition that he collected and burned all the\nbooks written by Mahinda in Sinhalese[85] may allude to the existence\nof other works which he (presumably in agreement with the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra)\nconsidered spurious.\n\nSoon after the departure of Buddhaghosa Dh\u00e2tusena came to the throne\nand \"held like Dhammasoka a convocation about the three\nPi\u1e6dakas.\"[86] This implies that there was still some doubt as to\nwhat was scripture and that the canon of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra was not\nuniversally accepted. The Vetulyas, of whom we heard in the third\ncentury A.D., reappear in the seventh when they are said to have been\nsupported by a provincial governor but not by the king Aggabodhi[87]\nand still more explicitly in the reign of Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu (c. 1160). He\nendeavoured to reconcile to the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra \"the Abhayagiri brethren\nwho separated themselves from the time of king Va\u1e6d\u1e6dag\u00e2ma\u1e47i\nAbhaya and the Jetavana brethren that had parted since the days of\nMah\u00e2sena and taught the Vetulla Pi\u1e6daka and other writings as the\nwords of Buddha, which indeed were not the words of Buddha[88].\" So it\nappears that another recension of the canon was in existence for many\ncenturies.\n\nDh\u00e2tusena, though depicted in the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa as a most orthodox\nmonarch, embellished the Abhayagiri monastery and was addicted to\nsumptuous ceremonies in honour of images and relics. Thus he made an\nimage of Mahinda, dedicated a shrine and statue to Metteyya and\nornamented the effigies of Buddha with the royal jewels. In an image\nchamber (apparently at the Abhayagiri) he set up figures of\nBodhisattvas,[89] by which we should perhaps understand the previous\nbirths of Gotama. He was killed by his son and Sinhalese history\ndegenerated into a complicated story of crime and discord, in which\nthe weaker faction generally sought the aid of the Tamils. These\nlatter became more and more powerful and with their advance Buddhism\ntended to give place to Hinduism. In the eighth century the court\nremoved from Anuradhapura to Pollannaruwa, in order to escape from the\npressure of the Tamils, but the picture of anarchy and decadence grows\nmore and more gloomy until the accession of Vijaya B\u00e2hu in 1071 who\nsucceeded in making himself king of all Ceylon. Though he recovered\nAnuradhapura it was not made the royal residence either by himself or\nby his greater successor, Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu.[90] This monarch, the most\neminent in the long list of Ceylon's sovereigns, after he had\nconsolidated his power, devoted himself, in the words of Tennent, \"to\nthe two grand objects of royal solicitude, religion and agriculture.\"\nHe was lavish in building monasteries, temples and libraries, but not\nless generous in constructing or repairing tanks and works of\nirrigation. In the reign of Vijaya B\u00e2hu hardly any duly ordained monks\nwere to be found,[91] the succession having been interrupted, and the\ndeficiency was supplied by bringing qualified Theras from Burma. But\nby the time of Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu the old quarrels of the monasteries\nrevived, and, as he was anxious to secure unity, he summoned a synod\nat Anuradhapura. It appears to have attained its object by recognizing\nthe Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra as the standard of orthodoxy and dealing summarily with\ndissentients.[92] The secular side of monastic life also received\nliberal attention. Lands, revenues and guest-houses were provided for\nthe monasteries as well as hospitals. As in Burma and Siam Brahmans\nwere respected and the king erected a building for their use in the\ncapital. Like Asoka, he forbade the killing of animals.\n\nBut the glory of Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu stands up in the later history of\nCeylon like an isolated peak and thirty years after his death the\ncountry had fallen almost to its previous low level of prosperity. The\nTamils again occupied many districts and were never entirely dislodged\nas long as the Sinhalese kingdom lasted. Buddhism tended to decline\nbut was always the religion of the national party and was honoured\nwith as much magnificence as their means allowed. Par\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu II\n(c. 1240), who recovered the sacred tooth from the Tamils, is said to\nhave celebrated splendid festivals and to have imported learned monks\nfrom the country of the Colas.[93] Towards the end of the fifteenth\ncentury the inscriptions of Kalyani indicate that Sinhalese religion\nenjoyed a great reputation in Burma.[94]\n\nA further change adverse to Buddhism was occasioned by the arrival of\nthe Portuguese in 1505. A long and horrible struggle ensued between\nthem and the various kings among whom the distracted island was\ndivided until at the end of the sixteenth century only Kandy remained\nindependent, the whole coast being in the hands of the Portuguese. The\nsingular barbarities which they perpetrated throughout this struggle\nare vouched for by their own historians,[95] but it does not appear\nthat the Sinhalese degraded themselves by similar atrocities.\nSince the Portuguese wished to propagate Roman Catholicism as well as\nto extend their political rule and used for this purpose (according to\nthe Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa) the persuasions of gold as well as the terrors of\ntorture, it is not surprising if many Sinhalese professed allegiance\nto Christianity, but when in 1597 the greater part of Ceylon formally\naccepted Portuguese sovereignty, the chiefs insisted that they should\nbe allowed to retain their own religion and customs.\n\nThe Dutch first appeared in 1602 and were welcomed by the Court of\nKandy as allies capable of expelling the Portuguese. This they\nsucceeded in doing by a series of victories between 1638 and 1658, and\nremained masters of a great part of the island until their possessions\nwere taken by the British in 1795. Kandy however continued independent\nuntil 1815. At first the Dutch tried to enforce Christianity and to\nprohibit Buddhism within their territory[96] but ultimately hatred of\nthe Roman Catholic church made them favourable to Buddhism and they\nwere ready to assist those kings who desired to restore the national\nreligion to its former splendour.\n\n4\n\n\nIn spite of this assistance the centuries when the Sinhalese were\ncontending with Europeans were not a prosperous time for Buddhism.\nHinduism spread in the north,[97] Christianity in the coast belt, but\nstill it was a point of honour with most native sovereigns to protect\nthe national religion so far as their distressed condition allowed.\nFor the seventeenth century we have an interesting account of the\nstate of the country called _An Historical Relation of the Island of\nCeylon_ by an Englishman, Robert Knox, who was detained by the king of\nKandy from 1660 to 1680. He does not seem to have been aware that\nthere was any distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Though he\ndescribes the Sinhalese as idolaters, he also emphasizes the fact that\nBuddou (as he writes the name) is the God \"unto whom the salvation of\nsouls belongs,\" and for whom \"above all others they have a high\nrespect and devotion.\" He also describes the ceremonies of pirit\nand bana, the perahera procession, and two classes of Buddhist monks,\nthe elders and the ordinary members of the Sangha. His narrative\nindicates that Buddhism was accepted as the higher religion, though\nmen were prone to pray to deities who would save from temporal danger.\n\nAbout this time Vimala Dharma II[98] made great efforts to improve the\nreligious condition of the island and finding that the true succession\nhad again failed, arranged with the Dutch to send an embassy to Arakan\nand bring back qualified Theras. But apparently the steps taken were\nnot sufficient, for when king Kittisiri R\u00e2jasiha (1747-81), whose\npiety forms the theme of the last two chapters of the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa,\nset about reforming the Sangha, he found that duly ordained monks were\nextinct and that many so-called monks had families. He therefore\ndecided to apply to Dhammika, king of Ayuthia in Siam, and like his\npredecessor despatched an embassy on a Dutch ship. Dhammika sent back\na company of \"more than ten monks\" (that is more than sufficient for\nthe performance of all ecclesiastical acts) under the Abbot Up\u00e2li in\n1752 and another to relieve it in 1755.[99] They were received by the\nking of Ceylon with great honour and subsequently by the ordination\nwhich they conferred placed the succession beyond dispute. But the\norder thus reconstituted was aristocratic and exclusive: only members\nof the highest caste were admitted to it and the wealthy middle\nclasses found themselves excluded from a community which they were\nexpected to honour and maintain. This led to the despatch of an\nembassy to Burma in 1802 and to the foundation of another branch of\nthe Sangha, known as the Amarapura school, distinct in so far as its\nvalidity depended on Burmese not Siamese ordination.\n\nSince ordination is for Buddhists merely self-dedication to a higher\nlife and does not confer any sacramental or sacerdotal powers, the\nimportance assigned to it may seem strange. But the idea goes back to\nthe oldest records in the Vinaya and has its root in the privileges\naccorded to the order. A Bhikkhu had a right to expect much from the\nlaity, but he also had to prove his worth and Gotama's early\nlegislation was largely concerned with excluding unsuitable\ncandidates. The solicitude for valid ordination was only the\necclesiastical form of the popular feeling that the honours and\nimmunities of the order were conditional on its maintaining a certain\nstandard of conduct. Other methods of reform might have been devised,\nbut the old injunction that a monk could be admitted only by other\nduly ordained monks was fairly efficacious and could not be disputed.\nBut the curious result is that though Ceylon was in early times the\nsecond home of Buddhism, almost all (if indeed not all) the monks\nfound there now derive their right to the title of Bhikkhu from\nforeign countries.\n\nThe Sinhalese Sangha is generally described as divided into four\nschools, those of Siam, Kelani, Amarapura and Ramanya, of which the\nfirst two are practically identical, Kelani being simply a separate\nprovince of the Siamese school, which otherwise has its headquarters in\nthe inland districts. This school, founded as mentioned above by priests\nwho arrived in 1750, comprises about half of the whole Sangha and has\nsome pretensions to represent the hierarchy of Ceylon, since the last\nkings of Kandy gave to the heads of the two great monasteries in the\ncapital, Asgiri and Malwatte, jurisdiction over the north and south of\nthe island respectively. It differs in some particulars from the\nAmarapura school. It only admits members of the highest caste and\nprescribes that monks are to wear the upper robe over one shoulder only,\nwhereas the Amarapurans admit members of the first three castes (but not\nthose lower in the social scale) and require both shoulders to be\ncovered. There are other minor differences among which it is interesting\nto note that the Siamese school object to the use of the formula \"I\ndedicate this gift to the Buddha\" which is used in the other schools\nwhen anything is presented to the order for the use of the monks. It is\nheld that this expression was correct in the lifetime of the Buddha but\nnot after his death. The two schools are not mutually hostile, and\nmembers of each find a hospitable reception in the monasteries of the\nother. The laity patronize both indifferently and both frequent the\nsame places of pilgrimage, though all of these and the majority of the\ntemple lands belong to the sect of Siam. It is wealthy, aristocratic and\nhas inherited the ancient traditions of Ceylon, whereas the Amarapurans\nare more active and inclined to propaganda. It is said they are the\nchief allies of the Theosophists and European Buddhists. The\nRamanya[100] school is more recent and distinct than the others, being\nin some ways a reformed community. It aims at greater strictness of\nlife, forbidding monasteries to hold property and insisting on genuine\npoverty. It also totally rejects the worship of Hindu deities and its\nlay members do not recognize the monks of other schools. It is not large\nbut its influence is considerable.\n\nIt has been said that Buddhism flourished in Ceylon only when it was\nable to secure the royal favour. There is some truth in this, for the\nSangha does not struggle on its own behalf but expects the laity to\nprovide for its material needs, making a return in educational and\nreligious services. Such a body if not absolutely dependent on royal\npatronage has at least much to gain from it. Yet this admission must\nnot blind us to the fact that during its long and often distinguished\nhistory Sinhalese Buddhism has been truly the national faith, as\nopposed to the beliefs of various invaders, and has also ministered to\nthe spiritual aspirations of the nation. As Knox said in a period when\nit was not particularly flourishing, the Hindu gods look after worldly\naffairs but Buddha after the soul. When the island passed under\nBritish rule and all religions received impartial recognition, the\nresult was not disastrous to Buddhism: the number of Bhikkhus greatly\nincreased, especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century.\nAnd if in earlier periods there was an interval in which technically\nspeaking the Sangha did not exist, this did not mean that interest in\nit ceased, for as soon as the kingdom became prosperous the first care\nof the kings was to set the Church in order. This zeal can be\nattributed to nothing but conviction and affection, for Buddhism is\nnot a faith politically useful to an energetic and warlike prince.\n\n5\n\n\nSinhalese Buddhism is often styled primitive or original and it may\nfairly be said to preserve in substance both the doctrine and practice\ninculcated in the earliest Pali literature. In calling this primitive we\nmust remember the possibility that some of this literature was\nelaborated in Ceylon itself. But, putting the text of the Pi\u1e6dakas\naside, it would seem that the early Sinhalese Buddhism was the same as\nthat of Asoka, and that it never underwent any important change. It is\ntrue that medi\u00e6val Sinhalese literature is full of supernatural legends\nrespecting the Buddha,[101] but still he does not become a god (for he\nhas attained Nirvana) and the great Bodhisattvas, Avalokita and\nManju\u015br\u00ee, are practically unknown. The _Abhidhammattha-sangaha_,[102]\nwhich is still the text-book most in use among the Bhikkhus, adheres\nrigidly to the methods of the Abhidhamma.[103] It contains neither\ndevotional nor magical matter but prescribes a course of austere mental\ntraining, based on psychological analysis and culminating in the rapture\nof meditation. Such studies and exercises are beyond the capacity of the\nmajority, but no other road to salvation is officially sanctioned for\nthe Bhikkhu. It is admitted that there are no Arhats now--just as\nChristianity has no contemporary saints--but no other ideal, such as the\nBoddhisattva of the Mahayanists, is held up for imitation.\n\nMedi\u00e6val images of Avalokita and of goddesses have however been found\nin Ceylon.[104] This is hardly surprising for the island was on the\nmain road to China, Java, and Camboja[105] and Mahayanist teachers and\npilgrims must have continually passed through it. The Chinese\nbiographies of that eminent tantrist, Amogha, say that he went to\nCeylon in 741 and elaborated his system there before returning to\nChina. It is said that in 1408 the Chinese being angry at the\nill-treatment of envoys whom they had sent to the shrine of the tooth,\nconquered Ceylon and made it pay tribute for fifty years. By\nconquest no doubt is meant merely a military success and not\noccupation, but the whole story implies possibilities of acquaintance\nwith Chinese Buddhism.\n\nIt is clear that, though the Hinayanist church was predominant\nthroughout the history of the island, there were up to the twelfth\ncentury heretical sects called Vaitulya or Vetulyaka and V\u00e2jira which\nthough hardly rivals of orthodoxy were a thorn in its side. A party at\nthe Abhayagiri monastery were favourably disposed to the Vaitulya sect\nwhich, though often suppressed, recovered and reappeared, being\napparently reinforced from India. This need not mean from southern\nIndia, for Ceylon had regular intercourse with the north and perhaps\nthe Vaitulyas were Mahayanists from Bengal. The Nik\u00e2ya-Sangrahawa also\nmentions that in the ninth century there was a sect called\nN\u00eelapatadar\u015bana,[106] who wore blue robes and preached indulgence\nin wine and love. They were possibly Tantrists from the north but were\npersecuted in southern India and never influential in Ceylon.\n\nThe Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa is inclined to minimize the importance of all sects\ncompared with the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, but the picture given by the\nNik\u00e2ya-Sangrahawa may be more correct. It says that the Vaitulyas,\ndescribed as infidel Brahmans who had composed a Pi\u1e6daka of their\nown, made four attempts to obtain a footing at the Abhayagiri\nmonastery.[107] In the ninth century it represents king Matvalasen as\nhaving to fly because he had embraced the false doctrine of the\nV\u00e2jiras. These are mentioned in another passage in connection with the\nVaitulyas: they are said to have composed the G\u00fb\u1e0dha Vinaya[108] and\nmany Tantras. They perhaps were connected with the Vajray\u00e2na, a phase\nof Tantric Buddhism. But a few years later king Mungayinsen set the\nchurch in order. He recognized the three orthodox schools or nik\u00e2yas\ncalled Theriya, Dhammaruci and S\u00e2galiya but proscribed the others and\nset guards on the coast to prevent the importation of heresy.\nNevertheless the V\u00e2jiriya and Vaitulya doctrines were secretly\npractised. An inscription in Sanskrit found at the Jetavana and\nattributed to the ninth century[109] records the foundation of a\nVih\u00e2ra for a hundred resident monks, 25 from each of the four nik\u00e2yas,\nwhich it appears to regard as equivalent. But in 1165 the great\nPar\u00e2krama B\u00e2hu held a synod to restore unity in the church. As a\nresult, all Nik\u00e2yas (even the Dhammaruci) which did not conform to the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra were suppressed[110] and we hear no more of the Vaitulyas\nand V\u00e2jiriyas.\n\nThus there was once a Mahayanist faction in Ceylon, but it was\nrecruited from abroad, intermittent in activity and was finally\ndefeated, whereas the Hinayanist tradition was national and\ncontinuous.\n\nConsidering the long lapse of time, the monastic life of Ceylon has\nnot deviated much in practice from the injunctions of the Vinaya.\nMonasteries like those of Anuradhapura, which are said to have\ncontained thousands of monks, no longer exist. The largest now to be\nfound--those at Kandy--do not contain more than fifty but as a rule a\npansala (as these institutions are now called) has not more than five\nresidents and more often only two or three. Some pansalas have\nvillages assigned to them and some let their lands and do not scruple\nto receive the rent. The monks still follow the ancient routine of\nmaking a daily round with the begging bowl, but the food thus\ncollected is often given to the poor or even to animals and the\ninmates of the pansala eat a meal which has been cooked there. The\nP\u00e2timokkha is recited (at least in part) twice a month and ordinations\nare held annually.[111]\n\nThe duties of the Bhikkhus are partly educational, partly clerical. In\nmost villages the children receive elementary education gratis in the\npansala, and the preservation of the ancient texts, together with the\nlong list of Pali and Sinhalese works produced until recent times\nalmost exclusively by members of the Sangha,[112] is a proof that it\nhas not neglected literature. The chief public religious\nobservances are preaching and reading the scriptures. This latter,\nknown as Bana, is usually accompanied by a word for word translation\nmade by the reciter or an assistant. Such recitations may form part of\nthe ordinary ceremonial of Uposatha days and most religious\nestablishments have a room where they can be held, but often monks are\ninvited to reside in a village during Was (July to October) and read\nBana, and often a layman performs a pinkama or act of merit by\nentertaining monks for several days and inviting his neighbours to\nhear them recite. The recitation of the J\u00e2takas is particularly\npopular but the suttas of the D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya are also often read. On\nspecial occasions such as entry into a new house, an eclipse or any\nincident which suggests that it might be well to ward off the enmity\nof supernatural powers, it is usual to recite a collection of texts\ntaken largely from the Suttanip\u00e2ta and called Pirit. The word appears\nto be derived from the Pali _paritta_, a defence, and though the Pali\nscriptures do not sanction this use of the Buddha's discourses they\ncountenance the idea that evil may be averted by the use of\nformul\u00e6.[113]\n\nAlthough Sinhalese Buddhism has not diverged much from the Pali\nscriptures in its main doctrines and discipline, yet it tolerates a\nsuperstructure of Indian beliefs and ceremonies which forbid us to\ncall it pure except in a restricted sense. At present there may be\nsaid to be three religions in Ceylon; local animism, Hinduism and\nBuddhism are all inextricably mixed together. By local animism I mean\nthe worship of native spirits who do not belong to the ordinary Hindu\npantheon though they may be identified with its members. The priests\nof this worship are called Kapuralas and one of their principal\nceremonies consists in dancing until they are supposed to be possessed\nby a spirit--the devil dancing of Europeans. Though this religion is\ndistinct from ordinary Hinduism, its deities and ceremonies find\nparallels in the southern Tamil country. In Ceylon it is not merely a\nvillage superstition but possesses temples of considerable\nsize[114], for instance at Badulla and near Ratnapura. In the latter\nthere is a Buddhist shrine in the court yard, so that the Blessed One\nmay countenance the worship, much as the Pi\u1e6dakas represent him as\npatronizing and instructing the deities of ancient Magadha, but the\nstructure and observances of the temple itself are not Buddhist. The\nchief spirit worshipped at Ratnapura and in most of these temples is\nMah\u00e2 Saman, the god of Adam's Peak. He is sometimes identified with\nLakshmana, the brother of R\u00e2ma, and sometimes with Indra.\n\nAbout a quarter of the population are Tamils professing Hinduism.\nHindu temples of the ordinary Dravidian type are especially frequent\nin the northern districts, but they are found in most parts and at\nKandy two may be seen close to the shrine of the Tooth.[115] Buddhists\nfeel no scruple in frequenting them and the images of Hindu deities\nare habitually introduced into Buddhist temples. These often contain a\nhall, at the end of which are one or more sitting figures of the\nBuddha, on the right hand side a recumbent figure of him, but on the\nleft a row of four statues representing Mah\u00e2brahm\u00e2, Vish\u1e47u,\nK\u00e2rttikeya and Mah\u00e2s\u00e2man. Of these Vish\u1e47u generally receives marked\nattention, shown by the number of prayers written on slips of paper\nwhich are attached to his hand. Nor is this worship found merely as a\nsurvival in the older temples. The four figures appear in the newest\nedifices and the image of Vish\u1e47u never fails to attract votaries.\nYet though a rigid Buddhist may regard such devotion as dangerous, it\nis not treasonable, for Vish\u1e47u is regarded not as a competitor but\nas a very reverent admirer of the Buddha and anxious to befriend good\nBuddhists.\n\nEven more insidious is the pageantry which since the days of King\nTissa has been the outward sign of religion. It may be justified as\nbeing merely an edifying method of venerating the memory of a great\nman but when images and relics are treated with profound reverence or\ncarried in solemn procession it is hard for the ignorant, especially\nif they are accustomed to the ceremonial of Hindu temples, not to\nthink that these symbols are divine. This ornate ritualism is not\nauthorized in any known canonical text, but it is thoroughly\nIndian. Asoka records in his inscriptions the institution of religious\nprocessions and Hs\u00fcan Chuang relates how King Harsha organized a\nfestival during which an image of the Buddha was carried on an\nelephant while the monarch and his ally the king of Assam, dressed as\nIndra and Brahm\u00e2 respectively, waited on it like servants.[116] Such\nfestivities were congenial to the Sinhalese, as is attested by the\nlong series of descriptions which fill the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa down to the\nvery last book, by what Fa-Hsien saw about 412 and by the Perahera\nfestival celebrated to-day.\n\n6\n\n\nThe Buddhism of southern India resembled that of Ceylon in character\nthough not in history. It was introduced under the auspices of Asoka,\nwho mentions in his inscriptions the Colas, P\u00e2ndyas and\nKeralaputras.[117] Hs\u00fcan Chuang says that in the Malak\u00fbta country,\nsomewhere near Madura or Tanjore, there was a stupa erected by Asoka's\norders and also a monastery founded by Mahinda. It is possible that\nthis apostle and others laboured less in Ceylon and more in south\nIndia than is generally supposed. The pre-eminence and continuity of\nSinhalese Buddhism are due to the conservative temper of the natives\nwho were relatively little moved by the winds of religion which blew\nstrong on the mainland, bearing with them now Jainism, now the worship\nof Vish\u1e47u or \u015aiva.\n\nIn the Tamil country Buddhism of an Asokan type appears to have been\nprevalent about the time of our era. The poem Manimegalei, which by\ngeneral consent was composed in an early century A.D., is Buddhist but\nshows no leanings to Mahayanism. It speaks of \u015aivaism and many\nother systems[118] as flourishing, but contains no hint that Buddhism\nwas persecuted. But persecution or at least very unfavourable\nconditions set in. Since at the time of Hs\u00fcan Chuang's visit Buddhism\nwas in an advanced stage of decadence, it seems probable that the\ntriumph of \u015aivaism began in the third or fourth century and that\nBuddhism offered slight resistance, Jainism being the only serious\ncompetitor for the first place. But for a long while, perhaps even\nuntil the sixteenth century, monasteries were kept up in special\ncentres, and one of these is of peculiar importance, namely Kanc\u00eepuram\nor Conjeveram.[119] Hs\u00fcan Chuang found there 100 monasteries with more\nthan 10,000 brethren, all Sthaviras, and mentions that it was the\nbirthplace of Dharmap\u00e2la.[120] We have some further information from\nthe Talaing chronicles[121] which suggests the interesting hypothesis\nthat the Buddhism of Burma was introduced or refreshed by missionaries\nfrom southern India. They give a list of teachers who flourished in\nthat country, including Kacc\u00e2yana and the philosopher Anuruddha.[122]\nOf Dharmap\u00e2la they say that he lived at the monastery of Bhadratittha\nnear Kancipura and wrote fourteen commentaries in Pali.[123] One was\non the Visuddhi-magga of Buddhaghosa and it is probable that he lived\nshortly after that great writer and like him studied in Ceylon.\n\nI shall recur to this question of south Indian Buddhism in treating\nof Burma, but the data now available are very meagre.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 10: _E.g._ Burma in the reign of Anawrata and later in the\ntime of Chapa\u1e6da about 1200, and Siam in the time of S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa\nR\u00e2ma, 1361. On the other hand in 1752 the Sinhalese succession was\nvalidated by obtaining monks from Burma.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Geiger, _Literatur und Sprache der Singhalesen_, p. 91.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Compare the history of Khotan. The first Indian\ncolonists seem to have introduced a Prakrit dialect. Buddhism and\nSanskrit came afterwards.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Literally demons, that is wild uncanny men. I refrain\nfrom discussing the origin and ethnological position of the Vaeddas\nfor it hardly affects the history of Buddhism in Ceylon. For Vijaya's\nconquests see Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa VII.]\n\n[Footnote 14: IX. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 15: D\u00eepava\u1e43sa I. 45-81, II. 1-69. Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa I. 19-83.\nThe legend that the Buddha visited Ceylon and left his footprint on\nAdam's peak is at least as old as Buddhaghosa. See Samanta-p\u00e2s\u00e2dik\u00e2 in\nOldenburg's _Vinaya Pitaka_, vol. III, p. 332 and the quotations in\nSkeen's _Adam's Peak_, p. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 16: D\u00eepa. V. x. 1-9. Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa VIII. 1-27, IX. 1-12.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa X. 96, 102.]\n\n[Footnote 18: For the credibility of the Sinhalese traditions see\nGeiger introd. to translation of Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa 1912 and Norman in\n_J.R.A.S._ 1908, pp. 1 ff. and on the other side R.O. Franke in\n_W.Z.K.M._ 21, pp. 203 ff., 317 ff. and _Z.D.M.G._ 63, pp. 540 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddhist art in India_, pp. 69-72. Rhys\nDavids, _Buddhist India_, p. 302.]\n\n[Footnote 20: The J\u00e2taka-nid\u00e2na-kath\u00e2 is also closely allied to these\nworks in those parts where the subject matter is the same.]\n\n[Footnote 21: This section was probably called Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa in a\ngeneral sense long before the name was specially applied to the work\nwhich now bears it.]\n\n[Footnote 22: See introduction to Oldenburg's edition, pp. 8, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Perhaps this is alluded to at the beginning of the\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa itself, \"The book made by the ancients (porv\u00e2\u1e47ehi\nkato) was in some places too diffuse and in others too condensed and\ncontained many repetitions.\"]\n\n[Footnote 24: The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa was continued by later writers and\nbrought down to about 1780 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 25: The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sat\u00eek\u00e2, a commentary written between 1000 and\n1250 A.D., has also some independent value because the old\nA\u1e6d\u1e6dhakath\u00e2-Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa was still extant and used by the writer.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Son according to the Sinhalese sources but according to\nHs\u00fcan Chuang and others, younger brother. In favour of the latter it\nmay be said that the younger brothers of kings often became monks in\norder to avoid political complications.]\n\n[Footnote 27: The modern Mahintale.]\n\n[Footnote 28: The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa implies that he had already some\nacquaintance with Buddhism. It represents him as knowing that monks do\nnot eat in the afternoon and as suggesting that it would be better to\nordain the layman Bhandu.]\n\n[Footnote 29: The chronicles give with some slight divergences the\nnames of the texts on which his preaching was based. It is doubtless\nmeant that he recited the Sutta with a running exposition.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43. xx. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Many other places claimed to possess this relic.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Of course the antiquity of the Sinhalese Bo-tree is a\ndifferent question from the identity of the parent tree with the tree\nunder which the Buddha sat.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43. XVIII.; D\u00eepava\u1e43. XV. and XVI.]\n\n[Footnote 34: But he says nothing about Mahinda or Sanghamitt\u00e2 and\ndoes not support the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa in details.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Du\u1e6d\u1e6dha, meaning bad, angry or violent, apparently\nrefers to the ferocity shown in his struggle with the Tamils.]\n\n[Footnote 36: D\u00eepava\u1e43sa XIX. 1. Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa XXVII. 1-48. See\nFergusson, _Hist. Ind. Architecture_, 1910, pp. 238, 246. I find it\nhard to picture such a building raised on pillars. Perhaps it was\nsomething like the Sat-mahal-pras\u00e2da at Pollanarua.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Parker, _Ancient Ceylon_, p. 282. The restoration of the\nRuwanweli Dagoba was undertaken by Buddhists in 1873.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa XXVIII.-XXXI. Du\u1e6d\u1e6dhag\u00e2ma\u1e47i died\nbefore it was finished.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa XXIX. 37. Yonan\u00e2gar\u00e2lasanda. The town is\nalso mentioned as situated on an Island in the Indus: Mil. Pan. III.\n7. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 40: According to the common reckoning B.C. 88-76: according\nto Geiger B.C. 29-17. It seems probable that in the early dates of\nSinhalese history there is an error of about 62 years. See Geiger,\n_Trans. Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa_, pp. XXX ff. and Fleet, _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp.\n323-356.]\n\n[Footnote 41: For the site see Parker's _Ancient Ceylon_, pp. 299 ff.\nThe Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa (XXXIII. 79 and X. 98-100) says it was built on the\nsite of an ancient Jain establishment and Kern thinks that this\ntradition hints at circumstances which account for the heretical and\ncontentious spirit of the Abhaya monks.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Mah\u00e2v. XXXIII. 100-104. See too the \u1e6a\u00eek\u00e2 quote by\nTurnour in his introduction, p. liii.]\n\n[Footnote 43: A work on ecclesiastical history written about 1395. Ed.\nand Trans. Colombo Record Office.]\n\n[Footnote 44: The probable error in Sinhalese dates mentioned in a\nprevious note continues till the twelfth century A.D. though gradually\ndecreasing. For the early centuries of the Christian era it is\nprobable that the accepted dates should be put half a century later]\n\n[Footnote 45: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa XXXVI. 41. Vetulyav\u00e2dam madditv\u00e2. According\nto the Nik\u00e2ya Sang, he burnt their Pi\u1e6daka.]\n\n[Footnote 46: On Kath\u00e2-vat. XVIII. 1 and 2. Printed in the _Journal of\nthe Pali Text Soc._ for 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Watters, II. 234. Cf. _Hs\u00fcan Chuang's life_, chap. IV.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43. XXXVI. iii. ff. Go\u1e6dh\u00e2bhaya's date was\nprobably 302-315 and Mah\u00e2sena's 325-352. The common chronology makes\nGo\u1e6dh\u00e2bhaya reign from 244 to 257 and Mah\u00e2sena from 269 to 296 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Quoted by Turnour, Introd. p. liii. The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43. V.\n13, expressly states that the Dhammaruci and S\u00e2galiya sects originated\nin Ceylon.]\n\n[Footnote 50: _I.e._ as I understand, the two divisions of the Sutta\nVibhanga.]\n\n[Footnote 51: It was written up to date at various periods. The\nchapters which take up the history after the death of Mah\u00e2sena are\nsaid to be the work of Dhammakitti, who lived about 1250.]\n\n[Footnote 52: He was a contemporary of the Gupta King Samudragupta who\nreigned approximately 330-375 A.D. See S. L\u00e9vi in _J.A._ 1900, pp. 316\nff, 401 ff. This synchronism is a striking confirmation of Fleet and\nGeiger's chronology.]\n\n[Footnote 53: _E.g._ the tomb of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja at Sr\u00eerangam.]\n\n[Footnote 54: For a somewhat similar reason the veneration of relics\nis prevalent among Moslims. Islam indeed provides an object of worship\nbut its ceremonies are so austere and monotonous that any devotional\npractices which are not forbidden as idolatrous are welcome to the\ndevout.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Dig. Nik. XVI. v. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Plutarch mentions a story that the relics of King\nMenander were similarly divided into eight portions but the story may\nbe merely a replica of the obsequies of the Buddha.]\n\n[Footnote 57: IV. 3, 24. The first text is from Mah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2na Sutta,\nV. 24. The second has not been identified.]\n\n[Footnote 58: _Journal des Savants_, Oct. 1906.]\n\n[Footnote 59: See Norman, \"Buddhist legends of Asoka and his times,\"\nin _J.A.S._ Beng. 1910.]\n\n[Footnote 60: Just as the Tooth was considered to be the palladium of\nSinhalese kings.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Record of Buddhist kingdoms. Legge, pp. 34, 35. Fa-Hsien\nspeaks of the country not the town of Peshawar (Pur\u00fbshapura).]\n\n[Footnote 62: _Ibid._ p. 109. Fa-Hsien does not indicate that at this\ntime there was a rival bowl in Ceylon but represents the preacher as\nsaying it was then in Gandhara.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Watters, I. pp. 202, 203. But the life of Hs\u00fcan Chuang\nsays Benares not Persia.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Marco Polo trans. Yule, II. pp. 320, 330.]\n\n[Footnote 65: For the history of the tooth see _Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa_, p. 241,\nin Turnour's edition: the Dathava\u1e43sa in Pali written by Dhammakitti\nin 1211 A.D.: and the Sinhalese poems Daladapujavali and Dhatuvansaya.\nSee also Da Cunha, _Memoir on the History of the Tooth Relic of\nCeylon_, 1875, and Yule's notes on Marco Polo, II. pp. 328-330.]\n\n[Footnote 66: _I.e._ about 361 or 310, according to which chronology\nis adopted, but neither Fa-Hsien or Hs\u00fcan Chuang says anything about\nits arrival from India and this part of the story might be dismissed\nas a legend. But seeing how extraordinary were the adventures of the\ntooth in historical times, it would be unreasonable to deny that it\nmay have been smuggled out of India for safety.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Various accounts are given of the disposal of these\nteeth, but more than enough relics were preserved in various shrines\nto account for all. Hs\u00fcan Chuang saw or heard of sacred teeth in\nBalkh, Nagar, Kashmir, Kanauj and Ceylon. Another tooth is said to be\nkept near Foo-chow.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Plausibly supposed to be Puri. The ceremonies still\nobserved in the temple of Jagannath are suspected of being based on\nBuddhist rites. Dantapura of the K\u00e2lingas is however mentioned in some\nverses quoted in D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya XIX. 36. This looks as if the name might\nbe pre-Buddhist.]\n\n[Footnote 69: They are called Ranmali and Danta in the R\u00e2j\u00e2valiya.]\n\n[Footnote 70: There is a striking similarity between this rite and the\nceremonies observed at Puri, where the images of Jagann\u00e2tha and his\nrelatives are conveyed every summer with great pomp to a country\nresidence where they remain during some weeks.]\n\n[Footnote 71: See Tennent's _Ceylon_, vol. II. pp. 29, 30 and 199 ff.\nand the Portuguese authorities quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Fortune in _Two Visits to Tea Countries of China_, vol.\nII. pp. 107-8, describes one of these teeth preserved in the Ku-shan\nmonastery near Foo-chow.]\n\n[Footnote 73: This practice must be very old. The Vinaya of the\nM\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins and similar texts speak of offering flowers to a\ntooth of the Buddha. See _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 523, 543. The Pali Canon\ntoo tells us that the relics of the Buddha were honoured with garlands\nand perfumes.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Chap. XXXVII.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Both probably represent the tradition current at the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, but according to the Talaing tradition Buddhaghosa was a\nBrahman born at Thaton.]\n\n[Footnote 76: The Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa says he composed the J\u00f1\u00e2nodaya and\nAtthas\u00e2lin\u00ee at this time before starting for Ceylon.]\n\n[Footnote 77: Fa-Hsien is chary of mentioning contemporary celebrities\nbut he refers to a Well-known monk called Ta-mo-kiu-ti (? Dhammakathi\n) and had Buddhaghosa been already celebrated he would hardly have\nomitted him.]\n\n[Footnote 78: In the Coms. on the D\u00eegha and Dhammasangani.]\n\n[Footnote 79: See Rhys Davids and Carpenter's introduction to\n_Sumangalavi_, I. p. x.]\n\n[Footnote 80: In the _Journal of Pali Text Soc._ 1891, pp. 76-164.\nSince the above was written the first volume of the text of the\nVisuddhi magga, edited by Mrs. Rhys Davids, has been published by the\nPali Text Society, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Bhagavato S\u00e2sanam. See Buddhaghosuppatti, chap. I.]\n\n[Footnote 82: It appears to be unknown to the Chinese Tripitaka. For\nsome further remarks on the Sinhalese Canon see Book III. chap. XIII.\n\u00a7 3.]\n\n[Footnote 83: That is according to Geiger 386-416 A.D. Perhaps he was\nthe Ta-mo-kiu-ti mentioned by Fa-Hsien.]\n\n[Footnote 84: The tendency seems odd but it can be paralleled in India\nwhere it is not uncommon to rewrite vernacular works in Sanskrit. See\nGrierson, _J.R.A.S._ 1913, p. 133. Even in England in the seventeenth\ncentury Bacon seems to have been doubtful of the immortality of his\nworks in English and prepared a Latin translation of his _Essays._]\n\n[Footnote 85: It is reported with some emphasis as the tradition of\nthe Ancients in Buddhaghosuppatti, chap. VII. If the works were merely\nthose which Buddhaghosa himself had translated the procedure seems\nsomewhat drastic.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Mah\u00e2v. XXXIII. Dhammasokova so kasi Pi\u1e6dakattaye\nSa\u1e47gahan. Dh\u00e2tusena reigned from 459-477 according to the common\nchronology or 509-527 according to Geiger.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Mah\u00e2v. XLII. 35 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Mah\u00e2v. LXXVIII. 21-23.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Mah\u00e2v. XXXVIII. Ak\u00e2si patim\u00e2gehe bahumangalacetiye\nboddhisatte ca tath\u00e2sun. Cf. Fa-Hsien, chap. XXVIII. _ad fin._]\n\n[Footnote 90: Or Parakkama B\u00e2hu. Probably 1153-1186.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa LX. 4-7.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa LXXVIII. 21-27.]\n\n[Footnote 93: Mah\u00e2v. LXXXIV. If this means the region of Madras, the\nobvious question is what learned Buddhist can there have been there at\nthis period.]\n\n[Footnote 94: _J. Ant_. 1893, pp. 40, 41.]\n\n[Footnote 95: I take this statement from Tennent who gives\nreferences.]\n\n[Footnote 96: See _Ceylon Antiquary_, I. 3, pp. 148, 197.]\n\n[Footnote 97: R\u00e2jasinha I (1581) is said to have made \u015aivaism the\nCourt religion.]\n\n[Footnote 98: His reign is dated as 1679-1701, also as 1687-1706. It\nis remarkable that the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa makes _both_ the kings called\nVimala Dharma send religious embassies to Arakan. See XCIV. 15, 16 and\nXCVII. 10, 11.]\n\n[Footnote 99: See for some details Lorgeou: Notice sur un Manuscrit\nSiamois contenant la relation de deux missions religieuses envoy\u00e9es de\nSiam \u00e0 Ceylon au milieu du xviii Si\u00e8cle. _Jour. Asiat_. 1906, pp. 533\nff. The king called Dhammika by the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa appears to have been\nknown as Phra Song Tham in Siam. The interest felt by the Siamese in\nCeylon at this period is shown by the Siamese translation of the\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa made in 1796.]\n\n[Footnote 100: R\u00e2ma\u00f1\u00f1a is the part of Burma between Arakan and Siam.]\n\n[Footnote 101: See Spence Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, chap. VII.]\n\n[Footnote 102: A translation by S.Z. Aung and Mrs. Rhys Davids has\nbeen published by the Pali Text Society. The author Anuruddha appears\nto have lived between the eighth and twelfth centuries.]\n\n[Footnote 103: The Sinhalese had a special respect for the Abhidhamma.\nKassapa V (_c._ A.D. 930) caused it to be engraved on plates of gold.\n_Ep. Zeyl._ I. p. 52.]\n\n[Footnote 104: See Coomaraswamy in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 283-297.]\n\n[Footnote 105: For intercourse with Camboja see _Epigr. Zeylanica_,\nII. p. 74.]\n\n[Footnote 106: A dubious legend relates that they were known in the\nnorth and suppressed by Harsha. See Ettinghausen, _Harsha Vardhana_,\n1906, p. 86. Nil S\u00e2dhana appears to be a name for tantric practices.\nSee Avalon, _Principles of Tantra_, preface, p. xix.]\n\n[Footnote 107: In the reigns of Voh\u00e2ratissa, Go\u1e6dh\u00e2bhaya, Mah\u00e2sena\nand Ambaherana Salamevan. The kings Matvalasen and Mungayinsen are\nalso known as Sena I and II.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Secret Vinaya.]\n\n[Footnote 109: _Epigraphia Zeylan_. I. p. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 110: One of the king's inscriptions says that he reconciled\nthe clergy of the three Nik\u00e2yas. _Ep. Zeyl_. I. p. 134.]\n\n[Footnote 111: See Bowden in _J.R.A.S._ 1893, pp. 159 ff. The account\nrefers to the Malwatte Monastery. But it would appear that the\nP\u00e2timokkha is recited in country places when a sufficient number of\nmonks meet on Uposatha days.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Even the poets were mostly Bhikkhus. Sinhalese\nliterature contains a fair number of historical and philosophical\nworks but curiously little about law. See Jolly, _Recht und Sitte_, p.\n44.]\n\n[Footnote 113: _E.g._ in the A\u1e6d\u00e2n\u00e2\u1e6diya sutta (Dig. Nik. XXXII.)\nfriendly spirits teach a spell by which members of the order may\nprotect themselves against evil ones and in J\u00e2taka 159 the Peacock\nescapes danger by reciting every day a hymn to the sun and the praises\nof past Buddhas. See also Bunyiu, _Nanjios Catalogue_, Nos. 487 and\n800.]\n\n[Footnote 114: See for an account of the Maha Saman Devale, _Ceylon\nAnt._ July, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 115: So a medi\u00e6val inscription at Mahintale of Mahinda IV\nrecords the foundation of Buddhist edifices and a temple to a goddess.\n_Ep. Zeyl._ I. p. 103.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Similarly in a religious procession described in the\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa (XCIX. 52; about 1750 A.D.) there were \"men in the dress\nof Brahm\u00e2s.\"]\n\n[Footnote 117: Rock Edicts, II. and XIII. Three inscriptions of Asoka\nhave been found in Mysore.]\n\n[Footnote 118: The Manimegalei even mentions six systems of philosophy\nwhich are not the ordinary Dar\u015banas but Lok\u00e2yatam, Bauddham,\nS\u00e2\u1e47khyam, Naiy\u00e2yikam, Vai\u015beshikam, M\u00eem\u00e2msakam.]\n\n[Footnote 119: Kan-chih-pu-lo. Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chuang_, II. 226. The\nidentification is not without difficulties and it has been suggested\nthat the town is really Negapatam. The Life of the pilgrim says that\nit was on the coast, but he does not say so himself and his biographer\nmay have been mistaken.]\n\n[Footnote 120: See art. by Rhys Davids in _E.R.E._]\n\n[Footnote 121: See Forchhammer, _Jardine Prize Essay_, 1885, pp. 24\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Author of the _Abhidhammattha-sangaha._]\n\n[Footnote 123: Some have been published by the P.T. Society.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI\n\nBURMA\n\n1\n\n\nUntil recent times Burma remained somewhat isolated and connected with\nforeign countries by few ties. The chronicles contain a record of long\nand generally peaceful intercourse with Ceylon, but this though\nimportant for religion and literature had little political effect. The\nChinese occasionally invaded Upper Burma and demanded tribute but the\ninvasions were brief and led to no permanent occupation. On the west\nArakan was worried by the Viceroys of the Mogul Emperors and on the\neast the Burmese frequently invaded Siam. But otherwise from the\nbeginning of authentic history until the British annexation Burma was\nleft to itself and had not, like so many Asiatic states, to submit to\nforeign conquest and the imposition of foreign institutions. Yet let\nit not be supposed that its annals are peaceful and uneventful. The\nland supplied its own complications, for of the many races inhabiting\nit, three, the Burmese, Talaings and Shans, had rival aspirations and\nfounded dynasties. Of these three races, the Burmese proper appear to\nhave come from the north west, for a chain of tribes speaking cognate\nlanguages is said to extend from Burma to Nepal. The M\u014dns or\nTalaings are allied linguistically to the Khmers of Camboja. Their\ncountry (sometimes called R\u00e2ma\u00f1\u00f1adesa) was in Lower Burma and its\nprincipal cities were Pegu and Thaton. The identity of the name\nTalaing with Telingana or Kalinga is not admitted by all scholars, but\nnative tradition connects the foundation of the kingdom with the east\ncoast of India and it seems certain that such a connection existed in\nhistorical times and kept alive Hinayanist Buddhism which may have\nbeen originally introduced by this route.\n\nThe Shan States lie in the east of Burma on the borders of Y\u00fcnnan and\nLaos. Their traditions carry their foundation back to the fourth and\nfifth centuries B.C. There is no confirmation of this, but bodies of\nShans, a race allied to the Siamese, may have migrated into this\nregion at any date, perhaps bringing Buddhism with them or receiving\nit direct from China. Recent investigations have shown that there was\nalso a fourth race, designated as Pyus, who occupied territory between\nthe Burmese and Talaings in the eleventh century. They will probably\nprove of considerable importance for philology and early history,\nperhaps even for the history of some phases of Burmese Buddhism, for\nthe religious terms found in their inscriptions are Sanskrit rather\nthan Pali and this suggests direct communication with India. But until\nmore information is available any discussion of this interesting but\nmysterious people involves so many hypotheses and arguments of detail\nthat it is impossible in a work like the present. Prome was one of\ntheir principal cities, their name reappears in P'iao, the old Chinese\ndesignation of Burma, and perhaps also in Pagan, one form of which is\nPug\u00e2ma.[124]\n\nThroughout the historical period the pre-eminence both in individual\nkings and dynastic strength rested with the Burmese but their contests\nwith the Shans and Talaings form an intricate story which can be\nrelated here only in outline. Though the three races are distinct and\nstill preserve their languages, yet they conquered one another, lived\nin each other's capitals and shared the same ambitions so that in more\nrecent centuries no great change occurred when new dynasties came to\npower or territory was redistributed. The long chronicle of\nbloodstained but ineffectual quarrels is relieved by the exploits of\nthree great kings, Anawrata, Bayin Naung and Alompra.\n\nHistorically, Arakan may be detached from the other provinces. The\ninhabitants represent an early migration from Tagaung and were not\nannexed by any kingdom in Burma until 1784 A.D. Tagaung, situated on\nthe Upper Irrawaddy in the Ruby Mines district, was the oldest capital\nof the Burmese and has a scanty history apparently going back to the\nearly centuries of our era. Much the same may be said of the Talaing\nkingdom in Lower Burma. The kings of Tagaung were succeeded by another\ndynasty connected with them which reigned at Prome. No dates can be\ngiven for these events, nor is the part which the Pyus played in them\nclear, but it is said that the Talaings destroyed the kingdom of\nProme in 742 A.D.[125] According to tradition the centre of power\nmoved about this time to Pagan[126] on the bank of the Irrawaddy\nsomewhat south of Mandalay. But the silence of early Chinese\naccounts[127] as to Pagan, which is not mentioned before the Sung\ndynasty, makes it probable that later writers exaggerated its early\nimportance and it is only when Anawrata, King of Pagan and the first\ngreat name in Burmese history, ascended the throne that the course of\nevents becomes clear and coherent. He conquered Thaton in 1057 and\ntransported many of the inhabitants to his own capital. He also\nsubdued the nearer Shan states and was master of nearly all Burma as\nwe understand the term. The chief work of his successors was to\nconstruct the multitude of pagodas which still ornament the site of\nPagan. It would seem that the dynasty gradually degenerated and that\nthe Shans and Talaings acquired strength at its expense. Its end came\nin 1298 and was hastened by the invasion of Khubilai Khan. There then\narose two simultaneous Shan dynasties at Panya and Sagaing which\nlasted from 1298 till 1364. They were overthrown by King Thadominpaya\nwho is believed to have been a Shan. He founded Ava which, whether it\nwas held by Burmese or Shans, was regarded as the chief city of Burma\nuntil 1752, although throughout this period the kings of Pegu and\nother districts were frequently independent. During the fourteenth\ncentury another kingdom grew up at Toungoo[128] in Lower Burma. Its\nrulers were originally Shan governors sent from Ava but ultimately\nthey claimed to be descendants of the last king of Pagan and, in this\ncharacter, Bureng or Bayin Naung (1551-1581), the second great ruler\nof Burma, conquered Prome, Pegu and Ava. His kingdom began to break up\nimmediately after his death but his dynasty ruled in Ava until the\nmiddle of the eighteenth century.\n\nDuring this period Europeans first made their appearance and quarrels\nwith Portuguese adventurers were added to native dissensions. The\nShans and Talaings became turbulent and after a tumultuous interval\nthe third great national hero, Alaung-paya or Alompra, came to the\nfront. In the short space of eight years (1752-1760), he gained\npossession of Ava, made the Burmese masters of both the northern and\nsouthern provinces, founded Rangoon and invaded both Manipur and Siam.\nWhile on the latter expedition he died. Some of his successors held\ntheir court at Ava but Bodawpaya built a new capital at Amarapura\n(1783) and Mindon Min another at Mandalay (1857). The dynasty came to\nan end in 1886 when King Thibaw was deposed by the Government of India\nand his dominions annexed.\n\n2\n\n\nThe early history of Buddhism in Burma is obscure, as in most other\ncountries, and different writers have maintained that it was\nintroduced from northern India, the east coast of India, Ceylon, China\nor Camboja.[129] All these views may be in a measure true, for there\nis reason to believe that it was not introduced at one epoch or from\none source or in one form.\n\nIt is not remarkable that Indian influence should be strong among the\nBurmese. The wonder rather is that they have preserved such strong\nindividuality in art, institutions and everyday life, that no one can\npass from India into Burma without feeling that he has entered a new\ncountry. This is because the mountains which separate it from Eastern\nBengal and run right down to the sea form a barrier still sufficient\nto prevent communication by rail. But from the earliest times\nIndian immigrants and Indian ideas have been able to find their way\nboth by land and sea. According to the Burmese chronicles Tagaung was\nfounded by the Hindu prince Abhir\u00e2ja in the ninth century B.C. and the\nkingdom of Arakan claims as its first ruler an ancient prince of\nBenares. The legends have not much more historical value than the\nKshattriya genealogies which Brahmans have invented for the kings of\nManipur, but they show that the Burmese knew of India and wished to\nconnect themselves with it. This spirit led not only to the invention\nof legends but to the application of Indian names to Burmese\nlocalities. For instance Aparantaka, which really designates a\ndistrict of western India, is identified by native scholars with Upper\nBurma.[130] The two merchants Tapussa and Bhallika who were the first\nto salute the Buddha after his enlightenment are said to have come\nfrom Ukkala. This is usually identified with Orissa but Burmese\ntradition locates it in Burma. A system of mythical geography has thus\narisen.\n\nThe Buddha himself is supposed to have visited Burma, as well as\nCeylon, in his lifetime[131] and even to have imparted some of his\npower to the celebrated image which is now in the Arakan Pagoda at\nMandalay. Another resemblance to the Sinhalese story is the\nevangelization of lower Burma by Asoka's missionaries. The D\u00eepavamsa\nstates[132] that Sona and Uttara were despatched to Suvar\u1e47abh\u00fbmi.\nThis is identified with R\u00e2ma\u00f1\u00f1adesa or the district of Thaton, which\nappears to be a corruption of Saddhammapura[133] and the tradition is\naccepted in Burma. The scepticism with which modern scholars have\nreceived it is perhaps unmerited, but the preaching of these\nmissionaries, if it ever took place, cannot at present be connected\nwith other historical events. Nevertheless the statement of the\nD\u00eepava\u1e43sa is significant. The work was composed in the fourth\ncentury A.D. and taken from older chronicles. It may therefore be\nconcluded that in the early centuries of our era lower Burma had\nthe reputation of being a Buddhist country.[134] It also appears\ncertain that in the eleventh century, when the Talaings were conquered\nby Anawrata, Buddhist monks and copies of the Tipi\u1e6daka were found\nthere. But we know little about the country in the preceding\ncenturies. The Kalyani inscription says that before Anawrata's\nconquest it was divided and decadent and during this period there is\nno proof of intercourse with Ceylon but also no disproof. One result\nof Anawrata's conquest of Thaton was that he exchanged religious\nembassies with the king of Ceylon, and it is natural to suppose that\nthe two monarchs were moved to this step by traditions of previous\ncommunications. Intercourse with the east coast of India may be\nassumed as natural, and is confirmed by the presence of Sanskrit words\nin old Talaing and the information about southern India in Talaing\nrecords, in which the city of Conjevaram, the great commentator\nDharmap\u00e2la and other men of learning are often mentioned. Analogies\nhave also been traced between the architecture of Pagan and southern\nIndia.[135] It will be seen that such communication by sea may have\nbrought not only Hinayanist Buddhism but also Mahayanist and Tantric\nBuddhism as well as Brahmanism from Bengal and Orissa, so that it is\nnot surprising if all these influences can be detected in the ancient\nbuildings and sculptures of the country.[136] Still the most important\nevidence as to the character of early Burmese Buddhism is Hinayanist\nand furnished by inscriptions on thin golden plates and tiles, found\nnear the ancient site of Prome and deciphered by Finot.[137] They\nconsist of Hinayanist religious formul\u00e6: the language is Pali: the\nalphabet is of a south Indian type and is said to resemble closely\nthat used in the inscriptions of the Kadamba dynasty which ruled in\nKanara from the third to the sixth century. It is to the latter\npart of this period that the inscriptions are to be attributed. They\nshow that a form of the Hinayana, comparable, so far as the brief\ndocuments permit us to judge, with the church of Ceylon, was then\nknown in lower Burma and was probably the state church. The character\nof the writing, taken together with the knowledge of southern India\nshown by the Talaing chronicles and the opinion of the D\u00eepavamsa that\nBurma was a Buddhist country, is good evidence that lower Burma had\naccepted Hinayanism before the sixth century and had intercourse with\nsouthern India. More than that it would perhaps be rash to say.\n\nThe Burmese tradition that Buddhaghosa was a native of Thaton and\nreturned thither from Ceylon merits more attention than it has\nreceived. It can be easily explained away as patriotic fancy. On the\nother hand, if Buddhaghosa's object was to invigorate Hinayanism in\nIndia, the result of his really stupendous labours was singularly\nsmall, for in India his name is connected with no religious movement.\nBut if we suppose that he went to Ceylon by way of the holy places in\nMagadha and returned from the Coromandel Coast to Burma where\nHinayanism afterwards nourished, we have at least a coherent\nnarrative.[138]\n\nIt is noticeable that T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha states[139] that in the Koki\ncountries, among which he expressly mentions Pukham (Pagan) and\nHa\u1e43savat\u00ee (Pegu), Hinayanism was preached from the days of Asoka\nonwards, but that the Mahayana was not known until the pupils of\nVasubandhu introduced it.\n\nThe presence of Hinayanism in Lower Burma naturally did not prevent\nthe arrival of Mahayanism. It has not left many certain traces but\nAt\u00ee\u015ba (_c._ 1000), a great figure in the history of Tibetan\nBuddhism, is reported to have studied both in Magadha and in\nSuvarnadv\u00eepa by which Thaton must be meant. He would hardly have done\nthis, had the clergy of Thaton been unfriendly to Tantric learning.\nThis medi\u00e6val Buddhism was also, as in other countries, mixed with\nHinduism but whereas in Camboja and Champa \u015aivaism, especially\nthe worship of the lingam, was long the official and popular cult and\npenetrated to Siam, few \u015aivaite emblems but numerous statues of\nVish\u1e47uite deities have hitherto been discovered in Burma.\n\nThe above refers chiefly to Lower Burma. The history of Burmese\nBuddhism becomes clearer in the eleventh century but before passing to\nthis new period we must enquire what was the religious condition of\nUpper Burma in the centuries preceding it. It is clear that any\nvariety of Buddhism or Brahmanism may have entered this region from\nIndia by land at any epoch. According to both Hs\u00fcan Chuang and I-Ching\nBuddhism flourished in Sama\u1e6data and the latter mentions images of\nAvalokita and the reading of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2. The precise position\nof Sama\u1e6data has not been fixed but in any case it was in the east\nof Bengal and not far from the modern Burmese frontier. The existence\nof early Sanskrit inscriptions at Taungu and elsewhere has been\nrecorded but not with as much detail as could be wished.[140] Figures\nof Bodhisattvas and Indian deities are reported from Prome,[141] and\nin the Lower Chindwin district are rock-cut temples resembling the\ncaves of Barabar in Bengal. Inscriptions also show that at Prome there\nwere kings, perhaps in the seventh century, who used the Pyu language\nbut bore Sanskrit titles. According to Burmese tradition the Buddha\nhimself visited the site of Pagan and prophesied that a king called\nSammutiraya would found a city there and establish the faith. This\nprediction is said to have been fulfilled in 108 A.D. but the notices\nquoted from the Burmese chronicles are concerned less with the\nprogress of true religion than with the prevalence of heretics known\nas Aris.[142] It has been conjectured that this name is a corruption\nof Arya but it appears that the correct orthography is _ara\u00f1_\nrepresenting an original _ara\u1e47yaka_, that is forest priests. It is\nhard to say whether they were degraded Buddhists or an indigenous\npriesthood who in some ways imitated what they knew of Brahmanic\nand Buddhist institutions. They wore black robes, let their hair grow,\nworshipped serpents, hung up in their temples the heads of animals\nthat had been sacrificed, and once a year they assisted the king to\nimmolate a victim to the Nats on a mountain top. They claimed power to\nexpiate all sins, even parricide. They lived in convents (which is\ntheir only real resemblance to Buddhist monks) but were not\ncelibate.[143] Anawrata is said to have suppressed the Aris but he\ncertainly did not extirpate them for an inscription dated 1468 records\ntheir existence in the Myingyan district. Also in a village near Pagan\nare preserved Tantric frescoes representing Bodhisattvas with their\n\u015aaktis. In one temple is an inscription dated 1248 and requiring\nthe people to supply the priests morning and evening with rice, beef,\nbetel, and a jar of spirits.[144] It is not clear whether these\npriests were Aris or not, but they evidently professed an extreme form\nof Buddhist \u015aaktism.\n\nChinese influences in Upper Burma must also be taken into account.\nBurmese kings were perhaps among the many potentates who sent\nreligious embassies to the Emperor Wu-ti about 525 A.D. and the\nT'ang[145] annals show an acquaintance with Burma. They describe the\ninhabitants as devout Buddhists, reluctant to take life or even to\nwear silk, since its manufacture involves the death of the silk worms.\nThere were a hundred monasteries into which the youth entered at the\nage of seven, leaving at the age of twenty, if they did not intend to\nbecome monks. The Chinese writer does not seem to have regarded the\nreligion of Burma as differing materially from Buddhism as he knew it\nand some similarities in ecclesiastical terminology shown by Chinese\nand Burmese may indicate the presence of Chinese influence.[146]\nBut this influence, though possibly strong between the sixth and tenth\ncenturies A.D., and again about the time of the Chinese invasion of\n1284,[147] cannot be held to exclude Indian influence.\n\nThus when Anawrata came to the throne[148] several forms of religion\nprobably co-existed at Pagan, and probably most of them were corrupt,\nthough it is a mistake to think of his dominions as barbarous. The\nreformation which followed is described by Burmese authors in\nconsiderable detail and as usual in such accounts is ascribed to the\nactivity of one personality, the Thera Arahanta who came from Thaton\nand enjoyed Anawrata's confidence. The story implies that there was a\nparty in Pagan which knew that the prevalent creed was corrupt and\nalso looked upon Thaton and Ceylon as religious centres. As Anawrata\nwas a man of arms rather than a theologian, we may conjecture that his\nmotive was to concentrate in his capital the flower of learning as\nknown in his time--a motive which has often animated successful\nprinces in Asia and led to the unceremonious seizure of living saints.\nAccording to the story he broke up the communities of Aris at the\ninstigation of Arahanta and then sent a mission to Manohari, king of\nPegu, asking for a copy of the Tipi\u1e6daka and for relics. He received\na contemptuous reply intimating that he was not to be trusted with\nsuch sacred objects. Anawrata in indignation collected an army,\nmarched against the Talaings and ended by carrying off to Pagan not\nonly elephant loads of scriptures and relics, but also all the Talaing\nmonks and nobles with the king himself.[149] The Pi\u1e6dakas were\nstored in a splendid pagoda and Anawrata sent to Ceylon[150] for\nothers which were compared with the copies obtained from Thaton in\norder to settle the text.[151]\n\nFor 200 years, that is from about 1060 A.D. until the later decades of\nthe thirteenth century, Pagan was a great centre of Buddhist culture\nnot only for Burma but for the whole east, renowned alike for its\narchitecture and its scholarship. The former can still be studied in\nthe magnificent pagodas which mark its site. Towards the end of his\nreign Anawrata made not very successful attempts to obtain relics from\nChina and Ceylon and commenced the construction of the Shwe Zigon\npagoda. He died before it was completed but his successors, who\nenjoyed fairly peaceful reigns, finished the work and constructed\nabout a thousand other buildings among which the most celebrated is\nthe Ananda temple erected by King Kyansith\u00e2.[152]\n\nPali literature in Burma begins with a little grammatical treatise\nknown as K\u00e2rik\u00e2 and composed in 1064 A.D. by the monk Dhammasen\u00e2pati\nwho lived in the monastery attached to this temple. A number of other\nworks followed. Of these the most celebrated was the Saddan\u00eeti of\nAggava\u1e43sa (1154), a treatise on the language of the Tipi\u1e6daka\nwhich became a classic not only in Burma but in Ceylon. A singular\nenthusiasm for linguistic studies prevailed especially in the reign of\nKyocv\u00e2 (_c._ 1230), when even women are said to have been\ndistinguished for the skill and ardour which they displayed in\nconquering the difficulties of Pali grammar. Some treatises on the\nAbhidhamma were also produced.\n\nLike Mohammedanism, Hinayanist Buddhism is too simple and definite to\nadmit much variation in doctrine, but its clergy are prone to violent\ndisputes about apparently trivial questions. In the thirteenth century\nsuch disputes assumed grave proportions in Burma. About 1175 A.D. a\ncelebrated elder named Uttar\u00e2j\u00eeva accompanied by his pupil\nChapa\u1e6da left for Ceylon. They spent some years in study at the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra and Chapa\u1e6da received ordination there. He returned to\nPagan with four other monks and maintained that valid ordination could\nbe conferred only through the monks of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, who alone had\nkept the succession unbroken. He with his four companions, having\nreceived this ordination, claimed power to transmit it, but he\ndeclined to recognize Burmese orders. This pretension aroused a storm\nof opposition, especially from the Talaing monks. They maintained that\nArahanta who had reformed Buddhism under Anawrata was spiritually\ndescended from the missionaries sent by Asoka, who were as well\nqualified to administer ordination as Mahinda. But Chapa\u1e6da was not\nonly a man of learning and an author[153] but also a vigorous\npersonality and in favour at Court. He had the best of the contest and\nsucceeded in making the Talaing school appear as seceders from\northodoxy. There thus arose a distinction between the Sinhalese or\nlater school and the old Burmese school, who regarded one another as\nschismatics. A scandal was caused in the Sinhalese community by\nR\u00e2hula, the ablest of Chapa\u1e6da's disciples, who fell in love with an\nactress and wished to become a layman. His colleagues induced him to\nleave the country for decency's sake and peace was restored but\nsubsequently, after Chapa\u1e6da's death, the remaining three\ndisciples[154] fell out on questions of discipline rather than\ndoctrine and founded three factions, which can hardly be called\nschools, although they refused to keep the Uposatha days together. The\nlight of religion shone brightest at Pagan early in the thirteenth\ncentury while these three brethren were alive and the S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa\nstates that at least three Arhats lived in the city. But the power of\nPagan collapsed under attacks from both Chinese and Shans at the end\nof the century and the last king became a monk under the\ncompulsion of Shan chiefs. The deserted city appears to have lost its\nimportance as a religious centre, for the ecclesiastical chronicles\nshift the scene elsewhere.\n\nThe two Shan states which arose from the ruin of Pagan, namely Panya\n(Vijayapura) and Sagaing (Jeyyapura), encouraged religion and\nlearning. Their existence probably explains the claim made in Siamese\ninscriptions of about 1300 that the territory of Siam extended to\nHa\u1e43savat\u00ee or Pegu and this contact of Burma and Siam was of great\nimportance for it must be the origin of Pali Buddhism in Siam which\notherwise remains unexplained.\n\nAfter the fall of the two Shan states in 1364, Ava (or Ratnapura)\nwhich was founded in the same year gradually became the religious\ncentre of Upper Burma and remained so during several centuries. But\nit did not at first supersede older towns inasmuch as the loss of\npolitical independence did not always involve the destruction of\nmonasteries. Buddhism also flourished in Pegu and the Talaing country\nwhere the vicissitudes of the northern kingdoms did not affect its\nfortunes.\n\nAnawrata had transported the most eminent Theras of Thaton to Pagan\nand the old Talaing school probably suffered temporarily. Somewhat\nlater we hear that the Sinhalese school was introduced into these\nregions by S\u00e2riputta[155], who had been ordained at Pagan. About the\nsame time two Theras of Martaban, preceptors of the Queen, visited\nCeylon and on returning to their own land after being ordained at the\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra considered themselves superior to other monks. But the old\nBurmese school continued to exist. Not much literature was produced in\nthe south. S\u00e2riputta was the author of a Dhammathat or code, the first\nof a long series of law books based upon Manu. Somewhat later Mah\u00e2yasa\nof Thaton (_c._ 1370) wrote several grammatical works.\n\nThe most prosperous period for Buddhism in Pegu was the reign of\nDhammaceti, also called R\u00e2m\u00e2dhipati (1460-1491). He was not of the\nroyal family, but a simple monk who helped a princess of Pegu to\nescape from the Burmese court where she was detained. In 1453 this\nprincess became Queen of Pegu and Dhammaceti left his monastery to\nbecome her prime minister, son-in-law and ultimately her\nsuccessor. But though he had returned to the world his heart was with\nthe Church. He was renowned for his piety no less than for his\nmagnificence and is known to modern scholars as the author of the\nKalyani inscriptions[156], which assume the proportions of a treatise\non ecclesiastical laws and history. Their chief purpose is to settle\nan intricate and highly technical question, namely the proper method\nof defining and consecrating a _s\u00eem\u00e2_. This word, which means\nliterally _boundary_, signifies a plot of ground within which Uposatha\nmeetings, ordinations and other ceremonies can take place. The\nexpression occurs in the Vinaya Pi\u1e6daka[157], but the area there\ncontemplated seems to be an ecclesiastical district within which the\nBhikkhus were obliged to meet for Uposatha. The modern _s\u00eem\u00e2_ is much\nsmaller[158], but more important since it is maintained that valid\nordination can be conferred only within its limits. To Dhammaceti the\nquestion seemed momentous, for as he explains, there were in southern\nBurma six schools who would not meet for Uposatha. These were, first\nthe Camboja[159] school (identical with the Arahanta school) who\nclaimed spiritual descent from the missionaries sent by Asoka to\nSuvar\u1e47abh\u00fbmi, and then five divisions of the Sinhalese school,\nnamely the three founded by Chapa\u1e6da's disciples as already related\nand two more founded by the theras of Martaban. Dhammaceti accordingly\nsent a mission to Ceylon charged to obtain an authoritative ruling as\nto the proper method of consecrating a _s\u00eem\u00e2_ and conferring\nordination. On their return a locality known as the Kalyanis\u00eem\u00e2 was\nconsecrated in the manner prescribed by the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra and during\nthree years all the Bhikkhus of Dhammaceti's kingdom were reordained\nthere. The total number reached 15,666, and the king boasts that he\nhad thus purified religion and made the school of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra the\nonly sect, all other distinctions being obliterated.\n\nThere can be little doubt that in the fifteenth century Burmese\nBuddhism had assumed the form which it still has, but was this form\ndue to indigenous tradition or to imitation of Ceylon? Five periods\nmerit attention. (_a_) In the sixth century, and probably several\ncenturies earlier, Hinayanism was known in Lower Burma. The\ninscriptions attesting its existence are written in Pali and in a\nsouth Indian alphabet. (_b_) Anawrata (1010-1052) purified the\nBuddhism of Upper Burma with the help of scriptures obtained from the\nTalaing country, which were compared with other scriptures brought\nfrom Ceylon. (_c_) About 1200 Chapata and his pupils who had studied\nin Ceylon and received ordination there refused to recognize the\nTalaing monks and two hostile schools were founded, predominant at\nfirst in Upper and Lower Burma respectively. (_d_) About 1250 the\nSinhalese school, led by S\u00e2riputta and others, began to make conquests\nin Lower Burma at the expense of the Talaing school. (_e_) Two\ncenturies later, about 1460, Dhammaceti of Pegu boasts that he has\npurified religion and made the school of the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, that is the\nmost orthodox form of the Sinhalese school, the only sect.\n\nIn connection with these data must be taken the important statement\nthat the celebrated Tantrist At\u00ee\u015ba studied in Lower Burma about\n1000 A.D. Up to a certain point the conclusion seems clear. Pali\nHinayanism in Burma was old: intercourse with southern India and\nCeylon tended to keep it pure, whereas intercourse with Bengal and\nOrissa, which must have been equally frequent, tended to import\nMahayanism. In the time of Anawrata the religion of Upper Burma\nprobably did not deserve the name of Buddhism. He introduced in its\nplace the Buddhism of Lower Burma, tempered by reference to Ceylon.\nAfter 1200 if not earlier the idea prevailed that the Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra was\nthe standard of orthodoxy and that the Talaing church (which probably\nretained some Mahayanist features) fell below it. In the fifteenth\ncentury this view was universally accepted, the opposition and indeed\nthe separate existence of the Talaing church having come to an end.\n\nBut it still remains uncertain whether the earliest Burmese Buddhism\ncame direct from Magadha or from the south. The story of Asoka's\nmissionaries cannot be summarily rejected but it also cannot be\naccepted without hesitation[160]. It is the Ceylon chronicle which\nknows of them and communication between Burma and southern India was\nold and persistent. It may have existed even before the Christian era.\n\nAfter the fall of Pagan, Upper Burma, of which we must now speak,\npassed through troubled times and we hear little of religion or\nliterature. Though Ava was founded in 1364 it did not become an\nintellectual centre for another century. But the reign of Narapati\n(1442-1468) was ornamented by several writers of eminence among whom\nmay be mentioned the monk poet S\u00eelava\u1e43sa and Ariyava\u1e43sa, an\nexponent of the Abhidhamma. They are noticeable as being the first\nwriters to publish religious works, either original or translated, in\nthe vernacular and this practice steadily increased. In the early part\nof the sixteenth century[161] occurred the only persecution of\nBuddhism known in Burma. Thohanbw\u00e2, a Shan who had become king of Ava,\nendeavoured to exterminate the order by deliberate massacre and\ndelivered temples, monasteries and libraries to the flames. The\npersecution did not last long nor extend to other districts but it\ncreated great indignation among the Burmese and was perhaps one of the\nreasons why the Shan dynasty of Ava was overthrown in 1555.\n\nBayin (or Bureng) Naung stands out as one of the greatest\npersonalities in Burmese history. As a Buddhist he was zealous even to\nintolerance, since he forced the Shans and Moslims of the northern\ndistricts, and indeed all his subjects, to make a formal profession of\nBuddhism. He also, as related elsewhere, made not very successful\nattempts to obtain the tooth relic from Ceylon. But it is probable\nthat his active patronage of the faith, as shown in the construction\nand endowment of religious buildings, was exercised chiefly in Pegu\nand this must be the reason why the S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa (which is\ninterested chiefly in Upper Burma) says little about him.\n\nHis successors showed little political capacity but encouraged\nreligion and literature. The study of the Abhidhamma was specially\nflourishing in the districts of Ava and Sagaing from about 1600 to\n1650 and found many illustrious exponents. Besides works in Pali, the\nwriters of this time produced numerous Burmese translations and\nparaphrases of Abhidhamma works, as well as edifying stories.\n\nIn the latter part of the seventeenth century Burma was in a disturbed\ncondition and the S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa says that religion was dimmed as the\nmoon by clouds. A national and religious revival came with the\nvictories of Alompra (1752 onwards), but the eighteenth century also\nwitnessed the rise of a curious and not very edifying controversy\nwhich divided the Sangha for about a hundred years and spread to\nCeylon[162]. It concerned the manner in which the upper robe of a\nmonk, consisting of a long piece of cloth, should be worn. The old\npractice in Burma was to wrap this cloth round the lower body from the\nloins to the ankles, and draw the end from the back over the left\nshoulder and thence across the breast over the right shoulder so that\nit finally hung loose behind. But about 1698 began the custom of\nwalking with the right shoulder bare, that is to say letting the end\nof the robe fall down in front on the left side. The Sangha became\ndivided into two factions known as _Eka\u1e43sika_ (one-shouldered) and\n_P\u00e2rupana_ (fully clad). The bitterness of the seemingly trivial\ncontroversy was increased by the fact that the Eka\u1e43sikas could\nproduce little scriptural warrant and appealed to late authorities or\nthe practice in Ceylon, thus neglecting sound learning. For the Vinaya\nfrequently[163] prescribes that the robe is to be adjusted so as to\nfall over only one shoulder as a mark of special respect, which\nimplies that it was usually worn over both shoulders. In 1712 and\nagain about twenty years later arbitrators were appointed by the king\nto hear both sides, but they had not sufficient authority or learning\nto give a decided opinion. The stirring political events of 1740\nand the following years naturally threw ecclesiastical quarrels into\nthe shade but when the great Alompra had disposed of his enemies he\nappeared as a modern Asoka. The court religiously observed Uposatha\ndays and the king was popularly believed to be a Bodhisattva[164]. He\nwas not however sound on the great question of ecclesiastical dress.\nHis chaplain, Atula, belonged to the Eka\u1e43sika party and the king,\nsaying that he wished to go into the whole matter himself but had not\nfor the moment leisure, provisionally ordered the Sa\u1e47gha to obey\nAtula's ruling. But some champions of the other side stood firm.\nAlompra dealt leniently with them, but died during his Siamese\ncampaign before he had time to unravel the intricacies of the Vinaya.\n\nThe influence of Atula, who must have been an astute if not learned\nman, continued after the king's death and no measures were taken\nagainst the Eka\u1e43sikas, although King Hsin-byu-shin (1763-1776)\npersecuted an heretical sect called Paramats[165]. His youthful\nsuccessor, Sing-gu-sa, was induced to hold a public disputation. The\nEka\u1e43sikas were defeated in this contest and a royal decree was\nissued making the P\u00e2rupana discipline obligatory. But the vexed\nquestion was not settled for it came up again in the long reign\n(1781-1819) of Bod\u00f4pay\u00e2. This king has won an evil reputation for\ncruelty and insensate conceit[166], but he was a man of vigour and\nkept together his great empire. His megalomania naturally detracted\nfrom the esteem won by his piety. His benefactions to religion were\nlavish, the shrines and monasteries which he built innumerable. But he\ndesired to build a pagoda larger than any in the world and during some\ntwenty years wasted an incalculable amount of labour and money on this\nproject, still commemorated by a gigantic but unfinished mass of\nbrickwork now in ruins. In order to supervise its erection he left his\npalace and lived at Mingun, where he conceived the idea that he\nwas a Buddha, an idea which had not been entirely absent from the\nminds of Alompra and Hsin-byu-shin. It is to the credit of the Theras\nthat, despite the danger of opposing an autocrat as cruel as he was\ncrazy, they refused to countenance these pretensions and the king\nreturned to his palace as an ordinary monarch.\n\nIf he could not make himself a Buddha, he at least disposed of the\nEka\u1e43sika dispute, and was probably influenced in his views by\n\u00d1\u00e2n\u00e2bhiva\u1e43sa, a monk of the P\u00e2rupana school whom he made his chaplain,\nalthough Atula was still alive. At first he named a commission of\nenquiry, the result of which was that the Eka\u1e43sikas admitted that their\npractice could not be justified from the scriptures but only by\ntradition. A royal decree was issued enjoining the observance of the\nP\u00e2rupana discipline, but two years later Atula addressed a letter to the\nking in which he maintained that the Eka\u1e43sika costume was approved in a\nwork called C\u00fblaga\u1e47\u1e6dhipada, composed by Moggal\u00e2na, the immediate\ndisciple of the Buddha. The king ordered representatives of both parties\nto examine this contention and the debate between them is dramatically\ndescribed in the S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa. It was demonstrated that the text on\nwhich Atula relied was composed in Ceylon by a thera named Moggal\u00e2na who\nlived in the twelfth century and that it quoted medi\u00e6val Sinhalese\ncommentaries. After this exposure the Eka\u1e43sika party collapsed. The\nking commanded (1784) the P\u00e2rupana discipline to be observed and at last\nthe royal order received obedience.\n\nIt will be observed that throughout this controversy both sides\nappealed to the king, as if he had the right to decide the point in\ndispute, but that his decision had no compelling power as long as it\nwas not supported by evidence. He could ensure toleration for views\nregarded by many as heretical, but was unable to force the views of\none party on the other until the winning cause had publicly disproved\nthe contentions of its opponents. On the other hand the king had\npractical control of the hierarchy, for his chaplain was _de facto_\nhead of the Church and the appointment was strictly personal. It was\nnot the practice for a king to take on his predecessor's chaplain and\nthe latter could not, like a Lamaist or Catholic ecclesiastic, claim\nany permanent supernatural powers. Bod\u00f4pay\u00e2 did something towards\norganizing the hierarchy for he appointed four elders of repute to\nbe Sa\u1e47ghar\u00e2jas or, so to speak, Bishops, with four more as\nassistants and over them all his chaplain \u00d1\u00e2\u1e47a as Archbishop.\n\u00d1\u00e2\u1e47a was a man of energy and lived in turn in various monasteries\nsupervising the discipline and studies.\n\nIn spite of the extravagances of Bod\u00f4pay\u00e2, the Church was flourishing\nand respected in his reign. The celebrated image called Mah\u00e2muni was\ntransferred from Arakan to his capital together with a Sanskrit\nlibrary, and Burma sent to Ceylon not only the monks who founded the\nAmarapura school but also numerous Pali texts. This prosperity\ncontinued in the reigns of Bagyidaw, Tharrawadi and Pagan-min, who\nwere of little personal account. The first ordered the compilation of\nthe Yazawin, a chronicle which was not original but incorporated and\nsuperseded other works of the same kind. In his reign arose a question\nas to the validity of grants of land, etc., for religious purposes. It\nwas decided in the sense most favourable to the order, _viz._ that\nsuch grants are perpetual and are not invalidated by the lapse of\ntime. About 1845 there was a considerable output of vernacular\nliterature. The D\u00eegha, Samyutta and Anguttara Nik\u00e2yas with their\ncommentaries were translated into Burmese but no compositions in Pali\nare recorded.\n\nFrom 1852 till 1877 Burma was ruled by Mindon-min, who if not a\nnational hero was at least a pious, peace-loving, capable king. His\nchaplain, Pa\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2s\u00e2mi, composed the S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa, or ecclesiastical\nhistory of Burma, and the king himself was ambitious to figure as a\ngreat Buddhist monarch, though with more sanity than Bod\u00f4pay\u00e2, for his\nchief desire was to be known as the Convener of the Fifth Buddhist\nCouncil. The body so styled met from 1868 to 1871 and, like the\nancient Sa\u1e47g\u00eetis, proceeded to recite the Tipi\u1e6daka in order to\nestablish the correct text. The result may still be seen at Mandalay\nin the collection of buildings commonly known as the four hundred and\nfifty Pagodas: a central Stupa surrounded by hundreds of small shrines\neach sheltering a perpendicular tablet on which a portion of this\nveritable bible in stone is inscribed. Mindon-min also corrected the\ngrowing laxity of the Bhikkhus, and the esteem in which the Burmese\nchurch was held at this time is shown by the fact that the monks of\nCeylon sent a deputation to the Sa\u1e47ghar\u00e2ja of Mandalay referring to\nhis decision a dispute about a _s\u00eem\u00e2_ or ecclesiastical boundary.\n\nMindon-min was succeeded by Thibaw, who was deposed by the\nBritish. The Sa\u1e47ghar\u00e2ja maintained his office until he died in\n1895. An interregnum then occurred for the appointment had always been\nmade by the king, not by the Sangha. But when Lord Curzon visited\nBurma in 1901 he made arrangements for the election by the monks\nthemselves of a superior of the whole order and Taunggwin Say\u00e2daw was\nsolemnly installed in this office by the British authorities in 1903\nwith the title of Thathanabaing[167].\n\n3\n\n\nWe may now examine briefly some sides of popular religion and\ninstitutions which are not Buddhist. It is an interesting fact that\nthe Burmese law books or Dhammathats[168], which are still accepted as\nregulating inheritance and other domestic matters, are Indian in\norigin and show no traces of Sinhalese influence although since 1750\nthere has been a decided tendency to bring them into connection with\nauthorities accepted by Buddhism. The earliest of these codes are\nthose of Dhammavil\u00e2sa (1174 A.D.) and of Waguru, king of Martaban in\n1280. They professedly base themselves on the authority of Manu and,\nso far as purely legal topics are concerned, correspond pretty closely\nwith the rules of the M\u00e2nava-dharma\u015b\u00e2stra. But they omit all\nprescriptions which involve Brahmanic religious observances such as\npenance and sacrifice. Also the theory of punishment is different and\ninspired by the doctrine of Karma, namely, that every evil deed will\nbring its own retribution. Hence the Burmese codes ordain for every\ncrime not penalties to be suffered by the criminal but merely the\npayment of compensation to the party aggrieved, proportionate to the\ndamage suffered[169]. It is probable that the law-books on which these\ncodes were based were brought from the east coast of India and\nwere of the same type as the code of N\u00e2rada, which, though of\nunquestioned Brahmanic orthodoxy, is almost purely legal and has\nlittle to say about religion. A subsidiary literature embodying local\ndecisions naturally grew up, and about 1640 was summarized by a\nBurmese nobleman called Kaing-z\u00e2 in the Mah\u00e2r\u00e2ja-dhammathat. He\nreceived from the king the title of Manur\u00e2ja and the name of Manu\nbecame connected with his code, though it is really based on local\ncustom. It appears to have superseded older law-books until the reign\nof Alompra who remodelled the administration and caused several codes\nto be compiled[170]. These also preserve the name of Manu, but he and\nKaing-z\u00e2 are treated as the same personage. The rules of the older\nlaw-books are in the main retained but are made to depend on Buddhist\ntexts. Later Dhammathats become more and more decidedly Buddhist. Thus\nthe Mohavicchedan\u00ee (1832) does not mention Manu but presents the\nsubstance of the Manu Dhammathats as the law preached by the Buddha.\n\nDirect Indian influence may be seen in another department not\nunimportant in an oriental country. The court astrologers, soothsayers\nand professors of kindred sciences were even in recent times Brahmans,\nknown as P\u00f4nn\u00e2 and mostly from Manipur. An inscription found at Pagan\nand dated 1442 mentions the gift of 295 books[171] to the Sangha among\nwhich several have Sanskrit titles and about 1600 we hear of Pandits\nlearned in the Veda\u015b\u00e2stras, meaning not Vedic learning in the\nstrict sense but combinations of science and magic described as\nmedicine, astronomy, K\u00e2ma\u015b\u00e2stras, etc. Hindu tradition was\nsufficiently strong at the Court to make the presence of experts in\nthe Atharva Veda seem desirable and in the capital they were in\nrequest for such services as drawing up horoscopes[172] and\ninvoking good luck at weddings whereas monks will not attend\nsocial gatherings.\n\nMore important as a non-Buddhist element in Burmese religion is the\nworship of Nats[173] or spirits of various kinds. Of the prevalence of\nsuch worship there is no doubt, but I cannot agree with the\nauthorities who say that it is the practical religion of the Burmese.\nNo passing tourist can fail to see that in the literal as well as\nfigurative sense Burma takes its colour from Buddhism, from the gilded\nand vermilion pagodas and the yellow robed priests. It is impossible\nthat so much money should be given, so many lives dedicated to a\nreligion which had not a real hold on the hearts of the people. The\nworship of Nats, wide-spread though it be, is humble in its outward\nsigns and is a superstition rather than a creed. On several occasions\nthe kings of Burma have suppressed its manifestations when they became\ntoo conspicuous. Thus Anawrata destroyed the Nat houses of Pagan and\nrecent kings forbade the practice of firing guns at funerals to scare\nthe evil spirits.\n\nNats are of at least three classes, or rather have three origins.\nFirstly they are nature spirits, similar to those revered in China and\nTibet. They inhabit noticeable natural features of every kind,\nparticularly trees, rivers and mountains; they may be specially\nconnected with villages, houses or individuals. Though not essentially\nevil they are touchy and vindictive, punishing neglect or discourtesy\nwith misfortune and ill-luck. No explanation is offered as to the\norigin of many Nats, but others, who may be regarded as forming the\nsecond category, are ghosts or ancestral spirits. In northern Burma\nChinese influence encouraged ancestor worship, but apart from this\nthere is a disposition (equally evident in India) to believe that\nviolent and uncanny persons and those who meet with a tragic death\nbecome powerful ghosts requiring propitiation. Thirdly, there are Nats\nwho are at least in part identified with the Indian deities recognized\nby early Buddhism. It would seem that the Thirty Seven Nats, described\nin a work called the Mah\u00e2g\u00eet\u00e2 Med\u00e2nigy\u00e2n, correspond to the Thirty\nThree Gods of Buddhist mythology, but that the number has been raised\nfor unknown reasons to 37[174]. They are spirits of deceased\nheroes, and there is nothing unbuddhist in this conception, for the\nPi\u1e6dakas frequently represent deserving persons as being reborn in\nthe Heaven of the Thirty Three. The chief is Thagy\u00e2, the \u015aakra or\nIndra of Hindu mythology[175], but the others are heroes, connected\nwith five cycles of legends based on a popular and often inaccurate\nversion of Burmese history[176].\n\nBesides Thagy\u00e2 Nat we find other Indian figures such as Man Nat (M\u00e2ra)\nand Byamm\u00e2 Nat (Brahm\u00e2). In diagrams illustrating the Buddhist\ncosmology of the Burmans[177] a series of heavens is depicted,\nascending from those of the Four Kings and Thirty Three Gods up to the\nBrahm\u00e2 worlds, and each inhabited by Nats according to their degree.\nHere the spirits of Burma are marshalled and classified according to\nBuddhist system just as were the spirits of India some centuries\nbefore. But neither in ancient India nor in modern Burma have the\ndevas or Nats anything to do with the serious business of religion.\nThey have their place in temples as guardian genii and the whole band\nmay be seen in a shrine adjoining the Shwe-zi-gon Pagoda at Pagan, but\nthis interferes no more with the supremacy of the Buddha than did the\ndeputations of spirits who according to the scriptures waited on him.\n\n4\n\n\nBuddhism is a real force in Burmese life and the pride of the Burmese\npeople. Every male Burman enters a monastery when he is about 15 for a\nshort stay. Devout parents send their sons for the four months of\n_Was_ (or even for this season during three successive years), but by\nthe majority a period of from one month to one week is considered\nsufficient. To omit this stay in a monastery altogether would not be\nrespectable: it is in common esteem the only way to become a human\nbeing, for without it a boy is a mere animal. The praises of the\nBuddha and vows to lead a good life are commonly recited by the\nlaity[178] every morning and evening. It is the greatest ambition of\nmost Burmans to build a pagoda and those who are able to do so (a\nlarge percentage of the population to judge from the number of\nbuildings) are not only sure of their reward in another birth but\neven now enjoy respect and receive the title of pagoda-builder.\nAnother proof of devotion is the existence of thousands of\nmonasteries[179]--perhaps on an average more than two for each large\nvillage and town--built and supported by voluntary contributions. The\nprovision of food and domicile for their numerous inmates is no small\ncharge on the nation, but observers are agreed that it is cheerfully\npaid and that the monks are worthy of what they receive. In energy and\nmorality they seem, as a class, superior to their brethren in Ceylon\nand Siam, and their services to education and learning have been\nconsiderable. Every monastery is also a school, where instruction is\ngiven to both day boys and boarders. The vast majority of Burmans\nenter such a school at the age of eight or nine and learn there\nreading, writing, and arithmetic. They also receive religious\ninstruction and moral training. They commit to memory various works in\nPali and Burmese, and are taught the duties which they owe to\nthemselves, society and the state. Sir. J.G. Scott, who is certainly\nnot disposed to exaggerate the influence of Buddhism in Burma, says\nthat \"the education of the monasteries far surpasses the instruction\nof the Anglo-vernacular schools from every point of view except that\nof immediate success in life and the obtaining of a post under\nGovernment[180].\" The more studious monks are not merely schoolmasters\nbut can point to a considerable body of literature which they have\nproduced in the past and are still producing[181]. Indeed among the\nHinayanist churches that of Burma has in recent centuries held the\nfirst place for learning. The age and continuity of Sinhalese\ntraditions have given the Sangha of Ceylon a correspondingly great\nprestige but it has more than once been recruited from Burma and\nin literary output it can hardly rival the Burmese clergy.\n\nThough many disquisitions on the Vinaya have been produced in Burma,\nand though the J\u00e2takas and portions of the Sutta Pi\u1e6daka (especially\nthose called Parittam) are known to everybody, yet the favourite study\nof theologians appears to be the Abhidhamma, concerning which a\nmultitude of hand-books and commentaries have been written, but it is\nworth mentioning that the Abhidhammattha-sangaha, composed in Ceylon\nabout the twelfth century A.D., is still the standard manual[182]. Yet\nit would be a mistake to think of the Burmese monks as absorbed in\nthese recondite studies: they have on the contrary produced a long\nseries of works dealing with the practical things of the world, such\nas chronicles, law-books, ethical and political treatises, and even\npoetry, for S\u00eelavamsa and Ratthap\u00e2la whose verses are still learned by\nthe youth of Burma were both of them Bhikkhus. The Sangha has always\nshown a laudable reserve in interfering directly with politics, but in\nformer times the king's private chaplain was a councillor of\nimportance and occasionally matters involving both political and\nreligious questions were submitted to a chapter of the order. In all\ncases the influence of the monks in secular matters made for justice\nand peace: they sometimes interceded on behalf of the condemned or\nrepresented that taxation was too heavy. In 1886, when the British\nannexed Burma, the Head of the Sangha forbade monks to take part in\nthe political strife, a prohibition which was all the more remarkable\nbecause King Thibaw had issued proclamations saying that the object of\nthe invasion was to destroy Buddhism.\n\nIn essentials monastic life is much the same in Burma and Ceylon but\nthe Burmese standard is higher, and any monk known to misconduct\nhimself would be driven out by the laity. The monasteries are numerous\nbut not large and much space is wasted, for, though the exterior\nsuggests that they are built in several stories the interior usually\nis a single hall, although it may be divided by partitions. To the\neastern side is attached a chapel containing images of Gotama before\nwhich daily devotions are performed. It is surmounted by a steeple\nculminating in a _hti_, a sort of baldachino or sacred umbrella\nplaced also on the top of dagobas, and made of open metal work hung\nwith little bells. Monasteries are always built outside towns and,\nthough many of them become subsequently enclosed by the growth of the\nlarger cities, they retain spacious grounds in which there may be\nseparate buildings, such as a library, dormitories for pupils and a\nhall for performing the ordination service. The average number of\ninmates is six. A large establishment may house a superior, four\nmonks, some novices and besides them several lay scholars. The grades\nare _Sahin_ or novice, _Pyit-shin_ or fully ordained monk and\n_P\u00f4ngyi_, literally great glory, a monk of at least ten years'\nstanding. Rank depends on seniority--that is to say the greatest\nrespect is shown to the monk who has observed his vows for the longest\nperiod, but there are some simple hierarchical arrangements. At the\nhead of each monastery is a Say\u00e2 or superior, and all the monasteries\nof a large town or a country district are under the supervision of a\nProvincial called Gaing-Ok. At the head of the whole church is the\nThathanabaing, already mentioned. All these higher officials must be\nP\u00f4ngy\u00ees.\n\nAlthough all monks must take part in the daily round to collect alms\nyet in most monasteries it is the custom (as in Ceylon and Siam) not\nto eat the food collected, or at least not all of it, and though no\nsolid nourishment is taken after midday, three morning meals are\nallowed, namely, one taken very early, the next served on the return\nfrom the begging round and a third about 11.30. Two or three services\nare intoned before the image of the Buddha each day. At the morning\nceremony, which takes place about 5.30, all the inmates of the\nmonastery prostrate themselves before the superior and vow to observe\nthe precepts during the day. At the conclusion of the evening service\na novice announces that a day has passed away and in a loud voice\nproclaims the hour, the day of the week, the day of the month and the\nyear. The laity do not usually attend these services, but near large\nmonasteries there are rest houses for the entertainment of visitors\nand Uposatha days are often celebrated by a pious picnic. A family or\nparty of friends take a rest-house for a day, bring a goodly store of\ncheroots and betel nut, which are not regarded as out of place during\ndivine service[183], and listen at their ease to the exposition of\nthe law delivered by a yellow-robed monk. When the congregation\nincludes women he holds a large fan-leaf palm before his face lest his\neyes should behold vanity. A custom which might not be to the taste of\nwestern ecclesiastics is that the congregation ask questions and, if\nthey do not understand, request the preacher to be clearer.\n\nThere is little sectarianism in Burma proper, but the Sawtis, an\nanti-clerical sect, are found in some numbers in the Shan States and\nsimilar communities called Man are still met with in Pegu and\nTenasserim, though said to be disappearing. Both refuse to recognize\nthe Sangha, monasteries or temples and perform their devotions in the\nopen fields. Otherwise their mode of thought is Buddhist, for they\nhold that every man can work out his own salvation by conquering\nM\u00e2ra[184], as the Buddha did, and they use the ordinary formul\u00e6 of\nworship, except that they omit all expressions of reverence to the\nSangha. The orthodox Sangha is divided into two schools known as\nMah\u00e2gandi and S\u00fblagandi. The former are the moderate easy-going\nmajority who maintain a decent discipline but undeniably deviate\nsomewhat from the letter of the Vinaya. The latter are a strict and\nsomewhat militant Puritan minority who protest against such\nconcessions to the flesh. They insist for instance that a monk should\neat out of his begging bowl exactly as it is at the end of the morning\nround and they forbid the use of silk robes, sunshades and sandals.\nThe S\u00fblagandi also believe in free will and attach more value to the\nintention than the action in estimating the value of good deeds,\nwhereas the Mah\u00e2gandi accept good actions without enquiring into the\nmotive and believe that all deeds are the result of karma.\n\n5\n\n\nIn Burma all the higher branches of architecture are almost\nexclusively dedicated to religion. Except the Palace at Mandalay there\nis hardly a native building of note which is not connected with a\nshrine or monastery. Burmese architectural forms show most analogy\nto those of Nepal and perhaps[185] both preserve what was once the\ncommon style for wooden buildings in ancient India. In recent\ncenturies the Burmese have shown little inclination to build anything\nthat can be called a temple, that is a chamber containing images and\nthe paraphernalia of worship. The commonest form of religious edifice\nis the dagoba or zedi[186]: images are placed in niches or shrines,\nwhich shelter them, but only rarely, as on the platform of the Shwe\nDagon at Rangoon, assume the proportions of rooms. This does not apply\nto the great temples of Pagan, built from about 1050 to 1200, but that\nstyle was not continued and except the Arakan Pagoda at Mandalay has\nperhaps no modern representative. Details of these buildings may be\nfound in the works of Forchhammer, Fergusson, de Beyli\u00e9 and various\narch\u00e6ological reports. Their construction is remarkably solid. They do\nnot, like most large buildings in India or Europe, contain halls of\nsome size but are rather pyramids traversed by passages. But this\ncurious disinclination to build temples of the usual kind is not due\nto any dislike of images. In no Buddhist country are they more common\nand their numbers are more noticeable because there is here no\npantheon as in China and Tibet, but images of Gotama are multiplied,\nmerely in order to obtain merit. Some slight variety in these figures\nis produced by the fact that the Burmese venerate not only Gotama but\nthe three Buddhas who preceded him[187]. The Shwe Dagon Pagoda is\nreputed to contain relics of all four; statues of them all stand in\nthe beautiful Ananda Pagoda at Pagan and not infrequently they are\nrepresented by four sitting figures facing the four quarters. A\ngigantic group of this kind composed of statues nearly 90 feet high\nstands in the outskirts of Pegu, and in the same neighbourhood is\na still larger recumbent figure 180 feet long. It had been forgotten\nsince the capture of Pegu by the Burmans in 1757 and was rediscovered\nby the engineers surveying the route for the railway. It lies almost\nin sight of the line and is surprising by its mere size, as one comes\nupon it suddenly in the jungle. As a work of art it can hardly be\npraised. It does not suggest the Buddha on his death bed, as is\nintended, but rather some huge spirit of the jungle waking up and\nwatching the railway with indolent amusement.\n\nIn Upper Burma there are not so many large images but as one\napproaches Mandalay the pagodas add more and more to the landscape.\nMany are golden and the rest are mostly white and conspicuous. They\ncrown the hills and punctuate the windings of the valleys. Perhaps\nBurmese art and nature are seen at their best near Sagaing on the bank\nof the Irrawaddy, a mighty flood of yellow water, sweeping down smooth\nand steady, but here and there showing whirlpools that look like\nmolten metal. From the shore rise hills of moderate height studded\nwith monasteries and shrines. Flights of white steps lead to the\nprincipal summits where golden spires gleam and everywhere are pagodas\nof all ages, shapes and sizes. Like most Asiatics the Burmese rarely\nrepair, but build new pagodas instead of renovating the old ones. The\ninstinct is not altogether unjust. A pagoda does not collapse like a\nhollow building but understands the art of growing old. Like a tree it\nmay become cleft or overgrown with moss but it remains picturesque. In\nthe neighbourhood of Sagaing there is a veritable forest of pagodas;\nhumble seedlings built by widows' mites, mature golden domes reared by\ndevout prosperity and venerable ruins decomposing as all compound\nthings must do.\n\nThe pagoda slaves are a curious institution connected with temples.\nUnder the Burmese kings persons could be dedicated to pagodas and by\nthis process not only became slaves for life themselves but involved\nin the same servitude all their posterity, none of whom could by any\nmethod become free. They formed a low caste like the Indian Pariahs\nand though the British Government has abolished the legal status of\nslavery, the social stigma which clings to them is said to be\nundiminished.\n\nArt and architecture make the picture of Burma as it remains in\nmemory and they are the faithful reflection of the character and ways\nof its inhabitants, their cheerful but religious temper, their love of\nwhat is fanciful and graceful, their moderate aspirations towards what\nis arduous and sublime. The most striking feature of this architecture\nis its free use of gold and colour. In no country of the world is\ngilding and plating with gold so lavishly employed on the exterior of\nbuildings. The larger Pagodas such as the Shwe Dagon are veritable\npyramids of gold, and the roofs of the Arakan temple as they rise\nabove Mandalay show tier upon tier of golden beams and plates. The\nbrilliancy is increased by the equally lavish use of vermilion,\nsometimes diversified by glass mosaic. I remember once in an East\nAfrican jungle seeing a clump of flowers of such brilliant red and\nyellow that for a moment I thought it was a fire. Somewhat similar is\nthe surprise with which one first gazes on these edifices. I do not\nknow whether the epithet flamboyant can be correctly applied to them\nas architecture but both in colour and shape they imitate a pile of\nflame, for the outlines of monasteries and shrines are fanciful in the\nextreme; gabled roofs with finials like tongues of fire and panels\nrich with carvings and fret-work. The buildings of Hindus and Burmans\nare as different as their characters. When a Hindu temple is imposing\nit is usually because of its bulk and mystery, whereas these buildings\nare lighthearted and fairy-like: heaps of red and yellow fruit with\ntwining leaves and tendrils that have grown by magic. Nor is there\nmuch resemblance to Japanese architecture. There also, lacquer and\ngold are employed to an unusual extent but the flourishes, horns and\nfinials which in Burma spring from every corner and projection are\nwanting and both Japanese and Chinese artists are more sparing and\nreticent. They distribute ornament so as to emphasize and lead up to\nthe more important parts of their buildings, whereas the open-handed,\nsplendour-loving Burman puts on every panel and pillar as much\ndecoration as it will hold.\n\nThe result must be looked at as a whole and not too minutely. The best\nwork is the wood carving which has a freedom and boldness often\nmissing in the minute and crowded designs of Indian art. Still as a\nrule it is at the risk of breaking the spell that you examine the\ndetails of Burmese ornamentation. Better rest content with your first\namazement on beholding these carved and pinnacled piles of gold\nand vermilion, where the fantastic animals and plants seem about to\nbreak into life.\n\nThe most celebrated shrine in Burma is the Shwe Dagon Pagoda which\nattracts pilgrims from all the Buddhist world. No descriptions of it\ngave me any idea of its real appearance nor can I hope that I shall be\nmore successful in giving the reader my own impressions. The pagoda\nitself is a gilt bell-shaped mass rather higher than the Dome of St.\nPaul's and terminating in a spire. It is set in the centre of a raised\nmound or platform, approached by lofty flights of steps. The platform,\nwhich is paved and level, is of imposing dimensions, some nine hundred\nfeet long and seven hundred wide. Round the base of the central pagoda\nis a row of shrines and another row runs round the edge of the\nplatform so that one moves, as it were, in a street of these edifices,\nleading here and there into side squares where are quiet retreats with\npalm trees and gigantic images. But when after climbing the long\nstaircase one first emerges on the platform one does not realize the\ntopography at once and seems to have entered suddenly into Jerusalem\nthe Golden. Right and left are rows of gorgeous, fantastic\nsanctuaries, all gold, vermilion and glass mosaic, and within them sit\nmarble figures, bland, enigmatic personages who seem to invite\napproach but offer no explanation of the singular scene or the part\nthey play in it. If analyzed in detail the artistic merits of these\nshrines might be found small but the total impression is unique. The\nShwe Dagon has not the qualities which usually distinguish great\nreligious buildings. It is not specially impressive by its majesty or\nholiness; it is certainly wanting in order and arrangement. But on\nentering the platform one feels that one has suddenly passed from this\nlife into another and different world. It is not perhaps a very\nelevated world; certainly not the final repose of the just or the\nsteps of the throne of God, but it is as if you were walking in the\nbazaars of Paradise--one of those Buddhist Paradises where the souls\nof the moderately pure find temporary rest from the whirl of\ntransmigration, where the very lotus flowers are golden and the leaves\nof the trees are golden bells that tinkle in the perfumed breeze.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 124: For the Pyus see Blagden in _J.R.A.S._ pp. 365-388.\n_Ibid._ in _Epigr. Indica_, 1913, pp. 127-133. Also reports of _Burma\nArch. Survey_, 1916, 1917.]\n\n[Footnote 125: So C.C. Lowis in the _Gazetteer of Burma_, vol. I. p.\n292, but according to others the Burmese chronicles place the event at\nthe beginning of the Christian era.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Sometimes called New Pagan to distinguish it from Old\nPagan which was a name of Tagaung. Also called Pagan or Pug\u00e2ma and in\nPali Arimaddanapura.]\n\n[Footnote 127: See the travels of Kia Tan described by Pelliot in\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 131-414.]\n\n[Footnote 128: More correctly Taung-ngu.]\n\n[Footnote 129: For the history and present condition of Buddhism in\nBurma the following may be consulted besides other works referred to\nin the course of this chapter.\n\nM. Bode, _Edition of the S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa_ with valuable dissertations,\n1897. This work is a modern Burmese ecclesiastical history written in\n1861 by Pa\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2s\u00e2mi.\n\nM. Bode, _The Pali Literature of Burma_, 1909.\n\nThe Gandhava\u1e43sa: containing accounts of many Pali works written in\nBurma. Edited by Minayeff in _Jour. Pali Text Soc._ for 1886, pp. 54\nff. and indexed by M. Bode, _ibid._ 1896, 53 ff.\n\nBigandet, _Vie ou L\u00e9gende de Gautama_, 1878.\n\nYoe, _The Burman, his life and notions_.\n\nJ.G. Scott, _Burma, a handbook of practical information_, 1906.\n\n_Reports of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Burma_,\n1916-1920.\n\nVarious articles (especially by Duroiselle, Taw-Sein-Ko and R.C.\nTemple) in the _Indian Antiquary_, _Buddhism_, and _Bulletin de\nl'Ecole Fran\u00e7aise de l'Extr\u00eame Orient._]\n\n[Footnote 130: So too Prome is called \u015ar\u00eekshetra and the name\nIrrawaddy represents Ir\u00e2vat\u00ee (the modern Ravi). The ancient town of\n\u015ar\u00e2vast\u00ee or S\u00e2vatthi is said to reappear in the three forms\nTharawaddy, Tharawaw and Thawutti.]\n\n[Footnote 131: See _Indian Antiquary_, 1893, p. 6, and Forchhammer on\nthe Mahamuni Pagoda in _Burmese Archaeological Report_ (? 1890).]\n\n[Footnote 132: D\u00eepav. VIII. 12, and in a more embellished form in\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa XII. 44-54. See also the Kalyani Inscriptions in _Indian\nAnt._ 1893, p. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 133: Through the form Saton representing Saddhan. Early\nEuropean travellers called it Satan or Xatan.]\n\n[Footnote 134: The Burmese identify Aparantaka and Yona to which Asoka\nalso sent missionaries with Upper Burma and the Shan country. But this\nseems to be merely a misapplication of Indian names.]\n\n[Footnote 135: See Forchhammer, _Jardine Prize Essay_, 1885, pp.\n23-27. He also says that the earliest Talaing alphabet is identical\nwith the Vengi alphabet of the fourth century A.D. _Burma Archaeol.\nReport_, 1917, p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 136: See R.C. Temple, \"Notes on Antiquities of R\u00e2ma\u00f1\u00f1adesa,\"\n_Ind. Antiq._ 1893, pp. 327 ff. Though I admit the possibility that\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism and Tantrism may have flourished in lower Burma, it does\nnot seem to me that the few Hindu figures reproduced in this article\nprove very much.]\n\n[Footnote 137: _J.A._ 1912, II. pp. 121-136.]\n\n[Footnote 138: It is remarkable that Buddhaghosa commenting on Ang.\nNik. 1. 14. 6 (quoted by Forchhammer) describes the merchants of\nUkkala as inhabiting Asita\u00f1jana in the region of Ha\u1e43savat\u00ee or Pegu.\nThis identification of Ukkala with Burmese territory is a mistake but\naccepted in Burma and it is more likely that a Burmese would have made\nit than a Hindu.]\n\n[Footnote 139: Chap. XXXIX.]\n\n[Footnote 140: See however _Epig. Indica_, vol. V. part iv. Oct. 1898,\npp. 101-102. For the prevalence of forms which must be derived from\nSanskrit not Pali see _Burma Arch. Rep._ 1916, p. 14, and 1917, p.\n39.]\n\n[Footnote 141: Report of _Supt. Arch. Survey Burma_, 1909, p. 10,\n1910, p. 13, and 1916, pp. 33, 38. Finot, _Notes d'Epigraphie_, p.\n357.]\n\n[Footnote 142: See especially Finot in _J.A._ 1912, II. p. 123, and\nHuber in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1909 P. 584.]\n\n[Footnote 143: The Aris are further credited with having practised a\nsort of _jus prim\u00e6 noctis_. See on this question the chapter on\nCamboja and alleged similar customs there.]\n\n[Footnote 144: See _Burma Arch. Rep._ 1916, pp. 12, 13. They seem to\nhave been similar to the N\u00eelapatanadar\u015bana of Ceylon. The\nPrabodhacandrodaya (about 1100 A.D.) represents Buddhist monks as\ndrunken and licentious.]\n\n[Footnote 145: See Parker, _Burma_, 1892. The annalist says \"There is\na huge white elephant (or image) 100 feet high. Litigants burn\nincense and kneel before it, reflecting within themselves whether they\nare right or wrong.... When there is any disaster or plague the king\nalso kneels in front of it and blames himself.\" The Chinese character\nmeans either image or elephant, but surely the former must be the\nmeaning here.]\n\n[Footnote 146: See Taw-Sein-Ko, in _Ind. Antiquary_, 1906, p. 211. But\nI must confess that I have not been able to follow or confirm all the\netymologies suggested by him.]\n\n[Footnote 147: See for Chinese remains at Pagan, _Report of the\nSuperintendent, Arch. Survey, Burma, for year ending 31st March,\n1910_, pp. 20, 21. An inscription at Pagan records that in 1285\nKhubilai's troops were accompanied by monks sent to evangelize Burma.\nBoth troops and monks halted at Tagaung and both were subsequently\nwithdrawn. See _Arch. Survey_, 1917, p. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 148: The date of Anawrata's conquest of Thaton seems to be\nnow fixed by inscriptions as 1057 A.D., though formerly supposed to be\nearlier. See _Burma Arch. Rep._ 1916. For Anawrata's religious reforms\nsee _S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa_, pp. 17 ff. and 57 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 149: It has been noted that many of the inscriptions\nexplanatory of the scenes depicted on the walls of the Ananda temple\nat Pagan are in Talaing, showing that it was some time before the\nBurmans were able to assimilate the culture of the conquered country.]\n\n[Footnote 150: See the _S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa_, p. 64 and p. 20. See also\nBode, _Pali Literature of Burma_, p. 15. But the Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa, LX.\n4-7, while recording the communications between Vijaya Bahu and\nAniruddha ( = Anawrata) represents Ceylon as asking for monks from\nR\u00e2ma\u00f1\u00f1a, which implies that lower Burma was even then regarded as a\nBuddhist country with a fine tradition.]\n\n[Footnote 151: The Burmese canon adds four works to the\nKhuddaka-Nik\u00e2ya, namely: (a) Milinda Pa\u00f1ha, (b) Netti-Pakara\u1e47a, (c)\nSuttasa\u1e47gaha, (d) Pe\u1e6dakopadesa.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Inscriptions give his reign as 1084-1112 A.D. See\n_Burma Arch. Rep._ 1916, p. 24. Among many other remarkable edifices\nmay be mentioned the Thapinyu or Thabbannu (1100), the Gaudapalin\n(1160) and the Bodhi (_c._ 1200) which is a copy of the temple at\nBodhgaya.]\n\n[Footnote 153: The best known of his works are the Sutta-niddesa on\ngrammar and the Sankhepava\u1e47\u1e47an\u00e2. The latter is a commentary on\nthe Abhidhammattha-sangaha, but it is not certain if Chapa\u1e6da\ncomposed it or merely translated it from the Sinhalese.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Some authorities speak as if the four disciples of\nChapa\u1e6da had founded four sects, but the reprobate R\u00e2hula can hardly\nhave done this. The above account is taken from the Kalyani\ninscription, _Ind. Ant_. 1893, pp. 30, 31. It says very distinctly\n\"There were in Pugama (Pagan) 4 sects. 1. The successors of the\npriests who introduced the religion from Sudhamman\u00e2gara (_i.e._ the\nMramma Sangha). 2. The disciples of S\u00eevalimah\u00e2thera. 3. The disciples\nof T\u00e2malindamah\u00e2thera. 4. The disciples of Ananda Mah\u00e2thera.\"]\n\n[Footnote 155: Also known by the title of Dhammavitasa. He was active\nin 1246.]\n\n[Footnote 156: Found in Zaingganaing, a suburb of Pegu. The text,\ntranslation and notes are contained in various articles by Taw-Sein-Ko\nin the _Indian Antiquary_ for 1893-4.]\n\n[Footnote 157: Mah\u00e2vagga, II. 11, 12, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 158: According to Taw-Sein-Ko (_Ind. Ant._ 1893, p. 11)\n\"about 105 or 126 feet in perimeter.\"]\n\n[Footnote 159: No contact with Cambojan religion is implied. The sect\nwas so called because its chief monastery was near the Camboja market\nand this derived its name from the fact that many Cambojan (probably\nmeaning Shan) prisoners were confined near it.]\n\n[Footnote 160: In favour of it, it may be said that the D\u00eepava\u1e43sa\nand the earlier traditions on which the D\u00eepava\u1e43sa is based are\nancient and impartial witnesses: against it, that Asoka's attention\nseems to have been directed westwards, not towards Bengal and Burma,\nand that no very early proof of the existence of Buddhism in Burma has\nbeen found.]\n\n[Footnote 161: Apparently about 1525-1530.]\n\n[Footnote 162: See _S\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa_, pp. 118 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 163: _E.g._ Mah\u00e2vagga, I. 29, 2; IV. 3, 3. Eka\u1e43sam\nuttar\u00e2sangam karitv\u00e2. But both arrangements of drapery are found in\nthe oldest images of the Buddha and perhaps the Eka\u1e43sika fashion is\nthe commoner. See Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddhist Art in India_, 1901, p. 172.\nThough these images are considerably later than the Mah\u00e2vagga and\nprove nothing as to the _original_ practice of the Sa\u1e47gha, yet they\nshow that the Eka\u1e43sika fashion prevailed at a relatively early\nperiod. It now prevails in Siam and partly in Ceylon. I-Ching (chap.\nXI.) has a discussion on the way robes were worn in India (_c._ 680\nA.D.) which is very obscure but seems to say that monks may keep their\nshoulders covered while in a monastery but should uncover one when\nthey go out.]\n\n[Footnote 164: _S\u00e2sanav._ p. 123. Sakala-Maramma-ra\u1e6d\u1e6dhav\u00e2sino\nca: aya\u1e43 amhak\u00e2\u1e43 r\u00e2j\u00e2 bodhisatto ti voh\u00e2rimsu. In the Po-U-Daung\ninscription, Alompra's son, Hsin-byu-shin, says twice \"In virtue of\nthis my good deed, may I become a Buddha, ... an omniscient one.\"\n_Indian Antiquary_, 1893, pp. 2 and 5. There is something Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist\nin this aspiration. Cf. too the inscriptions of the Siamese King\n\u015ar\u00ee-S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa R\u00e2ma mentioned below.]\n\n[Footnote 165: They were Puritans who objected to shrines and images\nand are said to be represented to-day by the Sawti sect.]\n\n[Footnote 166: See _The Burmese Empire_ by the Italian Father\nSangermano, who went to Burma in 1783 and lived there about 20 years.]\n\n[Footnote 167: Thathana is the Pali S\u00e2sana. In Burmese pronunciation\nthe s of Indian words regularly appears as th ( = \u03b8), r as y\nand j as z. Thus Thagya for Sakra, Yazawin for R\u00e2java\u1e43\u015ba.]\n\n[Footnote 168: See E. Forchhammer, _Jardine Prize Essay_ (on the\nsources and development of Burmese Law), 1885. J. Jolly, \"Recht und\nSitte\" in _Grundriss der Ind. Ar. Phil._ 1896, pp. 41-44. M.H. Bode,\n_Pali Lit. of Burma_, pp. 83 ff. Dhammathat is the Burmese\npronunciation of Dhammasattha, Sanskrit Dharma\u015b\u00e2stra.]\n\n[Footnote 169: This theory did not prevent the kings of Burma and\ntheir subordinates from inflicting atrociously cruel punishments.]\n\n[Footnote 170: Forchhammer gives a list of 39 Dhammathats compiled\nbetween 1753 and 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 171: They seem to have included tantric works of the\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2lacakra type. See Bode, _Pali Lit. of Burma_, p. 108, Nos. 270,\n271. But the name is given in the Pali form cakka.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Among usages borrowed from Hinduism may be mentioned\nthe daily washing in holy water of the image in the Arakan temple at\nMandalay. Formerly court festivities, such as the New Year's feast and\nthe festival of ploughing, were performed by P\u00f4nn\u00e2s and with Indian\nrites. On the other hand the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana does not seem to have the same\ninfluence on art and literature that it has had in Siam and Java,\nthough scenes from it are sometimes depicted. See _Report, Supt.\nArchaeolog. Survey, Burma_, 1908, p. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 173: See especially _The Thirty Seven Nats_ by Sir. R.C.\nTemple, 1906, and _Burma_ by Sir. J.G. Scott, 1906, pp. 380 ff. The\nbest authorities seem agreed that Nat is not the Sanskrit N\u00e2tha but an\nindigenous word of unknown derivation.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Possibly in order to include four female spirits: or\npossibly because it was felt that sundry later heroes had as strong a\nclaim to membership of this distinguished body as the original 33.]\n\n[Footnote 175: It is noticeable that Thagy\u00e2 comes from the Sanskrit\n\u015aakra not the Pali Sakka. Th = Sk. s: y = Sk. r.]\n\n[Footnote 176: See R.C. Temple, _The Thirty Seven Nats_, chaps.\nX.-XIII., for these cycles.]\n\n[Footnote 177: _E.g._ R.C. Temple, _l.c._ p. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 178: According to Sir. J.G. Scott much more commonly than\nprayers among Christians. _Burma_, p. 366.]\n\n[Footnote 179: 15,371 according to the census of 1891. The figures in\nthe last census are not conveniently arranged for Buddhist\nstatistics.]\n\n[Footnote 180: Hastings' _Encycl. of Religion and Ethics_, art. \"Burma\n(Buddhism).\"]\n\n[Footnote 181: See Bode, _Pali Literature in Burma_, pp. 95 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 182: No less than 22 translations of it have been made into\nBurmese. See S.Z. Aung in _J.P.T.S._ 1912, p. 129. He also mentions\nthat night lectures on the Abhidhamma in Burmese are given in\nmonasteries.]\n\n[Footnote 183: But on such occasions the laity usually fast after\nmidday.]\n\n[Footnote 184: Man is the Burmese form of M\u00e2ra.]\n\n[Footnote 185: Among the most striking characteristics of the Nepalese\nstyle are buildings of many stories each with a projecting roof. No\nexamples of similar buildings from ancient India have survived,\nperhaps because they were made of wood, but representations of\ntwo-storied buildings have come down to us, for instance on the\nSohgaura copper plate which dates probably from the time of Asoka (see\nB\u00fchler, _W.Z.K.M._ 1896, p. 138). See also the figures in Foucher's\n_Art Gr\u00e9co-bouddhique du Gandh\u00e2ra_, on pp. 121, 122. The monuments at\nM\u00e2mallapuram known as Raths (see Fergusson, _Indian and Eastern\nArchitecture_, I. p. 172) appear to be representations of many storied\nVih\u00e2ras. There are several references to seven storied buildings in\nthe J\u00e2takas.]\n\n[Footnote 186: = cetiya.]\n\n[Footnote 187: Occasionally groups of five Buddhas, that is, these\nfour Buddhas together with Metteyya, are found. See _Report of the\nSupt. Arch. Survey (Burma) for the year ending March 31st, 1910_, p.\n16.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII\n\nSIAM[188]\n\n1\n\n\nThe Buddhism of Siam does not differ materially from that of Burma and\nCeylon but merits separate mention, since it has features of its own\ndue in some measure to the fact that Siam is still an independent\nkingdom ruled by a monarch who is also head of the Church. But whereas\nfor the last few centuries this kingdom may be regarded as a political\nand religious unit, its condition in earlier times was different and\nSiamese history tells us nothing of the introduction and first\ndiffusion of Indian religions in the countries between India and\nChina.\n\nThe people commonly known as Siamese call themselves Th\u0103i which\n(in the form Tai) appears to be the racial name of several tribes who\ncan be traced to the southern provinces of China. They spread thence,\nin fanlike fashion, from Laos to Assam, and the middle section\nultimately descended the Menam to the sea. The Siamese claim to have\nassumed the name Th\u0103i (free) after they threw off the yoke of the\nCambojans, but this derivation is more acceptable to politics than to\nethnology. The territories which they inhabited were known as Siem,\nSy\u00e2m or Sy\u00e2ma, which is commonly identified with the Sanskrit\n\u015ay\u00e2ma, dark or brown[189]. But the names Shan and A-hom seem to be\nvariants of the same word and \u015ay\u00e2ma is possibly not its origin but\na learned and artificial distortion[190]. The Lao were another\ndivision of the same race who occupied the country now called Laos\nbefore the Tai had moved into Siam. This movement was gradual and\nuntil the beginning of the twelfth century they merely established\nsmall principalities, the principal of which was Lamphun[191], on the\nwestern arm of the Mekong. They gradually penetrated into the kingdoms\nof Svankalok, Sukhothai[192] and Lavo (Lophburi) which then were\nvassals of Camboja, and they were reinforced by another body of Tais\nwhich moved southwards early in the twelfth century. For some time the\nCambojan Empire made a successful effort to control these immigrants\nbut in the latter part of the thirteenth century the Siamese\ndefinitely shook off its yoke and founded an independent state with\nits capital at Sukhothai. There was probably some connection between\nthese events and the southern expeditions of Khubilai Khan who in 1254\nconquered Talifu and set the Tai tribes in motion.\n\nThe history of their rule in Siam may be briefly described as a\nsuccession of three kingdoms with capitals at Sukhothai, Ayuthia and\nBangkok respectively. Like the Burmese, the Siamese have annals or\nchronicles. They fall into two divisions, the chronicles[193] of the\nnorthern kingdom in three volumes which go down to the foundation of\nAyuthia and are admitted even by the Siamese to be mostly fabulous, and\nthe later annals in 40 volumes which were rearranged after the sack of\nAyuthia in 1767 but claim to begin with the foundation of the city.\nVarious opinions have been expressed as to their trustworthiness[194],\nbut it is allowed by all that they must be used with caution. More\nauthoritative but not very early are the inscriptions set up by various\nkings, of which a considerable number have been published and\ntranslated[195].\n\nThe early history of Sukhothai and its kings is not yet beyond dispute\nbut a monarch called R\u00e2mar\u00e2ja or R\u00e2ma Khomh\u00ebng played a considerable\npart in it. His identity with Ph\u0103ya R\u00f9ang, who is said to have\nfounded the dynasty and city, has been both affirmed and denied.\nSukhothai, at least as the designation of a kingdom, seems to be much\nolder than his reign[196]. It was undoubtedly understood as the\nequivalent of the Sanskrit Sukhodaya, but like \u015ay\u00e2ma it may be an\nadaptation of some native word. In an important inscription found at\nSukhothai and now preserved at Bangkok[197], which was probably\ncomposed about 1300 A.D., R\u00e2ma Khomh\u00ebng gives an account of his\nkingdom. On the east it extended to the banks of the Mekhong and\nbeyond it to Chav\u00e2 (perhaps a name of Luang-Prabang): on the south to\nthe sea, as far as \u015ar\u00ee Dharmar\u00e2ja or Ligor: on the west to\nHa\u1e43savat\u00ee or Pegu. This last statement is important for it enables\nus to understand how at this period, and no doubt considerably\nearlier, the Siamese were acquainted with Pali Buddhism. The king\nstates that hitherto his people had no alphabet but that he invented\none[198]. This script subsequently developed into the modern\nSiamese writing which, though it presents many difficulties, is an\ningenious attempt to express a language with tones in an alphabet. The\nvocabulary of Siamese is not homogeneous: it comprises (_a_) a\nfoundation of Thai, (_b_) a considerable admixture of Khmer words,\n(_c_) an element borrowed from Malay and other languages, (_d_)\nnumerous ecclesiastical and learned terms taken from Pali and\nSanskrit. There are five tones which must be distinguished, if either\nwritten or spoken speech is to be intelligible. This is done partly by\naccents and partly by dividing the forty-four consonants (many of\nwhich are superfluous for other purposes) into three groups, the high,\nmiddle and deep.\n\nThe king also speaks of religion. The court and the inhabitants of\nSukhothai were devout Buddhists: they observed the season of Vassa and\ncelebrated the festival of Ka\u1e6dhina with processions, concerts and\nreading of the scriptures. In the city were to be seen statues of the\nBuddha and scenes carved in relief, as well as large monasteries. To\nthe west of the city was the Forest Monastery, presented to a\ndistinguished elder who came from \u015ari Dharmar\u00e2ja and had studied\nthe whole Tripitaka. The mention of this official and others suggests\nthat there was a regular hierarchy and the king relates how he exhumed\ncertain sacred relics and built a pagoda over them. Though there is no\ndirect allusion to Brahmanism, stress is laid on the worship of\nspirits and devas on which the prosperity of the kingdom depends.\n\nThe form of Buddhism described seems to have differed little from the\nHinayanism found in Siam to-day. Whence did the Siamese obtain it? For\nsome centuries before they were known as a nation, they probably\nprofessed some form of Indian religion. They came from the border\nlands, if not from the actual territory of China, and must have been\nacquainted with Chinese Buddhism. Also Burmese influence probably\nreached Y\u00fcnnan in the eighth century[199], but it is not easy to say\nwhat form of religion it brought with it. Still when the Thai entered\nwhat is now Siam, it is likely that their religion was some form of\nBuddhism. While they were subject to Camboja they must have felt the\ninfluence of \u015aivaism and possibly of Mahayanist Sanskrit\nBuddhism but no Pali Buddhism can have come from this quarter[200].\n\nSouthern Siam was however to some extent affected by another wave of\nBuddhism. From early times the eastern coast of India (and perhaps\nCeylon) had intercourse not only with Burma but with the Malay\nPeninsula. It is proved by inscriptions that the region of Ligor,\nformerly known as \u015ar\u00ee Dharmar\u00e2ja, was occupied by Hindus (who were\nprobably Buddhists) at least as early as the fourth century A.D.[201],\nand Buddhist inscriptions have been found on the mainland opposite\nPenang. The Chinese annals allude to a change in the customs of\nCamboja and I-Ching says plainly that Buddhism once nourished there\nbut was exterminated by a wicked king, which may mean that Hinayanist\nBuddhism had spread thither from Ligor but was suppressed by a dynasty\nof \u015aivaites. He also says that at the end of the seventh century\nHinayanism was prevalent in the islands of the Southern Sea. An\ninscription of about the fourth century found in Kedah and another of\nthe seventh or eighth from Phra Pathom both contain the formula _Ye\ndharm\u00e2_, etc. The latter inscription and also one from Mergui ascribed\nto the eleventh century seem to be in mixed Sanskrit and Pali. The\nSukhothai inscription summarized above tells how a learned monk was\nbrought thither from Ligor and clearly the Pali Buddhism of northern\nSiam may have followed the same route. But it probably had also\nanother more important if not exclusive source, namely Burma. After\nthe reign of Anawrata Pali Buddhism was accepted in Burma and in what\nwe now call the Shan States as the religion of civilized mankind and\nthis conviction found its way to the not very distant kingdom of\nSukhothai. Subsequently the Siamese recognized the seniority and\nauthority of the Sinhalese Church by inviting an instructor to come\nfrom Ceylon, but in earlier times they can hardly have had direct\nrelation with the island.\n\nWe have another picture of religious life in a Khmer\ninscription[202] of Lidaiya or \u015ar\u00ee S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa R\u00e2ma composed in\n1361 or a little later. This monarch, who is also known by many\nlengthy titles, appears to have been a man of learning who had\nstudied the Tipi\u1e6daka, the Vedas, the \u015a\u00e2str\u00e2gama and Dharma\u00f1\u00e2ya\nand erected images of Mahe\u015bvara and Vishnu as well as of the\nBuddha. In 1361 he sent a messenger to Ceylon charged with the task of\nbringing back a Metropolitan or head of the Sa\u1e47gha learned in the\nPitakas. This ecclesiastic, who is known only by his title, was duly\nsent and on arriving in Siam was received with the greatest honour and\nmade a triumphal progress to Sukhothai. He is not represented as\nintroducing a new religion: the impression left by the inscription is\nrather that the king and his people being already well-instructed in\nBuddhism desired ampler edification from an authentic source. The\narrival of the Sa\u1e47ghar\u00e2ja coincided with the beginning of Vassa and\nat the end of the sacred season the king dedicated a golden image of\nthe Buddha, which stood in the midst of the city, and then entered the\norder. In doing so he solemnly declared his hope that the merit thus\nacquired might make him in future lives not an Emperor, an Indra or a\nBrahm\u00e2 but a Buddha able to save mankind. He pursued his religious\ncareer with a gratifying accompaniment of miracles and many of the\nnobility and learned professions followed his example. But after a\nwhile a deputation waited on his Majesty begging him to return to the\nbusiness of his kingdom[203]. An edifying contest ensued. The monks\nbesought him to stay as their preceptor and guide: the laity pointed\nout that government was at an end and claimed his attention. The\nmatter was referred to the Sa\u1e47ghar\u00e2ja who decided that the king\nought to return to his secular duties. He appears to have found little\ndifficulty in resuming lay habits for he proceeded to chastise the\npeople of Luang-Prabang.\n\nTwo other inscriptions[204], apparently dating from this epoch,\nrelate that a cutting of the Bo-tree was brought from Ceylon and\nthat certain relics (perhaps from Patna) were also installed with\ngreat solemnity. To the same time are referred a series of engravings\non stone (not reliefs) found in the Vat-si-jum at Sukhothai. They\nillustrate about 100 Jatakas, arranged for the most part according to\nthe order followed in the Pali Canon.\n\nThe facts that King \u015ar\u00ee S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa sent to Ceylon for his\nMetropolitan and that some of the inscriptions which extol his merits\nare in Pali[205] make it probable that the religion which he professed\ndiffered little from the Pali Buddhism which flourishes in Siam to-day\nand this supposition is confirmed by the general tone of his\ninscriptions. But still several phrases in them have a Mahayanist\nflavour. He takes as his model the conduct of the Bodhisattvas,\ndescribed as ten headed by Metteyya, and his vow to become a Buddha\nand save all creatures is at least twice mentioned. The Buddhas are\nsaid to be innumerable and the feet of Bhikkhus are called Buddha\nfeet[206]. There is no difficulty in accounting for the presence of\nsuch ideas: the only question is from what quarter this Mahayanist\ninfluence came. The king is said to have been a student of Indian\nliterature: his country, like Burma, was in touch with China and his\nuse of the Khmer language indicates contact with Camboja.\n\nAnother inscription engraved by order of Dharm\u00e2sokar\u00e2ja[207] and\napparently dating from the fourteenth century is remarkable for its\nclear statement of the doctrine (generally considered as Mahayanist)\nthat merit acquired by devotion to the Buddha can be transferred. The\nking states that a woman called Bunrak has transferred all her merit\nto the Queen and that he himself makes over all his merit to his\nteacher, to his relations and to all beings in unhappy states of\nexistence.\n\nAt some time in this period the centre of the Thai empire changed\nbut divergent views have been held as to the date[208] and character\nof this event. It would appear that in 1350 a Siamese subsequently\nknown as King R\u00e2m\u00e2dhipati, a descendant of an ancient line of Thai\nprinces, founded Ayuthia as a rival to Sukhothai. The site was not\nnew, for it had long been known as Dv\u00e2ravat\u00ee and seems to be mentioned\nunder that name by I-Ching (_c._ 680), but a new city was apparently\nconstructed. The evidence of inscriptions indicates that Sukhothai was\nnot immediately subdued by the new kingdom and did not cease to be a\nroyal residence for some time. But still Ayuthia gradually became\npredominant and in the fifteenth century merited the title of capital\nof Siam.\n\nIts rise did not affect the esteem in which Buddhism was held, and it\nmust have contained many great religious monuments. The jungles which\nnow cover the site of the city surround the remnants of the W\u0103t\nSomarokot, in which is a gigantic bronze Buddha facing with scornful\ncalm the ruin which threatens him. The W\u0103t Chern, which lies at\nsome distance, contains another gigantic image. A curious\ninscription[209] engraved on an image of \u015aiva found at Sukhothai\nand dated 1510 A.D. asserts the identity of Buddhism and Brahmanism,\nbut the popular feeling was in favour of the former. At Ayuthia the\ntemples appear to be exclusively Buddhist and at Lophburi ancient\nbuildings originally constructed for the Brahmanic cult have been\nadapted to Buddhist uses. It was in 1602 that the mark known as the\nfootprint of Buddha was discovered at the place now called Phra-bat.\n\nAyuthia was captured by the Burmese in 1568 and the king was carried\ninto captivity but the disaster was not permanent, for at the end of\nthe century the power of the Siamese reached its highest point and\ntheir foreign relations were extensive. We hear that five hundred\nJapanese assisted them to repulse a Burmese attack and that there was\na large Japanese colony in Ayuthia. On the other hand when Hideyoshi\ninvaded Korea in 1592, the Siamese offered to assist the Chinese.\nEuropeans appeared first in 1511 when the Portuguese took Malacca.\nBut on the whole the dealings of Siam with Europe were peaceful\nand both traders and missionaries were welcomed. The most singular\nepisode in this international intercourse was the career of the Greek\nadventurer Constantine Phaulcon who in the reign of King N\u0103rai was\npractically Foreign Minister. In concert with the French missionaries\nhe arranged an exchange of embassies (1682 and 1685) between N\u0103rai\nand Louis XIV, the latter having been led to suppose that the king and\npeople of Siam were ready to embrace Christianity. But when the French\nenvoys broached the subject of conversion, the king replied that he\nsaw no reason to change the religion which his countrymen had\nprofessed for two thousand years, a chronological statement which it\nmight be hard to substantiate. Still, great facilities were given to\nmissionaries and further negotiations ensued, in the course of which\nthe French received almost a monopoly of foreign trade and the right\nto maintain garrisons. But the death of N\u0103rai was followed by a\nreaction. Phaulcon died in prison and the French garrisons were\nexpelled. Buddhism probably flourished at this period for the\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa tells us that the king of Ceylon sent to Ayuthia for\nmonks in 1750 because religion there was pure and undefiled.\n\nAyuthia continued to be the capital until 1767 when it was laid in\nruins by the Burmese who, though Buddhists, did not scruple to destroy\nor deface the temples and statues with which it was ornamented. But\nthe collapse of the Siamese was only local and temporary. A leader of\nChinese origin named Ph\u0103ya T\u00e4k Sin rallied their forces, cleared\nthe Burmese out of the country and made Bangkok, officially described\nas the Capital of the Angels, the seat of Government. But he was\ndeposed in 1782 and one of the reasons for his fall seems to have been\na too zealous reformation of Buddhism. In the troublous times\nfollowing the collapse of Ayuthia the Church had become disorganized\nand corrupt, but even those who desired improvement would not assent\nto the powers which the king claimed over monks. A new dynasty (of\nwhich the sixth monarch is now on the throne) was founded in 1782 by\nChao Ph\u0103ya Chakkri. One of his first acts was to convoke a council\nfor the revision of the Tipi\u1e6daka and to build a special hall in\nwhich the text thus agreed on was preserved. His successor Phra:\nBuddha L\u00f6t La is considered the best poet that Siam has produced and\nit is probably the only country in the world where this\ndistinction has fallen to the lot of a sovereign. The poet king had\ntwo sons, Phra: Nang: Klao, who ascended the throne after his death,\nand Mongkut, who during his brother's reign remained in a monastery\nstrictly observing the duties of a monk. He then became king and\nduring his reign (1851-1868) Siam \"may be said to have passed from the\nmiddle ages to modern times[210].\" It is a tribute to the excellence\nof Buddhist discipline that a prince who spent twenty-six years as a\nmonk should have emerged as neither a bigot nor an impractical mystic\nbut as an active, enlightened and progressive monarch. The equality\nand simplicity of monastic life disposed him to come into direct touch\nwith his subjects and to adopt straightforward measures which might\nnot have occurred to one who had always been surrounded by a wall of\nministers. While still a monk he founded a stricter sect which aimed\nat reviving the practice of the Buddha, but at the same time he\nstudied foreign creeds and took pleasure in conversing with\nmissionaries. He wrote several historical pamphlets and an English\nGrammar, and was so good a mathematician that he could calculate the\noccurrence of an eclipse. When he became king he regulated the\ninternational position of Siam by concluding treaties of friendship\nand commerce with the principal European powers, thus showing the\nbroad and liberal spirit in which he regarded politics, though a\nbetter acquaintance with the ways of Europeans might have made him\nrefuse them extraterritorial privileges. He abolished the custom which\nobliged everyone to keep indoors when the king went out and he\npublicly received petitions on every Uposatha day. He legislated\nagainst slavery[211], gambling, drinking spirits and smoking opium and\nconsiderably improved the status of women. He also published edicts\nordering the laity to inform the ecclesiastical authorities if they\nnoticed any abuses in the monasteries. He caused the annals of Siam to\nbe edited and issued numerous orders on archaeological and literary\nquestions, in which, though a good Pali scholar, he deprecated the\naffected use of Pali words and enjoined the use of a terse and simple\nSiamese style, which he certainly wrote himself. He appears to\nhave died of scientific zeal for he caught a fatal fever on a trip\nwhich he took to witness a total eclipse of the sun.\n\nHe was succeeded by his son Chulalongkorn[212] (1868-1911), a liberal\nand enlightened ruler, who had the misfortune to lose much territory\nto the French on one side and the English on the other. For religion,\nhis chief interest is that he published an edition of the Tipi\u1e6daka.\nThe volumes are of European style and printed in Siamese type, whereas\nCambojan characters were previously employed for religious works.\n\n2\n\n\nAs I have already observed, there is not much difference between\nBuddhism in Burma and Siam. In medi\u00e6val times a mixed form of religion\nprevailed in both countries and Siam was influenced by the Brahmanism\nand Mahayanism of Camboja. Both seem to have derived a purer form of\nthe faith from Pegu, which was conquered by Anawrata in the eleventh\ncentury and was the neighbour of Sukhothai so long as that kingdom\nlasted. Both had relations with Ceylon and while venerating her as the\nmetropolis of the faith also sent monks to her in the days of her\nspiritual decadence. But even in externals some differences are\nvisible. The gold and vermilion of Burma are replaced in Siam by more\nsober but artistic tints--olive, dull purple and dark orange--and the\nchange in the colour scheme is accompanied by other changes in the\nbuildings.\n\nA religious establishment in Siam consists of several edifices and is\ngenerally known as W\u0103t[213], followed by some special designation\nsuch as W\u0103t Chang. Bangkok is full of such establishments mostly\nconstructed on the banks of the river or canals. The entrance is\nusually guarded by gigantic and grotesque figures which are often\nlions, but at the W\u0103t Ph\u00f4 in Bangkok the tutelary demons are\nrepresented by curious caricatures of Europeans wearing tall hats. The\ngate leads into several courts opening out of one another and not\narranged on any fixed plan. The first is sometimes surrounded by a\ncolonnade in which are set a long line of the Buddha's eighty\ndisciples. The most important building in a W\u0103t is known as\nB\u1ed7t[214]. It has a colonnade of pillars outside and is surmounted\nby three or four roofs, not much raised one above the other, and\nbearing finials of a curious shape, said to represent a snake's\nhead[215]. It is also marked off by a circuit of eight stones, cut in\nthe shape of Bo-tree leaves, which constitute a s\u00eem\u00e2 or boundary. It\nis in the B\u1ed7t that ordinations and other acts of the Sangha are\nperformed. Internally it is a hall: the walls are often covered with\npaintings and at the end there is always a sitting figure of the\nBuddha[216] forming the apex of a pyramid, the lower steps of which\nare decorated with smaller images and curious ornaments, such as\nclocks under glass cases.\n\nSiamese images of the Buddha generally represent him as crowned by a\nlong flame-like ornament called S\u0129r\u00f4 r\u1ed3t[217], probably\nrepresenting the light supposed to issue from the prominence on his\nhead. But the ornament sometimes becomes a veritable crown terminating\nin a spire, as do those worn by the kings of Camboja and Siam. On the\nleft and right of the Buddha often stand figures of Phra: M\u00f4kha: la\n(Moggal\u00e2na) and Phra: S\u00e1r\u0129b\u016dt (S\u00e2riputta). It is stated that the\nSiamese pray to them as saints and that the former is invoked to heal\nbroken limbs[218]. The Buddha when represented in frescoes is robed in\nred but his face and hands are of gold. Besides the B\u1ed7t a W\u0103t\ncontains one or more w\u0129h\u00e1ns. The word is derived from _Vih\u00e2ra_ but\nhas come to mean an image-house. The w\u0129h\u00e1ns are halls not unlike\nthe B\u1ed7ts but smaller. In a large W\u0103t there is usually one\ncontaining a gigantic recumbent image of the Buddha and they sometimes\nshelter Indian deities such as Yama.\n\nIn most if not in all W\u0103t there are structures known as Phra: chedi\nand Phra: prang. The former are simply the ancient cetiyas, called\ndagobas in Ceylon and zedis in Burma. They do not depart materially\nfrom the shape usual in other countries and sometimes, for\ninstance in the gigantic chedi at Pra Pratom, the part below the spire\nis a solid bell-shaped dome. But Siamese taste tends to make such\nbuildings slender and elongate and they generally consist of stone\ndiscs of decreasing size, set one on the other in a pile, which\nassumes in its upper parts the proportions of a flagstaff rather than\nof a stone building. The Phra: prangs though often larger than the\nPhra: chedis are proportionally thicker and less elongate. They appear\nto be derived from the Brahmanic temple towers of Camboja which\nconsist of a shrine crowned by a dome. But in Siam the shrine is often\nat some height above the ground and is reduced to small dimensions,\nsometimes becoming a mere niche. In large Phra: prangs it is\napproached by a flight of steps outside and above it rises the tower,\nterminating in a metal spire. But whereas in the Phra: chedis these\nspires are simple, in the Phra: prangs they bear three crescents\nrepresenting the trident of \u015aiva and appear like barbed arrows. A\nlarge Wat is sure to contain a number of these structures and may also\ncomprise halls for preaching, a pavilion covering a model of Buddha's\nfoot print, tanks for ablution and a bell tower. It is said that only\nroyal Wats contain libraries and buildings called ch\u1eb5tta m\u016dkh,\nwhich shelter a four-faced image of Brahm\u00e2[219].\n\nThe monks are often housed in single chambers arranged round the\ncourts of a Wat but sometimes in larger buildings outside it. The\nnumber of monks and novices living in one monastery is larger than in\nBurma, and according to the Bangkok Directory (1907) works out at an\naverage of about 12. In the larger Wats this figure is considerably\nexceeded. Altogether there were 50,764 monks and 10,411 novices in\n1907[220], the province of Ayuthia being decidedly the best provided\nwith clergy. As in Burma, it is customary for every male to spend some\ntime in a monastery, usually at the age of about 20, and two months is\nconsidered the minimum which is respectable. It is also common to\nenter a monastery for a short stay on the day when a parent is\ncremated. During the season of Vassa all monks go out to collect\nalms but at other seasons only a few make the daily round and the food\ncollected, as in Burma and Ceylon, is generally not eaten. But during\nthe dry season it is considered meritorious for monks to make a\npilgrimage to Phra B\u00e2t and while on the way to live on charity. They\nengage to some extent in manual work and occupy themselves with\ncarpentering[221]. As in Burma, education is in their hands, and they\nalso act as doctors, though their treatment has more to do with charms\nand faith cures than with medicine.\n\nAs in Burma there are two sects, the ordinary unreformed body, and the\nrigorous and select communion founded by Mongkut and called Dhammayut.\nIt aims at a more austere and useful life but in outward observances\nthe only distinction seems to be that the Dhammayuts hold the\nalms-bowl in front of them in both hands, whereas the others hold it\nagainst the left hip with the left hand only. The hierarchy is well\ndeveloped but somewhat secularized, though probably not more so than\nit was in India under Asoka. In the official directory where the\ndepartments of the Ministry of Public Instruction are enumerated, the\nEcclesiastical Department comes immediately after the Bacteriological,\nthe two being clearly regarded as different methods of expelling evil\nspirits. The higher clerical appointments are made by the king. He\nnames four Primates[222], one of whom is selected as chief. The\nPrimates with nineteen superior monks form the highest governing body\nof the Church. Below them are twelve dignitaries called Gurus, who are\noften heads of large Wats. There are also prelates who bear the\nCambojan title of Burien equivalent to Mah\u00e2c\u00e2rya. They must have\npassed an examination in Pali and are chiefly consulted on matters of\nceremonial.\n\nIt will thus be seen that the differences between the churches of\nBurma, Ceylon and Siam are slight; hardly more than the local\npeculiarities which mark the Roman church in Italy, Spain, and\nEngland. Different opinions have been expressed as to the moral tone\nand conduct of Siamese monks and most critics state that they are\nsomewhat inferior to their Burmese brethren. The system by which\na village undertakes to support a monk, provided that he is a\nreasonably competent school-master and of good character, works well.\nBut in the larger monasteries it is admitted that there are inmates\nwho have entered in the hope of leading a lazy life and even fugitives\nfrom justice. Still the penalty for any grave offence is immediate\nexpulsion by the ecclesiastical authorities and the offender is\ntreated with extreme severity by the civil courts to which he then\nbecomes amenable.\n\nThe religious festivals of Siam are numerous and characteristic. Many\nare Buddhist, some are Brahmanic, and some are royal. Uposatha days (w\u0103n\nphra:) are observed much as in Burma. The birth, enlightenment and death\nof the Buddha (which are all supposed to have taken place on the 15th\nday of the 6th waxing moon) are celebrated during a three days festival.\nThese three days are of peculiar solemnity and are spent in the\ndischarge of religious duties, such as hearing sermons and giving alms.\nBut at most festivals religious observances are mingled with much\npicturesque but secular gaiety. In the morning the monks do not go their\nusual round[223] and the alms-bowls are arranged in a line within the\ntemple grounds. The laity (mostly women) arrive bearing wicker trays on\nwhich are vessels containing rice and delicacies. They place a selection\nof these in each bowl and then proceed to the B\u1ed7t where they hear the\ncommandments recited and often vow to observe for that day some which\nare usually binding only on monks. While the monks are eating their meal\nthe people repair to a river, which is rarely far distant in Siam, and\npour water drop by drop saying \"May the food which we have given for the\nuse of the holy ones be of benefit to our fathers and mothers and to all\nof our relatives who have passed away.\" This rite is curiously in\nharmony with the injunctions of the Tiroku\u1e0d\u1e0dasuttam in the\nKhuddakap\u00e2tha, which is probably an ancient work[224]. The rest of the\nday is usually devoted to pious merrymaking, such as processions by day\nand illuminations by night. On some feasts the laws against gambling\nare suspended and various games of chance are freely indulged in. Thus\nthe New Year festival called Tr\u016d\u0303t (or Kr\u016d\u0303t) Th\u0103i lasts three days.\nOn the first two days, especially the second, crowds fill the temples to\noffer flowers before the statues of Buddha and more substantial presents\nof food, clothes, etc., to the clergy. Well-to-do families invite monks\nto their houses and pass the day in listening to their sermons and\nrecitations. Companies of priests are posted round the city walls to\nscare away evil spirits and with the same object guns are fired\nthroughout the night. But the third day is devoted to gambling by almost\nthe whole population except the monks. Not dissimilar is the celebration\nof the S\u00f3\u0306ngkran holidays, at the beginning of the official year. The\nspecial religious observance at this feast consists in bathing the\nimages of Buddha and in theory the same form of watery respect is\nextended to aged relatives and monks. In practice its place is taken by\ngifts of perfumes and other presents.\n\nThe rainy season is preceded and ended by holidays. During this period\nboth monks and pious laymen observe their religious duties more\nstrictly. Thus monks eat only once a day and then only what is put into\ntheir bowls and laymen observe some of the minor vows. At the end of the\nrains come the important holidays known as Th\u00f2t K\u0103th\u00ed\u0306n[225], when\nrobes are presented to monks. This festival has long had a special\nimportance in Siam. Thus R\u00e2ma Khomh\u00ebng in his inscription of A.D.\n1292[226] describes the feast of Ka\u1e6dhina which lasts a month. At the\npresent day many thousands of robes are prepared in the capital alone so\nas to be ready for distribution in October and November, when the king\nor some deputy of high rank visits every temple and makes the offering\nin person. During this season Bangkok witnesses a series of brilliant\nprocessions.\n\nThese festivals mentioned may be called Buddhist though their\nlight-hearted and splendour-loving gaiety, their processions and\ngambling are far removed from the spirit of Gotama. Others however are\ndefinitely Brahmanic and in Bangkok are superintended by the Brahmans\nattached to the Court. Since the time of Mongkut Buddhist priests are\nalso present as a sign that the rites, if not ordered by Buddhism, at\nleast have its countenance. Such is the R`\u00ebk Na[227], or\nploughing festival. The king is represented by the Minister of\nAgriculture who formerly had the right to exact from all shops found\nopen such taxes as he might claim for his temporary sovereignty. At\npresent he is escorted in procession to Dusit[228], a royal park\noutside Bangkok, where he breaks ground with a plough drawn by two\nwhite oxen.\n\nSomewhat similar is the Th\u0129b-Ch\u0129ng-Cha, or Swinging holidays, a\ntwo days' festival which seems to be a harvest thanksgiving. Under the\nsupervision of a high official, four Brahmans wearing tall conical\nhats swing on a board suspended from a huge frame about 100 ft high.\nTheir object is to catch with their teeth a bag of money hanging at a\nlittle distance from the swing. When three or four sets of swingers\nhave obtained a prize in this way, they conclude the ceremony by\nsprinkling the ground with holy water contained in bullock horns.\nSwinging is one of the earliest Indian rites[229] and as part of the\nworship of Krishna it has lasted to the present day. Yet another\nBrahmanic festival is the Loi K\u0103th\u014fng[230], when miniature rafts\nand ships bearing lights and offerings are sent down the Menam to the\nsea.\n\nAnother class of ceremonies may be described as royal, inasmuch as\nthey are religious only in so far as they invoke religion to protect\nroyalty. Such are the anniversaries of the birth and coronation of the\nking and the Th\u00fa\u0313 N\u0103m or drinking of the water of allegiance\nwhich takes place twice a year. At Bangkok all officials assemble at\nthe Palace and there drink and sprinkle on their heads water in which\nswords and other weapons have been dipped thus invoking vengeance on\nthemselves should they prove disloyal. Jars of this water are\ndespatched to Governors who superintend the performance of the same\nceremony in the provincial capitals. It is only after the water\nhas been drunk that officials receive their half yearly salary. Monks\nare excused from drinking it but the chief ecclesiastics of Bangkok\nmeet in the Palace temple and perform a service in honour of the\noccasion.\n\nBesides these public solemnities there are a number of domestic\nfestivals derived from the twelve Sa\u1e43sk\u00e2ras of the Hindus. Of these\nonly three or four are kept up by the nations of Indo-China, namely\nthe shaving of the first hair of a child a month after birth, the\ngiving of a name, and the piercing of the ears for earrings. This last\nis observed in Burma and Laos, but not in Siam and Camboja where is\nsubstituted for it the K\u00f4n Ch\u0169\u0306k or shaving of the topknot, which\nis allowed to grow until the eleventh or thirteenth year. This\nceremony, which is performed on boys and girls alike, is the most\nimportant event in the life of a young Siamese and is celebrated by\nwell-to-do parents with lavish expenditure. Those who are indigent\noften avail themselves of the royal bounty, for each year a public\nceremony is performed in one of the temples of Bangkok at which poor\nchildren receive the tonsure gratis. An elaborate description of the\ntonsure rites has been published by Gerini[231]. They are of\nconsiderable interest as showing how closely Buddhist and Brahmanic\nrites are intertwined in Siamese family life.\n\nMarriages are celebrated with a feast to which monks are invited but\nare not regarded as religious ceremonies. The dead are usually\ndisposed of by cremation, but are often kept some time, being either\nembalmed or simply buried and exhumed subsequently. Before cremation\nthe coffin is usually placed within the grounds of a temple. The monks\nread Suttas over it and it is said[232] that they hold ribbons which\nenter into the coffin and are supposed to communicate to the corpse\nthe merit acquired by the recitations and prayers.\n\n3\n\n\nIn the preceding pages mention has often been made not only of\nBrahmanic rites but of Brahman priests[233]. These are still to be\nfound in Bangkok attached to the Court and possibly in other cities.\nThey dress in white and have preserved many Hindu usages but are said\nto be poor Sanskrit scholars. Indeed Gerini[234] seems to say that\nthey use Pali in some of their recitations. Their principal duty is to\nofficiate at Court functions, but wealthy families invite them to take\npart in domestic rites, and also to cast horoscopes and fix lucky\ndays. It is clear that the presence of these Brahmans is no\ninnovation. Brahmanism must have been strong in Siam when it was a\nprovince of Camboja, but in both countries gave way before Buddhism.\nMany rites, however, connected with securing luck or predicting the\nfuture were too firmly established to be abolished, and, as Buddhist\nmonks were unwilling to perform them[235] or not thought very\ncompetent, the Brahmans remained and were perhaps reinforced from time\nto time by new importations, for there are still Brahman colonies in\nLigor and other Malay towns. Siamese lawbooks, like those of Burma,\nseem to be mainly adaptations of Indian Dharma\u015b\u00e2stras.\n\nOn a cursory inspection, Siamese Buddhism, especially as seen in\nvillages, seems remarkably free from alien additions. But an\nexamination of ancient buildings, of royal temples in Bangkok and\nroyal ceremonial, suggests on the contrary that it is a mixed faith in\nwhich the Brahmanic element is strong. Yet though this element appeals\nto the superstition of the Siamese and their love of pageantry, I\nthink that as in Burma it has not invaded the sphere of religion and\nethics more than the Pi\u1e6dakas themselves allow. In art and\nliterature its influence has been considerable. The story of the\nRamayana is illustrated on the cloister walls of the royal temple at\nBangkok and Indian mythology has supplied a multitude of types to the\npainter and sculptor; such as Y\u014fmma: r\u00e0t (Y\u00e2ma), Ph\u0103ya Man\n(M\u00e2ra), Phra: In (Indra). These are all deities known to the\nPi\u1e6dakas but the sculptures or images[236] in Siamese temples also\ninclude Gane\u015ba, Phra: N\u0103rai (N\u00e2r\u00e2yana or Vish\u1e47u) riding\non the Garuda and Phra: Isu\u00e9n (\u015aiva) riding on a bull. There is a\nlegend that the Buddha and \u015aiva tried which could make himself\ninvisible to the other. At last the Buddha sat on \u015aiva's head and\nthe god being unable to see him acknowledged his defeat. This story is\ntold to explain a small figure which \u015aiva bears on his head and\nrecalls the legend found in the Pi\u1e6dakas[237] that the Buddha made\nhimself invisible to Brahm\u00e2 but that Brahm\u00e2 had not the corresponding\npower. Lingas are still venerated in a few temples, for instance at\nW\u0103t Ph\u00f4 in Bangkok, but it would appear that the majority (_e.g._\nthose found at Pra Pratom and Lophburi) are survivals of ancient\nBrahmanic worship and have a purely antiquarian importance. The\nBrahmanic cosmology which makes Mt. Meru the centre of this Universe is\ngenerally accepted in ecclesiastical treatises and paintings, though\nthe educated Siamese may smile at it, and when the topknot of a\nSiamese prince is cut off, part of the ceremony consists in his being\nreceived by the king dressed as \u015aiva on the summit of a mound cut\nin the traditional shape of Mt. Kail\u00e2\u015ba.\n\nLike the N\u00e2ts of Burma, Siam has a spirit population known as\nPh\u00eds[238]. The name is occasionally applied to Indian deities, but the\ngreat majority of Ph\u00eds fall into two classes, namely, ghosts of the\ndead and nature spirits which, though dangerous, do not rise above the\nposition of good or bad fairies. In the first class are included the\nPh\u00ed Pr\u1ebdt, who have the characteristics as well as the name of the\nIndian Pretas, and also a multitude of beings who like European\nghosts, haunt houses and behave in a mysterious but generally\ndisagreeable manner. The Ph\u00ed\u0103m is apparently our nightmare. The\nghosts of children dying soon after birth are apt to kill their\nmothers and in general women are liable to be possessed by Ph\u00eds. The\nghosts of those who have died a violent death are dangerous but it\nwould seem that Siamese magicians know how to utilize them as familiar\nspirits. The better sort of ghosts are known as Ch\u00e0o Ph\u00ed and shrines\ncalled San Ch\u00e0o are set up in their honour. It does not however appear\nthat there is any hierarchy of Ph\u00eds like the thirty-seven N\u00e1ts of\nBurma.\n\nAmong those Ph\u00eds who are not ghosts of the dead the most important\nis the Ph\u00ed ru\u0313en or guardian spirit of each house. Frequently a\nlittle shrine is erected for him at the top of a pole. There are also\ninnumerable Ph\u00eds in the jungle mostly malevolent and capable of\nappearing either in human form or as a dangerous animal. But the tree\nspirits are generally benevolent and when their trees are cut down\nthey protect the houses that are made of them.\n\nThus the Buddhism of Siam, like that of Burma, has a certain admixture\nof Brahmanism and animism. The Brahmanism is perhaps more striking\nthan in Burma on account of the Court ceremonies: the belief in\nspirits, though almost universal, seems to be more retiring and less\nconspicuous. Yet the inscription of R\u00e2ma Komh\u00ebng mentioned above\nasserts emphatically that the prosperity of the Empire depends on due\nhonour being shown to a certain mountain spirit[239].\n\nIt is pretty clear that the first introduction of Hinayanist Buddhism\ninto Siam was from Southern Burma and Pegu, but that somewhat later\nCeylon was accepted as the standard of orthodoxy. A learned thera who\nknew the Sinhalese Tipitaka was imported thence, as well as a branch\nof the Bo-tree. But Siamese patriotism flattered itself by imagining\nthat the national religion was due to personal contact with the\nBuddha, although not even early legends can be cited in support of\nsuch traditions. In 1602 a mark in the rocks, now known as the Phra:\nB\u00e3t, was discovered in the hills north of Ayuthia and identified as a\nfootprint of the Buddha similar to that found on Adam's Peak and in\nother places. Burma and Ceylon both claim the honour of a visit from\nthe Buddha but the Siamese go further, for it is popularly believed\nthat he died at Praten, a little to the north of Phra Pathom, on a\nspot marked by a slab of rock under great trees[240]. For this reason\nwhen the Government of India presented the king of Siam with the\nrelics found in the Piprava vase, the gift though received with\nhonour, aroused little enthusiasm and was placed in a somewhat\nsecluded shrine[241].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 188: The principal sources for information about Siamese\nBuddhism are: _Journal of Siam Society_, 1904, and onwards.\n\nL. Fournereau, _Le Siam Ancien_, 2 vols. 1895 and 1908 in _Annales du\nMus\u00e9e Guimet_. Cited here as Fournereau.\n\nMission Pavie II, _Histoire du Laos, du Cambodge et du Siam_, 1898.\n\nGerini, _Researches on Ptolemy's Geography of Eastern Asia_, 1909.\nCited here as Gerini, _Ptolemy_.\n\nGerini, _Ch\u016dl\u0103kantamangala or Tonsure Ceremony_, 1893.\n\nH. Alabaster, _The Wheel of the Law_, 1871.\n\nP.A. Thompson, _Lotus Land_, 1906.\n\nW.A. Graham, _Siam_, 1912.\n\nPetithuguenin, \"Notes critiques pour servir \u00e0 l'histoire du Siam,\"\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1916, No. 3.\n\nCoed\u00e8s, \"Documents sur la Dynastie de Sukhodaya,\" _ib._ 1917, No. 2.\n\nMuch curious information may be found in the _Directory for Bangkok\nand Siam_, a most interesting book. I have only the issue for 1907.\n\nI have adopted the conventional European spelling for such words as\nmay be said to have one. For other words I have followed Pallegoix's\ndictionary (1896) for rendering the vowels and tones in Roman\ncharacters, but have departed in some respects from his system of\ntransliterating consonants as I think it unnecessary and misleading to\nwrite j and x for sounds which apparently correspond to y and ch as\npronounced in English.\n\nThe King of Siam has published a work on the spelling of His Majesty's\nown language in Latin letters which ought to be authoritative, but it\ncame into my hands too late for me to modify the orthography here\nadopted.\n\nAs Pallegoix's spelling involves the use of a great many accents I\nhave sometimes begun by using the strictly correct orthography and\nafterwards a simpler but intelligible form. It should be noted that in\nthis orthography \":\" is not a colon but a sign that the vowel before\nit is very short.]\n\n[Footnote 189: The name is found on Champan inscriptions of 1050 A.D.\nand according to Gerini appears in Ptolemy's _Samarade_ =\nS\u00e2mara\u1e6d\u1e6dha. See Gerini, _Ptolemy_, p. 170. But Samarade is\nlocated near Bangkok and there can hardly have been Tais there in\nPtolemy's time.]\n\n[Footnote 190: So too in Central Asia Kustana appears to be a learned\ndistortion of the name Khotan, made to give it a meaning in Sanskrit.]\n\n[Footnote 191: Gerini states (_Ptolemy_, p. 107) that there are Pali\nmanuscript chronicles of Lamphun apparently going back to 924 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 192: Strictly S\u016dkh\u1ed3th\u0103i.]\n\n[Footnote 193: Phongs\u00e1 va: dan or Va\u1e43sav\u00e2da. See for Siamese\nchronicles, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1914, No. 3, \"Recension palie des annales\nd'Ayuthia,\" and _ibid._ 1916, pp. 5-7.]\n\n[Footnote 194: _E.g._ Aymonier in _J.A._ 1903, p. 186, and Gerini in\n_Journal of Siam Society_, vol. II. part 1, 1905.]\n\n[Footnote 195: See especially Fournereau and the publications of the\nMission Pavie and _B.E.F.E.O._]\n\n[Footnote 196: Gerini, _Ptolemy_, p. 176.]\n\n[Footnote 197: See Fournereau, I. p. 225. _B.E.F.E.O._ 1916, III. pp.\n8-13, and especially Bradley in _J. Siam Society_, 1909, pp. 1-68.]\n\n[Footnote 198: This alphabet appears to be borrowed from Cambojan but\nsome of the letters particularly in their later shapes show the\ninfluence of the M\u00f4n or Talaing script. The modern Cambojan alphabet,\nwhich is commonly used for ecclesiastical purposes in Siam, is little\nmore than an elaborate form of Siamese.]\n\n[Footnote 199: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 200: Bradley, _J. Siam Society_, 1913, p. 10, seems to think\nthat Pali Buddhism may have come thence but the objection is that we\nknow a good deal about the religion of Camboja and that there is no\ntrace of Pali Buddhism there until it was imported from Siam. The fact\nthat the Siamese alphabet was borrowed from Camboja does not prove\nthat religion was borrowed in the same way. The Mongol alphabet can be\ntraced to a Nestorian source.]\n\n[Footnote 201: See for these inscriptions papers on the Malay\nPeninsula and Siam by Finot and Lajonqui\u00e8re in _Bull. de la Comm.\nArch\u00e9ol. de l'Indo-Chine_, 1909, 1910 and 1912.]\n\n[Footnote 202: Fournereau, pp. 157 ff. and Coed\u00e8s in _B.E.F.E.O._\n1917, No. 2. Besides the inscription itself, which is badly defaced in\nparts, we have (1) a similar inscription in Thai, which is not however\na translation, (2) a modern Siamese translation, used by Schmitt but\nseverely criticized by Coed\u00e8s and Petithuguenin.]\n\n[Footnote 203: This portion of the narrative is found only in\nSchmitt's version of the Siamese translation. The part of the stone\nwhere it would have occurred is defaced.]\n\n[Footnote 204: See Fournereau, vol. II. inscriptions xv and xvi and\nthe account of the J\u00e2takas, p. 43.]\n\n[Footnote 205: Fournereau, I. pp. 247, 273. _B.E.F.E.O._ 1917, No. 2,\np. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 206: See the texts in _B.E.F.E.O. l.c._ The Bodhisattvas are\ndescribed as Ariyamettey\u00e2d\u00eenam dasannam Bodhisatt\u00e2nam. The vow to\nbecome a Buddha should it seems be placed in the mouth of the King,\nnot of the Metropolitan as in Schmitt's translation.]\n\n[Footnote 207: See Fournereau, pp. 209 ff. Dharm\u00e2sokar\u00e2ja may perhaps\nbe the same as Mah\u00e2dharmar\u00e2ja who reigned 1388-1415. But the word may\nalso be a mere title applied to all kings of this dynasty, so that\nthis may be another inscription of \u015ar\u00ee S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa R\u00e2ma.]\n\n[Footnote 208: 1350 is the accepted date but M. Aymonier, _J.A._ 1903,\npp. 185 ff. argues in favour of about 1460. See Fournereau, _Ancien\nSiam_, p. 242, inscription of 1426 A.D. and p. 186, inscription of\n1510 described as Groupe de Sajjanalaya et Sukhodaya.]\n\n[Footnote 209: Fournereau, vol. I. pp. 186 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 210: O. Frankf\u00fcrter, \"King Mongkut,\" _Journal of Siam\nSociety_, vol. I. 1904.]\n\n[Footnote 211: But it was his son who first decreed in 1868 that no\nSiamese could be born a slave. Slavery for debt, though illegal, is\nsaid not to be practically extinct.]\n\n[Footnote 212: = C\u00fbl\u00e2la\u1e47k\u00e2ra.]\n\n[Footnote 213: The word has been derived from V\u00e2ta, a grove, but may\nit not be the Pali Vatthu, Sanskrit V\u00e2stu, a site or building?]\n\n[Footnote 214: = Uposatha.]\n\n[Footnote 215: These finials are very common on the roof ends of\nSiamese temples and palaces. It is strange that they also are found in\nconjunction with multiple roofs in Norwegian Churches of eleventh\ncentury. See de Beyli\u00e9, _Architecture hindoue dans l'extr\u00eame Orient_,\npp. 47, 48.]\n\n[Footnote 216: The Buddha is generally known as Phra: Khodom\n( = Gotama).]\n\n[Footnote 217: In an old Siamese bronze from Kampeng Pet, figured in\nGr\u00fcnwedel's _Buddhist Art in India_, p. 179, fig. 127, the Sir\u00f4 r\u1ed3t\nseems to be in process of evolution.]\n\n[Footnote 218: P.A. Thompson, _Lotus Land_, 1906, p. 100.]\n\n[Footnote 219: Four images facing the four quarters are considered in\nBurma to represent the last four Buddhas and among the Jains some of\nthe Tirthankaras are so represented, the legend being that whenever\nthey preached they seemed to face their hearers on every side.]\n\n[Footnote 220: These figures only take account of twelve out of the\nseventeen provinces.]\n\n[Footnote 221: Thompson, _Lotus Land_, p. 120.]\n\n[Footnote 222: They bear the title of S\u00f3\u0306md\u0115\u0303t Phra: Ch\u00e0o\nR\u00e0jagama and have authority respectively over (_a_) ordinary Buddhists\nin northern Siam, (_b_) ordinary Buddhists in the south, (_c_)\nhermits, (_d_) the Dhammayut sect.]\n\n[Footnote 223: For this and many other details I am indebted to P.A.\nThompson, _Lotus Land_, p. 123.]\n\n[Footnote 224: When gifts of food are made to monks on ceremonial\noccasions, they usually acknowledge the receipt by reciting verses 7\nand 8 of this Sutta, commonly known as _Yath\u00e2_ from the first word.]\n\n[Footnote 225: Kathina in Pali. See Mah\u00e2vag. cap. VII.]\n\n[Footnote 226: Fournereau, p. 225.]\n\n[Footnote 227: The ploughing festival is a recognized imperial\nceremony in China. In India ceremonies for private landowners are\nprescribed in the G\u1e5bihya S\u00fbtras but I do not know if their\nperformance by kings is anywhere definitely ordered. However in the\nNid\u00e2na Kath\u00e2 270 the Buddha's father celebrates an imposing ploughing\nceremony.]\n\n[Footnote 228: _I.e._ Tusita. Compare such English names descriptive\nof beautiful scenery as Heaven's Gate.]\n\n[Footnote 229: See Keith, _Aitereya Aranyaka_, pp. 174-178. The\nceremony there described undoubtedly originated in a very ancient\npopular festival.]\n\n[Footnote 230: _I.e._ float-raft. Most authors give the word as\nKrathong, but Pallegoix prefers Kathong.]\n\n[Footnote 231: _Chulakantamangalam_, Bangkok, 1893.]\n\n[Footnote 232: P.A. Thompson, _Lotus Land_, p. 134.]\n\n[Footnote 233: For the Brahmans of Siam see Frankf\u00fcrter, _Oriental.\nArchiv._ 1913, pp. 196-7.]\n\n[Footnote 234: _Chulakantamangala_, p. 56.]\n\n[Footnote 235: They are mostly observances such as Gotama would have\nclassed among \"low arts\" (t\u00eeracch\u00e2navijj\u00e2). At present the monks of\nSiam deal freely in charms and exorcisms but on important occasions\npublic opinion seems to have greater confidence in the skill and power\nof Brahmans.]\n\n[Footnote 236: King \u015ar\u00ee S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa R\u00e2ma relates in an\ninscription of about 1365 how he set up statues of Parame\u015bvara and\nVish\u1e47ukarma (?) and appointed Brahmans to serve them.]\n\n[Footnote 237: Maj. Nik. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 238: _Siam Society_, vol. IV. part ii. 1907. _Some Siamese\nghost-lore_ by A.J. Irwin.]\n\n[Footnote 239: _Jour. Siam Soc._ 1909, p. 28. \"In yonder mountain is a\ndemon spirit Phr\u0103 Kh\u0103ph\u016dng that is greater than every other\nspirit in this realm. If any Prince ruling this realm reverences him\nwell with proper offerings, this realm stands firm, this realm\nprospers. If the spirit be not reverenced well, if the offerings be\nnot right, the spirit in the mountain does not protect, does not\nregard:--this realm perishes.\"]\n\n[Footnote 240: The most popular life of the Buddha in Siamese is\ncalled Pa:th\u00f3\u0306mma S\u00f3\u0306mph\u00f4th\u0129yan, translated by Alabaster in\n_The Wheel of the Law_. But like the Lalita vistara and other Indian\nlives on which it is modelled it stops short at the enlightenment.\nAnother well-known religious book is the Traiph\u00fbm ( = Tribh\u00fbmi), an\naccount of the universe according to Hindu principles, compiled in\n1776 from various ancient works.\n\nThe Pali literature of Siam is not very large. Some account of it is\ngiven by Coed\u00e8s in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1915, III. pp. 39-46.]\n\n[Footnote 241: When in Bangkok in 1907 I saw in a photographer's shop\na photograph of the procession which escorted these relics to their\ndestination. It was inscribed \"Arrival of Buddha's tooth from Kandy.\"\nThis shows how deceptive historical evidence may be. The inscription\nwas the testimony of an eye-witness and yet it was entirely wrong.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII\n\nCAMBOJA[242]\n\n1\n\n\nThe French Protectorate of Camboja corresponds roughly to the nucleus,\nthough by no means to the whole extent of the former Empire of the\nKhmers. The affinities of this race have given rise to considerable\ndiscussion and it has been proposed to connect them with the\nMu\u1e47\u1e0da tribes of India on one side and with the Malays and\nPolynesians on the other[243]. They are allied linguistically to the\nMons or Talaings of Lower Burma and to the Khasias of Assam, but it is\nnot proved that they are similarly related to the Annamites, and\nrecent investigators are not disposed to maintain the Mon-Annam family\nof languages proposed by Logan and others. But the undoubted\nsimilarity of the Mon and Khmer languages suggests that the ancestors\nof those who now speak them were at one time spread over the central\nand western parts of Indo-China but were subsequently divided and\ndeprived of much territory by the southward invasions of the Thais in\nthe middle ages.\n\nThe Khmers also called themselves Kambuja or Kamvuja and their name for\nthe country is still either Sr\u014fk K\u00e2mp\u00fbch\u00e9a or Sr\u014fk Khmer[244]. Attempts\nhave been made to find a Malay origin for this name Kambuja but native\ntradition regards it as a link with India and affirms that the race is\ndescended from Kambu Svayambhuva and Mer\u00e2 or Per\u00e2 who was given to him\nby \u015aiva as wife[245]. This legend hardly proves that the Khmer people\ncame from India but they undoubtedly received thence their civilization,\ntheir royal family and a considerable number of Hindu immigrants, so\nthat the mythical ancestor of their kings naturally came to be regarded\nas the progenitor of the race. The Chinese traveller Chou Ta-kuan (1296\nA.D.) says that the country known to the Chinese as Ch\u00ean-la is called by\nthe natives Kan-po-chih but that the present dynasty call it\nKan-p'u-chih on the authority of Sanskrit (Hsi-fan) works. The origin of\nthe name Ch\u00ean-la is unknown.\n\nThere has been much discussion respecting the relation of Ch\u00ean-la to\nthe older kingdom of Fu-nan which is the name given by Chinese\nhistorians until the early part of the seventh century to a state\noccupying the south-eastern and perhaps central portions of\nIndo-China. It has been argued that Ch\u00ean-la is simply the older name\nof Fu-nan and on the other hand that Fu-nan is a wider designation\nincluding several states, one of which, Ch\u00ean-la or Camboja, became\nparamount at the expense of the others[246]. But the point seems\nunimportant for their religious history with which we have to\ndeal. In religion and general civilization both were subject to Indian\ninfluence and it is not recorded that the political circumstances\nwhich turned Fu-nan into Ch\u00ean-la were attended by any religious\nrevolution.\n\nThe most important fact in the history of these countries, as in\nChampa and Java, is the presence from early times of Indian influence\nas a result of commerce, colonization, or conquest. Orientalists have\nonly recently freed themselves from the idea that the ancient Hindus,\nand especially their religion, were restricted to the limits of India.\nIn medi\u00e6val times this was true. Emigration was rare and it was only\nin the nineteenth century that the travelling Hindu became a familiar\nand in some British colonies not very welcome visitor. Even now Hindus\nof the higher caste evade rather than deny the rule which forbids them\nto cross the ocean[247]. But for a long while Hindus have frequented\nthe coast of East Africa[248] and in earlier centuries their\ntraders, soldiers and missionaries covered considerable distances by\nsea. The J\u00e2takas[249] mention voyages to Babylon: Vijaya and Mahinda\nreached Ceylon in the fifth and third centuries B.C. respectively.\nThere is no certain evidence as to the epoch when Hindus first\npenetrated beyond the Malay peninsula, but Java is mentioned in the\nRamayana[250]: the earliest Sanskrit inscriptions of Champa date from\nour third or perhaps second century, and the Chinese Annals of the\nTsin indicate that at a period considerably anterior to that dynasty\nthere were Hindus in Fu-nan[251]. It is therefore safe to conclude\nthat they must have reached these regions about the beginning of the\nChristian era and, should any evidence be forthcoming, there is no\nreason why this date should not be put further back. At present we can\nonly say that the establishment of Hindu kingdoms probably implies\nearlier visits of Hindu traders and that voyages to the south coast of\nIndo-China and the Archipelago were probably preceded by settlements\non the Isthmus of Kra, for instance at Ligor.\n\nThe motives which prompted this eastward movement have been variously\nconnected with religious persecution in India, missionary enterprise,\ncommerce and political adventure. The first is the least probable.\nThere is little evidence for the systematic persecution of Buddhists\nin India and still less for the persecution of Brahmans by Buddhists.\nNor can these Indian settlements be regarded as primarily religious\nmissions. The Brahmans have always been willing to follow and\nsupervise the progress of Hindu civilization, but they have never\nshown any disposition to evangelize foreign countries apart from Hindu\nsettlements in them. The Buddhists had this evangelistic temper and\nthe journeys of their missionaries doubtless stimulated other classes\nto go abroad, but still no inscriptions or annals suggest that the\nHindu migrations to Java and Camboja were parallel to Mahinda's\nmission to Ceylon. Nor is there any reason to think that they were\ncommanded or encouraged by Indian Rajas, for no mention of their\ndespatch has been found in India, and no Indian state is recorded to\nhave claimed suzerainty over these colonies. It therefore seems likely\nthat they were founded by traders and also by adventurers who followed\nexisting trade routes and had their own reasons for leaving India. In\na country where dynastic quarrels were frequent and the younger sons\nof Rajas had a precarious tenure of life, such reasons can be easily\nimagined. In Camboja we find an Indian dynasty established after a\nshort struggle, but in other countries, such as Java and Sumatra,\nIndian civilization endured because it was freely adopted by native\nchiefs and not because it was forced on them as a result of conquest.\n\nThe inscriptions discovered in Camboja and deciphered by the labours\nof French savants offer with one lacuna (about 650-800 A.D.) a fairly\ncontinuous history of the country from the sixth to the thirteenth\ncenturies. For earlier periods we depend almost entirely on Chinese\naccounts which are fragmentary and not interested in anything but the\noccasional relations of China with Fu-nan. The annals of the Tsin\ndynasty[252] already cited say that from 265 A.D. onwards the kings\nof Fu-nan sent several embassies to the Chinese Court, adding that the\npeople have books and that their writing resembles that of the Hu. The\nHu are properly speaking a tribe of Central Asia, but the expression\ndoubtless means no more than alphabetic writing as opposed to Chinese\ncharacters and such an alphabet can hardly have had other than an\nIndian origin. Originally, adds the Annalist, the sovereign was a\nwoman, but there came a stranger called Hun-Hui who worshipped the\nDevas and had had a dream in which one of them gave him a bow[253] and\nordered him to sail for Fu-nan. He conquered the country and married\nthe Queen but his descendants deteriorated and one Fan-Hs\u00fcn founded\nanother dynasty. The annals of the Ch'i dynasty (479-501) give\nsubstantially the same story but say that the stranger was called\nHun-T'ien (which is probably the correct form of the name) and that he\ncame from Chi or Chiao, an unknown locality. The same annals state\nthat towards the end of the fifth century the king of Fu-nan who\nbore the family name of Ch'iao-ch'\u00ean-ju[254] or Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya and\nthe personal name of Sh\u00ea-yeh-po-mo (Jayavarman) traded with Canton. A\nBuddhist monk named N\u00e2gasena returned thence with some Cambojan\nmerchants and so impressed this king with his account of China that he\nwas sent back in 484 to beg for the protection of the Emperor. The\nking's petition and a supplementary paper by N\u00e2gasena are preserved in\nthe annals. They seem to be an attempt to represent the country as\nBuddhist, while explaining that Mahe\u015bvara is its tutelary deity.\n\nThe Liang annals also state that during the Wu dynasty (222-280) Fan\nChan, then king of Fu-nan, sent a relative named Su-Wu on an embassy\nto India, to a king called Mao-lun, which probably represents\nMuru\u1e47\u1e0da, a people of the Ganges valley mentioned by the\nPur\u00e2\u1e47as and by Ptolemy. This king despatched a return embassy to\nFu-nan and his ambassadors met there an official sent by the Emperor\nof China[255]. The early date ascribed to these events is noticeable.\n\nThe Liang annals contain also the following statements. Between the\nyears 357 and 424 A.D. named as the dates of embassies sent to China,\nan Indian Brahman called Ch'iao-ch'\u00ean-ju (Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya) heard a\nsupernatural voice bidding him go and reign in Fu-nan. He met with a\ngood reception and was elected king. He changed the customs of the\ncountry and made them conform to those of India. One of his\nsuccessors, Jayavarman, sent a coral image of Buddha in 503 to the\nEmperor Wu-ti (502-550). The inhabitants of Fu-nan are said to make\nbronze images of the heavenly genii with two or four heads and four or\neight arms. Jayavarman was succeeded by a usurper named Liu-t'o-pa-mo\n(Rudravarman) who sent an image made of sandal wood to the Emperor in\n519 and in 539 offered him a hair of the Buddha twelve feet long. The\nSui annals (589-618) state that Citrasena, king of Ch\u00ean-la, conquered\nFu-nan and was succeeded by his son I\u015b\u00e2nasena.\n\nTwo monks of Fu-nan are mentioned among the translators of the Chinese\nscriptures[256], namely, Sa\u1e47ghap\u00e2la and Mandra. Both arrived in\nChina during the first years of the sixth century and their works are\nextant. The pilgrim I-Ching who returned from India in 695 says[257]\nthat to the S.W. of Champa lies the country Po-nan, formerly called\nFu-nan, which is the southern corner of Jambudv\u00eepa. He says that \"of\nold it was a country the inhabitants of which lived naked; the people\nwere mostly worshippers of devas and later on Buddhism flourished\nthere, but a wicked king has now expelled and exterminated them all\nand there are no members of the Buddhist brotherhood at all.\"\n\nThese data from Chinese authorities are on the whole confirmed by the\nCambojan inscriptions. Rudravarman is mentioned[258] and the kings\nclaim to belong to the race of Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya[259]. This is the name\nof a Brahman gotra, but such designations were often borne by\nKshatriyas and the conqueror of Camboja probably belonged to that\ncaste. It may be affirmed with some certainty that he started from\nsouth-eastern India and possibly he sailed from Mah\u00e2balip\u00fbr (also\ncalled the Seven Pagodas). Masulipatam was also a port of embarcation\nfor the East and was connected with Broach by a trade route running\nthrough Tagara, now T\u00ear in the Nizam's dominions. By using this road,\nit was possible to avoid the west coast, which was infested by\npirates.\n\nThe earliest Cambojan inscriptions date from the beginning of the\nseventh century and are written in an alphabet closely resembling that\nof the inscriptions in the temple of P\u00e2pan\u00e2tha at Pa\u1e6d\u1e6dadkal in\nthe B\u00eejapur district[260]. They are composed in Sanskrit verse of a\nsomewhat exuberant style, which revels in the commonplaces of Indian\npoetry. The deities most frequently mentioned are \u015aiva by himself\nand \u015aiva united with Vish\u1e47u in the form Hari-Hara. The names of\nthe kings end in Varman and this termination is also specially\nfrequent in names of the Pallava dynasty[261]. The magnificent\nmonuments still extant attest a taste for architecture on a large\nscale similar to that found among the Dravidians. These and many other\nindications justify the conclusion that the Indian civilization and\nreligion which became predominant in Camboja were imported from the\nDeccan.\n\nThe Chinese accounts distinctly mention two invasions, one under\nCh'iao-ch'\u00ean-ju (Kaundinya) about 400 A.D. and one considerably\nanterior to 265 under Hun-T'ien. It might be supposed that this name\nalso represents Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya and that there is a confusion of\ndates. But the available evidence is certainly in favour of the\nestablishment of Hindu civilization in Fu-nan long before 400 A.D. and\nthere is nothing improbable in the story of the two invasions and even\nof two Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinyas. Masp\u00e9ro suggests that the first invasion came\nfrom Java and formed part of the same movement which founded the\nkingdom of Champa. It is remarkable that an inscription in Sanskrit\nfound on the east coast of Borneo and apparently dating from the fifth\ncentury mentions Ku\u1e47\u1e0dagga as the grandfather of the reigning\nking, and the Liang annals say that the king of Poli (probably in\nBorneo but according to some in Sumatra) was called Ch'iao-ch'\u00ean-ju.\nIt seems likely that the Indian family of Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya was\nestablished somewhere in the South Seas (perhaps in Java) at an early\nperiod and thence invaded various countries at various times. But\nFu-nan is a vague geographical term and it may be that Hun-T'ien\nfounded a Hindu dynasty in Champa.\n\nIt is clear that during the period of the inscriptions the\nreligion of Camboja was a mixture of Brahmanism and Buddhism, the only\nchange noticeable being the preponderance of one or other element in\ndifferent centuries. But it would be interesting to know the value of\nI-Ching's statement that Buddhism flourished in Fu-nan in early times\nand was then subverted by a wicked king, by whom Bhavavarman[262] may\nbe meant. _Prim\u00e2 facie_ the statement is not improbable, for there is\nno reason why the first immigrants should not have been Buddhists, but\nthe traditions connecting these countries with early Hinayanist\nmissionaries are vague. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[263] states that the disciples of\nVasubandhu introduced Buddhism into the country of Koki (Indo-China)\nbut his authority does not count for much in such a matter. The\nstatement of I-Ching however has considerable weight, especially as\nthe earliest inscription found in Champa (that of Vocan) appears to be\ninspired by Buddhism.\n\n2\n\n\nIt may be well to state briefly the chief facts of Cambojan\nhistory[264] before considering the phases through which religion\npassed. Until the thirteenth century our chief authorities are the\nSanskrit and Khmer inscriptions, supplemented by notices in the\nChinese annals. The Khmer inscriptions are often only a translation or\nparaphrase of Sanskrit texts found in the same locality and, as a\nrule, are more popular, having little literary pretension. They\nfrequently contain lists of donations or of articles to be supplied by\nthe population for the upkeep of pious foundations. After the\nfourteenth century we have Cambojan annals of dubious value and we\nalso find inscriptions in Pali or in modern Cambojan. The earliest\nSanskrit inscriptions date from the beginning of the seventh century\nand mention works undertaken in 604 and 624.\n\nThe first important king is Bhavavarman (c. 500 A.D.), a conqueror\nand probably a usurper, who extended his kingdom considerably towards\nthe west. His career of conquest was continued by Mah\u00e2varman (also\ncalled Citrasena), by I\u015b\u00e2navarman and by Jayavarman[265]. This last\nprince was on the throne in 667, but his reign is followed by a lacuna\nof more than a century. Notices in the Chinese annals, confirmed by\nthe double genealogies given for this period in later inscriptions,\nindicate that Camboja was divided for some time into two states, one\nlittoral and the other inland.\n\nClear history begins again with the reign of Jayavarman II (802-869).\nLater sovereigns evidently regard him as the great national hero and\nhe lives in popular legend as the builder of a magnificent palace,\nBeng Mealea, whose ruins still exist[266] and as the recipient of the\nsacred sword of Indra which is preserved at Phnom-penh to this day. We\nare told that he \"came from Jav\u00e2,\" which is more likely to be some\nlocality in the Malay Peninsula or Laos than the island of that name.\nIt is possible that Jayavarman was carried away captive to this region\nbut returned to found a dynasty independent of it[267].\n\nThe ancient city of Angkor has probably done more to make Camboja\nknown in Europe than any recent achievements of the Khmer race. In the\ncentre of it stands the temple now called Bayon and outside its walls\nare many other edifices of which the majestic Angkor Wat is the\nlargest and best preserved. King Indravarman (877-899) seems\nresponsible for the selection of the site but he merely commenced the\nconstruction of the Bayon. The edifice was completed by his son\nYa\u015bovarman (889-908) who also built a town round it, called\nYa\u015bod harapura, Kambupuri or Mah\u00e2nagara. Angkor Thom is the\nCambojan translation of this last name, Angkor being a corruption of\nNokor ( = Nagara). Ya\u015bovarman's empire comprised nearly all\nIndo-China between Burma and Champa and he has been identified with\nthe Leper king of Cambojan legend. His successors continued to\nembellish Angkor Thom, but Jayavarman IV abandoned it and it was\ndeserted for several years until Rajendravarman II (944-968) made it\nthe capital again. The Chinese Annals, supported by allusions in the\ninscriptions, state that this prince conquered Champa. The long\nreigns of Jayavarman V, Suryavarman I, and Uday\u00e2dityavarman, which\ncover more than a century (968-1079) seem to mark a prosperous period\nwhen architecture flourished, although Uday\u00e2dityavarman had to contend\nwith two rebellions. Another great king, S\u00fbryavarman II (1112-1162)\nfollowed shortly after them, and for a time succeeded in uniting\nCamboja and Champa under his sway. Some authorities credit him with a\nsuccessful expedition to Ceylon. There is not sufficient evidence for\nthis, but he was a great prince and, in spite of his foreign wars,\nmaintained peace and order at home.\n\nJayavarman VII, who appears to have reigned from 1162 to 1201, reduced\nto obedience his unruly vassals of the north and successfully invaded\nChampa which remained for thirty years, though not without rebellion,\nthe vassal of Camboja. It was evacuated by his successor Indravarman\nin 1220.\n\nAfter this date there is again a gap of more than a century in\nCambojan history, and when the sequence of events becomes clear again,\nwe find that Siam has grown to be a dangerous and aggressive enemy.\nBut though the vigour of the kingdom may have declined, the account of\nthe Chinese traveller Chou Ta-kuan who visited Angkor Thom in 1296\nshows that it was not in a state of anarchy nor conquered by Siam.\nThere had however been a recent war with Siam and he mentions that the\ncountry was devastated. He unfortunately does not tell us the name of\nthe reigning king and the list of sovereigns begins again only in 1340\nwhen the Annals of Camboja take up the history. They are not of great\nvalue. The custom of recording all events of importance prevailed at\nthe Cambojan Court in earlier times but these chronicles were lost in\nthe eighteenth century. King Ang Chan (1796-1834) ordered that they\nshould be re-written with the aid of the Siamese chronicles and such\nother materials as were available and fixed 1340 as the point of\ndeparture, apparently because the Siamese chronicles start from that\ndate[268]. Although the period of the annals offers little but a\nnarrative of dissensions at home and abroad, of the interference of\nAnnam on one side and of Siam on the other, yet it does not seem that\nthe sudden cessation of inscriptions and of the ancient style of\narchitecture in the thirteenth century was due to the collapse of\nCamboja, for even in the sixteenth century it offered a valiant, and\noften successful, resistance to aggressions from the west. But Angkor\nThom and the principal monuments were situated near the Siamese\nfrontier and felt the shock of every collision. The sense of security,\nessential for the construction of great architectural works, had\ndisappeared and the population became less submissive and less willing\nto supply forced labour without which such monuments could not be\nerected.\n\nThe Siamese captured Angkor Thom in 1313, 1351 and 1420 but did not on\nany occasion hold it for long. Again in 1473 they occupied Chantaboun,\nKorat and Angkor but had to retire and conclude peace. King Ang Chan I\nsuccessfully disputed the right of Siam to treat him as a vassal and\nestablished his capital at Lovek, which he fortified and ornamented.\nHe reigned from 1505 to 1555 and both he and his son, Barom Racha,\nseem entitled to rank among the great kings of Camboja. But the\nsituation was clearly precarious and when a minor succeeded to the\nthrone in 1574 the Siamese seized the opportunity and recaptured Lovek\nand Chantaboun. Though this capture was the death blow to the power of\nthe Khmers, the kingdom of Camboja did not cease to exist but for\nnearly three centuries continued to have an eventful but uninteresting\nhistory as the vassal of Siam or Annam or even of both[269], until\nin the middle of the nineteenth century the intervention of France\nsubstituted a European Protectorate for these Asiatic rivalries.\n\nThe provinces of Siem-reap and Battambang, in which Angkor Thom and\nthe principal ancient monuments are situated, were annexed by Siam at\nthe end of the eighteenth century, but in virtue of an arrangement\nnegotiated by the French Government they were restored to Camboja in\n1907, Krat and certain territories being at the same time ceded to\nSiam[270].\n\n3\n\n\nThe religious history of Camboja may be divided into two periods,\nexclusive of the possible existence there of Hinayanist Buddhism in\nthe early centuries of our era. In the first period, which witnessed\nthe construction of the great monuments and the reigns of the great\nkings, both Brahmanism and Mahayanist Buddhism nourished, but as in\nJava and Champa without mutual hostility. This period extends\ncertainly from the sixth to the thirteenth centuries and perhaps its\nlimits should be stretched to 400-1400 A.D. In any case it passed\nwithout abrupt transition into the second period in which, under\nSiamese influence, Hinayanist Buddhism supplanted the older faiths,\nalthough the ceremonies of the Cambojan court still preserve a good\ndeal of Brahmanic ritual.\n\nDuring the first period, Brahmanism and Mahayanism were professed by\nthe Court and nobility. The multitude of great temples and opulent\nendowments, the knowledge of Sanskrit literature and the use of Indian\nnames, leave no doubt about this, but it is highly probable that the\nmass of the people had their own humbler forms of worship. Still there\nis no record of anything that can be called Khmer--as opposed to\nIndian--religion. As in Siam, the veneration of nature spirits is\nuniversal in Camboja and little shrines elevated on poles are erected\nin their honour in the neighbourhood of almost every house.\nPossibly the more important of these spirits were identified in\nearly times with Indian deities or received Sanskrit names. Thus we\nhear of a pious foundation in honour of Brahmarakshas[271], perhaps a\nlocal mountain spirit. \u015aiva is adored under the name of \u015ar\u00ee\n\u015aikhare\u015bvara, the Lord of the Peak and Krish\u1e47a appears to be\nidentified with a local god called \u015ar\u00ee Champe\u015bvara who was\nworshipped by Jayavarman VI[272].\n\nThe practice of accepting and hinduizing strange gods with whom they\ncame in contact was so familiar to the Brahmans that it would be odd\nif no examples of it occurred in Camboja. Still the Brahmanic religion\nwhich has left such clear records there was in the main not a\nhinduized form of any local cult but a direct importation of Indian\nthought, ritual and literature. The Indian invaders or colonists were\naccompanied by Brahmans: their descendants continued to bear Indian\nnames and to give them to all places of importance: Sanskrit was the\necclesiastical and official language, for the inscriptions written in\nKhmer are clearly half-contemptuous notifications to the common\npeople, respecting such details as specially concerned them:\n_A\u015bramas_ and castes (_var\u1e47a_) are mentioned[273] and it is\nprobable that natives were only gradually and grudgingly admitted to\nthe higher castes. There is also reason to believe that this Hindu\ncivilization was from time to time vivified by direct contact with\nIndia. The embassy of Su-Wu has already been mentioned[274] and an\ninscription records the marriage of a Cambojan princess with a Brahman\ncalled Div\u00e2kara who came from the banks of the Yamun\u00e2, \"where\nK\u1e5bish\u1e47a sported in his infancy.\"\n\nDuring the whole period of the inscriptions the worship of \u015aiva seems to\nhave been the principal cultus and to some extent the state religion,\nfor even kings who express themselves in their inscriptions as devout\nBuddhists do not fail to invoke him. But there is no trace of hostility\nto Vishnuism and the earlier inscriptions constantly celebrate the\npraises of the compound deity Vish\u1e47u-\u015aiva, known under such names as\nHari-Hara[275], \u015aambhu-Vish\u1e47u, \u015aa\u1e47kara-Nar\u00e2ya\u1e47a, etc. Thus an\ninscription of Ang-Pou dating from I\u015b\u00e2navarman's reign says \"Victorious\nare Hara and Acyuta become one for the good of the world, though as the\nspouses of Parvat\u00ee and \u015ar\u00ee they have different forms[276].\" But the\nworship of this double being is accompanied by pure \u015aivaism and by the\nadoration of other deities. In the earliest inscriptions Bhavavarman\ninvokes \u015aiva and dedicates a linga. He also celebrates the compound\ndeity under the name of \u015aambhu-Vish\u1e47u and mentions Um\u00e2, Lakshm\u00ee,\nBh\u00e2rat\u00ee, Dharma, the Maruts, and Vish\u1e47u under the names of Caturbhuja\nand Trailokyas\u00e2ra. There appears to be no allusion to the worship of\nVish\u1e47u-\u015aiva as two in one after the seventh century, but though \u015aiva\nbecame exalted at the expense of his partner, Vish\u1e47u must have had\nadorers for two kings, Jayavarman III and S\u00fbryavarman II, were known\nafter their death by the names of Vish\u1e47u-loka and Parama-Vish\u1e47u-loka.\n\n\u015aiva became generally recognized as the supreme deity, in a\ncomprehensive but not an exclusive sense. He is the universal spirit\nfrom whom emanate Brahm\u00e2 and Vish\u1e47u. His character as the Destroyer\nis not much emphasized: he is the God of change, and therefore of\nreproduction, whose symbol is the Linga. It is remarkable to find that\na pantheistic form of \u015aivaism is clearly enunciated in one of the\nearliest inscriptions[277]. \u015aiva is there styled Vibhu, the\nomnipresent, Paramvrahm\u00e2 ( = Brahm\u00e2), Jagatpati, Pa\u015bupati. An\ninscription found at Angkor[278] mentions an Ac\u00e2rya of the\nP\u00e2\u015bupatas as well as an Ac\u00e2rya of the \u015aaivas and Chou Ta-kuan\nseems to allude to the worshippers of Pa\u015bupati under the name of\nPa-ss\u016d-wei. It would therefore appear that the P\u00e2\u015bupatas existed\nin Camboja as a distinct sect and there are some indications[279] that\nideas which prevailed among the Lingayats also found their way\nthither.\n\nThe most interesting and original aspect of Cambojan religion is its\nconnection with the state and the worship of deities somehow identified\nwith the king or with prominent personages[280]. These features are also\nfound in Champa and Java. In all these countries it was usual that when a\nking founded a temple, the god worshipped in it should be called by his\nname or by something like it. Thus when Bhadravarman dedicated a temple\nto \u015aiva, the god was styled Bhadre\u015bvara. More than this, when a king or\nany distinguished person died, he was commemorated by a statue which\nreproduced his features but represented him with the attributes of his\nfavourite god. Thus Indravarman and Ya\u015bovarman dedicated at Bak\u00f4 and\nLolei shrines in which deceased members of the royal family were\ncommemorated in the form of images of \u015aiva and Dev\u00ee bearing names similar\nto their own. Another form of apotheosis was to describe a king by a\nposthumous title, indicating that he had gone to the heaven of his divine\npatron such as Paramavish\u1e47uloka or Buddhaloka. The temple of Bayon was a\ntruly national fane, almost a Westminster abbey, in whose many shrines\nall the gods and great men of the country were commemorated. The French\narch\u00e6ologists recognize four classes of these shrines dedicated\nrespectively to (_a_) Indian deities, mostly special forms of \u015aiva, Dev\u00ee\nand Vish\u1e47u; (_b_) Mahayanist Buddhas, especially Buddhas of healing, who\nwere regarded as the patron saints of various towns and mountains; (_c_)\nsimilar local deities apparently of Cambojan origin and perhaps\ncorresponding to the God of the City worshipped in every Chinese town;\n(_d_) deified kings and notables, who appear to have been represented in\ntwo forms, the human and divine, bearing slightly different names. Thus\none inscription speaks of \u015ar\u00ee Mahendre\u015bvar\u00ee who is the divine form (vra\u1e25\nr\u00fbpa) of the lady \u015ar\u00ee Mahendralakshm\u00ee.\n\nThe presiding deity of the Bayon was \u015aiva, adored under the form of\nthe linga. The principal external ornaments of the building are forty\ntowers each surmounted by four heads. These were formerly thought to\nrepresent Brahm\u00e2 but there is little doubt that they are meant for\nlingas bearing four faces of \u015aiva, since each head has three\neyes. Such lingas are occasionally seen in India[281] and many metal\ncases bearing faces and made to be fitted on lingas have been\ndiscovered in Champ\u00e2. These four-headed columns are found on the gates\nof Angkor Thom as well as in the Bayon and are singularly impressive.\nThe emblem adored in the central shrine of the Bayon was probably a\nlinga but its title was _Kamrate\u1e47 jagat ta r\u00e2ja_ or _Devar\u00e2ja_, the\nking-god. More explicitly still it is styled _Kamrate\u1e47 jagat ta\nr\u00e2jya_, the god who is the kingdom. It typified and contained the\nroyal essence present in the living king of Camboja and in all her\nkings. Several inscriptions make it clear that not only dead but\nliving people could be represented by statue-portraits which\nidentified them with a deity, and in one very remarkable record a\ngeneral offers to the king the booty he has captured, asking him to\npresent it \"to your subtle ego who is I\u015bvara dwelling in a golden\nlinga[282].\" Thus this subtle ego dwells in a linga, is identical with\n\u015aiva, and manifests itself in the successive kings of the royal\nhouse.\n\nThe practices described have some analogies in India. The custom of\ndescribing the god of a temple by the name of the founder was known\nthere[283]. The veneration of ancestors is universal; there are some\nmausolea (for instance at Ahar near Udeypore) and the notion that in\nlife the soul can reside elsewhere than in the body is an occasional\npopular superstition. Still these ideas and practices are not\nconspicuous features of Hinduism and the Cambojans had probably come\nwithin the sphere of another influence. In all eastern Asia the\nveneration of the dead is the fundamental and ubiquitous form of\nreligion and in China we find fully developed such ideas as that the\ngreat should be buried in monumental tombs, that a spirit can be made\nto reside in a tablet or image, and that the human soul is compound so\nthat portions of it can be in different places. These beliefs combined\nwith the Indian doctrine that the deity is manifested in\nincarnations, in the human soul and in images afford a good\ntheoretical basis for the worship of the Devar\u00e2ja. It was also\nagreeable to far-eastern ideas that religion and the state should be\nclosely associated and the Cambojan kings would be glad to imitate the\nglories of the Son of Heaven. But probably a simpler cause tended to\nunite church and state in all these Hindu colonies. In medi\u00e6val India\nthe Brahmans became so powerful that they could claim to represent\nreligion and civilization apart from the state. But in Camboja and\nChampa Brahmanic religion and civilization were bound up with the\nstate. Both were attacked by and ultimately succumbed to the same\nenemies.\n\nThe Brahmanism of Camboja, as we know it from the inscriptions, was so\nlargely concerned with the worship of this \"Royal God\" that it might\nalmost be considered a department of the court. It seems to have been\nthought essential to the dignity of a Sovereign who aspired to be more\nthan a local prince, that his Chaplain or preceptor should have a\npontifical position. A curious parallel to this is shown by those\nmedi\u00e6val princes of eastern Europe who claimed for their chief bishops\nthe title of patriarch as a complement to their own imperial\npretensions. In its ultimate form the Cambojan hierarchy was the work\nof Jayavarman II, who, it will be remembered, reestablished the\nkingdom after an obscure but apparently disastrous interregnum. He\nmade the priesthood of the Royal God hereditary in the family of\n\u015aivakaivalya and the sacerdotal dynasty thus founded enjoyed during\nsome centuries a power inferior only to that of the kings.\n\nIn the inscriptions of Sdok K\u00e2k Thom[284] the history of this family is\ntraced from the reign of Jayavarman II to 1052. The beginning of the\nstory as related in both the Sanskrit and Khmer texts is interesting but\nobscure. It is to the effect that Jayavarman, anxious to assure his\nposition as an Emperor (Cakravartin) independent of Jav\u00e2[285], summoned\nfrom Janapada a Brahman called Hiranyad\u00e2ma, learned in magic\n(siddhividy\u00e2), who arranged the rules (viddhi) for the worship of the\nRoyal God and taught the king's Chaplain, \u015aivakaivalya, four treatises\ncalled Vrah Vin\u00e2\u015bikha, Nayottara, Sammoha and \u015aira\u015bcheda. These works\nare not otherwise known[286]. The king made a solemn compact that \"only\nthe members of his (\u015aivakaivalya's) maternal[287] family, men and women,\nshould be Y\u00e2jakas (sacrificers or officiants) to the exclusion of all\nothers.\" The restriction refers no doubt only to the cult of the Royal\nGod and the office of court chaplain, called Purohita, Guru or Hotri, of\nwhom there were at least two.\n\nThe outline of this narrative, that a learned Brahman was imported and\ncharged with the instruction of the royal chaplain, is simple and\nprobable but the details are perplexing. The Sanskrit treatises\nmentioned are unknown and the names singular. Janapada as the name of\na definite locality is also strange[288], but it is conceivable that\nthe word may have been used in Khmer as a designation of India or a\npart of it.\n\nThe inscription goes on to relate the gratifying history of the\npriestly family, the grants of land made to them, the honours they\nreceived. We gather that it was usual for an estate to be given to a\npriest with the right to claim forced labour from the population. He\nthen proceeded to erect a town or village embellished with temples and\ntanks. The hold of Brahmanism on the country probably depended more on\nsuch priestly towns than on the convictions of the people. The\ninscriptions often speak of religious establishments being restored\nand sometimes say that they had become deserted and overgrown. We may\nconclude that if the Brahman lords of a village ceased for any reason\nto give it their attention, the labour and contributions requisite for\nthe upkeep of the temples were not forthcoming and the jungle was\nallowed to grow over the buildings.\n\nNumerous inscriptions testify to the grandeur of the \u015aivakaivalya family.\nThe monotonous lists of their properties and slaves, of the statues\nerected in their honour and the number of parasols borne before them show\nthat their position was almost regal, even when the king was a Buddhist.\nThey prudently refrained from attempting to occupy the throne, but\nprobably no king could succeed unless consecrated by them. Sada\u015biva,\n\u015aa\u1e47karapa\u1e47\u1e0dita and Div\u00e2karapa\u1e47\u1e0dita formed an ecclesiastical dynasty\nfrom about 1000 to 1100 A.D. parallel to the long reigns of the kings in\nthe same period[289]. The last-named mentions in an inscription that he\nhad consecrated three kings and \u015aa\u1e47karapa\u1e47\u1e0dita, a man of great\nlearning, was _de facto_ sovereign during the minority of his pupil\nUday\u00e2dityavarman nor did he lose his influence when the young king\nattained his majority.\n\nThe shrine of the Royal God was first near Mt. Mahendra and was then\nmoved to Harihar\u00e2laya[290]. Its location was definitely fixed in the\nreign of Indravarman, about 877 A.D. Two \u015aivakaivalya Brahmans,\n\u015aivasoma and his pupil V\u00e2ma\u015biva, chaplain of the king, built a\ntemple called the \u015aiv\u00e2\u015brama and erected a linga therein. It is\nagreed that this building is the Bayon, which formed the centre of the\nlater city of Angkor. Indravarman also illustrated another\ncharacteristic of the court religion by placing in the temple now\ncalled Prah Kou three statues of \u015aiva with the features of his\nfather, grandfather and Jayavarman II together with corresponding\nstatues of \u015aakti in the likeness of their wives. The next king,\nYa\u015bovarman, who founded the town of Angkor round the Bayon, built\nnear his palace another linga temple, now known as Ba-puon. He also\nerected two convents, one Brahmanic and one Buddhist. An\ninscription[291] gives several interesting particulars respecting the\nformer. It fixes the provisions to be supplied to priests and students\nand the honours to be rendered to distinguished visitors. The right of\nsanctuary is accorded and the sick and helpless are to receive food\nand medicine. Also funeral rites are to be celebrated within its\nprecincts for the repose of the friendless and those who have died in\nwar. The royal residence was moved from Angkor in 928, but about\ntwenty years later the court returned thither and the inscriptions\nrecord that the Royal God accompanied it.\n\nThe cultus was probably similar to what may be seen in the Sivaite\ntemples of India to-day. The principal lingam was placed in a shrine\napproached through other chambers and accessible only to privileged\npersons. Libations were poured over the emblem and sacred books were\nrecited. An interesting inscription[292] of about 600 A.D. relates how\n\u015ar\u00eesomasarman (probably a Brahman) presented to a temple \"the\nR\u00e2m\u00e2ya\u1e47a, the Pur\u00e2\u1e47a and complete Bh\u00e2rata\" and made arrangements\nfor their recitation. Sanskrit literature was held in esteem. We are\ntold that S\u00fbryavarman I was versed in the Atharva-Veda and also in the\nBh\u00e2shya, K\u00e2vyas, the six Dar\u015banas, and the Dharma\u015b\u00e2stras[293].\nSacrifices are also frequently mentioned and one inscription records\nthe performance of a Ko\u1e6dihoma[294]. The old Vedic ritual remained\nto some extent in practice, for no circumstances are more favourable\nto its survival than a wealthy court dominated by a powerful\nhierarchy. Such ceremonies were probably performed in the ample\nenclosures surrounding the temples[295].\n\n4\n\n\nMahayanist Buddhism existed in Camboja during the whole of the period\ncovered by the inscriptions, but it remained in such close alliance\nwith Brahmanism that it is hard to say whether it should be regarded\nas a separate religion. The idea that the two systems were\nincompatible obviously never occurred to the writers of the\ninscriptions and Buddhism was not regarded as more distinct from\n\u015aivaism and Vishnuism than these from one another. It had\nnevertheless many fervent and generous, if not exclusive, admirers.\nThe earliest record of its existence is a short inscription dating\nfrom the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh century[296],\nwhich relates how a person called Pon Prajn\u00e2 Candra dedicated male and\nfemale slaves to the three Bodhisattvas, \u015a\u00e2st\u00e2[297], Maitreya and\nAvalokite\u015bvara. The title given to the Bodhisattvas (Vrah\nKamrat\u00e2a\u00f1) which is also borne by Indian deities shows that this\nBuddhism was not very different from the Brahmanic cult of Camboja.\n\nIt is interesting to find that Ya\u015bovarman founded in Angkor Thom a\nSaugat\u00e2\u015brama or Buddhist monastery parallel to his Br\u00e2hma\u1e47\u00e2\u015brama\nalready described. Its inmates enjoyed the same privileges and had\nnearly the same rules and duties, being bound to afford sanctuary,\nmaintain the destitute and perform funeral masses. It is laid down that\nan Ac\u00e2rya versed in Buddhist lore corresponds in rank to the Ac\u00e2ryas of\nthe \u015aaivas and P\u00e2supatas and that in both institutions greater honour is\nto be shown to such Ac\u00e2ryas as also are learned in grammar. A Buddhist\nAc\u00e2rya ought to be honoured a little less than a learned Brahman. Even\nin form the inscriptions recording the foundation of the two A\u015bramas\nshow a remarkable parallelism. Both begin with two stanzas addressed to\n\u015aiva: then the Buddhist inscription inserts a stanza in honour of the\nBuddha who delivers from transmigration and gives nirv\u00e2\u1e47a, and then the\ntwo texts are identical for several stanzas[298].\n\nMahayanism appears to have flourished here especially from the tenth to\nthe thirteenth centuries and throughout the greater part of this period we\nfind the same feature that its principal devotees were not the kings but\ntheir ministers. S\u00fbryavarman I (\u2020 1049) and Jayavarman VII (\u2020 1221) in\nsome sense deserved the name of Buddhists since the posthumous title of\nthe former was Nirv\u00e2\u1e47apada and the latter left a long inscription[299]\nbeginning with a definitely Buddhist invocation. Yet an inscription of\nS\u00fbryavarman which states in its second verse that only the word of the\nBuddha is true, opens by singing the praises of \u015aiva, and Jayavarman\ncertainly did not neglect the Brahmanic gods. But for about a hundred\nyears there was a series of great ministers who specially encouraged\nBuddhism. Such were Satyavarman (_c._ 900 A.D.), who was charged with the\nerection of the building in Angkor known as Phimeanakas;\nKavindr\u00e2rimathana, minister under R\u00e2jendravarman II and Jayavarman V, who\nerected many Buddhist statues and K\u00eertipa\u1e47\u1e0dita, minister of Jayavarman\nV. K\u00eertipa\u1e47\u1e0dita was the author[300] of the inscription found at Srey\nSanthor, which states that thanks to his efforts the pure doctrine of the\nBuddha reappeared like the moon from behind the clouds or the sun at dawn.\n\nIt may be easily imagined that the power enjoyed by the court chaplain\nwould dispose the intelligent classes to revolt against this hierarchy\nand to favour liberty and variety in religion, so far as was safe.\nPossibly the kings, while co-operating with a priesthood which\nrecognized them as semi-divine, were glad enough to let other\nreligious elements form some sort of counterpoise to a priestly family\nwhich threatened to be omnipotent. Though the identification of\n\u015aivaism and Buddhism became so complete that we actually find a\nTrinity composed of Padmodbhava (Brahm\u00e2), Ambhojanetra (Vish\u1e47u) and\nthe Buddha[301], the inscriptions of the Buddhist ministers are marked\nby a certain diplomacy and self-congratulation on the success of their\nefforts, as if they felt that their position was meritorious, yet\ndelicate.\n\nThus in an inscription, the object of which seems to be to record the\nerection of a statue of Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 by Kavindr\u00e2rimathana we are\ntold that the king charged him with the embellishment of\nYa\u015bodharapura because \"though an eminent Buddhist\" his loyalty was\nabove suspicion[302]. The same minister erected three towers at B\u00e0\u1e6d\nC\u0306u\u1e43 with inscriptions[303] which record the dedication of a\ntank. The first invokes the Buddha, Vajrap\u00e2ni[304] and Loke\u015bvara.\nIn the others Loke\u015bvara is replaced by Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 who here, as\nelsewhere, is treated as a goddess or \u015aakti and referred to as Dev\u00ee\nin another stanza[305]. The three inscriptions commemorate the\nconstruction of a sacred tank but, though the author was a\nBuddhist, he expressly restricts the use of it to Brahmanic\nfunctionaries.\n\nThe inscription of Srey Santhor[306] (_c_. 975 A.D.) describes the\nsuccessful efforts of K\u00eertipa\u1e47\u1e0dita to restore Buddhism and gives the\ninstructions of the king (Jayavarman V) as to its status. The royal\nchaplain is by no means to abandon the worship of \u015aiva but he is to be\nwell versed in Buddhist learning and on feast days he will bathe the\nstatue of the Buddha with due ceremony.\n\nA point of interest in this inscription is the statement that\nK\u00eertipa\u1e47\u1e0dita introduced Buddhist books from abroad, including\nthe \u015a\u00e2stra Madhyavibh\u00e2ga and the commentary on the Tattvasangraha.\nThe first of these is probably the M\u00e2dhy\u00e2ntavibh\u00e2ga \u015b\u00e2stra[307] by\nVasubandhu and the authorship is worth attention as supporting\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha's statement that the disciples of Vasubandhu introduced\nBuddhism into Indo-China.\n\nIn the time of Jayavarman VII (_c_. 1185 A.D.), although Hindu\nmythology is not discarded and though the king's chaplain (presumably\na \u015aivaite) receives every honour, yet Mahayanist Buddhism seems to\nbe frankly professed as the royal religion. It is noteworthy that\nabout the same time it becomes more prominent in Java and Champa.\nProbably the flourishing condition of the faith in Ceylon and Burma\nincreased the prestige of all forms of Buddhism throughout\nsouth-eastern Asia. A long inscription of Jayavarman in 145 stanzas\nhas been preserved in the temple of Ta Prohm near Angkor. It opens\nwith an invocation to the Buddha, in which are mentioned the three\nbodies, Loke\u015bvara[308], and the Mother of the Jinas, by whom\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 must be meant. \u015aiva is not invoked but allusion is\nmade to many Brahmanic deities and Bhikkhus and Brahmans are mentioned\ntogether. The inscription contains a curious list of the materials\nsupplied daily for the temple services and of the personnel. Ample\nprovision is made for both, but it is not clear how far a purely\nBuddhist ritual is contemplated and it seems probable that an\nextensive Brahmanic cultus existed side by side with the Buddhist\nceremonial. We learn that there were clothes for the deities and\nforty-five mosquito nets of Chinese material to protect their statues.\nThe Uposatha days seem to be alluded to[309] and the spring festival\nis described, when \"Bhagavat and Bhagavat\u00ee\" are to be escorted in\nsolemn procession with parasols, music, banners and dancing girls. The\nwhole staff, including Burmese and Chams (probably slaves), is put\ndown at the enormous figure of 79,365, which perhaps includes all the\nneighbouring inhabitants who could be called on to render any service\nto the temple. The more sacerdotal part of the establishment consisted\nof 18 principal priests (adhik\u00e2ri\u1e47a\u1e25), 2740 priests and 2232\nassistants, including 615 dancing girls. But even these figures seem\nvery large[310].\n\nThe inscription comes to a gratifying conclusion by announcing that\nthere are 102 hospitals in the kingdom[311]. These institutions, which\nare alluded to in other inscriptions, were probably not all founded by\nJayavarman VII and he seems to treat them as being, like temples, a\nnatural part of a well-ordered state. But he evidently expended much\ncare and money on them and in the present inscription he makes over\nthe fruit of these good deeds to his mother. The most detailed\ndescription of these hospitals occurs in another of his inscriptions\nfound at Say-fong in Laos. It is, like the one just cited, definitely\nBuddhist and it is permissible to suppose that Buddhism took a more\nactive part than Brahmanism in such works of charity. It opens with an\ninvocation first to the Buddha who in his three bodies transcends the\ndistinction between existence and non-existence, and then to the\nhealing Buddha and the two Bodhisattvas who drive away darkness and\ndisease. These divinities, who are the lords of a heaven in the east,\nanalogous to the paradise of Amit\u00e2bha, are still worshipped in China\nand Japan and were evidently gods of light[312]. The hospital erected\nunder their auspices by the Cambojan king was open to all the four\ncastes and had a staff of 98 persons, besides an astrologer and two\nsacrificers (y\u00e2jaka).\n\n5\n\n\nThese inscriptions of Jayavarman are the last which tell us anything\nabout the religion of medi\u00e6val Camboja but we have a somewhat later\naccount from the pen of Chou Ta-kuan, a Chinese who visited Angkor in\n1296[313]. He describes the temple in the centre of the city, which\nmust be the Bayon, and says that it had a tower of gold and that the\neastern (or principal) entrance was approached by a golden bridge\nflanked by two lions and eight statues, all of the same metal. The\nchapter of his work entitled \"The Three Religions,\" runs as follows,\nslightly abridged from M. Pelliot's version.\n\n\"The literati are called Pan-ch'i, the bonzes Ch'u-ku and the Taoists\nPa-ss\u016d-wei. I do not know whom the Pan-ch'i worship. They have no\nschools and it is difficult to say what books they read. They dress\nlike other people except that they wear a white thread round their\nnecks, which is their distinctive mark. They attain to very high\npositions. The Ch'u-ku shave their heads and wear yellow clothes. They\nuncover the right shoulder, but the lower part of their body is draped\nwith a skirt of yellow cloth and they go bare foot. Their temples are\nsometimes roofed with tiles. Inside there is only one image, exactly\nlike the Buddha \u015a\u00e2kya, which they call Po-lai ( = Prah), ornamented\nwith vermilion and blue, and clothed in red. The Buddhas of the towers\n(? images in the towers of the temples) are different and cast in\nbronze. There are no bells, drums, cymbals, or flags in their temples.\nThey eat only one meal a day, prepared by someone who entertains them,\nfor they do not cook in their temples. They eat fish and meat and also\nuse them in their offerings to Buddha, but they do not drink wine.\nThey recite numerous texts written on strips of palm-leaf. Some bonzes\nhave a right to have the shafts of their palanquins and the handles of\ntheir parasols in gold or silver. The prince consults them on serious\nmatters. There are no Buddhist nuns.\n\n\"The Pa-ss\u016d-wei dress like everyone else, except that they wear on\ntheir heads a piece of red or white stuff like the Ku-ku worn by\nTartar women but lower. Their temples are smaller than those of the\nBuddhists, for Taoism is less prosperous than Buddhism. They worship\nnothing but a block of stone, somewhat like the stone on the altar of\nthe God of the Sun in China. I do not know what god they adore. There\nare also Taoist nuns. The Pa-ss\u016d-wei do not partake of the food of\nother people or eat in public. They do not drink wine.\n\n\"Such children of the laity as go to school frequent the bonzes, who\ngive them instruction. When grown up they return to a lay life.\n\n\"I have not been able to make an exhaustive investigation.\"\n\nElsewhere he says \"All worship the Buddha\" and he describes some\npopular festivals which resemble those now celebrated in Siam. In\nevery village there was a temple or a St\u00fbpa. He also mentions that in\neating they use leaves as spoons and adds \"It is the same in their\nsacrifices to the spirits and to Buddha.\"\n\nChou Ta-kuan confesses that his account is superficial and he was\nperhaps influenced by the idea that it was natural there should be\nthree religions in Camboja, as in China. Buddhists were found in both\ncountries: Pan-ch'i no doubt represents Pa\u1e47\u1e0dita and he saw an\nanalogy between the Brahmans of the Cambojan Court and Confucian\nmandarins: a third and less known sect he identified with the Taoists.\nThe most important point in his description is the prominence given to\nthe Buddhists. His account of their temples, of the dress and life of\ntheir monks[314] leaves no doubt that he is describing Hinayanist\nBuddhism such as still nourishes in Camboja. It probably found its way\nfrom Siam, with which Camboja had already close, but not always\npeaceful, relations. Probably the name by which the bonzes are\ndesignated is Siamese[315]. With Chou Ta-kuan's statements may be\ncompared the inscription of the Siamese King R\u00e2ma Khomh\u00ebng[316] which\ndwells on the nourishing condition of Pali Buddhism in Siam about 1300\nA.D. The contrast indicated by Chou Ta-kuan is significant. The\nBrahmans held high office but had no schools. Those of the laity\nwho desired education spent some portion of their youth in a Buddhist\nmonastery (as they still do) and then returned to the world. Such a\nstate of things naturally resulted in the diffusion of Buddhism among\nthe people, while the Brahmans dwindled to a Court hierarchy. When\nChou Ta-kuan says that all the Cambojans adored Buddha, he probably\nmakes a mistake, as he does in saying that the sculptures above the\ngates of Angkor are heads of Buddha. But the general impression which\nhe evidently received that everyone frequented Buddhist temples and\nmonasteries speaks for itself. His statement about sacrifices to\nBuddha is remarkable and, since the inscriptions of Jayavarman VII\nspeak of sacrificers, it cannot be rejected as a mere mistake. But if\nHinayanist Buddhism countenanced such practices in an age of\ntransition, it did not adopt them permanently for, so far as I have\nseen, no offerings are made to-day in Cambojan temples, except flowers\nand sticks of incense.\n\nThe Pa-ss\u016d-wei have given rise to many conjectures and have been\nidentified with the Basaih or sacerdotal class of the Chams. But there\nseems to be little doubt that the word really represents P\u00e2\u015bupata\nand Chou Ta-kuan's account clearly points to a sect of linga\nworshippers, although no information is forthcoming about the \"stone\non the altar of the Sun God in China\" to which he compares their\nemblem. His idea that they represented the Taoists in Camboja may have\nled him to exaggerate their importance but his statement that they\nwere a separate body is confirmed, for an inscription of Angkor[317]\ndefines the order of hierarchical precedence as \"the Brahman, the\n\u015aaiva Ac\u00e2rya, the P\u00e2\u015bupata Ac\u00e2rya[318].\"\n\nFrom the time of Chou Ta-kuan to the present day I have found few\nnotices about the religion of Camboja. Hinayanist Buddhism became\nsupreme and though we have few details of the conquest we can hardly\ngo wrong in tracing its general lines. Brahmanism was exclusive and\ntyrannical. It made no appeal to the masses but a severe levy of\nforced labour must have been necessary to erect and maintain the\nnumerous great shrines which, though in ruins, are still the glory of\nCamboja[319]. In many of them are seen the remains of inscriptions\nwhich have been deliberately erased. These probably prescribed certain\nonerous services which the proletariat was bound to render to the\nestablished church. When Siamese Buddhism invaded Camboja it had a\ndouble advantage. It was the creed of an aggressive and successful\nneighbour but, while thus armed with the weapons of this world, it\nalso appealed to the poor and oppressed. If it enjoyed the favour of\nprinces, it had no desire to defend the rights of a privileged caste:\nit offered salvation and education to the average townsman and\nvillager. If it invited the support and alms of the laity, it was at\nleast modest in its demands. Brahmanism on the other hand lost\nstrength as the prestige of the court declined. Its greatest shrines\nwere in the provinces most exposed to Siamese attacks. The first\nPortuguese writers speak of them as already deserted at the end of the\nsixteenth century. The connection with India was not kept up and if\nany immigrants came from the west, after the twelfth century they are\nmore likely to have been Moslims than Hindus. Thus driven from its\ntemples, with no roots among the people, whose affections it had never\ntried to win, Brahmanism in Camboja became what it now is, a court\nritual without a creed and hardly noticed except at royal functions.\n\nIt is remarkable that Mohammedanism remained almost unknown to\nCamboja, Siam and Burma. The tide of Moslim invasion swept across the\nMalay Peninsula southwards. Its effect was strongest in Sumatra and\nJava, feebler on the coasts of Borneo and the Philippines. From the\nislands it reached Champa, where it had some success, but Siam and\nCamboja lay on one side of its main route, and also showed no\nsympathy for it. King Rama Thuppdey Chan[320] who reigned in\nCamboja from 1642-1659 became a Mohammedan and surrounded himself with\nMalays and Javanese. But he alienated the affections of his subjects\nand was deposed by the intervention of Annam. After this we hear no\nmore of Mohammedanism. An unusual incident, which must be counted\namong the few cases in which Buddhism has encouraged violence, is\nrecorded in the year 1730, when a Laotian who claimed to be inspired,\ncollected a band of fanatics and proceeded to massacre in the name of\nBuddha all the Annamites resident in Camboja. This seems to show that\nBuddhism was regarded as the religion of the country and could be used\nas a national cry against strangers.\n\nAs already mentioned Brahmanism still survives in the court ceremonial\nthough this by no means prevents the king from being a devout\nBuddhist. The priests are known as Bakus. They wear a top-knot and the\nsacred thread after the Indian fashion, and enjoy certain privileges.\nWithin the precincts of the palace at Phnom Penh is a modest building\nwhere they still guard the sword of Indra. About two inches of the\nblade are shown to visitors, but except at certain festivals it is\nnever taken out of its sheath.\n\nThe official programme of the coronation of King Sisowath (April\n23-28, 1906), published in French and Cambojan, gives a curious\naccount of the ceremonies performed, which were mainly Brahmanic,\nalthough prayers were recited by the Bonzes and offerings made to\nBuddha. Four special Brahmanic shrines were erected and the essential\npart of the rite consisted in a lustral bath, in which the Bakus\npoured water over the king. Invocations were addressed to beings\ndescribed as \"Anges qui \u00eates au paradis des six s\u00e9jours c\u00e9lestes, qui\nhabitez aupr\u00e8s d'Indra, de Brahm\u00e2 et de l'archange Sahabodey,\" to the\nspirits of mountains, valleys and rivers and to the spirits who guard\nthe palace. When the king has been duly bathed the programme\nprescribes that \"le Directeur des Bakous remettra la couronne \u00e2 M. le\nGouverneur G\u00e9n\u00e9ral qui la portera sur la t\u00eate de Sa Majest\u00e9 au nom du\nGouvernement de la R\u00e9publique Fran\u00e7aise.\" Equally curious is the\n\"Programme des f\u00eates royales \u00e0 l'occasion de la cr\u00e9mation de S.M.\nNorodom\" (January 2-16, 1906). The lengthy ceremonial consisted of a\nstrange mixture of prayers, sermons, pageants and amusements. The\ndefinitely religious exercises were Buddhist and the amusements which\naccompanied them, though according to our notions curiously out of\nplace, clearly correspond to the funeral games of antiquity. Thus we\nread not only of \"offrande d'un repas aux urnes royales\" but of\n\"illuminations g\u00e9n\u00e9rales ... lancement de ballons ... luttes et\nassauts de boxe et de l'escrime ... danses et soir\u00e9e de gala.... Apr\u00e8s\nla cr\u00e9mation, Sa Majest\u00e9 distribuera des billets de tombola.\"\n\nThe ordinary Buddhism of Camboja at the present day resembles that of\nSiam and is not mixed with Brahmanic observances. Monasteries are\nnumerous: the monks enjoy general respect and their conduct is said to\nbe beyond reproach. They act as schoolmasters and, as in Siam and\nBurma, all young men spend some time in a monastery. A monastery\ngenerally contains from thirty to fifty monks and consists of a number\nof wooden houses raised on piles and arranged round a square. Each\nmonk has a room and often a house to himself. Besides the dwelling\nhouses there are also stores and two halls called Sal\u00e2 and Vih\u00e9ar\n(vih\u00e2ra). In both the Buddha is represented by a single gigantic\nsitting image, before which are set flowers and incense. As a rule\nthere are no other images but the walls are often ornamented with\nfrescoes of J\u00e2taka stories or the early life of Gotama. Meals are\ntaken in the Sal\u00e2 at about 7 and 11 a.m.[321], and prayers are recited\nthere on ordinary days in the morning and evening. The eleven o'clock\nmeal is followed by a rather long grace. The prayers consist mostly of\nPali formul\u00e6, such as the Three Refuges, but they are sometimes in\nCambojan and contain definite petitions or at least wishes formulated\nbefore the image of the Buddha. Thus I have heard prayers for peace\nand against war. The more solemn ceremonies, such as the Uposatha and\nordinations, are performed in the Vihear. The recitation of the\nP\u00e2timokkha is regularly performed and I have several times witnessed\nit. All but ordained monks have to withdraw outside the S\u00eem\u00e2 stones\nduring the service. The ceremony begins about 6 p.m.: the Bhikkhus\nkneel down in pairs face to face and rubbing their foreheads in the\ndust ask for mutual forgiveness if they have inadvertently offended.\nThis ceremony is also performed on other occasions. It is followed\nby singing or intoning lauds, after which comes the recitation of the\nP\u00e2timokkha itself which is marked by great solemnity. The reader sits\nin a large chair on the arms of which are fixed many lighted tapers.\nHe repeats the text by heart but near him sits a prompter with a\npalm-leaf manuscript who, if necessary, corrects the words recited. I\nhave never seen a monk confess in public, and I believe that the usual\npractice is for sinful brethren to abstain from attending the ceremony\nand then to confess privately to the Abbot, who assigns them a\npenance. As soon as the P\u00e2timokkha is concluded all the Bhikkhus smoke\nlarge cigarettes. In most Buddhist countries it is not considered\nirreverent to smoke[322], chew betel or drink tea in the intervals of\nreligious exercises. When the cigarettes are finished there follows a\nservice of prayer and praise in Cambojan. During the season of Wassa\nthere are usually several Bhikkhus in each monastery who practise\nmeditation for three or four days consecutively in tents or enclosures\nmade of yellow cloth, open above but closed all round. The four stages\nof meditation described in the Pi\u1e6dakas are said to be commonly\nattained by devout monks[323].\n\nThe Abbot has considerable authority in disciplinary matters. He eats\napart from the other monks and at religious ceremonies wears a sort of\nred cope, whereas the dress of the other brethren is entirely yellow.\nNovices prostrate themselves when they speak to him.\n\nAbove the Abbots are Provincial Superiors and the government of the\nwhole Church is in the hands of the Somdec pr\u00e1h sanghr\u00e2c. There is, or\nwas, also a second prelate called L\u00f2k pr\u00e1h s\u00f3\u0306k\u014fn, or Bra\u1e25 Sugandha,\nand the two, somewhat after the manner of the two primates of the\nEnglish Church, supervise the clergy in different parts of the kingdom,\nthe second being inferior to the first in rank, but not dependent on\nhim. But it is said that no successor has been appointed to the last\nBra\u1e25 Sugandha who died in 1894. He was a distinguished scholar and\nintroduced the Dhammayut sect from Siam into Camboja. The king is\nrecognized as head of the Church, but cannot alter its doctrine or\nconfiscate ecclesiastical property.\n\n6\n\n\nNo account of Cambojan religion would be complete without some\nreference to the splendid monuments in which it found expression and\nwhich still remain in a great measure intact. The colonists who\nestablished themselves in these regions brought with them the\nDravidian taste for great buildings, but either their travels enlarged\ntheir artistic powers or they modified the Indian style by\nassimilating successfully some architectural features found in their\nnew home. What pre-Indian architecture there may have been among the\nKhmers we do not know, but the fact that the earliest known monuments\nare Hindu makes it improbable that stone buildings on a large scale\nexisted before their arrival. The feature which most clearly\ndistinguishes Cambojan from Indian architecture is its pyramidal\nstructure. India has stupas and gopurams of pyramidal appearance but\nstill Hindu temples of the normal type, both in the north and south,\nconsist of a number of buildings erected on the same level. In Camboja\non the contrary many buildings, such as Ta-Keo, Ba-phuong and the\nPhimeanakas, are shrines on the top of pyramids, which consist of\nthree storeys or large steps, ascended by flights of relatively small\nsteps. In other buildings, notably Angkor Wat, the pyramidal form is\nobscured by the slight elevation of the storeys compared with their\nbreadth and by the elaboration of the colonnades and other edifices,\nwhich they bear. But still the general plan is that of a series of\ncourts each rising within and above the last and this gradual rise, by\nwhich the pilgrim is led, not only through colonnade after colonnade,\nbut up flight after flight of stairs, each leading to something higher\nbut invisible from the base, imparts to Cambojan temples a sublimity\nand aspiring grandeur which is absent from the mysterious halls of\nDravidian shrines.\n\nOne might almost suppose that the Cambojan architects had deliberately\nset themselves to rectify the chief faults of Indian architecture. One\nof these is the profusion of external ornament in high relief which by\nits very multiplicity ceases to produce any effect proportionate to\nits elaboration, with the result that the general view is\ndisappointing and majestic outlines are wanting. In Cambojan buildings\non the contrary the general effect is not sacrificed to detail: the\nartists knew how to make air and space give dignity to their work.\nAnother peculiar defect of many Dravidian buildings is that they were\ngradually erected round some ancient and originally humble shrine with\nthe unfortunate result that the outermost courts and gateways are the\nmost magnificent and that progress to the holy of holies is a series\nof artistic disappointments. But at Angkor Wat this fault is carefully\navoided. The long paved road which starts from the first gateway\nisolates the great central mass of buildings without dwarfing it and\neven in the last court, when one looks up the vast staircases leading\nto the five towers which crown the pyramid, all that has led up to the\ncentral shrine seems, as it should, merely an introduction.\n\nThe solidity of Cambojan architecture is connected with the prevalence\nof inundations. With such dangers it was of primary importance to have a\nmassive substructure which could not be washed away and the style which\nwas necessary in building a firm stone platform inspired the rest of the\nwork. Some unfinished temples reveal the interesting fact that they were\nerected first as piles of plain masonry. Then came the decorator and\ncarved the stones as they stood in their places, so that instead of\ncarving separate blocks he was able to contemplate his design as a whole\nand to spread it over many stones. Hence most Cambojan buildings have a\npeculiar air of unity. They have not had ornaments affixed to them but\nhave grown into an ornamental whole. Yet if an unfavourable criticism is\nto be made on these edifices--especially Angkor Wat--it is that the\nsculptures are wanting in meaning and importance. They cannot be\ncompared to the reliefs of Boroboedoer, a veritable catechism in stone\nwhere every clause teaches the believer something new, or even to the\npiles of figures in Dravidian temples which, though of small artistic\nmerit, seem to represent the whirl of the world with all its men and\nmonsters, struggling from life into death and back to life again. The\nreliefs in the great corridors of Angkor are purely decorative. The\nartist justly felt that so long a stretch of plain stone would be\nwearisome, and as decoration, his work is successful. Looking outwards\nthe eye is satisfied with such variety as the trees and houses in the\ntemple courts afford: looking inwards it finds similar variety in the\nwarriors and deities portrayed on the walls. Some of the scenes have an\nhistorical interest, but the attempt to follow the battles of the\nRamayana or the Churning of the Sea soon becomes a tedious task, for\nthere is little individuality or inspiration in the figures.\n\nThis want of any obvious correspondence between the decoration and\ncult of the Cambojan temples often makes it difficult to say to what\ndeities they were dedicated. The Bayon, or \u015aiv\u00e2\u015brama, was\npresumably a linga temple, yet the conjecture is not confirmed as one\nwould expect by any indubitable evidence in the decoration or\narrangements. In its general plan the building seems more Indian than\nothers and, like the temple of Jagann\u00e2tha at Puri, consists of three\nsuccessive chambers, each surmounted by a tower. The most remarkable\nfeature in the decoration is the repetition of the four-headed figure\nat the top of every tower, a striking and effective motive, which is\nalso found above the gates of the town. Chou Ta-kuan says that there\nwere golden statues of Buddhas at the entrance to the Bayon. It is\nimpossible to say whether this statement is accurate or not. He may\nhave simply made a mistake, but it is equally possible that the fusion\nof the two creeds may have ended in images of the Buddha being placed\noutside the shrine of the linga.\n\nStrange as it may seem, there is no clear evidence as to the character\nof the worship performed in Camboja's greatest temple, Angkor Wat.\nSince the prince who commenced it was known by the posthumous title of\nParamavish\u1e47uloka, we may presume that he intended to dedicate it to\nVish\u1e47u and some of the sculptures appear to represent Vish\u1e47u\nslaying a demon. But it was not finished until after his death and his\nintentions may not have been respected by his successors. An\nauthoritative statement[324] warns us that it is not safe to say more\nabout the date of Angkor Wat than that its extreme limits are 1050 and\n1170. Jayavarman VII (who came to the throne at about this latter\ndate) was a Buddhist, and may possibly have used the great temple for\nhis own worship. The sculptures are hardly Brahmanic in the\ntheological sense, and those which represent the pleasures of paradise\nand the pains of hell recall Buddhist delineations of the same\ntheme[325]. The four images of the Buddha which are now found in the\ncentral tower are modern and all who have seen them will, I think,\nagree that the figure of the great teacher which seems so appropriate\nin the neighbouring monasteries is strangely out of place in this\naerial shrine. But what the designer of the building intended to place\nthere remains a mystery. Perhaps an empty throne such as is seen in\nthe temples of Annam and Bali would have been the best symbol[326].\n\nThough the monuments of Camboja are well preserved the grey and\nmassive severity which marks them at present is probably very\ndifferent from the appearance that they wore when used for worship.\nFrom Chou Ta-kuan and other sources[327] we gather that the towers and\nporches were gilded, the bas-reliefs and perhaps the whole surface of\nthe walls were painted, and the building was ornamented with flags.\nMusic and dances were performed in the courtyards and, as in many\nIndian temples, the intention was to create a scene which by its\nanimation and brilliancy might amuse the deity and rival the pleasures\nof paradise.\n\nIt is remarkable that ancient Camboja which has left us so many\nmonuments, produced no books[328]. Though the inscriptions and Chou\nTa-kuan testify to the knowledge of literature (especially religious),\nboth Brahmanic and Buddhist, diffused among the upper classes, no\noriginal works or even adaptations of Indian originals have come down\nto us. The length and ambitious character of many inscriptions\ngive an idea of what the Cambojans could do in the way of writing, but\nthe result is disappointing. These poems in stone show a knowledge of\nSanskrit, of Indian poetry and theology, which is surprising if we\nconsider how far from India they were composed, but they are almost\nwithout exception artificial, frigid and devoid of vigour or\ninspiration.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 242: See among other authorities:\n\n(_a_) E. Aymonier, _Le Cambodge_, Paris, 3 vols. 1900, 1904 (cited as\nAymonier).\n\n(_b_) A. Barth, _Inscriptions Sanscrites du Cambodge (Notices et\nextraits des MSS. de la Bibliot. Nat._), Paris, 1885 (cited as\n_Corpus_, I.).\n\n(_c_) A. Bergaigne, _Inscriptions Sanscrites de Camp\u00e2 et du Cambodge_\n(in same series), 1893 (cited as _Corpus_, II.).\n\n(_d_) L. Finot, \"Buddhism in Indo-China,\" _Buddhist Review_, Oct.\n1909.\n\n(_e_) G. Masp\u00e9ro, _L'Empire Khm\u00e8r, Phnom Penh_, 1904 (cited as\nMasp\u00e9ro).\n\n(_f_) P. Pelliot, \"M\u00e9moires sur les Coutumes de Cambodge par Tcheou\nTa-kouan, traduits et annot\u00e9s,\" _B.E.F.E.O._ 1902, pp. 123-177 (cited\nas Pelliot, _Tcheou Ta-kouan_).\n\n(_g_) _Id._ \"Le Founan,\" _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, pp. 248-303 (cited as\nPelliot, _Founan_).\n\n(_h_) Articles on various inscriptions by G. Coed\u00e8s in _J.A._ 1908,\nXI. p. 203, XII. p. 213; 1909, XIII. p. 467 and p. 511.\n\n(_i_) _Bulletin de la Commission Arch\u00e9ologique de l'Indochine_, 1908\nonwards.\n\n(_j_) _Le Bayon d'Angkor Thom, Mission Henri Dufour_, 1910-1914.\nBesides the articles cited above the _Bulletin de l'Ecole Fran\u00e7aise\nd'Extr\u00eame Orient_ (quoted as _B.E.F.E.O._) contains many others\ndealing with the religion and archaeology of Camboja.\n\n(_k_) L. Finot, _Notes d'Epigraphie Indo-Chinoise_, 1916. See for\nliterature up to 1909, G. Coed\u00e8s, _Biblioth\u00e8que raisonn\u00e9e des travaux\nrelatifs \u00e0 l'Arch\u00e9ologie du Cambodge et du Champa_. Paris, Imprimerie\nNationale, 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 243: See especially P.W. Schmitt, _Die Mon-Khmer V\u00f6lker. Ein\nBindeglied zwischen V\u00f6lkern Zentral-Asiens und Austronesiens_.\nBraunschweig, 1906.]\n\n[Footnote 244: Cambodge is the accepted French spelling of this\ncountry's name. In English Kamboja, Kambodia, Camboja and Cambodia are\nall found. The last is the most usual but _di_ is not a good way of\nrepresenting the sound of _j_ as usually heard in this name. I have\ntherefore preferred Camboja.]\n\n[Footnote 245: See the inscription of B\u00e0ks\u0115, C\u00e0\u1e43kr\u00f3\u0306\u1e47,\n_J.A._ XIII. 1909, pp. 468, 469, 497.]\n\n[Footnote 246: The Sui annals (Pelliot, _Founan_, p. 272) state that\n\"Ch\u00ean-la lies to the west of Lin-yi: it was originally a vassal state\nof Fu-nan.... The name of the king's family was Kshatriya: his\npersonal name was Citrasena: his ancestors progressively acquired the\nsovereignty of the country: Citrasena seized Fu-nan and reduced it to\nsubmission.\" This seems perfectly clear and we know from Cambojan\ninscriptions that Citrasena was the personal name of the king who\nreigned as Mahendravarman, _c_. 600 A.D. But it would appear from the\ninscriptions that it was his predecessor Bhavavarman who made whatever\nchange occurred in the relations of Camboja to Fu-nan and in any case\nit is not clear who were the inhabitants of Fu-nan if not Cambojans.\nPerhaps Masp\u00e9ro is right in suggesting that Fu-nan was something like\nimperial Germany (p. 25), \"Si le roi de Bavi\u00e8re s'emparait de la\ncouronne imp\u00e9riale, rien ne serait chang\u00e9 en Allemagne que la famille\nr\u00e9gnante.\"]\n\n[Footnote 247: It is remarkable that the Baudh\u00e2yana-dharma-s\u00fbtra\nenumerates going to sea among the customs peculiar to the North (I. 1,\n2, 4) and then (II. 1, 2, 2) classes making voyages by sea as the\nfirst of the offences which cause loss of caste. This seems to\nindicate that the emigrants from India came mainly from the North, but\nit would be rash to conclude that in times of stress or enthusiasm the\nSoutherners did not follow their practice. A passage in the second\nchapter of the Kautil\u00eeya Artha\u015b\u00e2stra has been interpreted as\nreferring to the despatch of colonists to foreign countries, but it\nprobably contemplates nothing more than the transfer of population\nfrom one part of India to another. See Finot, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1912, No.\n8. But the passage at any rate shows that the idea of the King being\nable to transport a considerable mass of population was familiar in\nancient India. J\u00e2taka 466 contains a curious story of a village of\ncarpenters who being unsuccessful in trade built a ship and emigrated\nto an island in the ocean. It is clear that there must have been a\nconsiderable seafaring population in India in early times for the Rig\nVeda (II. 48, 3; I. 56, 2; I. 116, 3), the Mahabharata and the J\u00e2takas\nallude to the love of gain which sends merchants across the sea and to\nshipwrecks. Sculptures at Salsette ascribed to about 150 A.D.\nrepresent a shipwreck. Ships were depicted in the paintings of Ajanta\nand also occur on the coins of the Andhra King Yaj\u00f1a\u015br\u00ee (_c_. 200\nA.D.) and in the sculptures of Boroboedoer. The D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya (XI. 85)\nspeaks of sea-going ships which when lost let loose a land sighting\nbird. Much information is collected in Radhakumud Mookerji's _History\nof Indian Shipping_, 1912.]\n\n[Footnote 248: Voyages are still regularly made in dhows between the\nwest coast of India and Zanzibar or Mombasa and the trade appears to\nbe old.]\n\n[Footnote 249: See J\u00e2taka 339 for the voyage to Baveru or Babylon.\nJ\u00e2takas 360 and 442 mention voyages to Suva\u1e47\u1e47abh\u00fbmi or Lower\nBurma from Bharukaccha and from Benares down the river. The Milinda\nPa\u00f1ha (VI. 21) alludes to traffic with China by sea.]\n\n[Footnote 250: R\u00e2m. iv. 40, 30.]\n\n[Footnote 251: Pelliot, _Founan_, p. 254. The Western and Eastern Tsin\nreigned from 265 to 419 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 252: Pelliot, _Founan_, p. 254. Most of the references to\nChinese annals are taken from this valuable paper.]\n\n[Footnote 253: The inscription of Mi-son relates how Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya\nplanted at Bharapura (? in Camboja) a javelin given to him by\nA\u015bvatth\u00e2man.]\n\n[Footnote 254: This is the modern reading of the characters in Peking,\nbut Julien's _M\u00e9thode_ justifies the transcription Kau-\u1e0di-nya.]\n\n[Footnote 255: See S. L\u00e9vi in _M\u00e9langes Charles de Harlez_, p. 176.\nDeux peuples m\u00e9connus. i. Les Murun\u1e0das.]\n\n[Footnote 256: _Nanjio Catalogue_, p. 422.]\n\n[Footnote 257: I-Tsing, trans. Takakusu, p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 258: _Corpus_, I. p. 65.]\n\n[Footnote 259: _Corpus_, I. pp. 84, 89, 90, and _Jour. Asiatique_,\n1882, p. 152.]\n\n[Footnote 260: When visiting Badami, Pa\u1e6d\u1e6dadkal and Aihole in\n1912 I noted the following resemblances between the temples of that\ndistrict and those of Camboja. (_a_) The chief figures are Harihara,\nV\u00e2mana and N\u1e5bisi\u1e43ha. At Pa\u1e6d\u1e6dadkal, as at Angkor Wat, the\nreliefs on the temple wall represent the Churning of the Sea and\nscenes from the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana. (_b_) Large blocks of stone were used for\nbuilding and after being put in their positions were carved _in situ_,\nas is shown by unfinished work in places. (_c_) Medallions containing\nfaces are frequent. (_d_) The architectural scheme is not as in\nDravidian temples, that is to say larger outside and becoming smaller\nas one proceeds towards the interior. There is generally a central\ntower attached to a hall. (_e_) The temples are often raised on a\nbasement. (_f_) Mukhalingas and ko\u015bhas are still used in worship.\n(_g_) There are verandahs resembling those at Angkor Wat. They have\nsloping stone roofs, sculptures in relief on the inside wall and a\nseries of windows in the outside wall. (_h_) The doors of the Linga\nshrines have a serpentine ornamentation and are very like those of the\nBayon. (_i_) A native gentleman told me that he had seen temples with\nfive towers in this neighbourhood, but I have not seen them myself.]\n\n[Footnote 261: _E.g._ Mahendravarman, Narasinhavarman,\nParame\u015bvaravarman, etc. It may be noticed that Pa\u1e6d\u1e6dadkal is\nconsiderably to the N.W. of Madras and that the Pallavas are supposed\nto have come from the northern part of the present Madras Presidency.\nThough the Hindus who emigrated to Camboja probably embarked in the\nneighbourhood of Madras, they may have come from countries much\nfurther to the north. Varman is recognized as a proper termination of\nKshatriya names, but it is remarkable that it is found in _all_ the\nSanskrit names of Cambojan kings and is very common in Pallava names.\nThe name of A\u015bvatth\u00e2man figures in the mythical genealogies of both\nthe Pallavas and the kings of Champa or perhaps of Camboja, see\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 923.]\n\n[Footnote 262: Some authorities think that Kaundinya is meant by the\nwicked king, but he lived about 300 years before I-Ching's visit and\nthe language seems to refer to more recent events. Although\nBhavavarman is not known to have been a religious innovator he appears\nto have established a new order of things in Camboja and his\ninscriptions show that he was a zealous worshipper of \u015aiva and\nother Indian deities. It would be even more natural if I-Ching\nreferred to I\u015b\u00e2navarman (c. 615) or Jayavarman I (c. 650), but\nthere is no proof that these kings were anti-buddhist.]\n\n[Footnote 263: Schiefner, p. 262.]\n\n[Footnote 264: See Masp\u00e9ro, _L'Empire Khm\u00e8r_, pp. 24 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 265: Perhaps a second Bhavavarman came between these last\ntwo kings; see Coed\u00e8s in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p 691.]\n\n[Footnote 266: See Mecquenem in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1913, No. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 267: But the captivity is only an inference and not a\nnecessary one. Finot suggests that the ancient royal house of Fu-nan\nmay have resided at Jav\u00e2 and have claimed suzerain rights over Camboja\nwhich Jayavarman somehow abolished. The only clear statements on the\nquestion are those in the Sdok Kak Thom inscription, Khmer text c. 72,\nwhich tell us that Camboja had been dependent on Jav\u00e2 and that\nJayavarman II instituted a special state cult as a sign that this\ndependence had come to an end.\n\nIt is true that the Hindu colonists of Camboja may have come from the\nisland of Java, yet no evidence supports the idea that Camboja was a\ndependency of the island about 800 A.D. and the inscriptions of Champa\nseem to distinguish clearly between Yavadv\u00eepa (the island) and the\nunknown country called Jav\u00e2. See Finot, _Notes d'Epig._ pp. 48 and\n240. Hence it seems unlikely that the barbarous pirates (called the\narmies of Java) who invaded Champa in 787 (see the inscription of Yang\nTikuh) were from the island. The Siamese inscription of R\u00e2ma Khomh\u00ebng,\nc. 1300 A.D., speaks of a place called Chav\u00e2, which may be Luang\nPrabang. On the other hand it does not seem likely that pirates,\nexpressly described as using ships, would have come from the\ninterior.]\n\n[Footnote 268: For these annals see F. Garnier, \"La Chronique royale\ndu Cambodje,\" _J.A._ 1871 and 1872. A. de Villemereuil, _Explorations\net Missions de Doudard de Lagr\u00e9e_, 1882. J. Moura, _Le Royaume de\nCambodje_, vol. II. 1883. E. Aymonier, _Chronique des Anciens rois du\nCambodje. (Excursions et reconnaissances_. Saigon, 1881.)]\n\n[Footnote 269: _E.g._ Ang Chan (1796-1834) received his crown from the\nKing of Siam and paid tribute to the King of Annam; Ang Duong\n(1846-1859) was crowned by representatives of Annam and Siam and his\nterritory was occupied by the troops of both countries.]\n\n[Footnote 270: The later history of Camboja is treated in considerable\ndetail by A. Leclerc, _Histoire de Cambodge_, 1914.]\n\n[Footnote 271: Inscrip. of Moroun, _Corpus_, II. 387.]\n\n[Footnote 272: Other local deities may be alluded to, under the names of\n\u015ar\u00ee Jayakshetra, \"the field of victory\" adored at Basset Sim\u00e2damataka,\n\u015ar\u00ee Mandare\u015bvara, and \u015ar\u00ee Jalange\u015bvara. Aymonier, II. p. 297; I. pp.\n305, 306 and 327.]\n\n[Footnote 273: Inscrip. of Lovek.]\n\n[Footnote 274: Prea Eynkosey, 970 A.D. See _Corpus_, I. pp. 77 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 275: This compound deity is celebrated in the Harivamsa and\nis represented in the sculptures of the rock temple at Badami, which\nis dated 578 A.D. Thus his worship may easily have reached Camboja in\nthe sixth or seventh century.]\n\n[Footnote 276: Jayato jagat\u00e2m bh\u00fbtyai Kritasandh\u00ee Har\u00e2cyutau,\nParvat\u00ee\u015br\u00eepatitvena Bhinnam\u00fbrttidhar\u00e2vapi. See also the Inscrip. of\nAng Chumnik (667 A.D.), verses 11 and 12 in _Corpus_, I. p. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 277: The Bayang Inscription, _Corpus_, I. pp. 31 ff. which\nmentions the dates 604 and 626 as recent.]\n\n[Footnote 278: _Corpus_, II. p. 422 \u015aaivapa\u015bupat\u00e2c\u00e2ryyau. The\ninscription fixes the relative rank of various Ac\u00e2ryas.]\n\n[Footnote 279: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1906, p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 280: See specially on this subject, Coed\u00e8s in _Bull. Comm.\nArch\u00e9ol. de l'Indochine_, 1911, p. 38, and 1913, p. 81, and the\nletterpress of _Le Bayon d'Angkor Thorn_, 1914.]\n\n[Footnote 281: I have seen myself a stone lingam carved with four\nfaces in a tank belonging to a temple at Ma\u1e25akut not far from\nBadami.]\n\n[Footnote 282: Suvar\u1e47amayalingagate\u015bvare te s\u00fbkshm\u00e2ntar\u00e2tmani.\nInscrip. of Prea Ngouk, _Corpus_, I. p. 157.]\n\n[Footnote 283: _E.g._ see _Epig. Indica_, vol. III. pp. 1 ff. At\nPa\u1e6d\u1e6dadkal (which region offers so many points of resemblance to\nCamboja) King Vijay\u00e2ditya founded a temple of Vijaye\u015bvara and two\nQueens, Lokamah\u00e2dev\u00ee and Trailokyamah\u00e2dev\u00ee founded temples of\nLoke\u015bvara and Trailokye\u015bvara.]\n\n[Footnote 284: Aymonier, II. pp. 257 ff. and especially Finot in\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1915, xv. 2, p. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 285: See above.]\n\n[Footnote 286: Sammohana and Niruttara are given as names of Tantras.\nThe former word may perhaps be the beginning of a compound. There are\nPali works called Sammohavinodin\u00ee and S. vin\u00e2\u015bin\u00ee. The inscription\ncalls the four treatises the four faces of Tumburn.]\n\n[Footnote 287: This shows that matriarchy must have been in force in\nCamboja.]\n\n[Footnote 288: J\u00e2napada as the name of a locality is cited by\nB\u00f6thlingck and Roth from the Ga\u1e47a to P\u00e2ni\u1e47i, 4. 2. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 289: Possibly others may have held office during this long\nperiod, but evidently all three priests lived to be very old men and\neach may have been Guru for forty years.]\n\n[Footnote 290: This place which means merely \"the abode of Hari and\nHara\" has not been identified.]\n\n[Footnote 291: _Corpus_, II. Inscrip. lvi. especially pp. 248-251.]\n\n[Footnote 292: Veal Kantel. _Corpus_, I. p. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 293: Inscr. of Prah Khan, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 675.]\n\n[Footnote 294: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 677.]\n\n[Footnote 295: Just as a Vedic sacrifice was performed in the court of\nthe temple of Chidambaram about 1908.]\n\n[Footnote 296: Aymonier, _Cambodja_, I. p. 442.]\n\n[Footnote 297: \u015a\u00e2st\u00e2 sounds like a title of \u015a\u00e2kyamuni, but, if\nAymonier is correct, the personage is described as a Bodhisattva.\nThere were pagoda slaves even in modern Burma.]\n\n[Footnote 298: See Coed\u00e8s, \"La St\u00e8le de T\u00e9p Pra\u1e47a\u1e43,\" in _J.A._\nXI. 1908, p. 203.]\n\n[Footnote 299: Inscrip. of Ta Prohm, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1906, p. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 300: See Senart in _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, 1883. As in many\ninscriptions it is not always plain who is speaking but in most parts\nit is apparently the minister promulgating the instructions of the\nking.]\n\n[Footnote 301: Inscript. of Prasat Prah Khse, _Corpus_, I. p. 173.]\n\n[Footnote 302: Buddh\u00e2n\u00e2m agra\u1e47\u00eer api, _J.A._ XX. 1882, p. 164.]\n\n[Footnote 303: See Coed\u00e8s, \"Inscriptions de B\u00e0t Cu\u1e43,\" in _J.A._\nXII. 1908, pp. 230, 241.]\n\n[Footnote 304: The Bodhisattva corresponding to the Buddha Akshobhya.\nHe is green or blue and carries a thunderbolt. It seems probable that\nhe is a metamorphosis of Indra.]\n\n[Footnote 305: An exceedingly curious stanza eulogizes the doctrine of\nthe non-existence of the soul taught by the Buddha which leads to\nidentification with the universal soul although contrary to it. Vuddho\nvodh\u00eem vidaddhy\u00e2d vo yena nair\u00e2tmyadar\u015bana\u1e43 viruddhasy\u00e2pi\ns\u00e2dh\u00fbkta\u1e43 s\u00e2dhana\u1e43 param\u00e2tmana\u1e25.]\n\n[Footnote 306: Aymonier, I pp. 261 ff. Senart, _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_,\nMars-Avril, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 307: Nanjio, 1244 and 1248.]\n\n[Footnote 308: The common designation of Avalokita in Camboja and\nJava. For the inscription see _B.E.F.E.O._ 1906, pp. 44 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 309: Stanza XLVI.]\n\n[Footnote 310: The inscription only says \"There are here (atra).\" Can\nthis mean in the various religious establishments maintained by the\nking?]\n\n[Footnote 311: See also Finot, _Notes d'Epig_. pp. 332-335. The\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa repeatedly mentions that kings founded hospitals and\ndistributed medicines. See too, Yule, _Marco Polo_, I. p. 446. The\ncare of the sick was recognized as a duty and a meritorious act in all\nBuddhist countries and is recommended by the example of the Buddha\nhimself.]\n\n[Footnote 312: Their somewhat lengthy titles are\nBhaishajyaguruvaid\u00fbryaprabhar\u00e2ja, S\u00fbryavairocanaca\u1e47\u1e0daroci and\nCandravairocanarohin\u00ee\u015ba. See for an account of them and the texts\non which their worship is founded the learned article of M. Pelliot,\n\"Le Bhai\u1e63ajyaguru,\" _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 313: His narrative is translated by M. Pelliot in\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1902, pp. 123-177.]\n\n[Footnote 314: Pelliot (_B.E.F.E.O._ 1902, p. 148) cites a statement\nfrom the Ling Wai Tai Ta that there were two classes of bonzes in\nCamboja, those who wore yellow robes and married and those who wore\nred robes and lived in convents.]\n\n[Footnote 315: M. Finot conjectures that it represents the Siamese\nChao (Lord) and a corruption of Guru.]\n\n[Footnote 316: See chapter on Siam, sect. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 317: _Corpus_, II. p. 422.]\n\n[Footnote 318: The strange statement of Chou Ta-kuan (pp. 153-155)\nthat the Buddhist and Taoist priests enjoyed a species of _jus prim\u00e6\nnoctis_ has been much discussed. Taken by itself it might be merely a\nqueer story founded on a misunderstanding of Cambojan customs, for he\ncandidly says that his information is untrustworthy. But taking it in\nconnection with the stories about the Aris in Burma (see especially\nFinot, _J.A._ 1912, p. 121) and the customs attributed by Chinese and\nEuropeans to the Siamese and Philippinos, we can hardly come to any\nconclusion except that this strange usage was an aboriginal custom in\nIndo-China and the Archipelago, prior to the introductions of Indian\ncivilization, but not suppressed for some time. At the present day\nthere seems to be no trace or even tradition of such a custom. For\nSiamese and Philippine customs see _B.E.F.E.O._ 1902, p. 153, note 4.]\n\n[Footnote 319: The French Arch\u00e6ological Commission states that\nexclusive of Angkor and the neighbouring buildings there are remains\nof 600 temples in Camboja, and probably many have entirely\ndisappeared.]\n\n[Footnote 320: Masp\u00e9ro, pp. 62-3.]\n\n[Footnote 321: The food is prepared in the monasteries, and, as in\nother countries, the begging round is a mere formality.]\n\n[Footnote 322: But in Chinese temples notices forbidding smoking are\noften posted on the doors.]\n\n[Footnote 323: The word dhy\u00e2na is known, but the exercise is more\ncommonly called Vipassan\u00e2 or Kammath\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 324: M.G. Coed\u00e8s in _Bull. Comm. Arch\u00e9ol._ 1911, p. 220.]\n\n[Footnote 325: Although there is no reason why these pictures of the\nfuture life should not be Brahmanic as well as Buddhist, I do not\nremember having seen them in any purely Brahmanic temple.]\n\n[Footnote 326: After spending some time at Angkor Wat I find it hard\nto believe the theory that it was a palace. The King of Camboja was\ndoubtless regarded as a living God, but so is the Grand Lama, and it\ndoes not appear that the Potala where he lives is anything but a large\nresidential building containing halls and chapels much like the\nVatican. But at Angkor Wat everything leads up to a central shrine. It\nis quite probable however that the deity of this shrine was a deified\nking, identified with Vish\u1e47u after his death. This would account\nfor the remarks of Chou Ta-kuan who seems to have regarded it as a\ntomb.]\n\n[Footnote 327: See especially the inscription of Bassac. Kern,\n_Annales de l'Extr\u00e8me Orient_, t. III. 1880, p. 65.]\n\n[Footnote 328: Pali books are common in monasteries. For the\nliterature of Laos see Finot, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1917, No. 5.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX\n\nCHAMPA[329]\n\n\nTHE kingdom of Champa, though a considerable power from about the\nthird century until the end of the fifteenth, has attracted less\nattention than Camboja or Java. Its name is a thing of the past and\nknown only to students: its monuments are inferior in size and\nartistic merit to those of the other Hindu kingdoms in the Far East\nand perhaps its chief interest is that it furnishes the oldest\nSanskrit inscription yet known from these regions.\n\nChampa occupied the south-eastern corner of Asia beyond the Malay\nPeninsula, if the word corner can be properly applied to such rounded\noutlines. Its extent varied at different epochs, but it may be roughly\ndefined in the language of modern geography as the southern portion of\nAnnam, comprising the provinces of Qu\u00e3ng-nam in the north and\nB\u00eenh-Thuan in the south with the intervening country. It was divided\ninto three provinces, which respectively became the seat of empire at\ndifferent periods. They were (i) in the north Amar\u00e2vat\u00ee (the modern\nQu\u00e3ng-nam) with the towns of Indrapura and Sinhapura; (ii) in the\nmiddle Vijaya (the modern Bing-Dinh) with the town of Vijaya and the\nport of \u015ar\u00ee-Vinaya; (iii) in the south P\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0dur\u00e2nga or Panran\n(the modern provinces of Phanrang and Binh-Thuan) with the town of\nV\u00eerapura or R\u00e2japura. A section of P\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0dur\u00e2nga called Kauth\u00e2ra\n(the modern Kanh hoa) was a separate province at certain times. Like\nthe modern Annam, Champa appears to have been mainly a littoral\nkingdom and not to have extended far into the mountains of the\ninterior.\n\nChampa was the ancient name of a town in western Bengal near\nBhagalpur, but its application to these regions does not seem due to\nany connection with north-eastern India. The conquerors of the\ncountry, who were called Chams, had a certain amount of Indian culture\nand considered the classical name Champa as an elegant expression for\nthe land of the Chams. Judging by their language these Chams belonged\nto the Malay-Polynesian group and their distribution along the\nlittoral suggests that they were invaders from the sea like the Malay\npirates from whom they themselves subsequently suffered. The earliest\ninscription in the Cham language dates from the beginning of the ninth\ncentury but it is preceded by a long series of Sanskrit inscriptions\nthe oldest of which, that of Vo-can[330], is attributed at latest to\nthe third century, and refers to an earlier king. It therefore seems\nprobable that the Hindu dynasty of Cha\u1e43pa was founded between 150\nand 200 A.D. but there is no evidence to show whether a Malay race\nalready settled in Champa was conquered and hinduized by Indian\ninvaders, or whether the Chams were already hinduized when they\narrived, possibly from Java.\n\nThe inferiority of the Chams to the Khmers in civilization was the\nresult of their more troubled history. Both countries had to contend\nagainst the same difficulty--a powerful and aggressive neighbour on\neither side. Camboja between Siam and Annam in 1800 was in very much\nthe same position as Champa had been between Camboja and Annam five\nhundred years earlier. But between 950 and 1150 A.D. when Champa by no\nmeans enjoyed stability and peace, the history of Camboja, if not\naltogether tranquil, at least records several long reigns of powerful\nkings who were able to embellish their capital and assure its\nsecurity. The Chams were exposed to attacks not only from Annam\nbut also from the more formidable if distant Chinese and their\ncapital, instead of remaining stationary through several centuries\nlike Angkor Thom, was frequently moved as one or other of the three\nprovinces became more important.\n\nThe inscription of Vo-can is in correct Sanskrit prose and contains a\nfragmentary address from a king who seems to have been a Buddhist and\nwrites somewhat in the style of Asoka. He boasts that he is of the\nfamily of \u015ar\u00eem\u00e2rar\u00e2ja. The letters closely resemble those of\nRudradaman's inscription at Girnar and contemporary inscriptions at\nKanheri. The text is much mutilated so that we know neither the name\nof the writer nor his relationship to \u015ar\u00eem\u00e2ra. But the latter was\nevidently the founder of the dynasty and may have been separated from\nhis descendant by several generations. It is noticeable that his name\ndoes not end in Varman, like those of later kings. If he lived at the\nend of the second century this would harmonize with the oldest Chinese\nnotices which fix the rise of Lin-I (their name for Champa) about 192\nA.D.[331] Agreeably to this we also hear that Hun T'ien founded an\nIndian kingdom in Fu-nan considerably before 265 A.D. and that some\ntime between 220 and 280 a king of Fu-nan sent an embassy to India.\nThe name Fu-nan may include Champa. But though we hear of Hindu\nkingdoms in these districts at an early date we know nothing of their\ncivilization or history, nor do we obtain much information from those\nCham legends which represent the dynasties of Champa as descended from\ntwo clans, those of the cabbage palm (ar\u00e9quier) and cocoanut.\n\nChinese sources also state that a king called Fan-yi sent an embassy\nto China in 284 and give the names of several kings who reigned\nbetween 336 and 440. One of these, Fan-hu-ta, is apparently the\nBhadravarman who has left some Sanskrit inscriptions dating from about\n400 and who built the first temple at M\u0129-so'n. This became the\nnational sanctuary of Champa: it was burnt down about 575 A.D. but\nrebuilt. Bhadravarman's son Gangar\u00e2ja appears to have abdicated and to\nhave gone on a pilgrimage to the Ganges[332]--another instance of the\nintercourse prevailing between these regions and India.\n\nIt would be useless to follow in detail the long chronicle of the\nkings of Champa but a few events merit mention. In 446 and again in\n605 the Chinese invaded the country and severely chastised the\ninhabitants. But the second invasion was followed by a period of peace\nand prosperity. \u015aambhuvarman (\u2020629) restored the temples of\nMi-so'n and two of his successors, both called Vikr\u00e2ntavarman, were\nalso great builders. The kings who reigned from 758 to 859, reckoned\nas the fifth dynasty, belonged to the south and had their capital at\nV\u00eerapura. The change seems to have been important, for the Chinese who\nhad previously called the country Lin-I, henceforth call it Huan-wang.\nThe natives continued to use the name Champa but Satyavarman and the\nother kings of the dynasty do not mention Mi-so'n though they adorned\nand endowed Po-nagar and other sanctuaries in the south. It was during\nthis period (A.D. 774 and 787) that the province of Kauth\u00e2ra was\ninvaded by pirates, described as thin black barbarians and cannibals,\nand also as the armies of Java[333]. They pillaged the temples but\nwere eventually expelled. They were probably Malays but it is\ndifficult to believe that the Javanese could be seriously accused of\ncannibalism at this period[334].\n\nThe capital continued to be transferred under subsequent dynasties.\nUnder the sixth (860-900) it was at Indrapura in the north: under the\nseventh (900-986) it returned to the south: under the eighth\n(989-1044) it was in Vijaya, the central province. These internal\nchanges were accompanied by foreign attacks. The Khmers invaded the\nsouthern province in 945. On the north an Annamite Prince founded the\nkingdom of Dai-c\u00f4vi\u00eat, which became a thorn in the side of Champa. In\n982 its armies destroyed Indrapura, and in 1044 they captured Vijaya.\nIn 1069 King Rudravarman was taken prisoner but was released in return\nfor the cession of the three northernmost provinces. Indrapura however\nwas rebuilt and for a time successful wars were waged against Camboja,\nbut though the kings of Champa did not acquiesce in the loss of the\nnorthern provinces, and though Harivarman III (1074-80) was\ntemporarily victorious, no real progress was made in the contest with\nAnnam, whither the Chams had to send embassies practically admitting\nthat they were a vassal state. In the next century further disastrous\nquarrels with Camboja ensued and in 1192 Champa was split into two\nkingdoms, Vijaya in the north under a Cambojan prince and Panran in\nthe south governed by a Cham prince but under the suzerainty of\nCamboja. This arrangement was not successful and after much fighting\nChampa became a Khmer province though a very unruly one from 1203 till\n1220. Subsequently the aggressive vigour of the Khmers was tempered by\ntheir own wars with Siam. But it was not the fate of Champa to be left\nin peace. The invasion of Khubilai lasted from 1278 to 1285 and in\n1306 the provinces of O and Ly were ceded to Annam.\n\nChampa now became for practical purposes an Annamite province and in\n1318 the king fled to Java for refuge. This connection with Java is\ninteresting and there are other instances of it. King Jaya Simhavarman\nIII (\u2020 1307) of Champa married a Javanese princess called Tapasi.\nLater we hear in Javanese records that in the fifteenth century the\nprincess Darawati of Champa married the king of Madjapahit and her\nsister married Raden Radmat, a prominent Moslim teacher in Java[335].\n\nThe power of the Chams was crushed by Annam in 1470. After this date\nthey had little political importance but continued to exist as a\nnationality under their own rulers. In 1650 they revolted against\nAnnam without success and the king was captured. But his widow was\naccorded a titular position and the Cham chronicle[336] continues the\nlist of nominal kings down to 1822.\n\nIn Champa, as in Camboja, no books dating from the Hindu period have\nbeen preserved and probably there were not many. The Cham language\nappears not to have been used for literary purposes and whatever culture\nexisted was exclusively Sanskrit. The kings are credited with an\nextensive knowledge of Sanskrit literature. An inscription at\nPo-nagar[337] (918 A.D.) says that \u015ar\u00ee Indravarman was acquainted with\nthe M\u00eem\u00e2\u1e43s\u00e2 and other systems of philosophy, Jinendra, and grammar\ntogether with the K\u00e2\u015bik\u00e2 (v\u1e5bitti) and the \u015aaivottara-Kalpa. Again an\ninscription of Mi-son[338] ascribes to Jaya Indravarmadeva (_c._ 1175\nA.D.) proficiency in all the sciences as well as a knowledge of the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na and the Dharma\u015b\u00e2stras, particularly the N\u00e2rad\u00eeya and\nBh\u00e2rgav\u00eeya. To some extent original compositions in Sanskrit must have\nbeen produced, for several of the inscriptions are of considerable\nlength and one[339] gives a quotation from a work called the Pur\u00e2\u1e47\u00e2rtha\nor Arthapur\u00e2\u1e47a\u015b\u00e2stra which appears to have been a chronicle of Champa.\nBut the language of the inscriptions is often careless and incorrect and\nindicates that the study of Sanskrit was less flourishing than in\nCamboja.\n\n2\n\n\nThe monuments of Champa, though considerable in size and number, are\ninferior to those of Camboja. The individual buildings are smaller and\nsimpler and the groups into which they are combined lack unity. Brick\nwas the chief material, stone being used only when brick would not\nserve, as for statues and lintels. The commonest type of edifice is a\nsquare pyramidal structure called by the Chams Kalan. A Kalan is as a\nrule erected on a hill or rising ground: its lowest storey has on the\neast a porch and vestibule, on the other three sides false doors. The\nsame shape is repeated in four upper storeys of decreasing size which\nhowever serve merely for external decoration and correspond to nothing\nin the interior. This is a single windowless pyramidal cell lighted by\nthe door and probably also by lamps placed in niches on the inner\nwalls. In the centre stood a pedestal for a linga or an image, with a\nchannel to carry off libations, leading to a spout in the wall. The\noutline of the tower is often varied by projecting figures or\nornaments, but the sculpture is less lavish than in Camboja and Java.\n\nIn the greater religious sites several structures are grouped\ntogether. A square wall surrounds an enclosure entered by a gateway\nand containing one or more Kalans, as well as smaller buildings,\nprobably for the use of priests. Before the gateway there is\nfrequently a hall supported by columns but open at the sides.\n\nAll known specimens of Cham architecture are temples; palaces and\nother secular buildings were made of wood and have disappeared. Of the\nmany sanctuaries which have been discovered, the most remarkable are\nthose of Mi-son, and Dong Duong, both in the neighbourhood of Tourane,\nand Po Nagar close to Nhatrang.\n\nMi-son[340] is an undulating amphitheatre among mountains and contains\neight or nine groups of temples, founded at different times. The\nearliest structures, erected by Bhadravarman I about 400, have\ndisappeared[341] and were probably of wood, since we hear that they\nwere burnt (apparently by an accident) in 575 A.D. New temples were\nconstructed by \u015aambhuvarman about twenty-five years later and were\ndedicated to \u015aambhu-bhadre\u015bvara, in which title the names of the\nfounder, restorer and the deity are combined. These buildings, of\nwhich portions remain, represent the oldest and best period of Cham\nart. Another style begins under Vikr\u00e2ntavarman I between 657 and 679\nA.D. This reign marks a period of decadence and though several\nbuildings were erected at Mi-son during the eighth and ninth\ncenturies, the locality was comparatively neglected[342] until the\nreign of Harivarman III (1074-1080). The temples had been ravaged by\nthe Annamites but this king, being a successful warrior, was able to\nrestore them and dedicated to them the booty which he had captured.\nThough his reign marks a period of temporary prosperity in the annals\nof Champa, the style which he inaugurated in architecture has little\noriginality. It reverts to the ancient forms but shows conscious\narchaism rather than fresh vigour. The position of Mi-son, however,\ndid not decline and about 1155 Jaya Harivarman I repaired the\nbuildings, dedicated the booty taken in battle and erected a new\ntemple in fulfilment of a vow. But after this period the princes of\nChampa had no authority in the district of Mi-son, and the Annamites,\nwho seem to have disliked the religion of the Chams, plundered the\ntemples.\n\nPo-nagar[343] is near the port of Nha-trang and overlooks the sea.\nBeing smaller that Mi-son it has more unity but still shows little\nattempt to combine in one architectural whole the buildings of which\nit is composed.\n\nAn inscription[344] states with curious precision that the shrine was\nfirst erected in the year 5911 of the Dv\u00e2para age and this fantastic\nchronology shows that in our tenth century it was regarded as ancient.\nAs at Mi-son, the original buildings were probably of wood for in 774\nthey were sacked and burnt by pirates who carried off the image[345].\nShortly afterwards they were rebuilt in brick by King Satyavarman and\nthe existing southern tower probably dates from his reign, but the\ngreat central tower was built by Harivarman I (817 A.D.) and the other\nedifices are later.\n\nPo Nagar or Yang Po Nagar means the Lady or Goddess of the city. She\nwas commonly called Bhagavat\u00ee in Sanskrit[346] and appears to have\nbeen the chief object of worship at Nha-trang, although \u015aiva was\nassociated with her under the name of Bhagavat\u00ee\u015bvara. In 1050 an\nardhanar\u00ee image representing \u015aiva and Bhagavat\u00ee combined in one\nfigure was presented to the temple by King Parame\u015bvara and a\ndedicatory inscription describes this double deity as the cosmic\nprinciple.\n\nWhen Champa was finally conquered the temple was sold to the\nAnnamites, who admitted that they could not acquire it except by some\nspecial and peaceful arrangement. Even now they still continue the\nworship of the goddess though they no longer know who she is[347].\n\nDong Duong, about twenty kilometres to the south of Mi-son, marks the\nsite of the ancient capital Indrapura. The monument which has made its\nname known differs from those already described. Compared with them it\nhas some pretensions to be a whole, laid out on a definite plan and it\nis Buddhist. It consists of three courts[348] surrounded by walls and\nentered by massive porticoes. In the third there are about twenty\nbuildings and perhaps it did not escape the fault common to Cham\narchitecture of presenting a collection of disconnected and unrelated\nedifices, but still there is clearly an attempt to lead up from the\noutermost portico through halls and gateways to the principal shrine.\nFrom an inscription dated 875 A.D. we learn that the ruins are those\nof a temple and vih\u00e2ra erected by King Indravarman and dedicated to\nAvalokita under the name of Lakshm\u00eendra Loke\u015bvara.\n\n3\n\n\nThe religion of Champa was practically identical with that of Camboja.\nIf the inscriptions of the former tell us more about mukhalingas and\nkoshas and those of the latter have more allusions to the worship of\nthe compound deity Hari-hara, this is probably a matter of chance. But\neven supposing that different cults were specially prominent at\ndifferent places, it seems clear that all the gods and ceremonies\nknown in Camboja were also known in Champa and _vice versa_. In both\ncountries the national religion was Hinduism, mainly of the \u015aivaite\ntype, accompanied by Mahayanist Buddhism which occasionally came to\nthe front under royal patronage. In both any indigenous beliefs which\nmay have existed did not form a separate system. It is probable\nhowever that the goddess known at Po-nagar as Bhagavat\u00ee was an ancient\nlocal deity worshipped before the Hindu immigration and an inscription\nfound at Mi-son recommends those whose eyes are diseased to propitiate\nKuvera and thus secure protection against Ek\u00e2kshapingal\u00e2, \"the tawny\none-eyed (spirit).\" Though this goddess or demon was probably a\ncreation of local fancy, similar identifications of K\u00e2l\u00ee with the\nspirits presiding over cholera, smallpox, etc., take place in India.\n\nThe social system was theoretically based on the four castes, but\nChinese accounts indicate that in questions of marriage and\ninheritance older ideas connected with matriarchy and a division into\nclans still had weight. But the language of the inscriptions is most\northodox. King Vikr\u00e2ntavarman[349] quotes with approval the saying\nthat the horse sacrifice is the best of good deeds and the murder of a\nBrahman the worst of sins. Brahmans, chaplains (purohita), pandits and\nascetics are frequently mentioned as worthy of honour and gifts.\nThe high priest or royal chaplain is styled \u015ar\u00eeparamapurohita but\nit does not appear that there was a sacerdotal family enjoying the\nunique position held by the \u015aivakaivalyas in Camboja. The frequent\nchanges of capital and dynasty in Champa were unfavourable to\ncontinuity in either Church or State.\n\n\u015aivaism, without any hostility to Vish\u1e47uism or Buddhism, was the\ndominant creed. The earliest known inscription, that of Vo-can,\ncontains indications of Buddhism, but three others believed to date\nfrom about 400 A.D. invoke \u015aiva under some such title as\nBhadre\u015bvara, indicating that a temple had been dedicated to him by\nKing Bhadravarman. Thus the practice of combining the names of a king\nand his patron deity in one appellation existed in Champa at this\nearly date[350]. It is also recorded from southern India, Camboja and\nJava. Besides \u015aiva one of the inscriptions venerates, though in a\nrather perfunctory manner, Um\u00e2, Brahm\u00e2, Vish\u1e47u and the five\nelements. Several inscriptions[351] give details of \u015aivaite\ntheology which agree with what we know of it in Camboja. The world\nanimate and inanimate is an emanation from \u015aiva, but he delivers\nfrom the world those who think of him. Meditation, the practice of\nYoga, and devotion to \u015aiva are several times mentioned with\napproval[352]. He abides in eight forms corresponding to his eight\nnames \u015aarva, Bhava, Pa\u015bupati, I\u015b\u00e2na, Bh\u00eema, Rudra, Mah\u00e2deva,\nand Ugra. He is also, as in Java, Guru or the teacher and he has the\nusual mythological epithets. He dances in lonely places, he rides on\nthe bull Nandi, is the slayer of K\u00e2ma, etc. Though represented by\nfigures embodying such legends he was most commonly adored under the\nform of the linga which in Champa more than elsewhere came to be\nregarded as not merely symbolic but as a personal god. To mark this\nindividuality it was commonly enclosed in a metal case (kosha) bearing\none or more human faces[353]. It was then called mukhalinga and the\nfaces were probably intended as portraits of royal donors,\nidentified with the god in form as well as in name. An inscription of\n1163 A.D. records the dedication of such a kosha, adorned with five\nroyal faces, to \u015ar\u00ee\u015b\u00e2nabhadre\u015bvara. The god, it is said, will\nnow be able to give his blessing to all regions through his five\nmouths which he could not do before, and being enclosed in the kosha,\nlike an embryo in the matrix, he becomes Hira\u1e47yagarbha. The linga,\nwith or without these ornaments, was set on a _sn\u00e2nadro\u1e47i_ or stone\ntable arranged for receiving libations, and sometimes (as in Java and\nCamboja) four or more lingas were set upon a single slab. From A.D.\n400 onwards, the cult of \u015aiva seems to have maintained its\nparamount position during the whole history of Champa, for the last\nrecorded Sanskrit inscription is dedicated to him. From first to last\nit was the state religion. \u015aiva is said to have sent Uroja to be\nthe first king and is even styled the root of the state of Champa.\n\nAn inscription[354] of 811 A.D. celebrates the dual deity\n\u015aankara-N\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47a. It is noticeable that N\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47a is said to have held\nup Mt. Govardhana and is apparently identified with K\u1e5bish\u1e47a. R\u00e2ma and\nK\u1e5bish\u1e47a are both mentioned in an inscription of 1157 which states that\nthe whole divinity of Vish\u1e47u was incarnate in King Jaya Harivarman\nI[355]. But neither allusions to Vish\u1e47u nor figures of him[356] are\nnumerous and he plays the part of an accessory though respected\npersonage. Garu\u1e0da, on whom he rides, was better known than the god\nhimself and is frequently represented in sculpture.\n\nThe \u015aakti of \u015aiva, amalgamated as mentioned with a native goddess,\nreceived great honour (especially at Nhatrang) under the names of Um\u00e2,\nBhagavat\u00ee, the Lady of the city (Yang Po Nagar) and the goddess of\nKauth\u00e2ra. In another form or aspect she was called Malad\u00e2ku\u1e6dh\u00e2ra.[357]\nThere was also a temple of Gane\u015ba (\u015ari-Vin\u00e2yaka) at Nhatrang but statues\nof this deity and of Skanda are rare.\n\nThe Chinese pilgrim I-Ching, writing in the last year of the seventh\ncentury, includes Champa (Lin-I) in the list of countries which \"greatly\nreverence the three jewels\" and contrasts it with Fu-nan where a wicked\nking had recently almost exterminated Buddhism. He says \"In this country\nBuddhists generally belong to the Arya-sammiti school, and there are\nalso a few followers of the Aryasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school.\" The statement is\nremarkable, for he also tells us that the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins were the\npredominant sect in the Malay Archipelago and flourished in southern\nChina. The headquarters of the Sammit\u00eeyas were, according to the\naccounts of both Hs\u00fcan Chuang and I-Ching, in western India though, like\nthe three other schools, they were also found in Magadha and eastern\nIndia. We also hear that the brother and sister of the Emperor Harsha\nbelonged to this sect and it was probably influential. How it spread to\nChampa we do not know, nor do the inscriptions mention its name or\nindicate that the Buddhism which they knew was anything but the mixture\nof the Mahayana with \u015aivaism[358] which prevailed in Camboja.\n\nI-Ching's statements can hardly be interpreted to mean that Buddhism\nwas the official religion of Champa at any rate after 400 A.D., for\nthe inscriptions abundantly prove that the \u015aivaite shrines of\nMi-son and Po-nagar were so to speak national cathedrals where the\nkings worshipped on behalf of the country. But the Vo-can inscription\n(? 250 A.D.), though it does not mention Buddhism, appears to be\nBuddhist, and it would be quite natural that a dynasty founded about\n150 A.D. should be Buddhist but that intercourse with Camboja and\nprobably with India should strengthen \u015aivaism. The Chinese annals\nmention[359] that 1350 Buddhist books were carried off during a\nChinese invasion in 605 A.D. and this allusion implies the existence\nof Buddhism and monasteries with libraries. As in Camboja it was\nperhaps followed by ministers rather than by kings. An inscription\nfound[360] in southern Champa and dated as 829 A.D. records how a\nsthavira named Buddhanirv\u00e2\u1e47a erected two vih\u00e2ras and two temples\n(devakula) to Jina and \u015aankara (Buddha and \u015aiva) in honour of\nhis deceased father. Shortly afterwards there came to the throne\nIndravarman II (860-890 A.D.), the only king of Champa who is known\nto have been a fervent Buddhist. He did not fail to honour \u015aiva as\nthe patron of his kingdom but like Asoka he was an enthusiast for the\nDharma[361]. He desires the knowledge of the Dharma: he builds\nmonasteries for the sake of the Dharma: he wishes to propagate it: he\neven says that the king of the gods governs heaven by the principles\nof Dharma. He wishes to lead all his subjects to the \"yoke and abode\nof Buddha,\" to \"the city of deliverance.\"\n\nTo this end he founded the vih\u00e2ra of Dong Duong, already described,\nand dedicated it to \u015ari Lakshm\u00eendra Loke\u015bvara[362]. This last\nword is a synonym of Avalokita, which also occurs in the dedicatory\ninscription but in a fragmentary passage. Lakshm\u00eendra is explained by\nother passages in the inscription from which we learn that the king's\nname before he ascended the throne was Lakshm\u00eendra Bh\u00fbm\u00ee\u015bvara, so\nthat the Bodhisattva is here adored under the name of the king who\nerected the vih\u00e2ra according to the custom prevalent in \u015aivaite\ntemples. Like those temples this vih\u00e2ra received an endowment of land\nand slaves of both sexes, as well as gold, silver and other\nmetals[363].\n\nA king who reigned from 1080 to 1086 was called Paramabodhisattva, but\nno further epigraphic records of Buddhism are known until the reigns of\nJaya Indravarmadeva (1167-1192) and his successor S\u00fbryavarmadeva[364].\nBoth of these monarchs, while worshipping \u015aiva, are described as knowing\nor practising the j\u00f1\u00e2na or dharma of the Mahayana. Little emphasis\nseems to be laid on these expressions but still they imply that the\nMahayana was respected and considered part of the royal religion.\nS\u00fbryavarmadeva erected a building called \u015ar\u00ee Herukaharmya[365]. The\ntitle is interesting for it contains the name of the Tantric Buddha\nHeruka.\n\nThe grotto of Phong-nha[366] in the extreme north of Champa (province\nof Quang Binh) must have been a Buddhist shrine. Numerous medallions\nin clay bearing representations of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Dagobas\nhave been found there but dates are wanting.\n\nIt does not appear that the Hinayanist influence which became\npredominant in Camboja extended to Champa. That influence came from\nSiam and before it had time to traverse Camboja, Champa was already in\nthe grip of the Annamites, whose religion with the rest of their\ncivilization came from China rather than India. Chinese culture and\nwriting spread to the Cambojan frontier and after the decay of Champa,\nCamboja marks the permanent limit within which an Indian alphabet and\na form of Buddhism not derived through China have maintained\nthemselves.\n\nA large number of the Chams were converted to Mohammedanism but the\ntime and circumstances of the event are unknown. When Friar Gabriel\nvisited the country at the end of the sixteenth century a form of\nHinduism seems to have been still prevalent[367]. It would be of\ninterest to know how the change of religion was effected, for history\nrepeats itself and it is likely that the Moslims arrived in Champa by\nthe route followed centuries before by the Hindu invaders.\n\nThere are still about 130,000 Chams in the south of Annam and Camboja.\nIn the latter country they are all Mohammedans. In Annam some traces\nof Hinduism remain, such as mantras in broken Sanskrit and hereditary\npriests called Ba\u015baih. Both religions have become unusually corrupt\nbut are interesting as showing how beliefs which are radically\ndistinct become distorted and combined in Eastern Asia[368].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 329: Also spelt Camp\u00e2 and Tchampa. It seems safer to use Ch\nfor C in names which though of Indian origin are used outside India.\nThe final _a_ though strictly speaking long is usually written without\nan accent. The following are the principal works which I have\nconsulted about Champa.\n\n(a) G. Masp\u00e9ro, _Le Royaume de Champa_. Published in _T'oung Pao_,\n1910-1912. Cited as Masp\u00e9ro.\n\n(b) A. Bergaigne, \"Inscriptions Sanskrites de Champa\" in _Notices et\nExtraits des Manuscrits de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale_, tome XXVII.\n1^re partie. 2^e fascicule, 1893, pp. 181-292. Cited as\n_Corpus_, II.\n\n(c) H. Parmentier, _Inventaire descriptif des Monuments \u0106ams de\nl'Annam_. 1899.\n\n(d) L. Finot, \"La Religion des Chams,\" _B.E.F.E.O_, 1901, and _Notes\nd'Epigraphie_. \"Les Inscriptions de Mi-son,\" _ib_. 1904. Numerous\nother papers by this author, Durand, Parmentier and others in the same\nperiodical can be consulted with advantage.\n\n(e) _Id., Notes d'Epigraphie Indo-Chinoise_, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 330: _Corpus_, II. p. 11, and Finot, _Notes d'Epig._ pp. 227\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 331: See authorities quoted by Masp\u00e9ro, _T'oung Pao_, 1910,\np. 329.]\n\n[Footnote 332: Finot in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 918 and 922.]\n\n[Footnote 333: _Corpus_, II. _St\u00eale de Po Nagar_, pp. 252 ff. and\n_St\u00eale de Yang Tikuh_, p. 208, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 334: The statements that they came from Java and were\ncannibals occur in different inscriptions and may conceivably refer to\ntwo bodies of invaders. But the dates are very near. Probably Java is\nnot the island now so called. See the chapter on Camboja, sec. 2. The\nundoubted references in the inscriptions of Champa to the island of\nJava call it Yavadv\u00eepa.]\n\n[Footnote 335: _Veth. Java_, I. p. 233.]\n\n[Footnote 336: See \"La Chronique Royale,\" _B.E.F.E.O._ 1905, p. 377.]\n\n[Footnote 337: _Corpus_, II. p. 259. Jinendra may be a name either of\nthe Buddha or of a grammarian. The mention of the K\u00e2\u015bik\u00e2 v\u1e5bitti\nis important as showing that this work must be anterior to the ninth\ncentury. The Uttara Kalpa is quoted in the Tantras (see Bergaigne's\nnote), but nothing is known of it.]\n\n[Footnote 338: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 973.]\n\n[Footnote 339: From Mi-son, date 1157 A.D. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp.\n961 and 963.]\n\n[Footnote 340: = Chinese Mei shan, beautiful mountain. For an account\nof the temples and their history see the articles by Parmentier and\nFinot, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 805-977.]\n\n[Footnote 341: But contemporary inscriptions have been discovered.\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1902, pp. 185 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 342: Doubtless because the capital was transferred to the\nsouth where the shrine of Po-nagar had rival claims.]\n\n[Footnote 343: See especially the article by Parmentier, _B.E.F.E.O._\n1902, pp. 17-54.]\n\n[Footnote 344: XXVI _Corpus_, II. pp. 244, 256; date 918 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 345: \u015aivamukham: probably a mukhalinga.]\n\n[Footnote 346: Also Y\u00e4punagara even in Sanskrit inscriptions.]\n\n[Footnote 347: Parmentier, _l.c._ p. 49.]\n\n[Footnote 348: This is only a very rough description of a rather\ncomplicated structure. For details see Parmentier, _Monuments\nC\u0306ams_, planche XCVIII.]\n\n[Footnote 349: Inscrip. at Mi-son of 658 A.D. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904,\np. 921.]\n\n[Footnote 350: Other examples are Indrabhadre\u015bvara, _Corpus_, II.\np. 208. Harivarme\u015bvara, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 961.]\n\n[Footnote 351: _E.g. B.E.F.E.O._ pp. 918 ff. Dates 658 A.D. onwards.]\n\n[Footnote 352: Yogaddhy\u00e2na, \u015aiv\u00e2r\u00e2dha, \u015aivabhakti. See\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 933-950. Harivarman III abdicated in 1080 and\ngave himself up to contemplation and devotion to \u015aiva.]\n\n[Footnote 353: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 912 ff. and esp. p. 970. I\nhave seen a kosha which is still in use in the neighbourhood of\nBadami. It is kept in a village called Nandike\u015bvara, but on certain\nfestivals it is put on a linga at the temple of Mahakut. It is about 2\nfeet high and 10 inches broad; a silver case with a rounded and\nornamented top. On one side is a single face in bold embossed work and\nbearing fine moustaches exactly as in the mukhalingas of Champa. In\nthe tank of the temple of Mahakut is a half submerged shrine, from\nwhich rises a stone linga on which are carved four faces bearing\nmoustaches. There is said to be a gold kosha set with jewels at\n\u015aringeri. See _J. Mythic. Society_ (Bangalore), vol. VIII. p. 27.\nAccording to Gopinatha Rao, _Indian Iconography_, vol. II. p. 63, the\noldest known lingas have figures carved on them.]\n\n[Footnote 354: _Corpus_, II. pp. 229, 230.]\n\n[Footnote 355: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 959, 960.]\n\n[Footnote 356: See for an account of same _B.E.F.E.O._ 1901, p. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 357: _Corpus_, II. p. 282.]\n\n[Footnote 358: In several passages Hs\u00fcan Chuang notes that there were\nP\u00e2\u015bupatas or other \u015aivaites in the same towns of India where\nSammitiyas were found. See Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. 331, 333; II.\n47, 242, 256, 258, 259.]\n\n[Footnote 359: Masp\u00e9ro, _T'oung Pao_, 1910, p. 514.]\n\n[Footnote 360: At Yang Kur. See _Corpus_, II. pp. 237-241.]\n\n[Footnote 361: For his views see his inscriptions in _B.E.F.E.O._\n1904, pp. 85 ff. But kings who are not known to have been Buddhists\nalso speak of Dharma. _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 922, 945.]\n\n[Footnote 362: Apparently special forms of deities such as\n\u015ar\u00ee\u015b\u00e2nabhadre\u015bvara or Lakshm\u00eenda Loke\u015bvara were regarded\nas to some extent separate existences. Thus the former is called a\nportion of \u015aiva, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 973.]\n\n[Footnote 363: Presumably in the form of vessels.]\n\n[Footnote 364: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 973-975.]\n\n[Footnote 365: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 975.]\n\n[Footnote 366: _Ib._ 1901, p. 23, and Parmentier, _Inventaire des\nMonuments Chams_, p. 542.]\n\n[Footnote 367: Gabriel de San Antonio, _Breve y verdadera relation de\nlos successes de Reyno de Camboxa_, 1604.]\n\n[Footnote 368: See for the modern Chams the article \"Chams\" in _E.R.E.\nand Ethics_, and Durand, \"Les Chams Bani,\" _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, and\n\"Notes sur les Chams,\" _ib._ 1905-7.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL\n\nJAVA AND THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO\n\n1\n\n\nIn most of the countries which we have been considering, the native\ncivilization of the present day is still Indian in origin, although in\nthe former territories of Champa this Indian phase has been superseded\nby Chinese culture with a little Mohammedanism. But in another area we\nfind three successive stages of culture, indigenous, Indian and\nMohammedan. This area includes the Malay Peninsula with a large part\nof the Malay Archipelago, and the earliest stratum with which we need\nconcern ourselves is Malay. The people who bear this name are\nremarkable for their extraordinary powers of migration by sea, as\nshown by the fact that languages connected with Malay are spoken in\nFormosa and New Zealand, in Easter Island and Madagascar, but their\noriginality both in thought and in the arts of life is small. The\nthree stages are seen most clearly in Java where the population was\nreceptive and the interior accessible. Sumatra and Borneo also passed\nthrough them in a fashion but the indigenous element is still\npredominant and no foreign influence has been able to affect either\nisland as a whole. Islam gained no footing in Bali which remains\ncuriously Hindu but it reached Celebes and the southern Philippines,\nin both of which Indian influence was slight[369]. The destiny of\nsouth-eastern Asia with its islands depends on the fact that the tide\nof trade and conquest whether Hindu, Moslim or European, flowed from\nIndia or Ceylon to the Malay Peninsula and Java and thence northwards\ntowards China with a reflux westwards in Champa and Camboja. Burma and\nSiam lay outside this track. They received their culture from India\nmainly by land and were untouched by Mohammedanism. But the Mohammedan\ncurrent which affected the Malays was old and continuous. It\nstarted from Arabia in the early days of the Hijra and had nothing to\ndo with the Moslim invasions which entered India by land.\n\n2\n\n\nIndian civilization appears to have existed in Java from at least the\nfifth century of our era[370]. Much light has been thrown on its\nhistory of late by the examination of inscriptions and of fairly\nancient literature but the record still remains fragmentary. There are\nconsiderable gaps: the seat of power shifted from one district to\nanother and at most epochs the whole island was not subject to one\nruler, so that the title king of Java merely indicates a prince\npre-eminent among others doubtfully subordinate to him.\n\nThe name Java is probably the Sanskrit _Yava_ used in the sense of\ngrain, especially millet. In the Ramayana[371] the monkeys of Hanuman\nare bidden to seek for S\u00eet\u00e2 in various places including Yava-dv\u00eepa,\nwhich contains seven kingdoms and produces gold and silver. Others\ntranslate these last words as referring to another or two other\nislands known as Gold and Silver Land. It is probable that the poet\ndid not distinguish clearly between Java and Sumatra. He goes on to\nsay that beyond Java is the peak called \u015ai\u015bira. This is possibly\nthe same as the Yavako\u1e6di mentioned in 499 A.D. by the Indian\nastronomer Aryabha\u1e6d\u1e6da.\n\nSince the Ramayana is a product of gradual growth it is not easy to\nassign a definite date to this passage, but it is probably not later\nthan the first or second century A.D. and an early date is rendered\nprobable by the fact that the Alexandrian Geographer Ptolemy (_c._ 130\nA.D.) mentions[372] _\u039d\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f22 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5_ and by various notices\ncollected from inscriptions and from Chinese historians. The annals of\nthe Liang Dynasty (502-556 A.D.) in speaking of the countries of the\nSouthern Ocean say that in the reign of Hs\u00fcan Ti (73-49 B.C.) the\nRomans and Indians sent envoys to China by that route[373], thus\nindicating that the Archipelago was frequented by Hindus. The same\nwork describes under the name of Lang-ya-hsiu a country which\nprofessed Buddhism and used the Sanskrit language and states that \"the\npeople say that their country was established more than 400 years\nago[374].\" Lang-ya-hsiu has been located by some in Java by others in\nthe Malay Peninsula, but even on the latter supposition this testimony\nto Indian influence in the Far East is still important. An inscription\nfound at Kedah in the Malay Peninsula is believed to be older than 400\nA.D.[375] No more definite accounts are forthcoming before the fifth\nor sixth century. Fa-Hsien[376] relates how in 418 he returned to\nChina from India by sea and \"arrived at a country called Ya-va-di.\"\n\"In this country\" he says \"heretics and Brahmans flourish but the law\nof Buddha hardly deserves mentioning[377].\" Three inscriptions found\nin west Java in the district of Buitenzorg are referred for\npal\u00e6ographic reasons to about 400 A.D. They are all in Sanskrit and\neulogize a prince named P\u00fbr\u1e47avarman, who appears to have been a\nVishnuite. The name of his capital is deciphered as Narum\u00e2 or Tarum\u00e2.\nIn 435 according to the Liu Sung annals[378] a king of Ja-va-da named\nShih-li-pa-da-do-a-la-pa-mo sent tribute to China. The king's name\nprobably represents a Sanskrit title beginning with \u015ar\u00ee-P\u00e2da and it is\nnoticeable that two footprints are carved on the stones which bear\nP\u00fbr\u1e47avarman's inscriptions. Also Sanskrit inscriptions found at\nKoetei on the east coast of Borneo and considered to be not later than\nthe fifth century record the piety and gifts to Brahmans of a King\nM\u00fblavarman and mention his father and grandfather[379].\n\nIt follows from these somewhat disjointed facts that the name of\nYava-dv\u00eepa was known in India soon after the Christian era, and that\nby the fifth century Hindu or hinduized states had been established in\nJava. The discovery of early Sanskrit inscriptions in Borneo and\nChampa confirms the presence of Hindus in these seas. The T'ang\nannals[380] speak definitely of Kaling, otherwise called Java, as\nlying between Sumatra and Bali and say that the inhabitants have\nletters and understand a little astronomy. They further mention the\npresence of Arabs and say that in 674 a queen named Sima ascended the\nthrone and ruled justly.\n\nBut the certain data for Javanese history before the eighth century\nare few. For that period we have some evidence from Java itself. An\ninscription dated 654 \u015aaka ( = 732 A.D.) discovered in K\u0115doe\ncelebrates the praises of a king named Sanjaya, son of King Sanna. It\ncontains an account of the dedication of a linga, invocations of\n\u015aiva, Brahm\u00e2 and Vish\u1e47u, a eulogy of the king's virtue and\nlearning, and praise of Java. Thus about 700 A.D. there was a Hindu\nkingdom in mid Java and this, it would seem, was then the part of the\nisland most important politically. Buddhist inscriptions of a somewhat\nlater date (one is of 778 A.D.) have been found in the neighbourhood\nof Pramb\u00e2nam. They are written in the Nagari alphabet and record\nvarious pious foundations. A little later again (809 and 840 A.D.) are\nthe inscriptions found on the Dieng (Dihyang), a lonely mountain\nplateau on which are several Brahmanic shrines in fair preservation.\nThere is no record of their builders but the New T'ang Annals say that\nthe royal residence was called Java but \"on the mountains is the\ndistrict Lang-pi-ya where the king frequently goes to look at the\nsea[381].\" This may possibly be a reference to pilgrimages to Dieng.\nThe inscriptions found on the great monument of Boroboedoer throw no\nlight on the circumstances of its foundation, but the character of the\nwriting makes it likely that it was erected about 850 and obviously by\na king who could command the services of numerous workmen as well as\nof skilled artists. The temples of Pramb\u00e2nam are probably to be\nassigned to the next century. All these buildings indicate the\nexistence from the eighth to the tenth century of a considerable\nkingdom (or perhaps kingdoms) in middle Java, comprising at least the\nregions of Mataram, K\u0115doe and the Dieng plateau. From the Arabic\ngeographers also we learn that Java was powerful in the ninth century\nand attacked Qamar (probably Khmer or Camboja). They place the capital\nat the mouth of a river, perhaps the Solo or Brantas. If so, there\nmust have been a principality in east Java at this period. This is not\nimprobable for arch\u00e6ological evidence indicates that Hindu\ncivilization moved eastwards and flourished first in the west, then in\nmid Java and finally from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries in the\neast.\n\nThe evidence at our disposal points to the fact that Java received\nmost of its civilization from Hindu colonists, but who were these\ncolonists and from what part of India did they come? We must not think\nof any sudden and definite conquest, but rather of a continuous\ncurrent of immigration starting perhaps from several springs and often\nmerely trickling, but occasionally swelling into a flood. Native\ntraditions collected by Raffles[382] ascribe the introduction of\nBrahmanism and the \u015aaka era to the sage Tritresta and represent the\ninvaders as coming from Kalinga or from Gujarat.\n\nThe difference of locality may be due to the fact that there was a\ntrade route running from Broach to Masulipatam through Tagara (now\nTer). People arriving in the Far East by this route might be described\nas coming either from Kalinga, where they embarked, or from\nGujarat, their country of origin. Dubious as is the authority of these\nlegends, they perhaps preserve the facts in outline. The earliest\nJavanese inscriptions are written in a variety of the Vengi script and\nthe T'ang annals call the island Kaling as well as Java. It is\ntherefore probable that early tradition represented Kalinga as the\nhome of the Hindu invaders. But later immigrants may have come from\nother parts. Fa-Hsien could find no Buddhists in Java in 418, but\nIndian forms of Mahayanism indubitably flourished there in later\ncenturies. The Kalasan inscription dated 778 A.D. and engraved in\nN\u00e2gari characters records the erection of a temple to T\u00e2r\u00e2 and of a\nMahayanist monastery. The change in both alphabet and religion\nsuggests the arrival of new influences from another district and the\nJavanese traditions about Gujarat are said to find an echo among the\nbards of western India and in such proverbs as, they who go to Java\ncome not back[383]. In the period of the Hunnish and Arab invasions\nthere may have been many motives for emigration from Gujarat. The land\nroute to Kalinga was probably open and the sea route offers no great\ndifficulties[384].\n\nAnother indication of connection with north-western India is found in\nthe Chinese work _Kao S\u00eang Chuan_ (519 A.D.) or _Biographies of\nEminent Monks_, if the country there called Sh\u00ea-p'o can be identified\nwith Java[385]. It is related that Gu\u1e47avarman, son of the king of\nKashmir, became a monk and, declining the throne, went first to Ceylon\nand then to the kingdom of Sh\u00ea-p'o, which he converted to Buddhism. He\ndied at Nanking in 431 B.C.\n\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[386] states that Indo-China which he calls the Koki\ncountry[387], was first evangelized in the time of Asoka and that\nMahayanism was introduced there by the disciples of Vasubandhu,\nwho probably died about 360 A.D., so that the activity of his\nfollowers would take place in the fifth century. He also says that\nmany clergy from the Koki country were in Madhyade\u015ba from the time\nof Dharmap\u00e2la (about 800 A.D.) onwards, and these two statements, if\nthey can be accepted, certainly explain the character of Javanese and\nCambojan Buddhism. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha is a confused and untrustworthy writer,\nbut his statement about the disciples of Vasubandhu is confirmed by\nthe fact that Dign\u00e2ga, who was one of them, is the only authority\ncited in the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan[388].\n\nThe fact that the terms connected with rice cultivation are Javanese\nand not loan-words indicates that the island had some indigenous\ncivilization when the Hindus first settled there. Doubtless they often\ncame with military strength, but on the whole as colonists and\nteachers rather than as conquerors. The Javanese kings of whom we know\nmost appear to have been not members of Hindu dynasties but native\nprinces who had adopted Hindu culture and religion. Sanskrit did not\noust Javanese as the language of epigraphy, poetry and even religious\nliterature. Javanese Buddhism appears to have preserved its powers of\ngrowth and to have developed some special doctrines. But Indian\ninfluence penetrated almost all institutions and is visible even\nto-day. Its existence is still testified to by the alphabet in use, by\nsuch titles as Arjo, Radja, Praboe, Dipati ( = adhipati), and by various\nsuperstitions about lucky days and horoscopes. Communal land tenure of\nthe Indian kind still exists and in former times grants of land were\ngiven to priests and, as in India, recorded on copper plates.\nOfferings to old statues are still made and the Tenggerese[389] are\nnot even nominal Mohammedans. The Balinese still profess a species of\nHinduism and employ a Hindu Calendar.\n\nFrom the tenth century onwards the history of Java becomes a little\nplainer.\n\nCopper plates dating from about 900 A.D. mention Mataram. A certain\nMpoe Sindok was vizier of this kingdom in 919, but ten years later we\nfind him an independent king in east Java. He lived at least\ntwenty-five years longer and his possessions included Pasoeroean,\nSoerabaja and Kediri. His great-grandson, Er-langga (or Langghya), is\nan important figure. Er-langga's early life was involved in war, but\nin 1032 he was able to call himself, though perhaps not with great\ncorrectness, king of all Java. His memory has not endured among the\nJavanese but is still honoured in the traditions of Bali and Javanese\nliterature began in his reign or a little earlier. The poem\nArjuna-viv\u00e2ha is dedicated to him, and one book of the old Javanese\nprose translation of the Mahabharata bears a date equivalent to 996\nA.D.[390]\n\nOne of the national heroes of Java is Djajabaja[391] who is supposed\nto have lived in the ninth century. But tradition must be wrong here,\nfor the free poetic rendering of part of the Mahabharata called\nBh\u00e2rata-Yuddha, composed by Mpoe S\u0115dah in 1157 A.D., is dedicated\nto him, and his reign must therefore be placed later than the\ntraditional date. He is said to have founded the kingdom of Daha in\nKediri, but his inscriptions merely indicate that he was a worshipper\nof Vish\u1e47u. Literature and art flourished in east Java at this\nperiod for it would seem that the Kawi Ramayana and an _ars poetica_\ncalled V\u1e5bitta-sa\u00f1caya[392] were written about 1150 and that the\ntemple of Panataran was built between 1150 and 1175.\n\nIn western Java we have an inscription of 1030 found on the river\nTjitjatih. It mentions a prince who is styled Lord of the World and\nnative tradition, confirmed by inscriptions, which however give few\ndetails, relates that in the twelfth century a kingdom called\nPadjadjaran was founded in the Soenda country south of Batavia by\nprinces from Toemap\u0115l in eastern Java.\n\nThere is a gap in Javanese history from the reign of Djajabaja till\n1222 at which date the Pararaton[393], or Book of the Kings of\nToemap\u0115l and Madjapahit, begins to furnish information. The Sung\nannals[394] also give some account of the island but it is not\nclear to what years their description refers. They imply, however,\nthat there was an organized government and that commerce was\nflourishing. They also state that the inhabitants \"pray to the gods\nand Buddha\": that Java was at war with eastern Sumatra: that embassies\nwere sent to China in 992 and 1109 and that in 1129 the Emperor gave\nthe ruler of Java (probably Djajabaja) the title of king.\n\nThe Pararaton opens with the fall of Daha in 1222 which made\nToemap\u0115l, known later as Singasari, the principal kingdom. Five of\nits kings are enumerated, of whom Vish\u1e47uvardhana was buried in the\ncelebrated shrine of Tjandi Djago, where he was represented in the\nguise of Buddha. His successor \u015ar\u00ee R\u00e2jasan\u00e2gara was praised by the\npoet Prapantja[395] as a zealous Buddhist but was known by the\nposthumous name of \u015aivabuddha. He was the first to use the name of\nSingas\u00e2ri and perhaps founded a new city, but the kingdom of\nToemap\u0115l came to an end in his reign for he was slain by Djaja\nKatong[396], prince of Daha, who restored to that kingdom its previous\nprimacy, but only for a short time, since it was soon supplanted by\nMadjapahit. The foundation of this state is connected with a Chinese\ninvasion of Java, related at some length in the Y\u00fcan annals[397], so\nthat we are fortunate in possessing a double and fairly consistent\naccount of what occurred.\n\nWe learn from these sources that some time after Khubilai Khan had\nconquered China, he sent missions to neighbouring countries to demand\ntribute. The Javanese had generally accorded a satisfactory reception\nto Chinese missions, but on this occasion the king (apparently Djaja\nKatong) maltreated the envoy and sent him back with his face cut or\ntattooed. Khubilai could not brook this outrage and in 1292\ndespatched a punitive expedition. At that time Raden Vidjaja, the\nson-in-law of K\u0115rtanagara, had not submitted to Djaja Katong and\nheld out at Madjapahit, a stronghold which he had founded near the\nriver Brantas. He offered his services to the Chinese and after a two\nmonths' campaign Daha was captured and Djaja Katong killed. Raden\nVidjaja now found that he no longer needed his Chinese allies. He\ntreacherously massacred some and prepared to fight the rest. But the\nMongol generals, seeing the difficulties of campaigning in an unknown\ncountry without guides, prudently returned to their master and\nreported that they had taken Daha and killed the insolent king.\n\nMadjapahit (or Wilwatikta) now became the premier state of Java, and\nhad some permanency. Eleven sovereigns, including three queens, are\nenumerated by the Pararaton until its collapse in 1468. We learn from\nthe Ming annals and other Chinese documents[398] that it had\nconsiderable commercial relations with China and sent frequent\nmissions: also that Palembang was a vassal of Java. But the general\nimpression left by the Pararaton is that during the greater part of\nits existence Madjapahit was a distracted and troubled kingdom. In\n1403, as we know from both Chinese and Javanese sources, there began a\ngreat war between the western and eastern kingdoms, that is between\nMadjapahit and Balambangan in the extreme east, and in the fifteenth\ncentury there was twice an interregnum. Art and literature, though not\ndead, declined and events were clearly tending towards a break-up or\nrevolution. This appears to have been consummated in 1468, when the\nPararaton simply says that King Pa\u1e47\u1e0dansalas III left the\n_Kraton_, or royal residence.\n\nIt is curious that the native traditions as to the date and\ncircumstances in which Madjapahit fell should be so vague, but perhaps\nthe end of Hindu rule in Java was less sudden and dramatic than we are\ninclined to think. Islam had been making gradual progress and its last\nopponents were kings only in title. The Chinese mention the presence\nof Arabs in the seventh century, and the geography called _Ying-yai\nSh\u00eang-lan_ (published in 1416), which mentions Griss\u00e9, Soerabaja and\nMadjapahit as the principal towns of Java, divides the inhabitants\ninto three classes: (_a_) Mohammedans who have come from the west,\n\"their dress and food is clean and proper\"; (_b_) the Chinese, who are\nalso cleanly and many of whom are Mohammedans; (_c_) the natives who\nare ugly and uncouth, devil-worshippers, filthy in food and habits. As\nthe Chinese do not generally speak so severely of the hinduized\nJavanese it would appear that Hinduism lasted longest among the lower\nand more savage classes, and that the Moslims stood on a higher\nlevel. As in other countries, the Arabs attempted to spread Islam from\nthe time of their first appearance. At first they confined their\npropaganda to their native wives and dependents. Later we hear of\nveritable apostles of Islam such as Malik Ibrahim, and Raden Rahmat,\nthe ruler of a town called Ampel[399] which became the head quarter of\nIslam. The princes whose territory lay round Madjapahit were gradually\nconverted and the extinction of the last Hindu kingdom became\ninevitable[400].\n\n3\n\n\nIt is remarkable that the great island of Sumatra, which seems to lie\nin the way of anyone proceeding from India eastwards and is close to\nthe Malay peninsula, should in all ages have proved less accessible to\ninvaders coming from the west than the more distant Java. Neither\nHindus, Arabs nor Europeans have been able to establish their\ninfluence there in the same thorough manner. The cause is probably to\nbe found in its unhealthy and impenetrable jungles, but even so its\nrelative isolation remains singular.\n\nIt does not appear that any prince ever claimed to be king of all\nSumatra. For the Hindu period we have no indigenous literature and our\nscanty knowledge is derived from a few statues and inscriptions and\nfrom notices in Chinese writings. The latter do not refer to the\nisland as a whole but to several states such as Indragiri near the\nEquator and Kandali (afterwards called San-bo-tsai, the Sabaza of the\nArabs) near Palembang. The annals of the Liang dynasty say that the\ncustoms of Kandali were much the same as those of Camboja and\napparently we are to understand that the country was Buddhist, for one\nking visited the Emperor Wu-ti in a dream, and his son addressed a\nletter to His Majesty eulogizing his devotion to Buddhism. Kandali is\nsaid to have sent three envoys to China between 454 and 519.\n\nThe Chinese pilgrim I-Ching[401] visited Sumatra twice, once for\ntwo months in 672 and subsequently for some years (about 688-695). He\ntells us that in the islands of the Southern Sea, \"which are more than\nten countries,\" Buddhism flourishes, the school almost universally\nfollowed being the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da, though the Sammit\u00eeyas and other\nschools have a few adherents. He calls the country where he sojourned\nand to which these statements primarily refer, Bhoja or \u015ar\u00eebhoja\n(Fo-shih or Shih-li-fo-shih), adding that its former name was Malayu.\nIt is conjectured that Shih-li-fo-shih is the place later known as\nSan-bo-tsai[402] and Chinese authors seem to consider that both this\nplace and the earlier Kandali were roughly speaking identical with\nPalembang. I-Ching tells us that the king of Bhoja favoured Buddhism\nand that there were more than a thousand priests in the city. Gold was\nabundant and golden flowers were offered to the Buddha. There was\ncommunication by ship with both India and China. The Hinayana, he\nsays, was the form of Buddhism adopted \"except in Malayu, where there\nare a few who belong to the Mahayana.\" This is a surprising statement,\nbut it is impossible to suppose that an expert like I-Ching can have\nbeen wrong about what he actually saw in \u015ar\u00eebhoja. So far as his\nremarks apply to Java they must be based on hearsay and have less\nauthority, but the sculptures of Boroboedoer appear to show the\ninfluence of M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din literature. It must be remembered that\nthis school, though nominally belonging to the Hinayana, came to be\nsomething very different from the Therav\u00e2da of Ceylon.\n\nThe Sung annals and subsequent Chinese writers know the same district\n(the modern Palembang) as San-bo-tsai (which may indicate either mere\nchange of name or the rise of a new city) and say that it sent\ntwenty-one envoys between 960 and 1178. The real object of these\nmissions was to foster trade and there was evidently frequent\nintercourse between eastern Sumatra, Champa and China. Ultimately the\nChinese seem to have thought that the entertainment of Sumatran\ndiplomatists cost more than they were worth, for in 1178 the emperor\nordered that they should not come to Court but present themselves in\nthe province of Fu-kien. The Annals state that Sanskrit writing\nwas in use at San-bo-tsai and lead us to suppose that the country was\nBuddhist. They mention several kings whose names or titles seem to\nbegin with the Sanskrit word \u015ar\u00ee[403]. In 1003 the envoys reported\nthat a Buddhist temple had been erected in honour of the emperor and\nthey received a present of bells for it. Another envoy asked for\ndresses to be worn by Buddhist monks. The Ming annals also record\nmissions from San-bo-tsai up to 1376, shortly after which the region\nwas conquered by Java and the town decayed[404]. In the fourteenth\ncentury Chinese writers begin to speak of Su-m\u00ean-ta-la or Sumatra by\nwhich is meant not the whole island but a state in the northern part\nof it called Samudra and corresponding to Atjeh[405]. It had relations\nwith China and the manners and customs of its inhabitants are said to\nbe the same as in Malacca, which probably means that they were\nMoslims.\n\nLittle light is thrown on the history of Sumatra by indigenous or\nJavanese monuments. Those found testify, as might be expected, to the\nexistence here and there of both Brahmanism and Buddhism. In 1343 a\nSumatran prince named Adityavarman, who was apparently a vassal of\nMadjapahit, erected an image of Manju\u015br\u00ee at Tjandi Djago and in\n1375 one of Amoghap\u00e2\u015ba.\n\n4\n\n\nThe Liang and T'ang annals both speak of a country called Po-li,\ndescribed as an island lying to the south-east of Canton. Groeneveldt\nidentified it with Sumatra, but the account of its position suggests\nthat it is rather to be found in Borneo, parts of which were undoubtedly\nknown to the Chinese as Po-lo and Pu-ni[406]. The Liang annals state\nthat Po-li sent an embassy to the Emperor Wu-ti in 518 bearing a letter\nwhich described the country as devoted to Buddhism and frequented by\nstudents of the three vehicles. If the letter is an authentic document\nthe statements in it may still be exaggerations, for the piety of Wu-ti\nwas well known and it is clear that foreign princes who addressed him\nthought it prudent to represent themselves and their subjects as fervent\nBuddhists. But there certainly was a Hindu period in Borneo, of which\nsome tradition remains among the natives[407], although it ended earlier\nand left fewer permanent traces than in Java and elsewhere.\n\nThe most important records of this period are three Sanskrit\ninscriptions found at Koetei on the east coast of Borneo[408]. They\nrecord the donations made to Brahmans by King M\u00fblavarman, son of\nA\u015bvavarman and grandson of Ku\u1e47\u1e0dagga. They are not dated, but Kern\nconsiders for pal\u00e6ographical reasons that they are not later than the\nfifth century. Thus, since three generations are mentioned, it is\nprobable that about 400 A.D. there were Hindu princes in Borneo. The\ninscriptions testify to the existence of Hinduism there rather than of\nBuddhism: in fact the statements in the Chinese annals are the only\nevidence for the latter. But it is most interesting to find that these\nannals give the family name of the king of Poli as Kau\u1e47\u1e0dinya[409]\nwhich no doubt corresponds to the Ku\u1e47\u1e0dagga of the Koetei inscription.\nAt least one if not two of the Hindu invaders of Camboja bore this name,\nand we can hardly be wrong in supposing that members of the same great\nfamily became princes in different parts of the Far East. One\nexplanation of their presence in Borneo would be that they went thither\nfrom Camboja, but we have no record of expeditions from Camboja and if\nadventurers started thence it is not clear why they went to the _east_\ncoast of Borneo. It would be less strange if Kaundinyas emigrating from\nJava reached both Camboja and Koetei. It is noticeable that in Java,\nKoetei, Champa and Camboja alike royal names end in _varman_.\n\n5\n\n\nThe architectural monuments of Java are remarkable for their size,\ntheir number and their beauty. Geographically they fall into two chief\ngroups, the central (Boroboedoer, Prambanan, Dieng plateau, etc.) in\nor near the kingdom of Mataram and the eastern (Tjandi Djago,\nSingasari, Panataran, etc.) lying not at the extremity of the island\nbut chiefly to the south of Soerabaja. No relic of antiquity deserving\nto be called a monument has been found in western Java for the records\nleft by P\u00fbrnavarman (_c_. 400 A.D.) are merely rocks bearing\ninscriptions and two footprints, as a sign that the monarch's\ntriumphal progress is compared to the three steps of Vish\u1e47u.\n\nThe earliest dated (779 A.D.) monument in mid Java, Tjandi Kalasan, is\nBuddhist and lies in the plain of Prambanan. It is dedicated to T\u00e2r\u00e2\nand is of a type common both in Java and Champa, namely a chapel\nsurmounted by a tower. In connection with it was erected the\nneighbouring building called Tjandi Sari, a two-storied monastery for\nMahayanist monks. Not far distant is Tjandi Sevu, which superficially\nresembles the 450 Pagodas of Mandalay, for it consists of a central\ncruciform shrine surrounded by about 240 smaller separate chapels,\neveryone of which, apparently, contained the statue of a Dhy\u00e2ni\nBuddha. Other Buddhist buildings in the same region are Tjandi\nPlaosan, and the beautiful chapel known as Tjandi Mendut in which are\ngigantic seated images of the Buddha, Manju\u015br\u00ee and Avalokita. The\nface of the last named is perhaps the most exquisite piece of work\never wrought by the chisel of a Buddhist artist.\n\nIt is not far from Mendut to Boroboedoer, which deserves to be\nincluded in any list of the wonders of the world. This celebrated\nst\u00fbpa--for in essence it is a highly ornamented st\u00fbpa with galleries\nof sculpture rising one above the other on its sides--has been often\ndescribed and can be described intelligibly only at considerable\nlength. I will therefore not attempt to detail or criticize its\nbeauties but will merely state some points which are important for our\npurpose.\n\nIt is generally agreed that it must have been built about 850 A.D.,\nbut obviously the construction lasted a considerable time and there\nare indications that the architects altered their original plan. The\nunknown founder must have been a powerful and prosperous king for\nno one else could have commanded the necessary labour. The st\u00fbpa shows\nno sign of Brahmanic influence. It is purely Buddhist and built for\npurposes of edification. The worshippers performed pradakshi\u1e47\u00e2 by\nwalking round the galleries, one after the other, and as they did so\nhad an opportunity of inspecting some 2000 reliefs depicting the\nprevious births of \u015aakyamuni, his life on earth and finally the\nmysteries of Mahayanist theology. As in Indian pilgrim cities, temple\nguides were probably ready to explain the pictures.\n\nThe selection of reliefs is not due to the artists' fancy but aims at\nillustrating certain works. Thus the scenes of the Buddha's life reproduce\nin stone the story of the Lalita Vistara[410] and the J\u00e2taka pictures are\nbased on the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na. It is interesting to find that both these works\nare connected with the school of the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, which according\nto I-Ching was the form of Buddhism prevalent in the archipelago. In the\nthird gallery the figure of Maitreya is prominent and often seems to be\nexplaining something to a personage who accompanies him. As Maitreya is\nsaid to have revealed five important scriptures to Asa\u1e47ga, and as there\nis a tradition that the east of Asia was evangelized by the disciples of\nAsa\u1e47ga or Vasubandhu, it is possible that the delivery and progress of\nMaitreya's revelation is here depicted. The fourth gallery seems to deal\nwith the five superhuman Buddhas[411], their paradises and other\nsupra-mundane matters, but the key to this series of sculptures has not\nyet been found. It is probable that the highest storey proved to be too\nheavy in its original form and that the central dagoba had to be reduced\nlest it should break the substructure. But it is not known what image or\nrelic was preserved in this dagoba. Possibly it was dedicated to Vairocana\nwho was regarded as the Supreme Being and All-God by some Javanese\nBuddhists[412].\n\nThe creed here depicted in stone seems to be a form of Mahayanism.\n\u015a\u00e2kyamuni is abundantly honoured but there is no representation of\nhis death. This may be because the Lalita Vistara treats only of his\nearly career, but still the omission is noteworthy. In spite of the\nimportance of \u015a\u00e2kyamuni, a considerable if mysterious part is\nplayed by the five superhuman Buddhas, and several Bodhisattvas,\nespecially Maitreya, Avalokita and Manju\u015br\u00ee. In the celestial\nscenes we find numerous Bodhisattvas both male and female, yet the\nfigures are hardly Tantric and there is no sign that any of the\npersonages are Brahmanic deities.\n\nYet the region was not wholly Buddhist. Not far from Boroboedoer and\napparently of about the same age is the Sivaite temple of Banon, and\nthe great temple group of Prambanam is close to Kalasan and to the\nother Buddhist shrines mentioned above. It consists of eight temples\nof which four are dedicated to Brahm\u00e2, \u015aiva, Vish\u1e47u and Nandi\nrespectively, the purpose of the others being uncertain. The largest\nand most decorated is that dedicated to \u015aiva, containing four\nshrines in which are images of the god as Mah\u00e2deva and as Guru, of\nGane\u015ba and of Durg\u00e2. The balustrade is ornamented with a series of\nreliefs illustrating the Ramayana. These temples, which appear to be\nentirely Brahmanic, approach in style the architecture of eastern Java\nand probably date from the tenth century, that is about a century\nlater than the Buddhist monuments. But there is no tradition or other\nevidence of a religious revolution.\n\nThe temples on the Dieng plateau are also purely Brahmanic and\nprobably older, for though we have no record of their foundation, an\ninscribed stone dated 800 A.D. has been found in this district. The\nplateau which is 6500 feet high was approached by paved roads or\nflights of stairs on one of which about 4000 steps still remain.\nOriginally there seem to have been about 40 buildings on the plateau\nbut of these only eight now exist besides several stone foundations\nwhich supported wooden structures. The place may have been a temple\ncity analogous to Girnar or \u015aatrunjaya, but it appears to have been\ndeserted in the thirteenth century, perhaps in consequence of volcanic\nactivity. The Dieng temples are named after the heroes of the\nMahabharata (Tjandi Ardjuno, Tjandi Bimo, etc.), but these appear to\nbe late designations. They are rectangular towerlike shrines with\nporches and a single cellule within. Figures of Brahma, \u015aiva and\nVish\u1e47u have been discovered, as well as spouts to carry off the\nlibation water.\n\nBefore leaving mid Java I should perhaps mention the relatively modern\n(1435-1440 A.D.) temples of Suku. I have not seen these buildings, but\nthey are said to be coarse in execution and to indicate that they were\nused by a debased sect of Vish\u1e47uites. Their interest lies in the\nextraordinary resemblance which they bear to the temples of Mexico and\nYucatan, a resemblance \"which no one can fail to observe, though no\none has yet suggested any hypothesis to account for it[413].\"\n\nThe best known and probably the most important monuments of eastern\nJava are Panataran, Tjandi Djago and Tjandi Singasari[414].\n\nThe first is considered to date from about 1150 A.D. It is practically\na three-storied pyramid with a flat top. The sides of the lowest\nstorey are ornamented with a series of reliefs illustrating portions\nof the Ramayana, local legends and perhaps the exploits of Krishna,\nbut this last point is doubtful[415]. This temple seems to indicate\nthe same stage of belief as Prambanam. It shows no trace of Buddhism\nand though \u015aiva was probably the principal deity, the scenes\nrepresented in its sculptures are chiefly Vish\u1e47uite.\n\nTjandi Djago is in the province of Pasoeroean. According to the\nPararaton and the N\u00e2garakr\u0115t\u00e2gama[416], Vish\u1e47uvardhana, king of\nToemap\u0115l, was buried there. As he died in 1272 or 1273 A.D. and the\ntemple was already in existence, we may infer that it dates from at\nleast 1250. He was represented there in the form of Sugata (that is\nthe Buddha) and at Waleri in the form of \u015aiva. Here we have the\ncustom known also in Champa and Camboja of a deceased king being\nrepresented by a statue with his own features but the attributes of\nhis tutelary deity. It is strange that a king named after Vish\u1e47u\nshould be portrayed in the guise of \u015aiva and Buddha. But in spite\nof this impartiality, the cult practised at Tjandi Djago seems to have\nbeen not a mixture but Buddhism of a late Mahayanist type. It was\ndoubtless held that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are identical with\nBrahmanic deities, but the fairly numerous pantheon discovered in or\nnear the ruins consists of superhuman Buddhas and Bodhisattvas with\ntheir spouses[417].\n\nIn form Tjandi Djago has somewhat the appearance of a three-storied\npyramid but the steps leading up to the top platform are at one end\nonly and the shrine instead of standing in the centre of the platform\nis at the end opposite to the stairs. The figures in the reliefs are\ncuriously square and clumsy and recall those of Central America.\n\nTjandi Singasari, also in the province of Pasoeroean, is of a different\nform. It is erected on a single low platform and consists of a plain\nrectangular building surmounted by five towers such as are also found in\nCambojan temples. There is every reason to believe that it was erected\nin 1278 A.D. in the reign of Kr\u0115tan\u00e2gara, the last king of Toemap\u0115l, and\nthat it is the temple known as \u015aiva-buddh\u00e2laya in which he was\ncommemorated under the name of \u015aiva-buddha. An inscription found close\nby relates that in 1351 A.D. a shrine was erected on behalf of the royal\nfamily in memory of those who died with the king[418].\n\nThe N\u00e2garakr\u0115tagama represents this king as a devout Buddhist but his\nvery title \u015aivabuddha shows how completely Sivaism and Buddhism were\nfused in his religion. The same work mentions a temple in which the\nlower storey was dedicated to \u015aiva and the upper to Akshobhya: it also\nleads us to suppose that the king was honoured as an incarnation of\nAkshobhya even during his life and was consecrated as a Jina under the\nname of \u015ar\u00eejn\u00e2nabajre\u015bvara[419]. The Singasari temple is less ornamented\nwith reliefs than the others described but has furnished numerous\nstatues of excellent workmanship which illustrate the fusion of the\nBuddhist and Sivaite pantheons. On the one side we have Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2,\nManju\u015br\u00ee and T\u00e2r\u00e2, on the other Gane\u015ba, the Linga, \u015aiva in various forms\n(Guru, Nand\u00eesvara, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la, etc.), Durg\u00e2 and Brahm\u00e2. Not only is the\nSivaite element predominant but the Buddhist figures are concerned less\nwith the veneration of the Buddha than with accessory mythology.\n\nJavanese architecture and sculpture are no doubt derived from India,\nbut the imported style, whatever it may have been, was modified by\nlocal influences and it seems impossible at present to determine\nwhether its origin should be sought on the eastern or western side of\nIndia. The theory that the temples on the Dieng plateau are Chalukyan\nbuildings appears to be abandoned but they and many others in Java\nshow a striking resemblance to the shrines found in Champa. Javanese\narchitecture is remarkable for the complete absence not only of\nradiating arches but of pillars, and consequently of large halls. This\nfeature is no doubt due to the ever present danger of earthquakes.\nMany reliefs, particularly those of Panataran, show the influence of a\nstyle which is not Indian and may be termed, though not very\ncorrectly, Polynesian. The great merit of Javanese sculpture lies in\nthe refinement and beauty of the faces. Among figures executed in\nIndia it would be hard to find anything equal in purity and delicacy\nto the Avalokita of Mendut, the Manju\u015bri now in the Berlin Museum\nor the Praj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 now at Leyden.\n\n6\n\n\nFrom the eleventh century until the end of the Hindu period Java can\nshow a considerable body of literature, which is in part theological.\nIt is unfortunate that no books dating from an earlier epoch should be\nextant. The sculptures of Prambanam and Boroboedoer clearly presuppose\nan acquaintance with the Ramayana, the Lalita Vistara and other\nBuddhist works but, as in Camboja, this literature was probably known\nonly in the original Sanskrit and only to the learned. But it is not\nunlikely that the Javanese adaptations of the Indian epics which have\ncome down to us were preceded by earlier attempts which have\ndisappeared.\n\nThe old literary language of Java is commonly known as B\u00e5s\u00e5 Kawi or\nKawi, that is the language of poetry[420]. It is however simply\nthe predecessor of modern Javanese and many authorities prefer to\ndescribe the language of the island as Old Javanese before the\nMadjapahit period, Middle-Javanese during that period and New Javanese\nafter the fall of Madjapahit. The greater part of this literature\nconsists of free versions of Sanskrit works or of a substratum in\nSanskrit accompanied by a Javanese explanation. Only a few Javanese\nworks are original, that is to say not obviously inspired by an Indian\nprototype, but on the other hand nearly all of them handle their\nmaterials with freedom and adapt rather than translate what they\nborrow.\n\nOne of the earliest works preserved appears to be the Tantoe\nPangg\u0115laran, a treatise on cosmology in which Indian and native\nideas are combined. It is supposed to have been written about 1000\nA.D. Before the foundation of Madjapahit Javanese literature\nflourished especially in the reigns of Erlangga and Djajabaja, that is\nin the eleventh and twelfth centuries respectively. About the time of\nErlangga were produced the old prose version of the Mahabharata, in\nwhich certain episodes of that poem are rendered with great freedom\nand the poem called Arjuna-viv\u00e2ha, or the marriage of Arjuna.\n\nThe Bh\u00e2ratayuddha[421], which states that it was composed by Mpoe\nSedah in 1157 by order of Djajabaja, prince of Kediri, is, even more\nthan the prose version mentioned above, a free rendering of parts of\nthe Mahabharata. It is perhaps based on an older translation preserved\nin Bali[422]. The Kawi Ramayana was in the opinion of Kern composed\nabout 1200 A.D. It follows in essentials the story of the Ramayana,\nbut it was apparently composed by a poet unacquainted with Sanskrit\nwho drew his knowledge from some native source now unknown[423]. He\nappears to have been a Sivaite. To the eleventh century are also\nreferred the Smaradahana and the treatise on prosody called\nVrittasa\u00f1caya. All this literature is based upon classical Sanskrit\nmodels and is not distinctly Buddhist although the prose version of\nthe Mahabharata states that it was written for Brahmans, Sivaites and\nBuddhists[424]. Many other translations or adaptations of Sanskrit\nwork are mentioned, such as the N\u00eeti\u015b\u00e2stra, the S\u00e2rasamuccaya, the\nTantri (in several editions), a prose translation of the\nBrahm\u00e2ndapur\u00e2\u1e47a, together with grammars and dictionaries. The\nabsence of dates makes it difficult to use these works for the history\nof Javanese thought. But it seems clear that during the Madjapahit\nepoch, or perhaps even before it, a strong current of Buddhism\npermeated Javanese literature, somewhat in contrast with the tone of\nthe works hitherto cited. Brandes states that the Sutasoma,\nVighnotsava, Ku\u00f1jarakarna, Sang Hyang Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan, and Buddhapamutus\nare purely Buddhist works and that the Tjantakaparva, Arjunavijaya,\nN\u00e2garakr\u0115tagama, Wariga and Bubukshah show striking traces of\nBuddhism[425]. Some of these works are inaccessible to me but two of\nthem deserve examination, the Sang Hyang Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan[426] and the\nstory of Ku\u00f1jarakar\u1e47a[427]. The first is tentatively assigned to\nthe Madjapahit epoch or earlier, the second with the same caution to\nthe eleventh century. I do not presume to criticize these dates which\ndepend partly on linguistic considerations. The Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan is a\ntreatise (or perhaps extracts from treatises) on Mahayanism as\nunderstood in Java and presumably on the normal form of Mahayanism.\nThe other work is an edifying legend including an exposition of the\nfaith by no one less than the Buddha Vairocana. In essentials it\nagrees with the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan but in details it shows either sectarian\ninfluence or the idiosyncrasies of the author.\n\nThe Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan consists of Sanskrit verses explained by a\ncommentary in old Javanese and is partly in the form of questions and\nanswers. The only authority whom it cites is Dign\u00e2ga. It professes to\nteach the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and Mantr\u00e2yana, which is apparently a misspelling\nfor Mantray\u00e2na. The emphasis laid on Bajra (that is vajra or dorje),\nghant\u00e2, mudr\u00e2, ma\u1e47\u1e0dala, mystic syllables, and Dev\u00ees marks it as\nan offshoot of Tantrism and it offers many parallels to Nepalese\nliterature. On the other hand it is curious that it uses the form\nNib\u00e2\u1e47a not Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a[428]. Its object is to teach a neophyte,\nwho has to receive initiation, how to become a Buddha[429]. In the\nsecond part the pupil is addressed as Jinaputra, that is son of the\nBuddha or one of the household of faith. He is to be moderate but not\nascetic in food and clothing: he is not to cleave to the Pur\u00e2\u1e47as\nand Tantras but to practise the P\u00e2ramit\u00e2s. These are defined first as\nsix[430] and then four others are added[431]. Under Praj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 is\ngiven a somewhat obscure account of the doctrine of \u015a\u00fbnyat\u00e2. Then\nfollows the exposition of Paramaguhya (the highest secret) and\nMah\u00e2guhya (the great secret). The latter is defined as being Yoga, the\nbh\u00e2van\u00e2s, the four noble truths and the ten p\u00e2ramit\u00e2s. The former\nexplains the embodiment of Bha\u1e6d\u00e2ra Vi\u015besha, that is to say the\nway in which Buddhas, gods and the world of phenomena are evolved from\na primordial principle, called Advaya and apparently equivalent to the\nNepalese Adibuddha[432]. Advaya is the father of Buddha and\nAdvayaj\u00f1\u00e2na, also called Bhar\u00e2l\u00ee Praj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, is his mother, but\nthe Buddha principle at this stage is also called Divar\u00fbpa. In the\nnext stage this Divar\u00fbpa takes form as \u015a\u00e2kyamuni, who is regarded\nas a superhuman form of Buddhahood rather than as a human teacher, for\nhe produces from his right and left side respectively Loke\u015bvara and\nBajrap\u00e2ni. These beings produce, the first Akshobhya and\nRatnasambhava, the second Amit\u00e2bha and Amoghasiddhi, but Vairocana\nsprings directly from the face of \u015a\u00e2kyamuni. The five superhuman\nBuddhas are thus accounted for. From Vairocana spring I\u015bvara\n(\u015aiva), Brahm\u00e2, and Vish\u1e47u: from them the elements, the human\nbody and the whole world. A considerable part of the treatise is\noccupied with connecting these various emanations of the Advaya with\nmystic syllables and in showing how the five Buddhas correspond to the\ndifferent skandas, elements, senses, etc. Finally we are told that\nthere are five Dev\u00ees, or female counterparts corresponding in the same\norder to the Buddhas named above and called Locan\u00e2, M\u00e2mak\u00ee,\nP\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0darav\u00e2sin\u00ee, T\u00e2r\u00e2 and Dh\u00e2tv\u00ee\u015bvar\u00ee. But it is declared that\nthe first and last of these are the same and therefore there are\nreally only four Dev\u00ees.\n\nThe legend of Ku\u00f1jarakar\u1e47a relates how a devout Yaksha of that name\nwent to Bodhicitta[433] and asked of Vairocana instruction in the holy\nlaw and more especially as to the mysteries of rebirth. Vairocana did\nnot refuse but bade his would-be pupil first visit the realms of Yama,\ngod of the dead. Ku\u00f1jarakar\u1e47a did so, saw the punishments of the\nunderworld, including the torments prepared for a friend of his, whom\nhe was able to warn on his return. Yama gave him some explanations\nrespecting the alternation of life and death and he was subsequently\nprivileged to receive a brief but more general exposition of doctrine\nfrom Vairocana himself.\n\nThis doctrine is essentially a variety of Indian pantheism but\npeculiar in its terminology inasmuch as Vairocana, like K\u1e5bish\u1e47a\nin the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, proclaims himself to be the All-God and not\nmerely the chief of the five Buddhas. He quotes with approval the\nsaying \"you are I: I am you\" and affirms the identity of Buddhism and\n\u015aivaism. Among the monks[434] there are no _muktas_ (_i.e._ none\nwho have attained liberation) because they all consider as two what is\nreally one. \"The Buddhists say, we are Bauddhas, for the Lord Buddha\nis our highest deity: we are not the same as the \u015aivaites, for the\nLord \u015aiva is for them the highest deity.\" The \u015aivaites are\nrepresented as saying that the five Ku\u015bikas are a development or\nincarnations of the five Buddhas. \"Well, my son\" is the conclusion,\n\"These are all one: we are \u015aiva, we are Buddha.\"\n\nIn this curious exposition the author seems to imply that his doctrine\nis different from that of ordinary Buddhists, and to reprimand them\nmore decidedly than \u015aivaites. He several times uses the phrase\n_Namo Bha\u1e6d\u00e2ra, nama\u1e25 \u015aiv\u00e2ya_ (Hail, Lord: hail to \u015aiva)\nyet he can hardly be said to favour the \u015aivaites on the whole, for\nhis All-God is Vairocana who once (but only once) receives the title\nof Buddha. The doctrine attributed to the \u015aivaites that the five\nKusikas are identical with the superhuman Buddhas remains\nobscure[435]. These five personages are said to be often mentioned in\nold Javanese literature but to be variously enumerated[436]. They\nare identified with the five Indras, but these again are said to be\nthe five senses (indriyas). Hence we can find a parallel to this\ndoctrine in the teaching of the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan that the five Buddhas\ncorrespond to the five senses.\n\nTwo other special theses are enounced in the story of Ku\u00f1jarakar\u1e47a.\nThe first is Vairocana's analysis of a human being, which makes it\nconsist of five Atmans or souls, called respectively Atman,\nCetan\u00e2tman, Par\u00e2tman, Nir\u00e2tman and Antar\u00e2tman, which somehow\ncorrespond to the five elements, five senses and five Skandhas. The\nsingular list suggests that the author was imperfectly acquainted with\nthe meaning of the Sanskrit words employed and the whole terminology\nis strange in a Buddhist writer. Still in the later Upanishads[437]\nthe epithet panc\u00e2tmaka is applied to the human body, especially in the\nGarbha Upanishad which, like the passage here under consideration,\ngives a psychophysiological explanation of the development of an\nembryo into a human being.\n\nThe second thesis is put in the mouth of Yama. He states that when a\nbeing has finished his term in purgatory he returns to life in this\nworld first as a worm or insect, then successively as a higher animal\nand a human being, first diseased or maimed and finally perfect. No\nparallel has yet been quoted to this account of metempsychosis.\n\nThus the Ku\u00f1jarakar\u1e47a contains peculiar views which are probably\nsectarian or individual. On the other hand their apparent singularity\nmay be due to our small knowledge of old Javanese literature. Though\nother writings are not known to extol Vairocana as being \u015aiva and\nBuddha in one, yet they have no scruple in identifying Buddhist and\nBrahmanic deities or connecting them by some system of emanations, as\nwe have already seen in the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan. Such an identity is still\nmore definitely proclaimed in the old Javanese version of the Sutasoma\nJ\u00e2taka[438]. It is called Purush\u00e2da-\u015a\u00e2nta and was composed by\nTantular who lived at Madjapahit in the reign of R\u00e2jasanagara\n(1350-1389 A.D.). In the Indian original Sutasoma is one of the\nprevious births of Gotama. But the Javanese writer describes him as an\nAvat\u00e2ra of the Buddha who is Brahm\u00e2, Vish\u1e47u and I\u015bvara, and he\nstates that \"The Lord Buddha is not different from \u015aiva the king of\nthe gods.... They are distinct and they are one. In the Law is no\ndualism.\" The superhuman Buddhas are identified with various Hindu\ngods and also with the five senses. Thus Amit\u00e2bha is Mah\u00e2deva and\nAmoghasiddhi is Vish\u1e47u. This is only a slight variation of the\nteaching in the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan. There Brahmanic deities emanate from\n\u015a\u00e2kyamuni through various Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: here the Buddha\nspirit is regarded as equivalent to the Hindu Trim\u00fbrti and the various\naspects of this spirit can be described in either Brahmanic or\nBuddhistic terminology though in reality all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and\ngods are one. But like the other authors quoted, Tantular appears to\nlean to the Buddhist side of these equations, especially for didactic\npurposes. For instance he says that meditation should be guided \"by\nLoke\u015bvara's word and \u015a\u00e2kyamuni's spirit.\"\n\n7\n\n\nThus it will be seen that if we take Javanese epigraphy, monuments and\nliterature together with Chinese notices, they to some extent confirm\none another and enable us to form an outline picture, though with many\ngaps, of the history of thought and religion in the island. Fa-Hsien\ntells us that in 418 A.D. Brahmanism flourished (as is testified by\nthe inscriptions of P\u00fbr\u1e47avarman) but that the Buddhists were not\nworth mentioning. Immediately afterwards, probably in 423,\nGu\u1e47avarman is said to have converted Sh\u00ea-po, if that be Java, to\nBuddhism, and as he came from Kashmir he was probably a Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din.\nOther monks are mentioned as having visited the southern seas[439].\nAbout 690 I-Ching says that Buddhism of the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school\nwas flourishing in Sumatra, which he visited, and in the other islands\nof the Archipelago. The remarkable series of Buddhist monuments in mid\nJava extending from about 779 to 900 A.D. confirms his statement.\nBut two questions arise. Firstly, is there any explanation of this\nsudden efflorescence of Buddhism in the Archipelago, and next, what\nwas its doctrinal character? If, as T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha says, the disciples of\nVasubandhu evangelized the countries of the East, their influence\nmight well have been productive about the time of I-Ching's visit. But\nin any case during the sixth and seventh centuries religious\ntravellers must have been continually journeying between India and\nChina, in both directions, and some of them must have landed in the\nArchipelago. At the beginning of the sixth century Buddhism was not\nyet decadent in India and was all the fashion in China. It is not\ntherefore surprising if it was planted in the islands lying on the\nroute. It may be, as indicated above, that some specially powerful\nbody of Hindus coming from the region of Gujarat and professing\nBuddhism founded in Java a new state.\n\nAs to the character of this early Javanese Buddhism we have the\ntestimony of I-Ching that it was of the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school and\nHinayanist. He wrote of what he had seen in Sumatra but of what he\nknew only by hearsay in Java and his statement offers some\ndifficulties. Probably Hinayanism was introduced by Gu\u1e47avarman but\nwas superseded by other teachings which were imported from time to\ntime after they had won for themselves a position in India. For the\ntemple of Kalasan (A.D. 779) is dedicated to T\u00e2r\u00e2 and the inscription\nfound there speaks of the Mahayana with veneration. The later Buddhism\nof Java has literary records which, so far as I know, are unreservedly\nMahayanist but probably the sculptures of Boroboedoer are the most\ndefinite expression which we shall ever have of its earlier phases.\nSince they contain images of the five superhuman Buddhas and of\nnumerous Bodhisattvas, they can hardly be called anything but\nMahayanist. But on the other hand the personality of \u015a\u00e2kyamuni is\nemphasized; his life and previous births are pictured in a long series\nof sculptures and Maitreya is duly honoured. Similar collections of\npictures and images may be seen in Burma which differ doctrinally from\nthose in Java chiefly by substituting the four human Buddhas[440] and\nMaitreya for the superhuman Buddhas. But Mahayanist teaching declares\nthat these human Buddhas are reflexes of counterparts of the\nsuperhuman Buddhas so that the difference is not great.\n\nMahayanist Buddhism in Camboja and at a later period in Java itself\nwas inextricably combined with Hinduism, Buddha being either directly\nidentified with \u015aiva or regarded as the primordial spirit from\nwhich \u015aiva and all gods spring. But the sculptures of Boroboedoer\ndo not indicate that the artists knew of any such amalgamation nor\nhave inscriptions been found there, as in Camboja, which explain this\ncompound theology. It would seem that Buddhism and Brahmanism\nco-existed in the same districts but had not yet begun to fuse\ndoctrinally. The same condition seems to have prevailed in western\nIndia during the seventh and eighth centuries, for the Buddhist caves\nof Ellora, though situated in the neighbourhood of Brahmanic buildings\nand approximating to them in style, contain sculptures which indicate\na purely Buddhist cultus and not a mixed pantheon.\n\nOur meagre knowledge of Javanese history makes it difficult to\nestimate the spheres and relative strength of the two religions. In\nthe plains the Buddhist monuments are more numerous and also more\nancient and we might suppose that the temples of Prambanan indicate\nthe beginning of some change in belief. But the temples on the Dieng\nplateau seem to be of about the same age as the oldest Buddhist\nmonuments. Thus nothing refutes the supposition that Brahmanism\nexisted in Java from the time of the first Hindu colonists and that\nBuddhism was introduced after 400 A.D. It may be that Boroboedoer and\nthe Dieng plateau represent the religious centres of two different\nkingdoms. But this supposition is not necessary for in India, whence\nthe Javanese received their ideas, groups of temples are found of the\nsame age but belonging to different sects. Thus in the Khajraho\ngroup[441] some shrines are Jain and of the rest some are dedicated to\n\u015aiva and some to Vish\u1e47u.\n\nThe earliest records of Javanese Brahmanism, the inscriptions of\nP\u00fbrnavarman, are Vishnuite but the Brahmanism which prevailed in the\neighth and ninth centuries was in the main \u015aivaite, though not of a\nstrongly sectarian type. Brahm\u00e2, Vish\u1e47u and \u015aiva were all\nworshipped both at Prambanan and on the Dieng but \u015aiva together\nwith Gane\u015ba, Durg\u00e2, and Nandi is evidently the chief deity. An\nimage of \u015aiva in the form of Bha\u1e6d\u00e2ra Guru or Mah\u00e2guru is\ninstalled in one of the shrines at Prambanan. This deity is\ncharacteristic of Javanese Hinduism and apparently peculiar to it. He\nis represented as an elderly bearded man wearing a richly ornamented\ncostume. There is something in the pose and drapery which recalls\nChinese art and I think the figure is due to Chinese influence, for at\nthe present day many of the images found in the temples of Bali are\nclearly imitated from Chinese models (or perhaps made by Chinese\nartists) and this may have happened in earlier times. The Chinese\nannals record several instances of religious objects being presented\nby the Emperors to Javanese princes. Though Bha\u1e6d\u00e2ra Guru is only an\naspect of \u015aiva he is a sufficiently distinct personality to have a\nshrine of his own like Gane\u015ba and Durg\u00e2, in temples where the\nprincipal image of \u015aiva is of another kind.\n\nThe same type of Brahmanism lasted at least until the erection of\nPanataran (c. 1150). The temple appears to have been dedicated to\n\u015aiva but like Prambanan it is ornamented with scenes from the\nRamayana and from Vishnuite Pur\u00e2nas[442]. The literature which can be\ndefinitely assigned to the reigns of Djajabaja and Erlangga is\nBrahmanic in tone but both literature and monuments indicate that\nsomewhat later there was a revival of Buddhism. Something similar\nappears to have happened in other countries. In Camboja the\ninscriptions of Jayavarman VII (c. 1185 A.D.) are more definitely\nBuddhist than those of his predecessors and in 1296 Chou Ta-kuan\nregarded the country as mainly Buddhist. Parakrama Bahu of Ceylon\n(1153-1186) was zealous for the faith and so were several kings of\nSiam. I am inclined to think that this movement was a consequence of\nthe flourishing condition of Buddhism at Pagan in Burma from 1050 to\n1250. Pagan certainly stimulated religion in both Siam and Ceylon and\nSiam reacted strongly on Camboja[443]. It is true that the later\nBuddhism of Java was by no means of the Siamese type, but probably the\nidea was current that the great kings of the world were pious\nBuddhists and consequently in most countries the local form of\nBuddhism, whatever it was, began to be held in esteem. Java had\nconstant communication with Camboja and Champa and a king of\nMadjapahit married a princess of the latter country. It is also\npossible that a direct stimulus may have been received from India, for\nthe statement of T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[444] that when Bihar was sacked by the\nMohammedans the Buddhist teachers fled to other regions and that some\nof them went to Camboja is not improbable.\n\nBut though the prestige of Buddhism increased in the thirteenth\ncentury, no rupture with Brahmanism took place and Pali Buddhism does\nnot appear to have entered Java. The unity of the two religions is\nproclaimed: Buddha and Siva are one. But the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan while\nadmitting the Trim\u00fbrti makes it a derivative, and not even a primary\nderivative, of the original Buddha spirit. It has been stated that the\nreligion of Java in the Madjapahit epoch was Sivaism with a little\nBuddhism thrown in, on the understanding that it was merely another\nmethod of formulating the same doctrine. It is very likely that the\nbulk of the population worshipped Hindu deities, for they are the gods\nof this world and dispense its good things. Yet the natives still\nspeak of the old religion as Buddh\u00e2gama; the old times are \"Buddha\ntimes\" and even the flights of stairs leading up to the Dieng plateau\nare called Buddha steps. This would hardly be so if in the Madjapahit\nepoch Buddha had not seemed to be the most striking figure in the\nnon-Mohammedan religion. Also, the majority of _religious_ works which\nhave survived from this period are Buddhist. It is true that we have\nthe Ramayana, the Bh\u00e2rata Yuddha and many other specimens of Brahmanic\nliterature. But these, especially in their Javanese dress, are _belles\nlettres_ rather than theology, whereas Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan and Ku\u00f1jarakarna\nare dogmatic treatises. Hence it would appear that the religious life\nof Madjapahit was rooted in Buddhism, but a most tolerant Buddhism\nwhich had no desire to repudiate Brahmanism.\n\nI have already briefly analysed the Sang Hyang Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan which\nseems to be the most authoritative exposition of this creed. The\nlearned editor has collected many parallels from Tibetan and Nepalese\nworks and similar parallels between Javanese and Tibetan iconography\nhave been indicated by Pleyte[445] and others. The explanation\nmust be that the late forms of Buddhist art and doctrine which\nnourished in Magadha spread to Tibet and Nepal but were also\nintroduced into Java. The Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan appears to be a paraphrase of\na Sanskrit original, perhaps distorted and mutilated. This original\nhas not been identified with any work known to exist in India but\nmight well be a Mahayanist catechism composed there about the eleventh\ncentury. The terminology of the treatise is peculiar, particularly in\ncalling the ultimate principle Advaya and the more personal\nmanifestation of it Divar\u00fbpa. The former term may be paralleled in\nHemacandra and the Amarakosha, which give respectively as synonyms for\nBuddha, advaya (in whom is no duality) and advayav\u00e2din (who preaches\nno duality), but Divar\u00fbpa has not been found in any other work[446].\nIt is also remarkable that the Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan does not teach the\ndoctrine of the three bodies of Buddha[447]. It clearly states[448]\nthat the Divar\u00fbpa is identical with the highest being worshipped by\nvarious sects: with Parama\u015b\u00fbnya, Parama\u015biva, the Purusha of the\nfollowers of Kapila, the Nirgu\u1e47a of the Vishnuites, etc. Many names\nof sects and doctrines are mentioned which remain obscure, but the\ndesire to represent them all as essentially identical is obvious.\n\nThe Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan recognizes the theoretical identity of the highest\nprinciples in Buddhism and Vishnuism[449] but it does not appear that\nVish\u1e47u-Buddha was ever a popular conception like \u015aiva-Buddha or that\nthe compound deity called \u015aiva-Vish\u1e47u, Hari-Hara, \u015aa\u1e47kara-Nar\u00e2ya\u1e47a,\netc., so well known in Camboja, enjoyed much honour in Java, Vish\u1e47u is\nrelegated to a distinctly secondary position and the Javanese version of\nthe Mahabharata is more distinctly \u015aivaite than the Sanskrit text. Still\nhe has a shrine at Prambanan, the story of the Ramayana is depicted\nthere and at Panataran, and various unedited manuscripts contain\nallusions to his worship, more especially to his incarnation as\nNarasimha and to the Garu\u1e0da on which he rides[450].\n\n8\n\n\nAt present nearly all the inhabitants of Java profess Islam although\nthe religion of a few tribes, such as the Tenggarese, is still a\nmixture of Hinduism with indigenous beliefs. But even among nominal\nMoslims some traces of the older creed survive. On festival days such\nmonuments as Boroboedoer and Prambanan are frequented by crowds who,\nif they offer no worship, at least take pleasure in examining the\nancient statues. Some of these however receive more definite honours:\nthey are painted red and modest offerings of flowers and fruit are\nlaid before them. Yet the respect shown to particular images seems due\nnot to old tradition but to modern and wrongheaded interpretations of\ntheir meaning. Thus at Boroboedoer the relief which represents the\ngood tortoise saving a shipwrecked crew receives offerings from women\nbecause the small figures on the tortoise's back are supposed to be\nchildren. The minor forms of Indian mythology still flourish. All\nclasses believe in the existence of raksasas, boetas (bh\u00fbtas) and\nwidadaris (vidy\u00e2dhar\u00ees), who are regarded as spirits similar to the\nJinns of the Arabs. Lakshm\u00ee survives in the female genius believed\neven by rigid Mohammedans to preside over the cultivation of rice and\nthe somewhat disreputable sect known as Santri Birahis are said to\nadore devas and the forces of nature[451]. Less obvious, but more\nimportant as more deeply affecting the national character, is the\ntendency towards mysticism and asceticism. What is known as\nngelmoe[452] plays a considerable part in the religious life of the\nmodern Javanese. The word is simply the Arabic 'ilm (or knowledge)\nused in the sense of secret science. It sometimes signifies mere magic\nbut the higher forms of it, such as the _ngelmoe peling_, are said\nto teach that the contemplative life is the way to the knowledge of\nGod and the attainment of supernatural powers. With such ngelmoe\nis often connected a belief in metempsychosis, in the illusory nature\nof the world, and in the efficacy of regulating the breath. Asceticism\nis still known under the name of t\u00e5p\u00e5 and it is said that there are\nmany recluses who live on alms and spend their time in meditation. The\naffinity of all this to Indian religion is obvious, although the\nJavanese have no idea that it is in any way incompatible with orthodox\nIslam.\n\nIndian religion, which in Java is represented merely by the influence\nof the past on the present, is not dead in Bali[453] where, though\nmuch mixed with aboriginal superstitions, it is still a distinct and\nnational faith, able to hold its own against Mohammedanism and\nChristianity[454].\n\nThe island of Bali is divided from the east coast of Java only by a\nnarrow strait but the inhabitants possess certain characters of their\nown. They are more robust in build, their language is distinct from\nJavanese though belonging to the same group, and even the alphabet\npresents idiosyncrasies. Their laws, social institutions, customs and\ncalendar show many peculiarities, explicable on the supposition that\nthey have preserved the ancient usages of pre-Mohammedan Java. At\npresent the population is divided into the Bali-Agas or aborigines and\nthe Wong Madjapahit who profess to have immigrated from that kingdom.\nThe Chinese references[455] to Bali seem uncertain but, if accepted,\nindicate that it was known in the middle ages as a religious centre.\nIt was probably a colony and dependency of Madjapahit and when\nMadjapahit fell it became a refuge for those who were not willing to\naccept Islam.\n\nCaste is still a social institution in Bali, five classes being\nrecognized, namely Brahmans, Kshatriyas (Satriyas), Vaisyas (Visias),\nSudras and Parias. These distinctions are rigidly observed and though\nintermarriage (which in former times was often punished with death) is\nnow permitted, the offspring are not recognized as belonging to the\ncaste of the superior parent. The bodies of the dead are burned and\nSati, which was formerly frequent, is believed still to take place in\nnoble families. Pork is the only meat used and, as in other Hindu\ncountries, oxen are never slaughtered.\n\nAn idea of the Balinese religion may perhaps be given most easily by\ndescribing some of the temples. These are very abundant: in the\nneighbourhood of Boeleling (the capital) alone I have seen more than\nten of considerable size. As buildings they are not ancient, for the\nstone used is soft and does not last much more than fifty years. But\nwhen the edifices are rebuilt the ancient shape is preserved and what\nwe see in Bali to-day probably represents the style of the middle\nages. The temples consist of two or more courts surrounded by high\nwalls. Worship is performed in the open air: there are various\npyramids, seats, and small shrines like dovecots but no halls or\nrooms. The gates are ornamented with the heads of monsters, especially\nlions with large ears and winglike expansions at the side. The\noutermost gate has a characteristic shape. It somewhat resembles an\nIndian gopuram divided into two parts by a sharp, clean cut in the\nmiddle and tradition quotes in explanation the story of a king who was\nrefused entrance to heaven but cleft a passage through the portal with\nhis sword.\n\nIn the outer court stand various sheds and hollow wooden cylinders\nwhich when struck give a sound like bells. Another ornamented doorway\nleads to the second court where are found some or all of the following\nobjects: (_a_) Sacred trees, especially _Ficus elastica_. (_b_) Sheds\nwith seats for human beings. It is said that on certain occasions\nthese are used by mediums who become inspired by the gods and then\ngive oracles, (_c_) Seats for the gods, generally under sheds. They\nare of various kinds. There is usually one conspicuous chair with an\nornamental back and a scroll hanging behind it which bears some such\ninscription as \"This is the chair of the Bhat\u00e2ra.\" Any deity may be\ninvited to take this seat and receive worship. Sometimes a stone\nlinga is placed upon it. In some temples a stone chair, called\npadm\u00e2sana, is set apart for S\u00fbrya. (_d_) Small shrines two or three\nfeet high, set on posts or pedestals. When well executed they are\nsimilar to the cabinets used in Japanese temples as shrines for images\nbut when, as often happens, they are roughly made they are curiously\nlike dovecots. On them are hung strips of dried palm-leaves in bunches\nlike the Japanese _gohei_. As a rule the shrines contain no image but\nonly a small seat and some objects said to be stones which are\nwrapped up in a cloth and called Artjeh[456]. In some temples (_e.g._\nthe Bale Agoeng at Singaraja) there are erections called Meru,\nsupposed to represent the sacred mountain where the gods reside. They\nconsist of a stout pedestal or basis of brick on which is erected a\ncabinet shrine as already described. Above this are large round discs\nmade of straw and wood, which may be described as curved roofs or\numbrellas. They are from three to five in number and rise one above\nthe other, with slight intervals between them. (_e_) In many temples\n(for instance at Sangsit and Sawan) pyramidal erections are found\neither in addition to the Merus or instead of them. At the end of the\nsecond court is a pyramid in four stages or terraces, often with\nprolongations at the side of the main structure or at right angles to\nit. It is ascended by several staircases, consisting of about\ntwenty-five steps, and at the top are rows of cabinet shrines.\n\nDaily worship is not performed in these temples but offerings are laid\nbefore the shrines from time to time by those who need the help of the\ngods and there are several annual festivals. The object of the ritual\nis not to honour any image or object habitually kept in the temple but\nto induce the gods, who are supposed to be hovering round like birds,\nto seat themselves in the chair provided or to enter into some sacred\nobject, and then receive homage and offerings. Thus both the ideas and\nceremonial are different from those which prevail in Hindu temples and\nhave more affinity with Polynesian beliefs. The deities are called\nDewa, but many of them are indigenous nature spirits (especially\nmountain spirits) such as Dewa Gunung Agung, who are sometimes\nidentified with Indian gods.\n\nSomewhat different are the Durg\u00e2 temples. These are dedicated to the\nspirits of the dead but the images of Durg\u00e2 and her attendant Kaliki\nreceive veneration in them, much as in Hindu temples. But on the whole\nthe Malay or Polynesian element seemed to me to be in practice stronger\nthan Hinduism in the religion of the Balinese and this is borne out by\nthe fact that the P\u0115mangku or priest of the indigenous gods ranks higher\nthan the P\u0115danda or Brahman priest. But by talking to Balinese one may\nobtain a different impression, for they are proud of their connection\nwith Madjapahit and Hinduism: they willingly speak of such subjects and\nHindu deities are constantly represented in works of art. Gane\u015ba, Indra,\nVish\u1e47u, K\u1e5bish\u1e47a, S\u00fbrya, Garu\u1e0da and \u015aiva, as well as the heroes of\nthe Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, are well known but I have not heard of worship being\noffered to any of them except Durg\u00e2 and \u015aiva under the form of the\nlinga. Figures of Vish\u1e47u riding on Garu\u1e0da are very common and a\ncertain class of artificers are able to produce images of all well known\nIndian gods for those who care to order them. Many Indian works such as\nthe Veda, Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, Brahm\u00e2pur\u00e2\u1e47a and N\u00eeti\u015b\u00e2stra are known\nby name and are said to exist not in the original Sanskrit but in Kawi.\nI fancy that they are rarely read by the present generation, but any\nknowledge of them is much respected. The Balinese though confused in\ntheir theology are greatly attached to their religion and believe it is\nthe ancient faith of Madjapahit.\n\nI was unable to discover in the neighbourhood of Singar\u00e2ja even such\nfaint traces of Buddhism as have been reported by previous\nauthors[457], but they may exist elsewhere. The expression\n\u015aiva-Buddha was known to the P\u0115dandas but seemed to have no\nliving significance, and perhaps certain families have a traditional\nand purely nominal connection with Buddhism. In Durg\u00e2 temples however\nI have seen figures described as Pusa, the Chinese equivalent of\nBodhisattva, and it seems that Chinese artists have reintroduced into\nthis miscellaneous pantheon an element of corrupt Buddhism, though\nthe natives do not recognize it as such.\n\nThe art of Bali is more fantastic than that of ancient Java. The\ncarved work, whether in stone or wood, is generally polychromatic.\nFigures are piled one on the top of another as in the sculptures of\nCentral America and there is a marked tendency to emphasize\nprojections. Leaves and flowers are very deeply carved and such\nfeatures as ears, tongues and teeth are monstrously prolonged. Thus\nBalinese statues and reliefs have a curiously bristling and scaly\nappearance and are apt to seem barbaric, especially if taken\nseparately[458]. Yet the general aspect of the temples is not\nunpleasing. The brilliant colours and fantastic outlines harmonize\nwith the tropical vegetation which surrounds them and suggest that the\nguardian deities take shape as gorgeous insects. Such bizarre figures\nare not unknown in Indian mythology but in Balinese art Chinese\ninfluence is perhaps stronger than Indian. The Chinese probably\nfrequented the island as early as the Hindus and are now found there\nin abundance. Besides the statues called Pusa already mentioned,\nChinese landscapes are often painted behind the seats of the Devas and\nin the temple on the Volcano Batoer, where a special place is assigned\nto all the Balinese tribes, the Chinese have their own shrine. It is\nsaid that the temples in southern Bali which are older and larger than\nthose in the north show even more decided signs of Chinese influence\nand are surrounded by stone figures of Chinese as guardians.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 369: I have not been able to find anything more than casual\nand second-hand statements to the effect that Indian antiquities have\nbeen found in these islands.]\n\n[Footnote 370: There is no lack of scholarly and scientific works\nabout Java, but they are mostly written in Dutch and dissertations on\nspecial points are more numerous than general surveys of Javanese\nhistory, literature and architecture. Perhaps the best general account\nof the Hindu period in Java will be found in the chapter contributed\nby Kern to the publication called _Neerlands Indi\u00eb_ (Amsterdam, 1911,\nchap. VI. II. pp. 219-242). The abundant publications of the\nBataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen comprise\n_Verhandelingen, Notulen_, and the _Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-,\nLand-, en Volkenkunde_ (cited here as _Tijdschrift_), all of which\ncontain numerous and important articles on history, philology,\nreligion and arch\u00e6ology. The last is treated specially in the\npublications called _Archaeologisch Onderzoek op Java en Madura_.\nVeth's _Java_, vols. I. and IV. and various articles in the\n_Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indi\u00eb_ may also be consulted. I have\nendeavoured to mention the more important editions of Javanese books\nas well as works dealing specially with the old religion in the notes\nto these chapters.\n\nAlthough Dutch orthography is neither convenient nor familiar to most\nreaders I have thought it better to preserve it in transcribing\nJavanese. In this system of transcription j = y; tj = ch; dj = j; sj = sh;\nw = v; oe = u.]\n\n[Footnote 371: R\u00e2m. IV. 40. 30. Yavadv\u00eepam saptar\u00e2jyopa\u015bobhitam\nSuvar\u1e47ar\u00fbpyakadv\u00eepam suvar\u1e47akarama\u1e47\u1e0ditam.]\n\n[Footnote 372: Ptolemy's _Geography_, VII. 2. 29 (see also VIII. 27,\n10). _\u1f38\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (\u1f22 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5), \u1f45 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. \u0395\u1f50\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_.]\n\n[Footnote 373: The Milinda Pa\u00f1h\u00e2 of doubtful but not very late date\nalso mentions voyages to China.]\n\n[Footnote 374: Groeneveldt, _Notes on the Malay Archipelago compiled\nfrom Chinese sources_, 1876 (cited below as Groeneveldt), p. 10.\nConfirmed by the statement in the Ming annals book 324 that in 1432\nthe Javanese said their kingdom had been founded 1376 years before.]\n\n[Footnote 375: Kern in _Versl. en Med. K. Ak. v. W. Afd. Lett. 3 Rks_.\nI. 1884, pp. 5-12.]\n\n[Footnote 376: Chap. XL. Legge, p. 113, and Groeneveldt, pp. 6-9.]\n\n[Footnote 377: He perhaps landed in the present district of Rembang\n\"where according to native tradition the first Hindu settlement was\nsituated at that time\" (Groeneveldt, p. 9).]\n\n[Footnote 378: Groeneveldt, p. 9. The transcriptions of Chinese\ncharacters given in the following pages do not represent the modern\nsound but seem justified (though they cannot be regarded as certain)\nby the instances collected in Julien's _M\u00e9thode pour d\u00e9chiffrer et\ntranscrire les noms sanscrits_. Possibly the syllables Do-a-lo-pa-mo\nare partly corrupt and somehow or other represent P\u00fbr\u1e47avarman.]\n\n[Footnote 379: Kern in _Versl. en Meded, Afd. Lett. 2 R._ XI. _D_.\n1882.]\n\n[Footnote 380: Groeneveldt, pp. 12, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 381: Groeneveldt, p. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 382: _History of Java_, vol. II. chap. X.]\n\n[Footnote 383: Jackson, _Java and Cambodja_. App. IV. in _Bombay\nGazetteer_, vol. I. part 1, 1896.]\n\n[Footnote 384: It is also possible that when the Javanese traditions\nspeak of Kaling they mean the Malay Peninsula. Indians in those\nregions were commonly known as Kaling because they came from Kalinga\nand in time the parts of the Peninsula where they were numerous were\nalso called Kaling.]\n\n[Footnote 385: See for this question Pelliot in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp.\n274 ff. Also Schlegel in _T'oung Pao_, 1899, p. 247, and Chavannes,\n_ib_. 1904, p. 192.]\n\n[Footnote 386: Chap. xxxix. Schiefner, p. 262.]\n\n[Footnote 387: Though he expressly includes Camboja and Champa in\nKoki, it is only right to say that he mentions Nas-gling\n( = Yava-dvipa) separately in another enumeration together with Ceylon.\nBut if Buddhists passed in any numbers from India to Camboja and _vice\nversa_, they probably appeared in Java about the same time, or rather\nlater.]\n\n[Footnote 388: See Kamaha. pp. 9, 10, and Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II.\npp. 209-214.]\n\n[Footnote 389: They preserve to some extent the old civilization of\nMadjapahit. See the article \"Tengereezen\" in _Encyclopaedie van\nNederlandsch-Indi\u00eb._]\n\n[Footnote 390: See Kern, _Kawi-studien Arjuna-viv\u00e2ha_, I. and II.\n1871. Juynboll, _Drie Boeken van het oudjavaansche Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata_, 1893,\nand _id. Wir\u00e2taparwwa_, 1912. This last is dated \u015aaka 918 = 996\nA.D.]\n\n[Footnote 391: Or Jayabaya.]\n\n[Footnote 392: See _R\u00e2m\u00e2yana. Oudjavaansche Heldendicht_, edited Kern,\n1900, and _W\u1e5btta Sa\u00f1caya_, edited and translated by the same,\n1875.]\n\n[Footnote 393: Composed in 1613 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 394: Groeneveldt, p. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 395: In the work commonly called \"N\u00e2garakr\u0115t\u00e2gama\" (ed.\nBrandes, _Verhand. Bataav. Genootschap._ LIV. 1902), but it is stated\nthat its real name is \"De\u00e7awar\u1e47nana.\" See _Tijdschrift_, LVI. 1914,\np. 194.]\n\n[Footnote 396: Or Jayakatong.]\n\n[Footnote 397: Groeneveldt, pp. 20-34.]\n\n[Footnote 398: Groeneveldt, pp. 34-53.]\n\n[Footnote 399: Near Soerabaja. It is said that he married a daughter\nof the king of Champa, and that the king of Madjapahit married her\nsister. For the connection between the royal families of Java and\nChampa at this period see Masp\u00e9ro in _T'oung Pao_, 1911, pp. 595 ff.,\nand the references to Champa in N\u00e2garakr\u0115tagama, 15, 1, and 83, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 400: See Raffles, chap, X, for Javanese traditions\nrespecting the decline and fall of Madjapahit.]\n\n[Footnote 401: See Takakusu, _A record of the Buddhist religion_,\nespecially pp. xl to xlvi.]\n\n[Footnote 402: In another pronunciation the characters are read\nSan-fo-chai. The meaning appears to be The Three Buddhas.]\n\n[Footnote 403: _E.g._ Si-li-ma-ha-la-sha ( = \u015ar\u00eemah\u00e2r\u00e2j\u00e2)\nSi-li-tieh-hwa (perhaps = \u015ar\u00eedeva).]\n\n[Footnote 404: The conquest however was incomplete and about 1400 a\nChinese adventurer ruled there some time. The name was changed to\nKu-Kang, which is said to be still the Chinese name for Palembang.]\n\n[Footnote 405: The Ming annals expressly state that the name was\nchanged to Atjeh about 1600.]\n\n[Footnote 406: For the identification of Po-li see Groeneveldt, p. 80,\nand Hose and McDougall, _Pagan Tribes of Borneo_, chap. II. It might\nbe identified with Bali, but it is doubtful if Hindu civilization had\nspread to that island or even to east Java in the sixth century.]\n\n[Footnote 407: See Hose and McDougall, _l.c._ p. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 408: See Kern, \"Over de Opschriften uit Koetei\" in\n_Verslagen Meded. Afd. Lett. 2 R. XI. D._ Another inscription\napparently written in debased Indian characters but not yet deciphered\nhas been found in Sanggau, south-west Borneo.]\n\n[Footnote 409: Groeneveldt, p. 81. The characters may be read\nKau-\u1e0di-nya according to Julien's method. The reference is to Liang\nannals, book 54.]\n\n[Footnote 410: See Pleyte, _Die Buddhalegende in den Sculpturen von\nBorobudur_. But he points out that the version of the Lalita Vistara\nfollowed by the artist is not quite the same as the one that we\npossess.]\n\n[Footnote 411: Amit\u00e2bha, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasambhava, Akshobhya,\nVairocana, sometimes called Dhy\u00e2n\u00ee Buddhas, but it does not seem that\nthis name was in common use in Java or elsewhere. The Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan\ncalls them the Five Tath\u00e2gatas.]\n\n[Footnote 412: So in the Kunjarakarna, for which see below. The\nKamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan teaches an elaborate system of Buddha emanations but for\npurposes of worship it is not quite clear which should be adored as\nthe highest.]\n\n[Footnote 413: Fergusson, _History of Indian and Eastern\nArchitecture_, ed. 1910, vol. II. p. 439.]\n\n[Footnote 414: See _Archaeologisch Onderzoek op Java en Madura_, I.\n\"Tjandi Djago,\" 1904; II. \"Tj. Singasari en Panataran,\" 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 415: See Knebel in _Tijds. voor Indische T., L. en\nVolkenkunde_, 41, 1909, p. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 416: See passages quoted in _Archaeol. Onderzoek_, I. pp.\n96-97.]\n\n[Footnote 417: Hayagr\u00eeva however may be regarded as a Brahmanic god\nadopted by the Buddhists.]\n\n[Footnote 418: See for reasons and references _Archaeol. Onderzoek_,\nII. pp. 36-40. The principal members of the king's household probably\ncommitted suicide during the funeral ceremonies.]\n\n[Footnote 419: Kern in _Tijds. voor T., L. en Volkenkunde_, Deel LII.\n1910, p. 107. Similarly in Burma Alompra was popularly regarded as a\nBodhisattva.]\n\n[Footnote 420: Sanskrit Kavi, a poet. See for Javanese literature Van\nder Tuuk in _J.R.A.S._ XIII. 1881, p. 42, and Hinloopen Labberton,\n_ib_. 1913, p. 1. Also the article \"Litteratuur\" in the _Encyc. van\nNederlandsch-Indi\u00eb_, and many notices in the writings of Kern and\nVeth.]\n\n[Footnote 421: Edited by Gunning, 1903.]\n\n[Footnote 422: A fragment of it is printed in _Notulen. Batav. Gen_.\nLII. 1914, 108.]\n\n[Footnote 423: Episodes of the Indian epics have also been used as the\nsubjects of Javanese dramas. See Juynboll, _Indonesische en\nachterindische tooneelvoorstellingen uit het R\u00e2m\u00e2yana_, and Hinloopen\nLabberton, _Pepakem Sapanti Sakoentala_, 1912.]\n\n[Footnote 424: Juynboll, _Drie Boeken van het Oudjavaansche\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata_, p. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 425: _Archaeol. Onderzoek_, I. p. 98. This statement is\nabundantly confirmed by Krom's index of the proper names in the\nN\u00e2garakr\u0115t\u00e2gama in _Tijdschrift_, LVI. 1914, pp. 495 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 426: Edited with transl. and notes by J. Kat, 's Gravenhage,\n1910.]\n\n[Footnote 427: Edited with transl. by H. Kern in _Verh. der K.\nAkademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afd. Lett. N.R._ III. 3.\n1901.]\n\n[Footnote 428: But this probably represents nizb\u00e2\u1e47a and is not a\nPali form. Cf. Bajra, B\u00e2yu for Vajra, V\u00e2yu.]\n\n[Footnote 429: Ady\u00e2bhishikt\u00e2yushmanta, p. 30. Pr\u00e2ptam buddhatvam\nbhavadbhir, _ib_. and Esha m\u00e2rga varah \u015br\u00eem\u00e2n mah\u00e2y\u00e2na mahodayah\nYena y\u00fbyam gamishyanto bhavishyatha Tath\u00e2gat\u00e2h.]\n\n[Footnote 430: D\u00e2na, \u015b\u00eela, ksh\u00e2nti, v\u00eerya, dhy\u00e2na, praj\u00f1\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 431: Maitr\u00ee, karun\u00e2, mudit\u00e2, upeksh\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 432: The K\u00e2ra\u1e47\u1e0davy\u00fbha teaches a somewhat similar\ndoctrine of creative emanations. Avalokita, Brahm\u00e2, \u015aiva, Vish\u1e47u\nand others all are evolved from the original Buddha spirit and proceed\nto evolve the world.]\n\n[Footnote 433: The use of this word, as a name for the residence of\nVairocana, seems to be peculiar to our author.]\n\n[Footnote 434: This term may include \u015aivaite ascetics as well as\nBuddhist monks.]\n\n[Footnote 435: See further discussion in Kern's edition, p. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 436: As are the Panchpirs in modern India.]\n\n[Footnote 437: Garbha. Up. 1 and 3, especially the phrase asmin\npanc\u00e2tmake \u015bar\u00eere. Pi\u1e47\u1e0da Up. 2. Bhinne panc\u00e2tmake dehe. Mah\u00e2\nN\u00e2r. Up. 23. Sa v\u00e2 esha purusha\u1e25 pancadh\u00e2 panc\u00e2tm\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 438: See Kern, \"Over de Vermenging van Civaisme en Buddhisme\nop J\u00e2va\" in _Vers. en Meded. der Kon. Akad. van Wet. Afd. Lett_. 3 _R.\n5 Deel_, 1888.\n\nFor the Sutasomaj\u00e2taka see Speyer's translation of the J\u00e2takam\u00e2l\u00e2, pp.\n291-313, with his notes and references. It is No. 537 in the Pali\nCollection of J\u00e2takas.]\n\n[Footnote 439: See Nanjio Cat. Nos. 137, 138.]\n\n[Footnote 440: Gotama, Kassapa, Kon\u00e2gamana and Kakusandha.]\n\n[Footnote 441: About 950-1050 A.D. Fergusson, _Hist. of Indian\nArchitecture_, II. p. 141.]\n\n[Footnote 442: See Knebel, \"Recherches pr\u00e9paratoires concernant\nKrishna et les bas reliefs des temples de Java\" in _Tijdschrift_, LI.\n1909, pp. 97-174.]\n\n[Footnote 443: In Camboja the result seems to have been double. Pali\nBuddhism entered from Siam and ultimately conquered all other forms of\nreligion, but for some time Mahayanist Buddhism, which was older in\nCamboja, revived and received Court patronage.]\n\n[Footnote 444: Chap. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 445: \"Bijdrage tot de Kennis van het Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na opJava\" in\n_Bijd. tot de Taal Lund en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indi\u00eb_, 1901\nand 1902.]\n\n[Footnote 446: This use of advaya and advayav\u00e2din strengthens the\nsuspicion that the origins of the Advaita philosophy are to be sought\nin Buddhism.]\n\n[Footnote 447: It uses the word trik\u00e2ya but expressly defines it as\nmeaning K\u00e2ya, v\u00e2k and citta.]\n\n[Footnote 448: In a passage which is not translated from the Sanskrit\nand may therefore reflect the religious condition of Java.]\n\n[Footnote 449: So too in the Sutasoma J\u00e2taka Amoghasiddhi is said to\nbe Vish\u1e47u.]\n\n[Footnote 450: See Juynboll in _Bijdragen tot de Taal Land en\nVolkenkunde van Ned.-Indi\u00eb_, 1908, pp. 412-420.]\n\n[Footnote 451: Veth, _Java_, vol. IV. p. 154. The whole chapter\ncontains much information about the Hindu elements in modern Javanese\nreligion.]\n\n[Footnote 452: See Veth, _l.c._ and _ngelmoe_ in _Encycl. van\nNederlandsch-Indi\u00eb. _]\n\n[Footnote 453: Also to some extent in Lombok. The Balinese were\nformerly the ruling class in this island and are still found there in\nconsiderable numbers.]\n\n[Footnote 454: It has even been suggested that hinduized Malays\ncarried some faint traces of Indian religion to Madagascar. See\n_T'oung Pao_ 1906, p. 93, where Zanahari is explained as Yang ( = God\nin Malay) Hari.]\n\n[Footnote 455: Groeneveldt, pp. 19, 58, 59.]\n\n[Footnote 456: This word appears to be the Sanskrit area, an image for\nworship.]\n\n[Footnote 457: _E.g._ Van Eerde, \"Hindu Javaansche en Balische\nEeredienst\" in _Bijd. T.L. en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indi\u00eb_,\n1910. I visited Bali in 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 458: See Pleyte, _Indonesian Art_, 1901, especially the\nseven-headed figure in plate XVI said to be Krishna.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLI\n\nCENTRAL ASIA\n\n1\n\n\nThe term Central Asia is here used to denote the Tarim basin, without\nrigidly excluding neighbouring countries such as the Oxus region and\nBadakshan. This basin is a depression surrounded on three sides by\nhigh mountains: only on the east is the barrier dividing it from China\nrelatively low. The water of the whole area discharges through the\nmany branched Tarim river into Lake Lobnor. This so-called lake is now\nmerely a flooded morass and the basin is a desert with occasional\noases lying chiefly near its edges. The fertile portions were formerly\nmore considerable but a quarter of a century ago this remote and\nlonely region interested no one but a few sportsmen and geographers.\nThe results of recent exploration have been important and surprising.\nThe arid sands have yielded not only ruins, statues and frescoes but\nwhole libraries written in a dozen languages. The value of such\ndiscoveries for the general history of Asia is clear and they are of\ncapital importance for our special subject, since during many\ncenturies the Tarim region and its neighbouring lands were centres and\nhighways for Buddhism and possibly the scene of many changes whose\norigin is now obscure. But I am unfortunate in having to discuss\nCentral Asian Buddhism before scholars have had time to publish or\neven catalogue completely the store of material collected and the\nreader must remember that the statements in this chapter are at best\ntentative and incomplete. They will certainly be supplemented and\nprobably corrected as year by year new documents and works of art are\nmade known.\n\nTarim, in watery metaphor, is not so much a basin as a pool in a tidal\nriver flowing alternately to and from the sea. We can imagine that in\nsuch a pool creatures of very different provenance might be found\ntogether. So currents both from east to west and from west to east\npassed through the Tarim, leaving behind whatever could live there:\nChinese administration and civilization from the east: Iranians\nfrom the west, bearing with them in the stream fragments that had\ndrifted from Asia Minor and Byzantium, while still other currents\nbrought Hindus and Tibetans from the south.\n\nOne feature of special interest in the history of the Tarim is that it\nwas in touch with Bactria and the regions conquered by Alexander and\nthrough them with western art and thought. Another is that its\ninhabitants included not only Iranian tribes but the speakers of an\nAryan language hitherto unknown, whose presence so far east may oblige\nus to revise our views about the history of the Aryan race. A third\ncharacteristic is that from the dawn of history to the middle ages\nwarlike nomads were continually passing through the country. All these\npeople, whether we call them Iranians, Turks or Mongols had the same\npeculiarity: they had little culture of their own but they picked up\nand transported the ideas of others. The most remarkable example of\nthis is the introduction of Islam into Europe and India. Nothing quite\nso striking happened in earlier ages, yet tribes similar to the Turks\nbrought Manich\u00e6ism and Nestorian Christianity into China and played no\nsmall part in the introduction of Buddhism.\n\nA brief catalogue of the languages represented in the manuscripts and\ninscriptions discovered will give a safe if only provisional idea of\nthe many influences at work in Central Asia and its importance as a\nreceiving and distributing centre. The number of tongues\nsimultaneously in use for popular or learned purposes was remarkably\nlarge. To say nothing of great polyglot libraries like Tun-huang, a\nsmall collection at Toyog is reported as containing Indian, Manich\u00e6an,\nSyriac, Sogdian, Uigur and Chinese books. The writing materials\nemployed were various like the idioms and include imported palm\nleaves, birch bark, plates of wood or bamboo, leather and paper, which\nlast was in use from the first century A.D. onwards. In this dry\natmosphere all enjoyed singular longevity.\n\nNumerous Sanskrit writings have been found, all dealing with religious\nor quasi religious subjects, as medicine and grammar were then\nconsidered to be. Relatively modern Mahayanist literature is abundant\nbut greater interest attaches to portions of an otherwise lost\nSanskrit canon which agree in substance though not verbally with the\ncorresponding passages in the Pali Canon and are apparently the\noriginal text from which much of the Chinese Tripitaka was\ntranslated. The manuscripts hitherto published include S\u00fbtras from the\nSamyukta and Ekottara Agamas, a considerable part of the Dharmapada,\nand the Pr\u00e2timoksha of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school. Fa-Hsien states that\nthe monks of Central Asia were all students of the language of India\nand even in the seventh century Hs\u00fcan Chuang tells us the same of\nKucha. Portions of a Sanskrit grammar have been found near Turfan and\nin the earlier period at any rate Sanskrit was probably understood in\npolite and learned society. Some palm leaves from Ming-\u014ei contain\nfragments of two Buddhist religious dramas, one of which is the\nS\u00e2riputra-prakara\u1e47a of A\u015bvaghosha. The handwriting is believed\nto date from the epoch of Kanishka so that we have here the oldest\nknown Sanskrit manuscripts, as well as the oldest specimens of Indian\ndramatic art[459]. They are written like the Indian classical dramas\nin Sanskrit and various forms of Pr\u00e2krit. The latter represent\nhitherto unknown stages in the development of Indian dialects and some\nof them are closely allied to the language of A\u015boka's inscriptions.\nAnother Pr\u00e2krit text is the version of the Dharmapada written in\nKharosh\u1e6dh\u00ee characters and discovered by the Dutreuil de Rhins\nmission near Khotan[460], and numerous official documents in this\nlanguage and alphabet have been brought home by Stein from the same\nregion. It is probable that they are approximately coeval with the\nKushan dynasty in India and the use of an Indian vernacular as well as\nof Sanskrit in Central Asia shows that the connection between the two\ncountries was not due merely to the introduction of Buddhism.\n\nBesides these hitherto unknown forms of Pr\u00e2krit, Central Asia has\nastonished the learned world with two new languages, both written in a\nspecial variety of the Brahmi alphabet called Central Asian Gupta. One\nis sometimes called Nordarisch and is regarded by some authorities as\nthe language of the \u015aakas whose incursions into India appear to\nhave begun about the second century B.C. and by others as the language\nof the Kushans and of Kanishka's Empire. It is stated that the basis\nof the language is Iranian but strongly influenced by Indian\nidioms[461]. Many translations of Mahayanist literature (for\ninstance the Suvar\u1e47aprabh\u00e2sa, Vajracchedik\u00e2 and Aparimit\u00e2yus\nS\u00fbtras) were made into it and it appears to have been spoken\nprincipally in the southern part of the Tarim basin[462]. The other\nnew language was spoken principally on its northern edge and has been\ncalled Tokharian, which name implies that it was the tongue of the\nTokhars or Indoscyths[463]. But there is no proof of this and it is\nsafer to speak of it as the language of Kucha or Kuchanese. It exists\nin two different dialects known as A and B whose geographical\ndistribution is uncertain but numerous official documents dated in the\nfirst half of the seventh century show that it was the ordinary speech\nof Kucha and Turfan. It was also a literary language and among the\nmany translations discovered are versions in it of the Dharmapada and\nVinaya. It is extremely interesting to find that this language spoken\nby the early and perhaps original inhabitants of Kucha not only\nbelongs to the Aryan family but is related more nearly to the western\nthan the eastern branch. It cannot be classed in the Indo-Iranian\ngroup but shows perplexing affinities to Latin, Greek, Keltic,\nSlavonic and Armenian[464]. It is possible that it influenced Chinese\nBuddhist literature[465].\n\nBesides the \"Nordarisch\" mentioned above which was written in Brahmi,\nthree other Iranian languages have left literary remains in Central\nAsia, all written in an alphabet of Aramaic origin. Two of them\napparently represent the speech of south-western Persia under the\nSassanids, and of north-western Persia under the Arsacids. The texts\npreserved in both are Manich\u00e6an but the third Iranian language, or\nSogdian, has a more varied literary content and offers Buddhist,\nManich\u00e6an and Christian texts, apparently in that chronological order.\nIt was originally the language of the region round Samarkand but\nacquired an international character for it was used by merchants\nthroughout the Tarim basin and spread even to China. Some Christian\ntexts in Syriac have also been found.\n\nThe Orkhon inscriptions exhibit an old Turkish dialect written in the\ncharacters commonly called Runes and this Runic alphabet is used in\nmanuscripts found at Tun-huang and Miran but those hitherto published\nare not Buddhist. But another Turkish dialect written in the Uigur\nalphabet, which is derived from the Syriac, was (like Sogdian)\nextensively used for Buddhist, Manich\u00e6an and Christian literature. The\nname Uigur is perhaps more correctly applied to the alphabet than the\nlanguage[466] which appears to have been the literary form of the\nvarious Turkish idioms spoken north and south of the Tien-shan. The\nuse of this dialect for Buddhist literature spread considerably when\nthe Uigurs broke the power of Tibet in the Tarim basin about 860 and\nfounded a kingdom themselves: it extended into China and lasted long,\nfor S\u00fbtras in Uigur were printed at Peking in 1330 and Uigur\nmanuscripts copied in the reign of K'ang Hsi (1662-1723) are reported\nfrom a monastery near Suchow[467]. I am informed that a variety of\nthis alphabet written in vertical columns is still used in some parts\nof Kansu where a Turkish dialect is spoken. Though Turkish was used by\nBuddhists in both the east and west of the Tarim basin, it appears to\nhave been introduced into Khotan only after the Moslim conquest.\nAnother Semitic script, hitherto unknown and found only in a\nfragmentary form, is believed to be the writing of the White Huns or\nHephthalites.\n\nAs the Tibetans were the predominant power in the Tarim basin from at\nleast the middle of the eighth until the middle of the ninth century,\nit is not surprising that great stores of Tibetan manuscripts have\nbeen found in the regions of Khotan, Miran and Tun-huang. In Turfan,\nas lying more to the north, traces of Tibetan influence, though not\nabsent, are fewer. The documents discovered must be anterior to\nthe ninth century and comprise numerous official and business papers\nas well as Buddhist translations[468]. They are of great importance\nfor the history of the Tibetan language and also indicate that at the\nperiod when they were written Buddhism at most shared with the B\u00f6n\nreligion the allegiance of the Tibetans. No Manich\u00e6an or Christian\ntranslations in Tibetan have yet been discovered.\n\nVast numbers of Chinese texts both religious and secular are preserved\nin all the principal centres and offer many points of interest among\nwhich two may be noticed. Firstly the posts on the old military\nfrontier near Tun-huang have furnished a series of dated documents\nranging from 98 B.C. to 153 A.D.[469] There is therefore no difficulty\nin admitting that there was intercourse between China and Central Asia\nat this period. Secondly, some documents of the T'ang dynasty are\nManich\u00e6an, with an admixture of Buddhist and Taoist ideas[470].\n\nThe religious monuments of Central Asia comprise stupas, caves and\ncovered buildings used as temples or vih\u00e2ras. Buddhist, Manich\u00e6an and\nChristian edifices have been discovered but apparently no shrines of\nthe Zoroastrian religion, though it had many adherents in these\nregions, and though representations of Hindu deities have been found,\nHinduism is not known to have existed apart from Buddhism[471]. Caves\ndecorated for Buddhist worship are found not only in the Tarim basin\nbut at Tun-huang on the frontier of China proper, near Ta-t'ung-fu in\nnorthern Shensi, and in the defile of Lung-m\u00ean in the province of\nHo-nan. The general scheme and style of these caves are similar, but\nwhile in the last two, as in most Indian caves, the figures and\nornaments are true sculpture, in the caves of Tun-huang and the Tarim\nnot only is the wall prepared for frescoes, but even the figures are\nexecuted in stucco. This form of decoration was congenial to Central\nAsia for the images which embellished the temple walls were moulded in\nthe same fashion. Temples and caves were sometimes combined, for\ninstance at B\u00e4z\u00e4klik where many edifices were erected on a terrace in\nfront of a series of caves excavated in a mountain corner. Few\nroofed buildings are well preserved but it seems certain that some\nwere high quadrilateral structures, crowned by a dome of a shape found\nin Persia, and that others had barrel-shaped roofs, apparently\nresembling the chaityas of Ter and Chezarla[472]. Le Coq states that\nthis type of architecture is also found in Persia[473]. The commonest\ntype of temple was a hall having at its further end a cella, with a\npassage behind to allow of circumambulation. Such halls were\nfrequently enlarged by the addition of side rooms and sometimes a\nshrine was enclosed by several rectangular courts[474].\n\nMany stupas have been found either by themselves or in combination\nwith other buildings. The one which is best preserved (or at any rate\nreproduced in greatest detail)[475] is the Stupa of Rawak. It is set\nin a quadrangle bounded by a wall which was ornamented on both its\ninner and outer face by a series of gigantic statues in coloured\nstucco. The dome is set upon a rectangular base disposed in three\nstories and this arrangement is said to characterize all the stupas of\nTurkestan as well as those of the Kabul valley and adjacent regions.\n\nThis architecture appears to owe nothing to China but to include both\nIndian (especially Gandharan) and Persian elements. Many of its\nremarkable features, if not common elsewhere, are at least widely\nscattered. Thus some of the caves at Ming-\u014ei have dome-like roofs\nornamented with a pattern composed of squares within squares, set at\nan angle with each other. A similar ornamentation is reported from\nPandrenthan in Kashmir and from Bamian[476].\n\nThe antiquities of Central Asia include frescoes executed on the walls\nof caves and buildings, and paintings on silk paper[477]. The origin\nand affinities of this art are still the subject of investigation and\nany discussion of them would lead me too far from my immediate\nsubject. But a few statements can be made with some confidence.\nThe influence of Gandhara is plain in architecture, sculpture, and\npainting. The oldest works may be described as simply Gandharan but\nthis early style is followed by another which shows a development both\nin technique and in mythology. It doubtless represents Indian Buddhist\nart as modified by local painters and sculptors. Thus in the Turfan\nfrescoes the drapery and composition are Indian but the faces are\neastern asiatic. Sometimes however they represent a race with red hair\nand blue eyes.\n\nOn the whole the paintings testify to the invasion of Far Eastern art\nby the ideas and designs of Indian Buddhism rather than to an equal\ncombination of Indian and Chinese influence but in some forms of\ndecoration, particularly that employed in the Khan's palace at\nIdiqutsh\u00e4hri[478], Chinese style is predominant. It may be too that\nthe early pre-buddhist styles of painting in China and Central Asia\nwere similar. In the seventh century a Khotan artist called Wei-ch'ih\nPo-chih-na migrated to China, where both he and his son Wei-ch'ih\nI-s\u00eang acquired considerable fame.\n\nPersian influence also is manifest in many paintings. A striking\ninstance may be seen in two plates published by Stein[479] apparently\nrepresenting the same Boddhisattva. In one he is of the familiar\nIndian type: the other seems at first sight a miniature of some\nPersian prince, black-bearded and high-booted, but the figure has four\narms. As might be expected, it is the Manich\u00e6an paintings which are\nleast Indian in character. They represent a \"lost late antique\nschool[480]\" which often recalls Byzantine art and was perhaps the\nparent of medi\u00e6val Persian miniature painting.\n\nThe paintings of Central Asia resemble its manuscripts. It is\nimpossible to look through any collection of them without feeling that\ncurrents of art and civilization flowing from neighbouring and even\nfrom distant lands have met and mingled in this basin. As the reader\nturns over the albums of Stein, Gr\u00fcnwedel or Le Coq he is haunted by\nstrange reminiscences and resemblances, and wonders if they are merely\ncoincidences or whether the pedigrees of these pictured gods and men\nreally stretch across time and space to far off origins. Here are\ncoins and seals of Hellenic design, nude athletes that might adorn a\nGreek vase, figures that recall Egypt, Byzantium or the Bayeux\ntapestry, with others that might pass for Christian ecclesiastics;\nChinese sages, K\u1e5bish\u1e47a dancing to the sound of his flute,\nfrescoes that might be copied from Ajanta, winged youths to be styled\ncupids or cherubs according to our mood[481].\n\nStein mentions[482] that he discovered a Buddhist monastery in the\nterminal marshes of the Helmund in the Persian province of Seistan,\ncontaining paintings of a Hellenistic type which show \"for the first\ntime _in situ_ the Iranian link of the chain which connects the\nGr\u00e6co-Buddhist art of extreme north-west India with the Buddhist art\nof Central Asia and the Far East.\"\n\nCentral Asian art is somewhat wanting in spontaneity. Except when\npainting portraits (which are many) the artists do not seem to go to\nnature or even their own imagination and visions. They seem concerned\nto reproduce some religious scene not as they saw it but as it was\nrepresented by Indian or other artists.\n\n2\n\n\nOnly one side of Central Asian history can be written with any\ncompleteness, namely its relations with China. Of these some account\nwith dates can be given, thanks to the Chinese annals which\nincidentally supply valuable information about earlier periods. But\nunfortunately these relations were often interrupted and also the\npolitical record does not always furnish the data which are of most\nimportance for the history of Buddhism. Still there is no better\nframework available for arranging our data. But even were our\ninformation much fuller, we should probably find the history of\nCentral Asia scrappy and disconnected. Its cities were united by no\nbond of common blood or language, nor can any one of them have had a\ncontinuous development in institutions, letters or art. These were\nimported in a mature form and more or less assimilated in a precocious\nAugustan age, only to be overwhelmed in some catastrophe which, if not\nmerely destructive, at least brought the ideas and baggage of another\nrace.\n\nIt was under the Emperor Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) of the Han dynasty\nthat the Chinese first penetrated into the Tarim basin. They had heard\nthat the Hsiung-nu, of whose growing power they were afraid, had\ndriven the Y\u00fceh-chih westwards and they therefore despatched an envoy\nnamed Chang Ch'ien in the hope of inducing the Y\u00fceh-chih to co-operate\nwith them against the common enemy. Chang Ch'ien made two adventurous\nexpeditions, and visited the Y\u00fceh-chih in their new home somewhere on\nthe Oxus. His mission failed to attain its immediate political object\nbut indirectly had important results, for it revealed to China that\nthe nations on the Oxus were in touch with India on one hand and with\nthe more mysterious west on the other. Henceforth it was her aim to\nkeep open the trade route leading westwards from the extremity of the\nmodern Kansu province to Kashgar, Khotan and the countries with which\nthose cities communicated. Far from wishing to isolate herself or\nexclude foreigners, her chief desire was to keep the road to the west\nopen, and although there were times when the flood of Buddhism which\nswept along this road alarmed the more conservative classes, yet for\nmany centuries everything that came in the way of merchandize, art,\nliterature, and religion was eagerly received. The chief hindrance to\nthis intercourse was the hostility of the wild tribes who pillaged\ncaravans and blocked the route, and throughout the whole stretch of\nrecorded history the Chinese used the same method to weaken them and\nkeep the door open, namely to create or utilize a quarrel between two\ntribes. The Empire allied itself with one in order to crush the second\nand that being done, proceeded to deal with its former ally.\n\nDated records beginning with the year 98 B.C. testify to the presence\nof a Chinese garrison near the modern Tun-huang[483]. But at the\nbeginning of the Christian era the Empire was convulsed by internal\nrebellion and ceased to have influence or interest in Central Asia.\nWith the restoration of order things took another turn. The reign of\nthe Emperor Ming-ti is the traditional date for the introduction of\nBuddhism and it also witnessed the victorious campaigns of the famous\ngeneral and adventurer Pan Ch'ao. He conquered Khotan and Kashgar and\nvictoriously repulsed the attacks of the Kushans or Y\u00fceh-chih who were\ninterested in these regions and endeavoured to stop his progress. The\nChinese annals do not give the name of their king but it must have\nbeen Kanishka if he came to the throne in 78. I confess however that\nthis silence makes it difficult for me to accept 78-123 A.D. as the\nperiod of Kanishka's reign, for he must have been a monarch of some\ncelebrity and if the Chinese had come into victorious contact with\nhim, would not their historians have mentioned it? It seems to me more\nprobable that he reigned before or after Pan Ch'ao's career in Central\nAsia which lasted from A.D. 73-102. With the end of that career\nChinese activity ceased for some time and perhaps the Kushans\nconquered Kashgar and Khotan early in the second century. Neither the\ndegenerate Han dynasty nor the stormy Three Kingdoms could grapple\nwith distant political problems and during the fourth, fifth and sixth\ncenturies northern China was divided among Tartar states, short-lived\nand mutually hostile. The Empire ceased to be a political power in the\nTarim basin but intercourse with Central Asia and in particular the\ninflux of Buddhism increased, and there was also a return wave of\nChinese influence westwards. Meanwhile two tribes, the Hephthalites\n(or White Huns) and the Turks[484], successively became masters of\nCentral Asia and founded states sometimes called Empires--that is to\nsay they overran vast tracts within which they took tribute without\nestablishing any definite constitution or frontiers.\n\nWhen the T'ang dynasty (618-907) re-united the Empire, the Chinese\nGovernment with characteristic tenacity reverted to its old policy of\nkeeping the western road open and to its old methods. The Turks were\nthen divided into two branches, the northern and western, at war with\none another. The Chinese allied themselves with the latter, defeated\nthe northern Turks and occupied Turfan (640). Then in a series of\ncampaigns, in which they were supported by the Uigurs, they conquered\ntheir former allies the western Turks and proceeded to organize the\nTarim basin under the name of the Four Garrisons[485]. This was the\nmost glorious period of China's foreign policy and at no other time\nhad she so great a position as a western power. The list of her\npossessions included Bokhara in the west and starting from\nSemirechinsk and Tashkent in the north extended southwards so as to\nembrace Afghanistan with the frontier districts of India and\nPersia[486]. It is true that the Imperial authority in many of these\nregions was merely nominal: when the Chinese conquered a tribe which\nclaimed sovereignty over them they claimed sovereignty themselves. But\nfor the history of civilization, for the migration of art and ideas,\neven this nominal claim is important, for China was undoubtedly in\ntouch with India, Bokhara and Persia.\n\nBut no sooner did these great vistas open, than new enemies appeared\nto bar the road. The Tibetans descended into the Tarim basin and after\ndefeating the Chinese in 670 held the Four Garrisons till 692, when\nthe fortunes of war were reversed. But the field was not left clear\nfor China: the power of the northern Turks revived, and Mohammedanism,\nthen a new force but destined to ultimate triumph in politics and\nreligion alike, appeared in the west. The conquests of the Mohammedan\ngeneral Qutayba (705-715) extended to Ferghana and he attacked\nKashgar. In the long reign of Hs\u00fcan Tsung China waged a double warfare\nagainst the Arabs and Tibetans. For about thirty years (719-751) the\nstruggle was successful. Even Tabaristan is said to have acknowledged\nChina's suzerainty. Her troops crossed the Hindu Kush and reached\nGilgit. But in 751 they sustained a crushing defeat near Tashkent. The\ndisaster was aggravated by the internal troubles of the Empire and it\nwas long before Chinese authority recovered from the blow[487]. The\nTibetans reaped the advantage. Except in Turfan, they were the\ndominant power of the Tarim basin for a century, they took tribute\nfrom China and when it was refused sacked the capital, Chang-an (763).\nIt would appear however that for a time Chinese garrisons held out in\nCentral Asia and Chinese officials exercised some authority, though\nthey obtained no support from the Empire[488]. But although even late\nin the tenth century Khotan sent embassies to the Imperial Court,\nChina gradually ceased to be a Central Asian power. She made a\ntreaty with the Tibetans (783) and an alliance with the Uigurs, who\nnow came to the front and occupied Turfan, where there was a\nflourishing Uigur kingdom with Manich\u00e6ism as the state religion from\nabout 750 to 843. In that year the Kirghiz sacked Turfan and it is\ninteresting to note that the Chinese who had hitherto tolerated\nManich\u00e6ism as the religion of their allies, at once began to issue\nrestrictive edicts against it. But except in Turfan it does not appear\nthat the power of the Uigurs was weakened[489]. In 860-817 they broke\nup Tibetan rule in the Tarim basin and formed a new kingdom of their\nown which apparently included Kashgar, Urumtsi and Kucha but not\nKhotan. The prince of Kashgar embraced Islam about 945, but the\nconversion of Khotan and Turfan was later. With this conversion the\nconnection of the Tarim basin with the history of Buddhism naturally\nceases, for it does not appear that the triumphal progress of Lamaism\nunder Khubilai Khan affected these regions.\n\n3\n\n\nThe Tarim basin, though sometimes united under foreign rule, had no\nindigenous national unity. Cities, or groups of towns, divided by\ndeserts lived their own civic life and enjoyed considerable\nindependence under native sovereigns, although the Chinese, Turks or\nTibetans quartered troops in them and appointed residents to supervise\nthe collection of tribute. The chief of these cities or oases were\nKashgar in the west: Kucha, Karashahr, Turfan (Idiqutsh\u00e4hri, Chotscho)\nand Hami lying successively to the north-east: Yarkand, Khotan and\nMiran to the south-east[490]. It may be well to review briefly the\nspecial history of some of them.\n\nThe relics found near Kashgar, the most western of these cities, are\ncomparatively few, probably because its position exposed it to the\ndestructive influence of Islam at an early date. Chinese writers\nreproduce the name as Ch'ia-sha, Chieh-ch'a, etc., but also call the\nregion Su-l\u00ea, Shu-l\u00ea, or Sha-l\u00ea[491]. It is mentioned first in the\nHan annals. After the missions of Chang-Ch'ien trade with Bactria and\nSogdiana grew rapidly and Kashgar which was a convenient emporium\nbecame a Chinese protected state in the first century B.C. But when\nthe hold of China relaxed about the time of the Christian era it was\nsubdued by the neighbouring kingdom of Khotan. The conquests of\nPan-Ch'ao restored Chinese supremacy but early in the second century\nthe Y\u00fceh-chih interfered in the politics of Kashgar and placed on the\nthrone a prince who was their tool. The introduction of Buddhism is\nascribed to this epoch[492]. If Kanishka was then reigning the\nstatement that he conquered Kashgar and Khotan is probably correct. It\nis supported by Hs\u00fcan Chuang's story of the hostages and by his\nassertion that Kanishka's rule extended to the east of the Ts'ung-ling\nmountains: also by the discovery of Kanishka's coins in the Khotan\ndistrict. Little is heard of Kashgar until Fa-Hsien visited it in\n400[493]. He speaks of the quinquennial religious conferences held by\nthe king, at one of which he was present, of relics of the Buddha and\nof a monastery containing a thousand monks all students of the\nHinayana. About 460 the king sent as a present to the Chinese Court an\nincombustible robe once worn by the Buddha. Shortly afterwards Kashgar\nwas incorporated in the dominions of the Hephthalites, and when these\nsuccumbed to the western Turks about 465, it merely changed masters.\n\nHs\u00fcan Chuang has left an interesting account of Kashgar as he found it\non his return journey[494]. The inhabitants were sincere Buddhists and\nthere were more than a thousand monks of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school. But\ntheir knowledge was not in proportion to their zeal for they read the\nscriptures diligently without understanding them. They used an Indian\nalphabet into which they had introduced alterations.\n\nAccording to Hs\u00fcan Chuang's religious conspectus of these regions,\nKashgar, Osh and Kucha belonged to the Small Vehicle, Yarkand and\nKhotan mainly to the Great. The Small Vehicle also flourished at Balkh\nand at Bamian[495]. In Kapi\u015ba the Great Vehicle was predominant but\nthere were also many Hindu sects: in the Kabul valley too Hinduism and\nBuddhism seem to have been mixed: in Persia[496] there were several\nhundred Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din monks. In Tokhara (roughly equivalent to\nBadakshan) there was some Buddhism but apparently it did not flourish\nfurther north in the regions of Tashkent and Samarkand. In the latter\ntown there were two disused monasteries but when Hs\u00fcan Chuang's\ncompanions entered them they were mobbed by the populace. He says that\nthese rioters were fire worshippers and that the Turks whom he visited\nsomewhere near Aulieata were of the same religion. This last statement\nis perhaps inaccurate but the T'ang annals expressly state that the\npopulation of Kashgar and Khotan was in part Zoroastrian[497]. No\nmention of Nestorianism in Kashgar at this date has yet been\ndiscovered, although in the thirteenth century it was a Nestorian see.\nBut since Nestorianism had penetrated even to China in the seventh\ncentury, it probably also existed in Samarkand and Kashgar.\n\nThe pilgrim Wu-K'ung spent five months in Kashgar about 786, but there\nappear to be no later data of interest for the study of Buddhism.\n\nThe town of Kucha[498] lies between Kashgar and Turfan, somewhat to\nthe west of Karashahr. In the second century B.C. it was already a\nflourishing city. Numerous dated documents show that about 630 A.D.\nthe language of ordinary life was the interesting idiom sometimes\ncalled Tokharian B, and, since the Chinese annals record no alien\ninvasion, we may conclude that Kucha existed as an Aryan colony\npeopled by the speakers of this language some centuries before the\nChristian era. It is mentioned in the Han annals and when brought into\ncontact with China in the reign of Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) it became a\nplace of considerable importance, as it lay at the junction[499] of\nthe western trade routes leading to Kashgar and Aulieata respectively.\nKucha absorbed some Chinese civilization but its doubtful loyalty to\nthe Imperial throne often involved it in trouble. It is not until the\nWestern Tsin dynasty that we find it described as a seat of Buddhism.\nThe Tsin annals say that it was enclosed by a triple wall and\ncontained a thousand stupas and Buddhist temples as well as a\nmagnificent palace for the king[500]. This implies that Buddhism had\nbeen established for some time but no evidence has been found to date\nits introduction.\n\nIn 383 Fu-chien, Emperor of the Tsin dynasty, sent his general\nL\u00fc-Kuang to subdue Kucha[501]. The expedition was successful and among\nthe captives taken was the celebrated Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva. L\u00fc-Kuang was so\npleased with the magnificent and comfortable life of Kucha that he\nthought of settling there but Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva prophesied that he was\ndestined to higher things. So they left to try their fortune in China.\nL\u00fc-Kuang rose to be ruler of the state known as Southern Liang and his\ncaptive and adviser became one of the greatest names in Chinese\nBuddhism.\n\nKum\u00e2raj\u00eeva is a noticeable figure and his career illustrates several\npoints of importance. First, his father came from India and he himself\nwent as a youth to study in Kipin (Kashmir) and then returned to\nKucha. Living in this remote corner of Central Asia he was recognized\nas an encyclop\u00e6dia of Indian learning including a knowledge of the\nVedas and \"heretical \u015b\u00e2stras.\" Secondly after his return to Kucha\nhe was converted to Mahayanism. Thirdly he went from Kucha to China\nwhere he had a distinguished career as a translator. Thus we see how\nChina was brought into intellectual touch with India and how the\nMahayana was gaining in Central Asia territory previously occupied by\nthe Hinayana. The monk Dharmagupta who passed through Kucha about 584\nsays that the king favoured Mahayanism[502]. That Kucha should have\nbeen the home of distinguished translators is not strange for a\nstatement[503] has been preserved to the effect that Sanskrit texts\nwere used in the cities lying to the west of it, but that in Kucha\nitself Indian languages were not understood and translations were\nmade, although such Sanskrit words as were easily intelligible were\nretained.\n\nIn the time of the Wei, Kucha again got into trouble with China and\nwas brought to order by another punitive expedition in 448. After this\nlesson a long series of tribute-bearing missions is recorded, sent\nfirst to the court of Wei, and afterwards to the Liang, Chou and Sui.\nThe notices respecting the country are to a large extent repetitions.\nThey praise its climate, fertility and mineral wealth: the\nmagnificence of the royal palace, the number and splendour of the\nreligious establishments. Peacocks were as common as fowls and the\nChinese annalists evidently had a general impression of a brilliant,\npleasure-loving and not very moral city. It was specially famous for\nits music: the songs and dances of Kucha, performed by native artists,\nwere long in favour at the Imperial Court, and a list of twenty airs\nhas been preserved[504].\n\nWhen the T'ang dynasty came to the throne Kucha sent an embassy to do\nhomage but again supported Karashahr in rebellion and again brought on\nherself a punitive expedition (648). But the town was peaceful and\nprosperous when visited by Hs\u00fcan Chuang about 630.\n\nHis description agrees in substance with other notices, but he praises\nthe honesty of the people. He mentions that the king was a native and\nthat a much modified Indian alphabet was in use. As a churchman, he\nnaturally dwells with pleasure on the many monasteries and great\nimages, the quinquennial assemblies and religious processions.\nThere were more than 100 monasteries with upwards of 5000 brethren who\nall followed the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da and the \"gradual teaching,\" which\nprobably means the Hinayana as opposed to the sudden illumination\ncaused by Mahayanist revelation. The pilgrim differed from his hosts\non the matter of diet and would not join them in eating meat. But he\nadmits that the monks were strict according to their lights and that\nthe monasteries were centres of learning.\n\nIn 658 Kucha was made the seat of government for the territory known\nas the Four Garrisons. During the next century it sent several\nmissions to the Chinese and about 788 was visited by Wu-K'ung, who\nindicates that music and Buddhism were still flourishing. He mentions\nan Abbot who spoke with equal fluency the language of the country,\nChinese and Sanskrit. Nothing is known about Kucha from this date\nuntil the eleventh century when we again hear of missions to the\nChinese Court. The annals mention them under the heading of Uigurs,\nbut Buddhism seems not to have been extinct for even in 1096 the Envoy\npresented to the Emperor a jade Buddha. According to Hs\u00fcan Chuang's\naccount the Buddhism of Karashahr (Yenki) was the same as that of\nKucha and its monasteries enjoyed the same reputation for strictness\nand learning.\n\nTurfan is an oasis containing the ruins of several cities and possibly\ndifferent sites were used as the capital at different periods. But the\nwhole area is so small that such differences can be of little\nimportance. The name Turfan appears to be modern. The Ming Annals[505]\nstate that this city lies in the land of ancient Ch'e-shih (or\nK\u00fc-shih) called Kao Ch'ang in the time of the Sui. This name was\nabolished by the T'ang but restored by the Sung.\n\nThe principal city now generally known as Chotscho seems to be\nidentical with Kao Ch'ang[506] and Idiqutsh\u00e4hri and is called by\nMohammedans Apsus or Ephesus, a curious designation connected with an\nancient sacred site renamed the Cave of the Seven Sleepers. Extensive\nliterary remains have been found in the oasis; they include works in\nSanskrit, Chinese, and various Iranian and Turkish idioms but also in\ntwo dialects of so-called Tokharian. Blue-eyed, red-haired and\nred-bearded people are frequently portrayed on the walls of Turfan.\n\nBut the early history of this people and of their civilization is\nchiefly a matter of theory. In the Han period[507] there was a kingdom\ncalled K\u00fc-shih or Ki\u00fc-shih, with two capitals. It was destroyed in 60\nB.C. by the Chinese general Ch\u00eang-Chi and eight small principalities\nwere formed in its place. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.\nTurfan had some connection with two ephemeral states which arose in\nKansu under the names of Hou Liang and Pei Liang. The former was\nfounded by L\u00fc-Kuang, the general who, as related above, took Kucha. He\nfell foul of a tribe in his territory called Ch\u00fc-ch'\u00fc, described as\nbelonging to the Hsiung-nu. Under their chieftain M\u00eang-hs\u00fcn, who\ndevoted his later years to literature and Buddhism, this tribe took a\ngood deal of territory from the Hou Liang, in Turkestan as well as in\nKansu, and called their state Pei Liang. It was conquered by the Wei\ndynasty in 439 and two members of the late reigning house determined\nto try their fortune in Turfan and ruled there successively for about\ntwenty years. An Chou, the second of these princes, died in 480 and\nhis fame survives because nine years after his death a temple to\nMaitreya was dedicated in his honour with a long inscription in\nChinese.\n\nAnother line of Chinese rulers, bearing the family name of Ch'iu,\nestablished themselves at Kao-ch'ang in 507 and under the Sui dynasty\none of them married a Chinese princess. Turfan paid due homage to the\nT'ang dynasty on its accession but later it was found that tributary\nmissions coming from the west to the Chinese court were stopped there\nand the close relations of its king with the western Turks inspired\nalarm. Accordingly it was destroyed by the imperial forces in 640.\nThis is confirmed by the record of Hs\u00fcan Chuang. In his biography\nthere is a description of his reception by the king of Kao-ch'ang on\nhis outward journey. But in the account of his travels written after\nhis return he speaks of the city as no longer existent.\n\nNevertheless the political and intellectual life of the oasis was not\nannihilated. It was conquered by the Uigurs at an uncertain date, but\nthey were established there in the eighth and ninth centuries and\nabout 750 their Khan adopted Manich\u00e6ism as the state religion. The\nmany manuscripts in Sogdian and other Persian dialects found at\nTurfan show that it had an old and close connection with the west. It\nis even possible that Mani may have preached there himself but it does\nnot appear that his teaching became influential until about 700 A.D.\nThe presence of Nestorianism is also attested. Tibetan influence too\nmust have affected Turfan in the eighth and ninth centuries for many\nTibetan documents have been found there although it seems to have been\noutside the political sphere of Tibet. About 843 this Uigur Kingdom\nwas destroyed by the Kirghiz.\n\nPerhaps the massacres of Buddhist priests, clearly indicated by vaults\nfilled with skeletons still wearing fragments of the monastic robe,\noccurred in this period. But Buddhism was not extinguished and\nlingered here longer than in other parts of the Tarim basin. Even in\n1420 the people of Turfan were Buddhists and the Ming Annals say that\nat Huo-chou (or Kara-Khojo) there were more Buddhist temples than\ndwelling houses.\n\nLet us now turn to Khotan[508]. This was the ancient as well as the\nmodern name of the principal city in the southern part of the Tarim\nbasin but was modified in Chinese to Y\u00fc-t'ien, in Sanskrit to\nKustana[509]. The Tibetan equivalent is Li-yul, the land of Li, but no\nexplanation of this designation is forthcoming.\n\nTraditions respecting the origin of Khotan are preserved in the\ntravels of Hs\u00fcan Chuang and also in the Tibetan scriptures, some of\nwhich are expressly said to be translations from the language of Li.\nThese traditions are popular legends but they agree in essentials and\nappear to contain a kernel of important truth namely that Khotan was\nfounded by two streams of colonization coming from China and from\nIndia[510], the latter being somehow connected with Asoka. It is\nremarkable that the introduction of Buddhism is attributed not to\nthese original colonists but to a later missionary who, according to\nHs\u00fcan Chuang, came from Kashmir[511].\n\nThis traditional connection with India is confirmed by the\ndiscovery of numerous documents written in Kharosh\u1e6dh\u00ee characters\nand a Prakrit dialect. Their contents indicate that this Prakrit was\nthe language of common life and they were found in one heap with\nChinese documents dated 269 A.D. The presence of this alphabet and\nlanguage is not adequately explained by the activity of Buddhist\nmissionaries for in Khotan, as in other parts of Asia, the\nconcomitants of Buddhism are Sanskrit and the Brahmi alphabet.\n\nThere was also Iranian influence in Khotan. It shows itself in art and\nhas left indubitable traces in the language called by some Nordarisch,\nbut when the speakers of that language reached the oasis or what part\nthey played there, we do not yet know.\n\nAs a consequence of Chang Ch'ien's mission mentioned above, Khotan\nsent an Embassy to the Chinese Court in the reign of Wu-ti (140-87\nB.C.) and the T'ang Annals state that its kings handed down the\ninsignia of Imperial investiture from that time onwards. There seems\nhowever to have been a dynastic revolution about 60 A.D. and it is\npossible that the Vijaya line of kings, mentioned in various Tibetan\nworks, then began to reign[512]. Khotan became a powerful state but\nsubmitted to the conquering arms of Pan-Ch'ao and perhaps was\nsubsequently subdued by Kanishka. As the later Han dynasty declined,\nit again became strong but continued to send embassies to the Imperial\nCourt. There is nothing more to mention until the visit of Fa-Hsien in\n400. He describes \"the pleasant and prosperous kingdom\" with evident\ngusto. There were some tens of thousands of monks mostly followers of\nthe Mahayana and in the country, where the homes of the people were\nscattered \"like stars\" about the oases, each house had a small stupa\nbefore the door. He stopped in a well ordered convent with 3000 monks\nand mentions a magnificent establishment called The King's New\nMonastery. He also describes a great car festival which shows the\nIndian colour of Khotanese religion. Perhaps Fa-Hsien and Hs\u00fcan Chuang\nunduly emphasize ecclesiastical features, but they also did not\nhesitate to say when they thought things unsatisfactory and their\npraise shows that Buddhism was flourishing.\n\nIn the fifth and sixth centuries Khotan passed through troublous times\nand was attacked by the Tanguts, Juan-Juan and White Huns.\nThroughout this stormy period missions were sent at intervals to China\nto beg for help. The pilgrim Sung Y\u00fcn[513] traversed the oasis in 519.\nHis account of the numerous banners bearing Chinese inscriptions hung\nup in the temple of Han-mo proves that though the political influence\nof China was weak, she was still in touch with the Tarim basin.\n\nWhen the T'ang effectively asserted their suzerainty in Central Asia,\nKhotan was included in the Four Garrisons. The T'ang Annals while\nrepeating much which is found in earlier accounts, add some points of\ninterest, for they say that the Khotanese revere the God of Heaven\n(Hsien sh\u00ean) and also the Law of Buddha[514]. This undoubtedly means\nthat there were Zoroastrians as well as Buddhists, which is not\nmentioned in earlier periods. The annals also mention that the king's\nhouse was decorated with pictures and that his family name was Wei\nCh'ih. This may possibly be a Chinese rendering of Vijaya, the\nSanskrit name or title which according to Tibetan sources was borne by\nall the sovereigns of Khotan.\n\nHs\u00fcan Chuang broke his return journey at Khotan in 644. He mentions the\nfondness of the people for music and says that their language differed\nfrom that of other countries. The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na was the prevalent sect but\nthe pilgrim stopped in a monastery of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins[515]. He\ndescribes several sites in the neighbourhood, particularly the Go'sringa\nor Cow-horn mountain[516], supposed to have been visited by the Buddha.\nThough he does not mention Zoroastrians, he notices that the people of\nP'i-mo near Khotan were not Buddhists.\n\nAbout 674 the king of Khotan did personal homage at the Chinese Court.\nThe Emperor constituted his territory into a government called\nP'i-sha after the deity P'i-sha-m\u00ean or Vai'sravana and made him\nresponsible for its administration. Another king did homage between\n742 and 755 and received an imperial princess as his consort. Chinese\npolitical influence was effective until the last decade of the eighth\ncentury but after 790 the conquests of the Tibetans put an end to it\nand there is no mention of Khotan in the Chinese Annals for about\n150 years. Numerous Tibetan manuscripts and inscriptions found at\nEndere testify to these conquests. The rule of the Uigurs who replaced\nTibet as the dominant power in Turfan and the northern Tarim basin\ndoes not appear to have extended to Khotan.\n\nIt is not till 938 that we hear of renewed diplomatic relations with\nChina. The Imperial Court received an embassy from Khotan and deemed\nit of sufficient importance to despatch a special mission in return.\nEight other embassies were sent to China in the tenth century and at\nleast three of them were accompanied by Buddhist priests. Their object\nwas probably to solicit help against the attacks of Mohammedans. No\ndetails are known as to the Mohammedan conquest but it apparently took\nplace between 970 and 1009 after a long struggle.\n\nAnother cultural centre of the Tarim basin must have existed in the\noases near Lob-nor where Miran and a nameless site to the north of the\nlake have been investigated by Stein. They have yielded numerous\nTibetan documents, but also fine remains of Gandharan art and Prakrit\ndocuments written in the Kharoshth\u00ee character. Probably the use of\nthis language and alphabet was not common further east, for though a\nKharoshth\u00ee fragment was found by Stein in an old Chinese frontier\npost[517] the library of Tun-huang yielded no specimens of them. That\nlibrary, however, dating apparently from the epoch of the T'ang,\ncontained some Sanskrit Buddhist literature and was rich in Sogdian,\nTurkish, and Tibetan manuscripts.\n\n4\n\n\nAmple as are the materials for the study of Buddhism in Central Asia\nthose hitherto published throw little light on the time and manner of\nits introduction. At present much is hypothetical for we have few\nhistorical data--such as the career of Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva and the inscription\non the Temple of Maitreya at Turfan--but a great mass of literary and\nartistic evidence from which various deductions can be drawn.\n\nIt is clear that there was constant intercourse with India and the\nOxus region. The use of Prakrit and of various Iranian idioms points\nto actual colonization from these two quarters and it is probable\nthat there were two streams of Buddhism, for the Chinese pilgrims\nagree that Shan-shan (near Lob-nor), Turfan, Kucha and Kashgar were\nH\u00eenay\u00e2nist, whereas Yarkand and Khotan were Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist. Further, much\nof the architecture, sculpture and painting is simply Gandharan and\nthe older specimens can hardly be separated from the Gandharan art of\nIndia by any considerable interval. This art was in part coeval with\nKanishka, and if his reign began in 78 A.D. or later the first\nspecimens of it cannot be much anterior to the Christian era. The\nearliest Chinese notices of the existence of Buddhism in Kashgar and\nKucha date from 400 (Fa-Hsien) and the third century (Annals of the\nTsin, 265-317) respectively, but they speak of it as the national\nreligion and munificently endowed, so that it may well have been\nestablished for some centuries. In Turfan the first definite record is\nthe dedication of a temple to Maitreya in 469 but probably the history\nof religion there was much the same as in Kucha.\n\nIt is only in Khotan that tradition, if not history, gives a more\ndetailed narrative. This is found in the works of the Chinese pilgrims\nHs\u00fcan Chuang and Sung Y\u00fcn and also in four Tibetan works which are\napparently translated from the language of Khotan[518]. As the story\nis substantially the same in all, it merits consideration and may be\naccepted as the account current in the literary circles of Khotan\nabout 500 A.D. It relates that the Indians who were part-founders of\nthat city in the reign of Asoka were not Buddhists[519] and the\nTibetan version places the conversion with great apparent accuracy\n170 years after the foundation of the kingdom and 404 after the death\nof the Buddha. At that time a monk named Vairocana, who was an\nincarnation of Manju\u015bri, came to Khotan, according to Hs\u00fcan Chuang\nfrom Kashmir[520]. He is said to have introduced a new language as\nwell as Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, and the king, Vijayasambhava, built for him the\ngreat monastery of Tsarma outside the capital, which was miraculously\nsupplied with relics. We cannot be sure that the Tibetan dates\nwere intended to have the meaning they would bear for our chronology,\nthat is about 80 B.C., but if they had, there is nothing improbable in\nthe story, for other traditions assert that Buddhism was preached in\nKashmir in the time of Asoka. On the other hand, there was a dynastic\nchange in Khotan about 60 A.D. and the monarch who then came to the\nthrone may have been Vijayasambhava.\n\nAccording to the Tibetan account no more monasteries were built for\nseven reigns. The eighth king built two, one on the celebrated\nGo\u015birsha or Go\u015bringa mountain. In the eleventh reign after\nVijayasambhava, more chaityas and viharas were built in connection\nwith the introduction of the silkworm industry. Subsequently, but\nwithout any clear indication of date, the introduction of the\nMah\u00e2sanghika and Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din schools is mentioned.\n\nThe Tibetan annals also mention several persecutions of Buddhism in\nKhotan as a result of which the monks fled to Tibet and Bruzha. Their\nchronology is confused but seems to make these troubles coincide with\na persecution in Tibet, presumably that of Lang-dar-ma. If so, the\npersecution in Khotan must have been due to the early attacks of\nMohammedans which preceded the final conquest in about 1000 A.D.[521]\n\nNeither the statements of the Chinese annalists about Central Asia nor\nits own traditions prove that Buddhism flourished there before the\nChristian era. But they do not disprove it and even if the dream of\nthe Emperor Ming-Ti and the consequent embassy are dismissed as\nlegends, it is admitted that Buddhism penetrated to China by land not\nlater than the early decades of that era. It must therefore have been\nknown in Central Asia previously and perhaps Khotan was the place\nwhere it first flourished.\n\nIt is fairly certain that about 160 B.C. the Y\u00fceh-chih moved westwards\nand settled in the lands of the Oxus after ejecting the Sakas, but\nlike many warlike nomads they may have oscillated between the east and\nwest, recoiling if they struck against a powerful adversary in either\nquarter. Le Coq has put forward an interesting theory of their origin.\nIt is that they were one of the tribes known as Scythians in Europe\nand at an unknown period moved eastwards from southern Russia,\nperhaps leaving traces of their presence in the monuments still\nexisting in the district of Minussinsk. He also identifies them with\nthe red-haired, blue-eyed people of the Chotscho frescoes and the\nspeakers of the Tokharian language. But these interesting hypotheses\ncannot be regarded as proved. It is, however, certain that the\nY\u00fceh-chih invaded India[522], founded the Kushan Empire and were\nintimately connected (especially in the person of their great king\nKanishka) with Gandharan art and the form of Buddhism which finds\nexpression in it. Now the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien (_c_. 400) found\nthe H\u00eenay\u00e2na prevalent in Shan-shan, Kucha, Kashgar, Osh, Udyana and\nGandhara. Hs\u00fcan Chuang also notes its presence in Balkh, Bamian, and\nPersia. Both notice that the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na was predominant in Khotan though\nnot to the exclusion of the other school. It would appear that in\nmodern language the North-West Frontier province of India,\nAfghanistan, Badakshan (with small adjoining states), the Pamir\nregions and the Tarim basin all accepted Gandharan Buddhism and at one\ntime formed part of the Kushan Empire.\n\nIt is probably to this Gandharan Buddhism that the Chinese pilgrims\nrefer when they speak of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school of the H\u00eenay\u00e2na as\nprevalent. It is known that this school was closely connected with the\nCouncil of Kanishka. Its metaphysics were decidedly not Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist but\nthere is no reason why it should have objected to the veneration of\nsuch Bodhisattvas as are portrayed in the Gandhara sculptures. An\ninteresting passage in the life of Hs\u00fcan Chuang relates that he had a\ndispute in Kucha with a Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist doctor who maintained that the\nbooks called Tsa-hsin, Ch\u00fc-sh\u00ea, and P'i-sha were sufficient for\nsalvation, and denounced the Yoga\u015b\u00e2stra as heretical, to the great\nindignation of the pilgrim[523] whose practical definition of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nism seems to have been the acceptance of this work, reputed\nto have been revealed by Maitreya to Asanga. Such a definition and\ndivision might leave in the H\u00eenay\u00e2na much that we should not expect to\nfind there.\n\nThe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist Buddhism of Khotan was a separate stream and Hs\u00fcan\nChuang says that it came from Kashmir. Though Kashmir is not known as\na centre of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nism, yet it would be a natural route for men and\nideas passing from any part of India to Khotan.\n\n5\n\n\nThe Tarim basin and the lands of the Oxus[524] were a region where\ndifferent religions and cultures mingled and there is no difficulty in\nsupposing that Buddhism might have amalgamated there with Zoroastrianism\nor Christianity. The question is whether there is any evidence for such\namalgamation. It is above all in its relations with China that Central\nAsia appears as an exchange of religions. It passed on to China the art\nand thought of India, perhaps adding something of its own on the way and\nthen received them back from China with further additions[525]. It\ncertainly received a great deal from Persia: the number of manuscripts\nin different Iranian languages puts this beyond doubt. Equally undoubted\nis its debt to India, but it would be of even greater interest to\ndetermine whether Indian Buddhism owes a debt to Central Asia and to\ndefine that debt. For Tibet the relation was mutual. The Tibetans\noccupied the Tarim basin during a century and according to their\ntraditions monks went from Khotan to instruct Tibet.\n\nThe Buddhist literature discovered in Central Asia represents, like\nits architecture, several periods. We have first of all the fragments\nof the Sanskrit Agamas, found at Turfan, Tun-huang, and in the Khotan\ndistrict: fragments of the dramas and poems of A\u015bvaghosha from\nTurfan: the Pr\u00e2timoksha of the Sarvastiv\u00e2dins from Kucha and numerous\nversions of the anthology called Dharmapada or Ud\u00e2na. The most\ninteresting of these is the Prakrit version found in the neighbourhood\nof Khotan, but fragments in Tokharian and Sanskrit have also been\ndiscovered. All this literature probably represents the canon as\nit existed in the epoch of Kanishka and of the Gandharan sculptures,\nor at least the older stratum in that canon.\n\nThe newer stratum is composed of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist sutras of which there is a\ngreat abundance, though no complete list has been published[526]. The\npopularity of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, the Lotus and the Suvar\u1e47a-prabh\u00e2sa\nis attested. The last was translated into both Uigur (from the Chinese)\nand into \"Iranien Oriental.\" To a still later epoch[527] belong the\nDh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ees or magical formul\u00e6 which have been discovered in considerable\nquantities.\n\nSylvain L\u00e9vi has shown that some Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist sutras were either written\nor re-edited in Central Asia[528]. Not only do they contain lists of\nCentral Asian place-names but these receive an importance which can be\nexplained only by the local patriotism of the writer or the public\nwhich he addressed. Thus the S\u00fbryagarbha sutra praises the mountain of\nGo\u015bringa near Khotan much as the Puranas celebrate in special\nchapters called M\u00e2h\u00e2tmyas the merits of some holy place. Even more\nremarkable is a list in the Chandragarbha sutra. The Buddha in one of\nthe great transformation scenes common in these works sends forth rays\nof light which produce innumerable manifestations of Buddhas. India\n(together with what is called the western region) has a total of 813\nmanifestations, whereas Central Asia and China have 971. Of these the\nwhole Chinese Empire has 255, the kingdoms of Khotan and Kucha have\n180 and 99 respectively, but only 60 are given to Benares and 30 to\nMagadha. Clearly Central Asia was a very important place for the\nauthor of this list[529].\n\nOne of the Turkish sutras discovered at Turfan contains a discourse of\nthe Buddha to the merchants Trapusha and Bhallika who are described as\nTurks and Indra is called Kormusta, that is Hormuzd. In another\nBrahm\u00e2 is called A\u1e63rua, identified as the Iranian deity\nZervan[530]. In these instances no innovation of doctrine is implied\nbut when the world of spirits and men becomes Central Asian\ninstead of Indian, it is only natural that the doctrine too should\ntake on some local colour[531].\n\nThus the dated inscription of the temple erected in Turfan A.D. 469 is\na mixture of Chinese ideas, both Confucian and Taoist, with Indian. It\nis in honour of Maitreya, a Bodhisattva known to the H\u00eenay\u00e2na, but\nhere regarded not merely as the future Buddha but as an active and\nbenevolent deity who manifests himself in many forms[532], a view\nwhich also finds expression in the tradition that the works of Asanga\nwere revelations made by him. Ak\u00e2\u015bagarbha and the Dharmak\u00e2ya are\nmentioned. But the inscription also speaks of heaven (t'ien) as\nappointing princes, and of the universal law (tao) and it contains\nseveral references to Chinese literature.\n\nEven more remarkable is the admixture of Buddhism in Manich\u00e6ism. The\ndiscoveries made in Central Asia make intelligible the Chinese edict\nof 739 which accuses the Manich\u00e6ans of falsely taking the name of\nBuddhism and deceiving the people[533]. This is not surprising for\nMani seems to have taught that Zoroaster, Buddha and Christ had\npreceded him as apostles, and in Buddhist countries his followers\nnaturally adopted words and symbols familiar to the people. Thus\nManich\u00e6an deities are represented like Bodhisattvas sitting\ncross-legged on a lotus; Mani receives the epithet Ju-lai or\nTath\u00e2gata: as in Amida's Paradise, there are holy trees bearing\nflowers which enclose beings styled Buddha: the construction and\nphraseology of Manich\u00e6an books resemble those of a Buddhist\nSutra[534]. In some ways the association of Taoism and Manich\u00e6ism was\neven closer, for the Hu-hua-ching identifies Buddha with Lao-tz\u00fb and\nMani, and two Manich\u00e6an books have passed into the Taoist Canon[535].\n\nNestorian Christianity also existed in the Tarim basin and became\nprominent in the seventh century. This agrees with the record of its\nintroduction into China by A-lo-pen in 635 A.D., almost simultaneously\nwith Zoroastrianism. Fragments of the New Testament have been found at\nTurfan belonging mostly to the ninth century but one to the fifth. The\nmost interesting document for the history of Nestorianism is still the\nmonument discovered at Si-ngan-fu and commonly called the Nestorian\nstone[536]. It bears a long inscription partly in Chinese and partly\nin Syriac composed by a foreign priest called Adam or in Chinese\nKing-Tsing giving a long account of the doctrines and history of\nNestorianism. Not only does this inscription contain many Buddhist\nphrases (such as S\u00eang and Ss\u00fb for Christian priests and monasteries)\nbut it deliberately omits all mention of the crucifixion and merely\nsays in speaking of the creation that God arranged the cardinal points\nin the shape of a cross. This can hardly be explained as due to\nincomplete statement for it reviews in some detail the life of Christ\nand its results. The motive of omission must be the feeling that\nredemption by his death was not an acceptable doctrine[537]. It is\ninteresting to find that King-Tsing consorted with Buddhist priests\nand even set about translating a sutra from the Hu language. Takakusu\nquotes a passage from one of the catalogues of the Japanese\nTripitaka[538] which states that he was a Persian and collaborated\nwith a monk of Kapi\u015ba called Praj\u00f1a.\n\nWe have thus clear evidence not only of the co-existence of Buddhism\nand Christianity but of friendly relations between Buddhist and\nChristian priests. The Emperor's objection to such commixture of\nreligions was unusual and probably due to zeal for pure Buddhism. It\nis possible that in western China and Central Asia Buddhism, Taoism,\nManich\u00e6ism, Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism all borrowed from one\nanother just as the first two do in China to-day and Buddhism may have\nbecome modified by this contact. But proof of it is necessary. In most\nplaces Buddhism was in strength and numbers the most important of\nall these religions and older than all except Zoroastrianism. Its\ncontact with Manich\u00e6ism may possibly date from the life of Mani, but\napparently the earliest Christian manuscripts found in Central Asia\nare to be assigned to the fifth century.\n\nOn the other hand the Chinese Tripi\u1e6daka contains many translations\nwhich bear an earlier date than this and are ascribed to translators\nconnected with the Y\u00fceh-chih. I see no reason to doubt the statements\nthat the Happy Land sutra and Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 (Nanjio, 25, 5) were\ntranslated before 200 A.D. and portions of the Avata\u1e43saka and Lotus\n(Nanjio, 100, 103, 138) before 300 A.D. But if so, the principal\ndoctrines of Mahayanist Buddhism must have been known in Khotan[539]\nand the lands of Oxus before we have definite evidence for the\npresence of Christianity there.\n\nZoroastrianism may however have contributed to the development and\ntransformation of Buddhism for the two were certainly in contact. Thus\nthe coins of Kanishka bear figures of Persian deities[540] more\nfrequently than images of the Buddha: we know from Chinese sources\nthat the two religions co-existed at Khotan and Kashgar and possibly\nthere are hostile references to Buddhism (Buiti and Gaotema the\nheretic) in the Persian scriptures[541].\n\nIt is true that we should be cautious in fancying that we detect a\nforeign origin for the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na. Different as it may be from the\nBuddhism of the Pali Canon, it is an Indian not an exotic growth.\nDeification, pantheism, the creation of radiant or terrible deities,\nextreme forms of idealism or nihilism in metaphysics are tendencies\nmanifested in Hinduism as clearly as in Buddhism. Even the doctrine of\nthe Buddha's three bodies, which sounds like an imitation of the\nChristian Trinity, has roots in the centuries before the Christian\nera. But late Buddhism indubitably borrowed many personages from the\nHindu pantheon, and when we find Buddhas and Bodhisattvas such as\nAmit\u00e2bha, Avalokita, Manju\u015br\u00ee and Kshitigarbha without clear\nantecedents in India we may suspect that they are borrowed from some\nother mythology, and if similar figures were known to Zoroastrianism,\nthat may be their source.\n\nThe most important of them is Amit\u00e2bha. He is strangely obscure in\nthe earlier art and literature of Indian Buddhism. Some of the\nnameless Buddha figures in the Gandharan sculptures may represent him,\nbut this is not proved and the works of Gr\u00fcnwedel and Foucher suggest\nthat compared with Avalokita and T\u00e2r\u00e2 his images are late and not\nnumerous. In the earlier part of the Lotus[542] he is only just\nmentioned as if he were of no special importance. He is also mentioned\ntowards the end of the Awakening of Faith ascribed to A\u015bvaghosha,\nbut the authorship of the work cannot be regarded as certain and, if\nit were, the passage stands apart from the main argument and might\nwell be an addition. Again in the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2la\u1e47k\u00e2ra[543] of\nAsanga, his paradise is just mentioned.\n\nAgainst these meagre and cursory notices in Indian literature may be\nset the fact that two translations of the principal Amidist scripture\ninto Chinese were made in the second century A.D. and four in the\nthird, all by natives of Central Asia. The inference that the worship\nof Amit\u00e2bha flourished in Central Asia some time before the earliest\nof these translations is irresistible.\n\nAccording to T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, the Tibetan historian of Buddhism[544], this\nworship goes back to Saraha or Rahulabhadra. He was reputed to have\nbeen the teacher of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and a great magician. He saw Amit\u00e2bha in\nthe land of Dhingko\u1e6da and died with his face turned towards\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee. I have found no explanation of the name Dhingko\u1e6da but\nthe name Saraha does not sound Indian. He is said to have been a sudra\nand he is represented in Tibetan pictures with a beard and topknot\nand holding an arrow[545] in his hand. In all this there is little\nthat can be called history, but still it appears that the first person\nwhom tradition connects with the worship of Amit\u00e2bha was of low caste,\nbore a foreign name, saw the deity in an unknown country, and like\nmany tantric teachers was represented as totally unlike a Buddhist\nmonk. It cannot be proved that he came from the lands of the Oxus or\nTurkestan, but such an origin would explain much in the tradition.\nOn the other hand, there would be no difficulty in accounting for\nZoroastrian influence at Peshawar or Takkasila within the frontiers of\nIndia.\n\nSomewhat later Vasubandhu is stated to have preached faith in Amit\u00e2bha\nbut it does not appear that this doctrine ever had in India a tithe of\nthe importance which it obtained in the Far East.\n\nThe essential features of Amidist doctrine are that there is a\nparadise of light belonging to a benevolent deity and that the\ngood[546] who invoke his name will be led thither. Both features are\nfound in Zoroastrian writings. The highest heaven (following after the\nparadises of good thoughts, good words and good deeds) is called\nBoundless Light or Endless Light[547]. Both this region and its\nmaster, Ahuramazda, are habitually spoken of in terms implying\nradiance and glory. Also it is a land of song, just as Amit\u00e2bha's\nparadise re-echoes with music and pleasant sounds[548]. Prayers can\nwin this paradise and Ahura Mazda and the Archangels will come and\nshow the way thither to the pious[549]. Further whoever recites the\nAhuna-vairya formula, Ahura Mazda will bring his soul to \"the lights\nof heaven[550],\" and although, so far as I know, it is not expressly\nstated that the repetition of Ahura Mazda's name leads to paradise,\nyet the general efficacy of his names as invocations is clearly\naffirmed[551].\n\nThus all the chief features of Amit\u00e2bha's paradise are Persian: only\nhis method of instituting it by making a vow is Buddhist. It is true\nthat Indian imagination had conceived numerous paradises, and that the\nearly Buddhist legend tells of the Tushita heaven. But Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee is\nnot like these abodes of bliss. It appears suddenly in the history of\nBuddhism as something exotic, grafted adroitly on the parent trunk but\nsometimes overgrowing it[552].\n\nAvalokita is also connected with Amit\u00e2bha's paradise. His figure,\nthough its origin is not clear, assumes distinct and conspicuous\nproportions in India at a fairly early date. There appears to be no\nreason for associating him specially with Central Asia. On the other\nhand later works describe him as the spiritual son or reflex of\nAmit\u00e2bha. This certainly recalls the Iranian idea of the Fravashi\ndefined as \"a spiritual being conceived as a part of a man's\npersonality but existing before he is born and in independence of him:\nit can also belong to divine beings[553].\" Although India offers in\nabundance both divine incarnations and explanations thereof yet none\nof these describe the relationship between a Dhy\u00e2n\u00ee Buddha and his\nBoddhisattva so well as the Zoroastrian doctrine of the Fravashi.\n\nS. L\u00e9vi has suggested that the Bodhisattva Manju\u015br\u00ee is of Tokharian\norigin[554]. His worship at Wu-tai-shan in Shan-si is ancient and\nlater Indian tradition connected him with China. Local traditions also\nconnect him with Nepal, Tibet, and Khotan, and he is sometimes\nrepresented as the first teacher of civilization or religion. But\nalthough his Central Asian origin is eminently probable, I do not at\npresent see any clear proof of it.\n\nThe case of the Bodhisattva Kshitigarbha[555] is similar. He appears\nto have been known but not prominent in India in the fourth century\nA.D.: by the seventh century if not earlier his cult was flourishing\nin China and subsequently he became in the Far East a popular deity\nsecond only to Kuan-yin. This popularity was connected with his\ngradual transformation into a god of the dead. It is also certain that\nhe was known in Central Asia[556] but whether he first became\nimportant there or in China is hard to decide. The devotion of the\nChinese to their dead suggests that it was among them that he acquired\nhis great position, but his r\u00f4le as a guide to the next world has a\nparallel in the similar benevolent activity of the Zoroastrian angel\nSrosh.\n\nOne of Central Asia's clearest titles to importance in the history\nof the East is that it was the earliest and on the whole the\nprincipal source of Chinese Buddhism, to which I now turn. Somewhat\nlater, teachers also came to China by sea and still later, under the\nY\u00fcan dynasty, Lamaism was introduced direct from Tibet. But from at\nleast the beginning of our era onwards, monks went eastwards from\nCentral Asia to preach and translate the scriptures and it was across\nCentral Asia that Chinese pilgrims went to India in search of the\ntruth.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 459: See L\u00fcders, _Bruchst\u00fccke Buddhistischer Dramen_, 1911,\nand _id., Das S\u00e2riputra-prakarana_, 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 460: See Senart, \"Le ms Kharosh\u1e6dh\u00ee du Dhammapada,\" in\n_J.A._, 1898, II. p. 193.]\n\n[Footnote 461: L\u00fcders, \"Die \u015aakas und die Nordarische Sprache,\"\n_Sitzungsber. der K\u014dn. Preuss. Akad_. 1913. Konow, _G\u014dtting.\nGel. Anz_. 1912, pp. 551 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 462: See Hoernle in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 837 ff. and 1283\nff.; 1911, pp. 202 ff., 447 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 463: An old Turkish text about Maitreya states that it was\ntranslated from an Indian language into Tokhri and from Tokhri into\nTurkish. See F.K.W. M\u00fcller, _Sitzungsber. der K\u00f6n. Preuss. Akad_.\n1907, p. 958. But it is not clear what is meant by Tokhri.]\n\n[Footnote 464: The following are some words in this language: Kant, a\nhundred; rake, a word; por, fire; soye, son \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3; suwan, swese, rain\n\u03c5\u03b5\u03b9 h\u03c5\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3; \u00e2lyek, another; okso, an ox.]\n\n[Footnote 465: The numerous papers on this language are naturally\nquickly superseded. But Sieg and Siegling Tokharisch, \"Die Sprache der\nIndoskythen\" (_Sitzungsber. der Berl. Ak. Wiss_. 1908, p. 815), may be\nmentioned and Sylvain L\u00e9vi, \"Tokharien B, Langue de Kouteha,\" _J.A._\n1913, II. p. 311.]\n\n[Footnote 466: See Radloff Tisastvustik (_Bibl. Buddh._ vol. xii.), p.\nv. This manuscript came from Urumtsi. A translation of a portion of\nthe Saddharma-pundar\u00eeka (_Bibl. Buddh._ xiv.) was found at Turfan.]\n\n[Footnote 467: Laufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1907, p. 392; Radloff,\n_Kuan-si-im Pursar_, p. vii.]\n\n[Footnote 468: See especially Stein's _Ancient Khotan_, app. B, and\nFrancke in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 469: Chavannes, _Les documents chinois d\u00e9couverts par Aurel\nStein_, 1913.]\n\n[Footnote 470: See especially Chavannes and Pelliot, \"Trait\u00e9\nManich\u00e9en\" in _J.A._ 1911 and 1913.]\n\n[Footnote 471: Hs\u00fcan Chuang notes its existence however in Kabul and\nKapi\u015ba.]\n\n[Footnote 472: See for these Fergusson-Burgess, _History of Indian\nArchitecture_, I. pp. 125-8.]\n\n[Footnote 473: _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 313.]\n\n[Footnote 474: _E.g._ Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Altbuddhistische Kultst\u00e4tten_, fig.\n624.]\n\n[Footnote 475: Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, plates xiii-xvii and xl, pp.\n83 and 482 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 476: See Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddh. Kultst\u00e4tten_, pp. 129-130 and\nplate. Foucher, \"L'Art Gr\u00e9co-Bouddhique,\" p. 145, _J.R.A.S._ 1886, 333\nand plate i.]\n\n[Footnote 477: See Wachsberger's \"Stil-kritische Studien zur Kunst\nChinesisch-Turkestan's\" in _Ostasiatische Ztsft._ 1914 and 1915.]\n\n[Footnote 478: See Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddh. Kultst\u00e4tten_, pp. 332 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 479: _Ancient Khotan_, vol. II. plates lx and lxi.]\n\n[Footnote 480: Le Coq in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299 ff. See the whole\narticle.]\n\n[Footnote 481: For some of the more striking drawings referred to see\nGr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddh. Kultst\u00e4tten_, figs. 51, 53, 239, 242, 317, 337,\n345-349.]\n\n[Footnote 482: In _Geog. Journal_, May 1916, p. 362.]\n\n[Footnote 483: Chavannes, _Documents chinois d\u00e9couverts par Aurel\nStein_, 1913.]\n\n[Footnote 484: These of course are not the Osmanlis or Turks of\nConstantinople. The Osmanlis are the latest of the many branches of\nthe Turks, who warred and ruled in Central Asia with varying success\nfrom the fifth to the eighth centuries.]\n\n[Footnote 485: That is Kashgar, Khotan, Kucha and Tokmak for which\nlast Karashahr was subsequently substituted. The territory was also\ncalled An Hsi.]\n\n[Footnote 486: See for lists and details Chavannes, _Documents sur les\nTou-kiue Occidentaux_, pp. 67 ff. and 270 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 487: The conquest and organization of the present Chinese\nTurkestan dates only from the reign of Ch'ien Lung.]\n\n[Footnote 488: Thus the pilgrim Wu-K'ung mentions Chinese officials in\nthe Four Garrisons.]\n\n[Footnote 489: See for this part of their history, Grenard's article\nin _J.A._ 1900, I. pp. 1-79.]\n\n[Footnote 490: Pelliot also attributes importance to a Sogdian Colony\nto the south of Lob Nor, which may have had much to do with the\ntransmission of Buddhism and Nestorianism to China. See _J.A._ Jan.\n1916, pp. 111-123.]\n\n[Footnote 491: These words have been connected with the tribe called\nSacae, Sakas, or S\u00f6k.]\n\n[Footnote 492: See Klaproth, _Tabl. Historique_, p. 166, apparently\nquoting from Chinese sources. Specht, _J.A._ 1897, II. p. 187. Franke,\n_Beitr.-zur Kenntniss Zentral-Asiens_, p. 83. The passage quoted by\nSpecht from the Later Han Annals clearly states that the Y\u00fceh-chih\nmade a man of their own choosing prince of Kashgar, although, as\nFranke points out, it makes no reference to Kanishka or the story of\nthe hostages related by Hs\u00fcan Chuang.]\n\n[Footnote 493: Fa-Hsien's Chieh-ch'a has been interpreted as Skardo,\nbut Chavannes seems to have proved that it is Kashgar.]\n\n[Footnote 494: About 643 A.D. He mentions that the inhabitants\ntattooed their bodies, flattened their children's heads and had green\neyes. Also that they spoke a peculiar language.]\n\n[Footnote 495: At Bamian the monks belonged to the Lokottarav\u00e2din\nSchool.]\n\n[Footnote 496: Beal, _Records_, II. p. 278. The pilgrim is speaking\nfrom hearsay and it is not clear to what part of Persia he refers.]\n\n[Footnote 497: See Chavannes, _Documents sur les Tou-kiue\nOccidentaux_, pp. 121, 125. The inhabitants of K'ang (Samarkand or\nSogdiana) are said to honour both religions. _Ib_. p. 135.]\n\n[Footnote 498: Known to the Chinese by several slightly different\nnames such as Ku-chih, Kiu-tse which are all attempts to represent the\nsame sound. For Kucha see S. L\u00e9vi's most interesting article \"Le\n'Tokharien B' langue de Koutcha\" in _J.A._ 1913, II. pp. 311 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 499: _J.A._ 1913, ii. p. 326.]\n\n[Footnote 500: See Chavannes in Stein's _Ancient Khotan_, p. 544. The\nWestern Tsin reigned 265-317.]\n\n[Footnote 501: The circumstances which provoked the expedition are not\nvery clear. It was escorted by the king of Turfan and other small\npotentates who were the vassals of the Tsin and also on bad terms with\nKucha. They probably asked Fu-chien for assistance in subduing their\nrival which he was delighted to give. Some authorities (_e.g._ Nanjio\nCat. p. 406) give Karashahr as the name of Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva's town, but this\nseems to be a mistake.]\n\n[Footnote 502: S. L\u00e9vi, _J.A._ 1913, ii. p. 348, quoting Hs\u00fc Kao S\u00eang\nChuan.]\n\n[Footnote 503: Quoted by S. L\u00e9vi from the _Sung Kao S\u00eang Chuan_. See\n_J.A._ 1913, II. p. 344 and _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 562.]\n\n[Footnote 504: As a proof of foreign influence in Chinese culture, it\nis interesting to note that there were seven orchestras for the\nimperial banquets, including those of Kucha, Bokhara and India and a\nmixed one in which were musicians from Samarkand, Kashgar, Camboja and\nJapan.]\n\n[Footnote 505: Quoted by Bretschneider, _Mediaeval Researches_, ii.\n189.]\n\n[Footnote 506: Pelliot, _J.A._ 1912, i. p. 579, suggests that Chotscho\nor Qoco is the Turkish equivalent of Kao Ch'ang in T'ang\npronunciation, the nasal being omitted.]\n\n[Footnote 507: Chavannes, _Tou-kiue Occidentaux_, p. 101.]\n\n[Footnote 508: For the history of Khotan see R\u00e9musat, _Ville de\nKhotan_, 1820, and Stein's great work _Ancient Khotan_, especially\nchapter vii. For the Tibetan traditions see Rockhill, _Life of the\nBuddha_, pp. 230 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 509: Ku-stana seems to have been a learned perversion of the\nname, to make it mean breast of the earth.]\n\n[Footnote 510: The combination is illustrated by the Sino-Kharoshth\u00ee\ncoins with a legend in Chinese on the obverse and in Prakrit on the\nreverse. See Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, p. 204. But the coins are later\nthan 73 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 511: The Tibetan text gives the date of conversion as the\nreign of King Vijayasambhava, 170 years after the foundation of\nKhotan.]\n\n[Footnote 512: See Sten Konow in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 345.]\n\n[Footnote 513: See Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, pp. 170, 456.]\n\n[Footnote 514: Chavannes, _Tou-kiue_, p. 125, cf. pp. 121 and 170. For\nHsien sh\u00ean see Giles's _Chinese Dict._ No. 4477.]\n\n[Footnote 515: Beal, _Life_, p. 205.]\n\n[Footnote 516: Identified by Stein with Kohmari Hill which is still\nrevered by Mohammedans as a sacred spot.]\n\n[Footnote 517: _Desert Cathay_, II. p. 114.]\n\n[Footnote 518: See Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II. p. 296. Beal, _Life_.\np. 205. Chavannes, \"Voyage de Sung Yun.\" _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, 395, and\nfor the Tibetan sources, Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, chap. VIII.\nOne of the four Tibetan works is expressly stated to be translated\nfrom Khotanese.]\n\n[Footnote 519: The Tibetan Chronicles of Li-Yul say that they\nworshipped Vai\u015bravana and \u015ar\u00eemah\u00e2dev\u00ee.]\n\n[Footnote 520: A monk from Kashmir called Vairocana was also active in\nTibet about 750 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 521: It is also possible that Buddhism had a bad time in the\nfifth and sixth centuries at the hands of the Tanguts, Juan-Juan and\nWhite Huns.]\n\n[Footnote 522: The Later Han Annals say that the Hindus are weaker\nthan the Y\u00fceh-chih and are not accustomed to fight because they are\nBuddhists. (See _T'oung Pao_, 1910, p. 192.) This seems to imply that\nthe Y\u00fceh-chih were not Buddhists. But even this was the real view of\nthe compiler of the Annals we do not know from what work he took this\nstatement nor to what date it refers.]\n\n[Footnote 523: See Beal, _Life_, p. 39, Julien, p. 50. The books\nmentioned are apparently the Samyukt\u00e2bhidharmah\u1e5bidaya (Nanjio,\n1287), Abhidharma Kosha (Nanjio, 1267), Abhidharma-Vibh\u00e2sha (Nanjio,\n1264) and Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ryabh\u00fbmi (Nanjio, 1170).]\n\n[Footnote 524: The importance of the Tarim basin is due to the\nexcellent preservation of its records and its close connection with\nChina. The Oxus regions suffered more from Mohammedan iconoclasm, but\nthey may have been at least equally important for the history of\nBuddhism.]\n\n[Footnote 525: _E.g._ see the Maitreya inscription of Turfan.]\n\n[Footnote 526: Or at least is not accessible to me here in Hongkong,\n1914.]\n\n[Footnote 527: I do not mean to say that all Dh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ees are late.]\n\n[Footnote 528: It is even probable that apocryphal S\u00fbtras were\ncomposed in Central Asia. See Pelliot in _M\u00e9langes d'Indianisme_,\nSylvain L\u00e9vi, p. 329.]\n\n[Footnote 529: The list of manifestations in Jambudvipa enumerates 56\nkingdoms. All cannot be identified with certainty, but apparently less\nthan half are within India proper.]\n\n[Footnote 530: See _Bibl. Budd._ XII. pp. 44, 46, XIV. p. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 531: The Turkish sutras repeatedly style the Buddha God\n(t'angri) or God of Gods. The expression dev\u00e2tideva is applied to him\nin Sanskrit, but the Turkish phrases are more decided and frequent.\nThe Sanskrit phrase may even be due to Iranian influence.]\n\n[Footnote 532: An Chou, the Prince to whose memory the temple was\ndedicated, seems to be regarded as a manifestation of Maitreya.]\n\n[Footnote 533: _J.A._ 1913, I. p. 154. The series of three articles by\nChavannes and Pelliot entitled \"Un trait\u00e9 Manich\u00e9en retrouv\u00e9 en Chine\"\n(_J.A._ 1911, 1913) is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge\nof Manich\u00e6ism in Central Asia and China.]\n\n[Footnote 534: _E.g._ see _J.A._ 1911, pp. 509 and 589. See also Le\nCoq, _Sitzb. preuss. Akad. der Wiss._ 48, 1909, 1202-1218.]\n\n[Footnote 535: _J.A._ 1913, I. pp. 116 and 132.]\n\n[Footnote 536: See especially Havret, \"La st\u00e8le chr\u00e9tienne de\nSi-ngan-fu\" in _Vari\u00e9t\u00e9s Sinologues_, pp. 7, 12 and 20.]\n\n[Footnote 537: See Havret, _l.c_. III. p. 54, for some interesting\nremarks respecting the unwillingness of the Nestorians and also of the\nJesuits to give publicity to the crucifixion.]\n\n[Footnote 538: See Takakusu, _I-tsing_, pp. 169, 223, and _T'oung\nPao_, 1896, p. 589.]\n\n[Footnote 539: Turfan and Kucha are spoken of as being mainly\nH\u00eenay\u00e2nist.]\n\n[Footnote 540: See Stein, _Zoroastrian deities on Indo-Scythian\ncoins_, 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 541: See _S.B.E._ IV. (Vend\u00eedad) pp. 145, 209; XXIII. p.\n184, V. p. III.]\n\n[Footnote 542: Chap. VII. The notices in Chaps. XXII. and XXIV. are\nrather more detailed but also later.]\n\n[Footnote 543: XII. p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 544: Transl. Schiefner, pp. 93, 105 and 303, and Pander's\n_Pantheon_, No. 11. But T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha also says that he was Aryadeva's\npupil.]\n\n[Footnote 545: \u015aara in Sanskrit.]\n\n[Footnote 546: The doctrine of salvation by faith alone seems to be\nlater. The longer and apparently older version of the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee Vy\u00fbha\ninsists on good works as a condition of entry into Paradise.]\n\n[Footnote 547: _S.B.E._ IV. p. 293; _ib._ XXXIII. pp. 317 and 344.]\n\n[Footnote 548: It may also be noticed that Ameret\u00e2t, the Archangel of\nimmortality, presides over vegetation and that Amida's paradise is\nfull of flowers.]\n\n[Footnote 549: _S.B.E._ XXIII. pp. 335-7.]\n\n[Footnote 550: _S.B.E._ XXXI. p. 261.]\n\n[Footnote 551: _S.B.E._ XXIII. pp. 21-31 (the Ormasd Yasht).]\n\n[Footnote 552: Is it possible that there is any connection between\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee and the land of Saukavastan, governed by an immortal ruler\nand located by the Bundehish between Turkistan and Chinistan? I\nimagine there is no etymological relationship, but if Saukavastan was\nwell known as a land of the blessed it may have influenced the choice\nof a significant Sanskrit word with a similar sound.]\n\n[Footnote 553: _E.R.E. sub voce_.]\n\n[Footnote 554: _J.A._ 1912, I. p. 622. Unfortunately only a brief\nnotice of his communication is given with no details. See also S.\nL\u00e9vi, _Le N\u00e9p\u00e2l_, pp. 330 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 555: Ti-tsang in Chinese, Jizo in Japanese. See for his\nhistory Visser's elaborate articles in _Ostasiatische Ztsft._\n1913-1915.]\n\n[Footnote 556: He was accepted by the Manich\u00e6ans as one of the Envoys\nof Light. _J.A._ 1911, II. p. 549.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLII\n\nCHINA\n\n_Prefatory note._\n\n\nFor the transcription of Chinese words I use the modern Peking\npronunciation as represented in Giles's Dictionary. It may be justly\nobjected that of all dialects Pekingese is perhaps the furthest removed\nfrom ancient Chinese and therefore unsuited for historical studies and\nalso that Wade's system of transcription employed by Giles is open to\nserious criticism. But, on the other hand, I am not competent to write\naccording to the pronunciation of Nanking or Canton all the names which\nappear in these chapters and, if I were, it would not be a convenience\nto my readers. Almost all English works of reference about China use the\nforms registered in Giles's Dictionary or near approximations to them,\nand any variation would produce difficulty and confusion. French and\nGerman methods of transcribing Chinese differ widely from Wade's and\nunfortunately there seems to be no prospect of sinologues agreeing on\nany international system.\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nThe study of Chinese Buddhism is interesting but difficult[557]. Here\nmore than in other Asiatic countries we feel that the words and\nphrases natural to a European language fail to render justly the\nelementary forms of thought, the simplest relationships. But Europeans\nare prone to exaggerate the mysterious, topsy-turvy character of the\nChinese mind. Such epithets are based on the assumption that human\nthought and conduct normally conform to reason and logic, and that\nwhen such conformity is wanting the result must be strange and hardly\nhuman, or at least such as no respectable European could expect or\napprove. But the assumption is wrong. In no country with which I am\nacquainted are logic and co-ordination of ideas more wanting than\nin the British Isles. This is not altogether a fault, for human\nsystems are imperfect and the rigorous application of any one\nimperfect system must end in disaster. But the student of Asiatic\npsychology must begin his task by recognising that in the West and\nEast alike, the thoughts of nations, though not always of individuals,\nare a confused mosaic where the pattern has been lost and a thousand\nfancies esteemed at one time or another as pleasing, useful or\nrespectable are crowded into the available space. This is especially\ntrue in the matter of religion. An observer fresh to the subject might\nfind it hard to formulate the relations to one another and to the\nCrown of the various forms of Christianity prevalent in our Empire or\nto understand how the English Church can be one body, when some\nsections of it are hardly distinguishable from Roman Catholicism and\nothers from non-conformist sects. In the same way Chinese religion\noffers startling combinations of incongruous rites and doctrines: the\nattitude of the laity and of the government to the different churches\nis not to be defined in ordinary European terms and yet if one\nexamines the practice of Europe, it will often throw light on the\noddities of China.\n\nThe difficulty of finding a satisfactory equivalent in Chinese for the\nword God is well known and has caused much discussion among\nmissionaries. Confucius inherited and handed on a worship of Heaven\nwhich inspired some noble sayings and may be admitted to be\nmonotheism. But it was a singularly impersonal monotheism and had\nlittle to do with popular religion, being regarded as the prerogative\nand special cult of the Emperor. The people selected their deities\nfrom a numerous pantheon of spirits, falling into many classes among\nwhich two stand out clearly, namely, nature spirits and spirits of\nancestors. All these deities, as we must call them for want of a\nbetter word, present odd features, which have had some influence on\nChinese Buddhism. The boundary between the human and the spirit worlds\nis slight. Deification and euhemerism are equally natural to the\nChinese. Not only are worthies of every sort made into gods[558], but\nforeign deities are explained on the same principle. Thus Yen-lo\n(Yama), the king of the dead, is said to have been a Chinese official\nof the sixth century A.D. But there is little mythology. The deities\nare like the figures on porcelain vases: all know their appearance and\nsome their names, but hardly anyone can give a coherent account of\nthem. A poly-d\u00e6monism of this kind is even more fluid than Hinduism:\nyou may invent any god you like and neglect gods that don't concern\nyou. The habit of mind which produces sects in India, namely the\ndesire to exalt one's own deity above others and make him the All-God,\ndoes not exist. No Chinese god inspires such feelings.\n\nThe deities of medieval and modern China, including the spirits\nrecognized by Chinese Buddhism, are curiously mixed and vague\npersonalities[559]. Nature worship is not absent, but it is nature as\nseen by the fancy of the alchemist and astrologer. The powers that\ncontrol nature are also identified with ancient heroes, but they are\nmostly heroes of the type of St. George and the Dragon of whom history\nhas little to say, and Chinese respect for the public service and\nofficial rank takes the queer form of regarding these spirits as\ncelestial functionaries. Thus the gods have a Ministry of Thunder\nwhich supervises the weather and a Board of Medicine which looks after\nsickness and health.\n\nThe characteristic expression of Chinese popular religion is not\nexactly myth or legend but religious romance. A writer starts from\nsome slender basis of fact and composes an edifying novel. Thus the\nwell-known story called Hsi-Yu-Chi[560] purports to be an account of\nHs\u00fcan Chuang's journey to India but, except that it represents the\nhero as going there and returning with copies of the scriptures, it is\nromance pure and simple, a fantastic Pilgrim's Progress, the scene\nof which is sometimes on earth and sometimes in the heavens. The\ntraveller is accompanied by allegorical creatures such as a magic\nmonkey, a pig, and a dragon horse, who have each their own\nsignificance and may be seen represented in Buddhist and Taoist\ntemples even to-day. So too another writer, starting from the\ntradition that Avalokita (or Kuan-Yin) was once a benevolent human\nbeing, set himself to write the life of Kuan-Yin, represented as a\nprincess endued with every virtue who cheerfully bears cruel\npersecution for her devotion to Buddhism. It would be a mistake to\nseek in this story any facts throwing light on the history of\nAvalokita and his worship. It is a religious novel, important only\nbecause it still finds numerous readers.\n\nIt is commonly said that the Chinese belong to three religions,\nConfucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and the saying is not altogether\ninaccurate. Popular language speaks of the three creeds and an\nordinary person in the course of his life may take part in rites which\nimply a belief in them all[561]. Indeed the fusion is so complete that\none may justly talk of Chinese religion, meaning the jumble of\nceremonies and beliefs accepted by the average man. Yet at the same\ntime it is possible to be an enthusiast for any one of the three\nwithout becoming unconventional.\n\nOf the three religions, Confucianism has a disputable claim to the\ntitle. If the literary classes of China find it sufficient, they do so\nonly by rejecting the emotional and speculative sides of religion. The\nEmperor Wan-li[562] made a just epigram when he said that Confucianism\nand Buddhism are like the wings of a bird. Each requires the\nco-operation of the other. Confucius was an ethical and political\nphilosopher, not a prophet, hierophant or church founder. As a\nmoralist he stands in the first rank, and I doubt if either the\nGospels or the Pitakas contain maxims for the life of a good citizen\nequal to his sayings. But he ignored that unworldly morality which,\namong Buddhists and Christians, is so much admired and so little\npractised. In religion he claimed no originality, he brought no\nrevelation, but he accepted the current ideas of his age and time,\nthough perhaps he eliminated many popular superstitions. He commended\nthe worship of Heaven, which, if vague, still connected the deity with\nthe moral law, and he enjoined sacrifice to ancestors and spirits. But\nall this apparently without any theory. His definition of wisdom is\nwell known: \"to devote oneself to human duties and keep aloof from\nspirits while still respecting them.\" This is not the utterance of a\nsceptical statesman, equivalent to \"remember the political importance\nof religion but keep clear of it, so far as you can.\" The best\ncommentary is the statement in the _Analects_ that he seldom spoke\nabout the will of Heaven, yet such of his utterances about it as have\nbeen preserved are full of awe and submission[563]. A certain delicacy\nmade him unwilling to define or discuss the things for which he felt\nthe highest reverence, and a similar detached but respectful attitude\nis still a living constituent of Chinese society. The scholar and\ngentleman will not engage in theological or metaphysical disputes, but\nhe respectfully takes part in ceremonies performed in honour of such\nvenerated names as Heaven, Earth and Confucius himself. Less\nwillingly, but still without remonstrance, he attends Buddhist or\nTaoist celebrations.\n\nIf it is hard to define the religious element in Confucianism, it is\nstill harder to define Taoism, but for another reason, namely, that\nthe word has more than one meaning. In one sense it is the old popular\nreligion of China, of which Confucius selected the scholarly and\ngentlemanly features. Taoism, on the contrary, rejected no godlings\nand no legends however grotesque: it gave its approval to the most\nextravagant and material superstitions, especially to the belief that\nphysical immortality could be insured by drinking an elixir, which\nproved fatal to many illustrious dupes. As an organized body it owes\nits origin to Chang-Ling _(c._ 130 A.D.) and his grandson\nChang-Lu[564]. The sect received its baptism of blood but made terms\nwith the Chinese Government, one condition being that a member of the\nhouse of Chang should be recognized as its hereditary Patriarch or\nPope[565]. Rivalry with Buddhism also contributed to give Taoism\nsomething of that consistency in doctrine and discipline which we\nassociate with the word religion, for in their desire to show that\nthey were as good as their opponents the Taoists copied them in\nnumerous and important particulars, for instance triads of deities,\nsacred books and monastic institutions.\n\nThe power of inventive imitation is characteristic of Taoism[566]. In\nmost countries great gods are children of the popular mind. After long\ngestation and infancy they emerge as deities bound to humanity by a\nthousand ties of blood and place. But the Taoists, whenever they\nthought a new deity needful or ornamental, simply invented him, often\nwith the sanction of an Imperial Edict. Thus Y\u00fc-Ti[567], the precious\nor jade Emperor, who is esteemed the supreme ruler of the world, was\ncreated or at least brought into notice about 1012 A.D. by the Emperor\nCh\u00ean Tsung[568] who pretended to have correspondence with him. He is\nprobably an adaptation of Indra and is also identified with a prince\nof ancient China, but cannot be called a popular hero like Rama or\nKrishna, and has not the same hold on the affections of the people.\n\nBut Taoism is also the name commonly given not only to this fanciful\nchurch but also to the philosophic ideas expounded in the Tao-t\u00ea-ching\nand in the works of Chuang-tz\u016d. The Taoist priesthood claim this\nphilosophy, but the two have no necessary connection. Taoism as\nphilosophy represents a current of thought opposed to Confucianism,\ncompared with which it is ascetic, mystic and pantheistic, though\nexcept in comparison it does not deserve such epithets. My use of\npantheistic in particular may raise objection, but it seems to me that\nTao, however hard to define, is analogous to Brahman, the impersonal\nSpirit of Hindu philosophy. The universe is the expression of Tao and\nin conforming to Tao man finds happiness. For Confucianism, as for\nEurope, man is the pivot and centre of things, but less so for\nTaoism and Buddhism. Philosophic Taoism, being somewhat abstruse and\nunpractical, might seem to have little chance of becoming a popular\nsuperstition. But from early times it was opposed to Confucianism, and\nas Confucianism became more and more the hall-mark of the official and\nlearned classes, Taoism tended to become popular, at the expense of\ndegrading itself. From early times too it dallied with such\nfascinating notions as the acquisition of miraculous powers and\nlongevity. But, as an appeal to the emotional and spiritual sides of\nhumanity, it was, if superior to Confucianism, inferior to Buddhism.\n\nBuddhism, unlike Confucianism and Taoism, entered China as a foreign\nreligion, but, in using this phrase, we must ask how far any system of\nbelief prevalent there is accepted as what we call a religion. Even in\nCeylon and Burma people follow the observances of two religions or at\nleast of a religion and a superstition, but they would undoubtedly\ncall themselves Buddhists. In China the laity use no such designations\nand have no sense of exclusive membership. For them a religion is\ncomparable to a club, which they use for special purposes. You may\nfrequent both Buddhist and Taoist temples just as you may belong to\nboth the Geographical and Zoological Societies. Perhaps the position\nof spiritualism in England offers the nearest analogy to a Chinese\nreligion. There are, I believe, some few persons for whom spiritualism\nis a definite, sufficient and exclusive creed. These may be compared\nto the Buddhist clergy with a small minority of the laity. But the\nmajority of those who are interested or even believe in spiritualism,\ndo not identify themselves with it in this way. They attend s\u00e9ances as\ntheir curiosity or affections may prompt, but these beliefs and\npractices do not prevent them from also belonging to a Christian\ndenomination. Imagine spiritualism to be better organized as an\ninstitution and you will have a fairly accurate picture of the average\nChinaman's attitude to Buddhism and Taoism. One may also compare the\nway in which English poets use classical mythology. _Lycidas_, for\ninstance, is an astounding compound of classical and biblical ideas,\nand Milton does not hesitate to call the Supreme Being Jove in a\nserious passage. Yet Milton's Christianity has never, so far as I\nknow, been called in question.\n\nThere is an obvious historical parallel between the religions of\nthe Chinese and early Roman Empires. In both, the imperial and\nofficial worship was political and indifferent to dogma without being\nhostile, provided no sectary refused to call the Emperor Son of Heaven\nor sacrifice to his image. In both, ample provision was made outside\nthe state cult for allaying the fears of superstition, as well as for\nsatisfying the soul's thirst for knowledge and emotion. A Roman\nmagistrate of the second century A.D. may have offered official\nsacrifices, propitiated local genii, and attended the mysteries of\nMithra, in the same impartial way as Chinese magistrates took part a\nfew years ago in the ceremonies of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism.\nIn both cases there was entire liberty to combine with the official\nreligious routine private beliefs and observances incongruous with it\nand often with one another: in both there was the same essential\nfeature that no deity demanded exclusive allegiance. The popular\npolytheism of China is indeed closely analogous to the paganism of the\nancient world[569]. Hinduism contains too much personal religion and\nreal spiritual feeling to make the resemblance perfect, but in dealing\nwith Apollo, Mars and Venus a Roman of the early Empire seems to have\nshown the mixture of respect and scepticism which is characteristic of\nChina.\n\nThis attitude implies not only a certain want of conviction but also a\nutilitarian view of religion. The Chinese visit a temple much as they\nvisit a shop or doctor, for definite material purposes, and if it be\nasked whether they are a religious people in the better sense of the\nword, I am afraid the answer must be in the negative. It is with\nregret that I express this opinion and I by no means imply that there\nare not many deeply religious persons in China, but whereas in India\nthe obvious manifestations of superstition are a superficial disease\nand the heart of the people is keenly sensitive to questions of\npersonal salvation and speculative theology, this cannot be said of\nthe masses in China, where religion, as seen, consists of\nsuperstitious rites and the substratum of thought and feeling is\nsmall.\n\nThis struck me forcibly when visiting Siam some years ago. In\nBangkok there is a large Chinese population and several Buddhist\ntemples have been made over to them. The temples frequented by Siamese\nare not unlike catholic churches in Europe: the decoration is roughly\nsimilar, the standard of decorum much the same. The visitors come to\nworship, meditate or hear sermons. But in the temples used by the\nChinese, a lower standard is painfully obvious and the atmosphere is\ndifferent. Visitors are there in plenty, but their object is to \"get\nluck,\" and the business of religion has become transformed into\ndivination and spiritual gambling. The worshipper, on entering, goes\nto a counter where he buys tapers and incense-sticks, together with\nsome implements of superstition such as rods or inscribed cards. After\nburning incense he draws a card or throws the rods up into the air and\ntakes an augury from the result. Though the contrast presented in Siam\nmakes the degradation more glaring, yet these temples in Bangkok are\nnot worse than many which I have seen in China. I gladly set on the\nother side of the account some beautiful and reverent halls of worship\nin the larger monasteries, but I fear that the ordinary Chinese\ntemple, whether Taoist or Buddhist, is a ghostly shop where, in return\nfor ceremonies which involve neither moral nor intellectual effort,\nthe customer is promised good luck, offspring, and other material\nblessings.\n\nIt can hardly be denied that the populace in China are grossly\nsuperstitious. Superstition is a common failing and were statistics\navailable to show the number and status of Europeans who believe in\nfortune-telling and luck, the result might be startling. But in most\ncivilized countries such things are furtive and apologetic. In China\nthe strangest forms of magic and divination enjoy public esteem. The\nideas which underlie popular practice and ritual are worthy of African\nsavages: there has been a monstrous advance in systematization, yet\nthe ethics and intellect of China, brilliant as are their\nachievements, have not leavened the lump. The average Chinese, though\nan excellent citizen, full of common sense and shrewd in business, is\nin religious matters a victim of fatuous superstition and completely\ndivorced from the moral and intellectual standards which he otherwise\nemploys.\n\nConspicuous among these superstitions is F\u00eang Shui or\nGeomancy[570], a pseudo-science which is treated as seriously as\nlaw or surveying. It is based on the idea that localities have a sort\nof spiritual climate which brings prosperity or the reverse and\ndepends on the influences of stars and nature spirits, such as the\nazure dragon and white tiger. But since these agencies find expression\nin the contours of a locality, they can be affected if its features\nare modified by artificial means, for instance, the construction of\nwalls and towers. Buddhism did not disdain to patronize these notions.\nThe principal hall of a monastery is usually erected on a specially\nauspicious site and the appeals issued for the repair of sacred\nbuildings often point out the danger impending if edifices essential\nto the good F\u00eang Shui of a district are allowed to decay. The\nscepticism and laughter of the educated does not clear the air, for\nsuperstition can flourish when neither respected nor believed. The\nworst feature of religion in China is that the decently educated\npublic ridicules its external observances, but continues to practise\nthem, because they are connected with occasions of good fellowship or\nbecause their omission might be a sign of disrespect to departed\nrelatives or simply because in dealing with uncanny things it is\nbetter to be on the safe side. This is the sum of China's composite\nreligion as visible in public and private rites. Its ethical value is\nfar higher than might be supposed, for its most absurd superstitions\nalso recommend love and respect in family life and a high standard of\ncivic duty. But China has never admitted that public or private\nmorality requires the support of a religious creed.\n\nAs might be expected, life and animation are more apparent in sects\nthan in conventional religion. Since the recent revolution it is no\nlonger necessary to confute the idea that the Chinese are a stationary\nand unemotional race, but its inaccuracy was demonstrated by many\nprevious movements especially the T'ai-p'ing rebellion, which had at\nfirst a religious tinge. Yet in China such movements, though they may\nkindle enthusiasm and provoke persecution, rarely have the religious\nvalue attaching to a sect in Christian, Hindu and Mohammedan\ncountries. Viewed as an ecclesiastical or spiritual movement, the\nT\u0301ai-p'ing is insignificant: it was a secret society permitted by\ncircumstances to become a formidable rising and in its important\nphases the political element was paramount. The same is true of many\nsects which have not achieved such notoriety. They are secret\nsocieties which adopt a creed, but it is not in the creed that their\nreal vitality lies.\n\nIf it is difficult to say how far the Buddhism of China is a religion,\nit is equally difficult to define its relation to the State. Students\nwell acquainted with the literature as well as with the actual\ncondition of China have expressed diametrically opposite views as to\nthe religious attitude of the Imperial Government[571], one stating\nroundly that it was \"the most intolerant, the most persecuting of all\nearthly Governments,\" and another that it \"at no period refused\nhospitality and consideration to any religion recommended as\nsuch[572].\"\n\nIn considering such questions I would again emphasize the fact that\nChinese terms have often not the same extension as their apparent\nsynonyms in European languages, which, of course, means that the\nprovinces of human life and thought have also different boundaries.\nFor most countries the word clergy has a definite meaning and, in\nspite of great diversities, may be applied to Christian clerics,\nMollahs and Brahmans without serious error. It means a class of men\nwho are the superintendents of religion, but also more. On the one\nside, though they may have serious political differences with the\nGovernment, they are usually in touch with it: on the other, though\nthey may dislike reformers and movements from below, they patronize\nand minister to popular sentiment. They are closely connected with\neducation and learning and sometimes with the law. But in China there\nis no class which unites all these features. Learning, law and\neducation are represented by the Confucian scholars or literati.\nThough no one would think of calling them priests, yet they may offer\nofficial sacrifices, like Roman magistrates. Though they are\ncontemptuous of popular superstition, yet they embody the popular\nideal. It is the pride of a village to produce a scholar. But the\nscholarship of the literati is purely Confucian: Buddhist and Taoist\nlearning have no part in it.\n\nThe priest, whether Buddhist or Taoist, is not in the mind of the\npeople the repository of learning and law. He is not in religious\nmatters the counterpart of the secular arm, but rather a private\npractitioner, duly licensed but of no particular standing. But he is\nskilful in his own profession: he has access to the powers who help,\npity and console, and even the sceptic seeks his assistance when\nconfronted with the dangers of this world and the next.\n\nThe student of Chinese history may object that at many periods,\nnotably under the Y\u00fcan dynasty, the Buddhist clergy were officially\nrecognized as an educational body and even received the title of\nKuo-shih or teacher of the people. This is true. Such recognition by\nno means annihilated the literati, but it illustrates the decisive\ninfluence exercised by the Emperor and the court. We have, on the one\nside, a learned official class, custodians of the best national ideals\nbut inclined to reject emotion and speculation as well as\nsuperstition: on the other, two priesthoods, prone to superstition but\nlegitimately strong in so far as they satisfied the emotional and\nspeculative instincts. The literati held persistently, though\nrespectfully, to the view that the Emperor should be a Confucianist\npure and simple, but Buddhism and Taoism had such strong popular\nsupport that it was always safe and often politic for an Emperor to\npatronize them. Hence an Emperor of personal convictions was able to\nturn the balance, and it must be added that Buddhism often flourished\nin the courts of weak and dissolute Emperors who were in the hands of\nwomen and eunuchs. Some of these latter were among its most\ndistinguished devotees.\n\nAll Chinese religions agreed in accepting the Emperor as head of the\nChurch, not merely titular but active. He exercised a strange\nprerogative of creating, promoting and degrading deities. Even within\nthe Buddhist sphere he regulated the incarnations of Bodhisattvas in\nthe persons of Lamas and from time to time re-edited the canon[573] or\nadded new works to it. This extreme Erastianism had its roots in\nIndian as well as Chinese ideas. The Confucianist, while reminding the\nEmperor that he should imitate the sages and rulers of antiquity,\ngladly admitted his right to control the worship of all spirits[574]\nand the popular conscience, while probably unable to define what was\nmeant by the title _Son of Heaven_[575], felt that it gave him a\nviceregal right to keep the gods in order, so long as he did not\nprovoke famine or other national calamities by mismanagement. The\nBuddhists, though tenacious of freedom in the spiritual life, had no\nobjection to the patronage of princes. Asoka permitted himself to\nregulate the affairs of the Church and the success of Buddhists as\nmissionaries was due in no small measure to their tact in allowing\nother sovereigns to follow his example.\n\nThat Buddhism should have obtained in China a favourable reception and\na permanent status is indeed remarkable, for in two ways it was\nrepugnant to the sentiments of the governing classes to say nothing of\nthe differences in temper and outlook which divide Hindus and Chinese.\nFirstly, its ideal was asceticism and celibacy; it gave family life\nthe lower place and ignored the popular Chinese view that to have a\nson is not only a duty, but also essential for those sacrifices\nwithout which the departed spirit cannot have peace. Secondly, it was\nnot merely a doctrine but an ecclesiastical organization, a\ncongregation of persons who were neither citizens nor subjects, not\nexactly an _imperium in imperio_ nor a secret society, but\ndangerously capable of becoming either. Such bodies have always\nincurred the suspicion and persecution of the Chinese Government. Even\nin the fifth century Buddhist monasteries were accused of organizing\narmed conspiracies and many later sects suffered from the panic which\nthey inspired in official bosoms. But both difficulties were overcome\nby the suppleness of the clergy. If they outraged family sentiment\nthey managed to make themselves indispensable at funeral\nceremonies[576]. If they had a dangerous resemblance to an _imperium\nin imperio_, they minimized it by their obvious desire to exercise\ninfluence through the Emperor. Though it is true that the majority of\nanti-dynastic political sects had a Buddhist colour, the most\nprominent and influential Buddhists never failed in loyalty. To this\nadroitness must be added a solid psychological advantage. The success\nof Buddhism in China was due to the fact that it presented religious\nemotion and speculation in the best form known there, and when it\nbegan to spread the intellectual soil was not unpropitious. The higher\nTaoist philosophy had made familiar the ideas of quietism and the\ncontemplative life: the age was unsettled, harassed alike by foreign\ninvasion and civil strife. In such times when even active natures tire\nof unsuccessful struggles, the asylum of a monastery has attractions\nfor many.\n\nWe have now some idea of the double position of Buddhism in China and\ncan understand how it sometimes appears as almost the established\nchurch and sometimes as a persecuted sect. The reader will do well to\nremember that in Europe the relations of politics to religion have not\nalways been simple: many Catholic sovereigns have quarrelled with\nPopes and monks. The French Government supports the claims of Catholic\nmissions in China but does not favour the Church in France. The fact\nthat Huxley was made a Privy Councillor does not imply that Queen\nVictoria approved of his religious views. In China the repeated\nrestrictive edicts concerning monasteries should not be regarded as\nacts of persecution. Every politician can see the loss to the state if\nable-bodied men become monks by the thousand. In periods of literary\nand missionary zeal, large congregations of such monks may have a\nsufficient sphere of activity but in sleepy, decadent periods they are\napt to become a moral or political danger. A devout Buddhist or\nCatholic may reasonably hold that though the monastic life is the best\nfor the elect, yet for the unworthy it is more dangerous than the\ntemptations of the world. Thus the founder of the Ming dynasty had\nhimself been a bonze, yet he limited the number and age of those\nwho might become monks[577]. On the other hand, he attended Buddhist\nservices and published an edition of the Tripitaka. In this and in the\nconduct of most Emperors there is little that is inconsistent or\nmysterious: they regarded religion not in our fashion as a system\ndeserving either allegiance or rejection, but as a modern Colonial\nGovernor might regard education. Some Governors are enthusiastic for\neducation: others mistrust it as a stimulus of disquieting ideas: most\naccept it as worthy of occasional patronage, like hospitals and races.\nIn the same way some Emperors, like Wu-Ti[578], were enthusiasts for\nBuddhism and made it practically the state religion: a few others were\ndefinitely hostile either from conviction or political circumstances,\nbut probably most sovereigns regarded it as the average British\nofficial regards education, as something that one can't help having,\nthat one must belaud on certain public occasions, that may now and\nthen be useful, but still emphatically something to be kept within\nlimits.\n\nOutbursts against Buddhism are easy to understand. I have pointed out\nits un-Chinese features and the persistent opposition of the literati.\nThese were sufficient reasons for repressive measures whenever the\nEmperor was unbuddhist in his sympathies, especially if the\nmonasteries had enjoyed a period of prosperity and become crowded and\nwealthy. What is harder to understand is the occasional favour shown\nby apparently anti-Buddhist Emperors.\n\nThe Sacred Edict of the great K'ang Hsi forbids heterodoxy (i tuan) in\nwhich the official explanation clearly includes Buddhism[579]. It was\npublished in his extreme youth, but had his mature approval, and until\nrecently was read in every prefecture twice a month. But the same\nEmperor gave many gifts to monasteries, and in 1705 he issued a\ndecree to the monks of P'uto in which he said, \"we since our boyhood\nhave been earnest students of Confucian lore and have had no time to\nbecome minutely acquainted with the sacred books of Buddhism, but we\nare satisfied that Virtue is the one word which indicates what is\nessential in both systems. Let us pray to the compassionate Kuan-yin\nthat she may of her grace send down upon our people the spiritual rain\nand sweet dew of the good Law: that she may grant them bounteous\nharvests, seasonable winds and the blessings of peace, harmony and\nlong life and finally that she may lead them to the salvation which\nshe offers to all beings in the Universe[580].\" The two edicts are not\nconsistent but such inconsistency is no reproach to a statesman nor\nwholly illogical. The Emperor reprimands extravagance in doctrine and\nceremonial and commends Confucianism to his subjects as all that is\nnecessary for good life and good government, but when he finds that\nBuddhism conduces to the same end he accords his patronage and\npolitely admits the existence and power of Kuan-yin.\n\nBut I must pass on to another question, the relation of Chinese to\nIndian Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism is often spoken of as a strange and\ncorrupt degeneration, a commixture of Indian and foreign ideas. Now if\nsuch phrases mean that the pulse of life is feeble and the old lights\ndim, we must regretfully admit their truth, but still little is to be\nfound in Chinese Buddhism except the successive phases of later Indian\nBuddhism, introduced into China from the first century A.D. onwards.\nIn Japan there arose new sects, but in China, when importation ceased,\nno period of invention supervened. The T'ien-t'ai school has some\noriginality, and native and foreign ideas were combined by the\nfollowers of Bodhidharma. But the remaining schools were all founded\nby members of Indian sects or by Chinese who aimed at scrupulous\nimitation of Indian models. Until the eighth century, when the\nformative period came to an end, we have an alternation of Indian or\nCentral Asian teachers arriving in China to meet with respect and\nacceptance, and of Chinese enquirers who visited India in order to\ndiscover the true doctrine and practice and were honoured on their\nreturn in proportion as they were believed to have found it. There is\nthis distinction between China and such countries as Java, Camboja and\nChampa, that whereas in them we find a mixture of Hinduism and\nBuddhism, in China the traces of Hinduism are slight. The imported\nideas, however corrupt, were those of Indian Buddhist scholars, not\nthe mixed ideas of the Indian layman[581].\n\nOf course Buddhist theory and practice felt the influence of their new\nsurroundings. The ornaments and embroidery of the faith are Chinese\nand sometimes hide the original material. Thus Kuan-yin, considered\nhistorically, has grown out of the Indian deity Avalokita, but the\ngoddess worshipped by the populace is the heroine of the Chinese\nromance mentioned above. And, since many Chinese are only half\nBuddhists, tales about gods and saints are taken only half-seriously;\nthe Buddha periodically invites the immortals to dine with him in\nHeaven and the Eighteen Lohan are described as converted brigands.\n\nIn every monastery the buildings, images and monks obviously bear the\nstamp of the country. Yet nearly all the doctrines and most of the\nusages have Indian parallels. The ritual has its counterpart in what\nI-Ching describes as seen by himself in his Indian travels. China has\nadded the idea of _f\u00eang-shui_, and has modified architectural forms.\nFor instance the many-storeyed pagoda is an elongation of the\nstupa[582]. So, too, in ceremonial, the great prominence given to\nfuneral rites and many superstitious details are Chinese, yet, as I\nhave often mentioned in this work, rites on behalf of the dead were\ntolerated by early Buddhism. The curious mingling of religious\nservices with theatrical pagents which Hs\u00fcan Chuang witnessed at\nAllahabad in the reign of Harsha, has its modest parallel to-day in\nmany popular festivals.\n\nThe numerous images which crowd a Chinese temple, the four kings,\nArhats and Bodhisattvas, though of unfamiliar appearance to the Indian\nstudent, are Indian in origin. A few Taoist deities may have side\nchapels, but they are not among the principal objects of worship. The\ngreater part of the Chinese Tripitaka is a translation from the\nSanskrit and the Chinese works (only 194 against 1467 translations)\nare chiefly exegetical. Thus, though Chinese bonzes countenance native\nsuperstitions and gladly undertake to deal with all the gods and\ndevils of the land, yet in its doctrine, literature, and even in many\nexternals their Buddhism remains an Indian importation. If we seek in\nit for anything truly Chinese, it is to be found not in the\nconstituents, but in the atmosphere, which, like a breeze from a\nmountain monastery sometimes freshens the gilded shrines and libraries\nof verbose sutras. It is the native spirit of the Far East which finds\nexpression in the hill-side hermit's sense of freedom and in dark\nsayings such as _Buddhism is the oak-tree in my garden_. Every free\nand pure heart can become a Buddha, but also is one with the life of\nbirds and flowers. Both the love of nature[583] and the belief that\nmen can become divine can easily be paralleled in Indian texts, but\nthey were not, I think, imported into China, and joy in natural beauty\nand sympathy with wild life are much more prominent in Chinese than in\nIndian art.\n\nIs then Buddhist doctrine, as opposed to the superstitions tolerated\nby Buddhism, something exotic and without influence on the national\nlife? That also is not true. The reader will perceive from what has\ngone before that if he asks for statistics of Buddhism in China, the\nanswer must be, in the Buddha's own phrase, that the question is not\nproperly put. It is incorrect to describe China as a Buddhist country.\nWe may say that it contains so many million Mohammedans or Christians,\nbecause these creeds are definite and exclusive. We cannot quote\nsimilar figures for Buddhism or Confucianism. Yet assuredly Buddhism\nhas been a great power in China, as great perhaps as Christianity in\nEurope, if we remember how much is owed by European art, literature,\nlaw and science to non-Christian sources. The Chinese language is full\nof Buddhist phraseology[584], not only in literature but in\npopular songs and proverbs and an inspection of such entries in a\nChinese dictionary as _Fo_ (Buddha), _Kuan Yin_, _Ho Shang_\n(monk)[585] will show how large and not altogether flattering a part\nthey play in popular speech.\n\nPopular literature bears the same testimony. It is true that in what\nare esteemed the higher walks of letters Buddhism has little place.\nThe quotations and allusions which play there so prominent a part are\ntaken from the classics and Confucianism can claim as its own the\nhistorical, lexicographical and critical[586] works which are the\nsolid and somewhat heavy glory of Chinese literature. But its lighter\nand less cultivated blossoms, such as novels, fairy stories and\npoetry, are predominantly Buddhist or Taoist in inspiration. This may\nbe easily verified by a perusal of such works as the _Dream of the Red\nChamber_, _Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio_, and Wieger's _Folk\nLore Chinois Moderne_. The same is true in general of the great\nChinese poets, many of whom did not conceal that (in a poetic and\nunascetic fashion) they were attached to Buddhism.\n\nIt may be asked if the inspiration is not Taoist in the main rather\nthan Buddhist. Side by side with ethics and ceremony, a native stream\nof bold and weird imagination has never ceased to flow in China and\nthere was no need to import tales of the Genii, immortal saints and\nvampire beauties. But when any coherency unites these ideas of the\nsupernatural, that I think is the work of Buddhism and so far as\nTaoism itself has any coherency it is an imitation of Buddhism. Thus\nthe idea of metempsychosis as one of many passing fancies may be\nindigenous to China but its prevalence in popular thought and language\nis undoubtedly due to Buddhism, for Taoism and Confucianism have\nnothing definite to say as to the state of the dead.\n\nMuch the same story of Buddhist influence is told by Chinese art,\nespecially painting and sculpture. Here too Taoism is by no means\nexcluded: it may be said to represent the artistic side of the\nChinese mind, as Confucianism represents the political. But it is\nimpossible to mistake the significance of chronology. As soon as\nBuddhism was well established in China, art entered on a new phase\nwhich culminated in the masterpieces of the T'ang and Sung[587].\nBuddhism did not introduce painting into China or even perfect a\nrudimentary art. The celebrated roll of Ku K'ai-chih[588] shows no\ntrace of Indian influence and presupposes a long artistic tradition.\nBut Mahayanist Buddhism brought across Central Asia new shapes and\nmotives. Some of its imports were of doubtful artistic value, such as\nfigures with many limbs and eyes, but with them came ideas which\nenriched Chinese art with new dramatic power, passion and solemnity.\nTaoism dealt with other worlds but they were gardens of the\nHesperides, inhabited by immortal wizards and fairy queens, not those\ndisquieting regions where the soul receives the reward of its deeds.\nBut now the art of Central Asia showed Chinese painters something new;\nsaints preaching the law with a gesture of authority and deities of\ninfinite compassion inviting suppliants to approach their thrones. And\nwith them came the dramatic story of Gotama's life and all the legends\nof the Jatakas.\n\nThis clearly is not Taoism, but when the era of great art and\nliterature begins, any distinction between the two creeds, except for\ntheological purposes, becomes artificial, for Taoism borrowed many\nexternals of Buddhism, and Buddhism, while not abandoning its austere\nand emaciated saints, also accepted the Taoist ideal of the careless\nwandering hermit, friend of mountain pines and deer. Wei Hsieh[589]\nwho lived under the Chin dynasty, when the strength of Buddhism was\nbeginning to be felt, is considered by Chinese critics as the earliest\nof the great painters and is said to have excelled in both Buddhist\nand Taoist subjects. The same may be said of the most eminent names,\nsuch as Ku K'ai-chih and Wu Tao-tz\u016d[590], and we may also remember\nthat Italian artists painted the birth of Venus and the origin of the\nmilky way as well as Annunciations and Assumptions, without any\nhint that one incident was less true than another. Buddhism not only\nprovided subjects like the death of the Buddha and Kuan Yin, the\nGoddess of Mercy, which hold in Chinese art the same place as the\nCrucifixion and the Madonna in Europe, and generation after generation\nhave stimulated the noblest efforts of the best painters. It also\noffered a creed and ideals suited to the artistic temperament: peace\nand beauty reigned in its monasteries: its doctrine that life is one\nand continuous is reflected in that love of nature, that sympathetic\nunderstanding of plants and animals, that intimate union of sentiment\nwith landscape which marks the best Chinese pictures.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 557: For Chinese Buddhism see especially Johnston, _Chinese\nBuddhism_, 1913 (cited as Johnston). Much information about the\npopular side of Buddhism and Taoism nay be found in _Recherches sur\nles superstitions en Chine_ par le P\u00e8re Henri Dor\u00e9, 10 vols.\n1911-1916, Shanghai (cited as Dor\u00e9).]\n\n[Footnote 558: A curious instance of deification is mentioned in\n_Mus\u00e9on_, 1914, p. 61. It appears that several deceased Jesuits have\nbeen deified. For a recent instance of deification in 1913 see Dor\u00e9,\nX. p. 753.]\n\n[Footnote 559: The spirits called San Kuan [Chinese: ] or San Y\u00fcan\n[Chinese: ] are a good instance of Chinese deities. The words mean\nThree Agents or Principles who strictly speaking have no names: (_a_)\nOriginally they appear to represent Heaven, Earth and Water. (_b_)\nThen they stand for three periods of the year and the astrological\ninfluences which rule each, (_c_) As Agents, and more or less\nanalogous to human personalities, Heaven gives happiness, Earth\npardons sins and Water delivers from misfortune. _(d)_They are\nidentified with the ancient Emperors Yao, Shun, Y\u00fc. (_e_) They are\nalso identified with three Censors under the Emperor Li-Wang, B.C.\n878-841.]\n\n[Footnote 560: [Chinese: ] Hs\u00fcan Chuang's own account of his travels\nbears the slightly different title of Hsi-Y\u00fc-Chi. [Chinese: ] The\nwork noticed here is attributed to Chiu Ch'ang Ch'un, a Taoist priest\nof the thirteenth century. It is said to be the Buddhist book most\nwidely read in Korea where it is printed in the popular script. An\nabridged English translation has been published by T. Richard under\nthe title of _A Mission to Heaven_.]\n\n[Footnote 561: I am writing immediately after the abolition of the\nImperial Government (1912), and what I say naturally refers to a state\nof things which is passing away. But it is too soon to say how the new\nregime will affect religion. There is an old saying that China is\nsupported by the three religions as a tripod by three legs.]\n\n[Footnote 562: [Chinese: ] strictly speaking the title of his reign\n1573-1620.]\n\n[Footnote 563: Compare _Anal_. IX. 1 and xiv. 38. 2. See also\n_Doctrine of the Mean_, chap, xvi, for more positive views about\nspirits.]\n\n[Footnote 564: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ] See De Groot, \"Origins of\nthe Taoist Church\" in _Trans. Third Congress Hist. Relig_. 1908.]\n\n[Footnote 565: Chang Y\u00fcan-hs\u00fc, who held office in 1912, was deprived\nof his titles by the Republican Government. In 1914 petitions were\npresented for their restoration, but I do not know with what result.\nSee _Peking Daily News_, September 5th, 1914.]\n\n[Footnote 566: Something similar may be seen in Mormonism where\nangels and legends have been invented by individual fancy without any\nbackground of tradition.]\n\n[Footnote 567: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 568: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 569: The sixth \u00c6neid would seem to a Chinese quite a natural\ndescription of the next world. In it we have Elysium, Tartarus,\ntransmigration of souls, souls who can find no resting place because\ntheir bodies are unburied, and phantoms showing still the wounds which\ntheir bodies received in life. Nor is there any attempt to harmonize\nthese discordant ideas.]\n\n[Footnote 570: [Chinese: ] A somewhat similar pseudo-science called\nvatthu-vijj\u00e2 is condemned in the Pali scriptures. _E.g._ Digha N. I.\n21. Astrology also has been a great force in Chinese politics. See\nBland and Backhouse, _Ann. and Memoirs, passim_. The favour shown at\ndifferent times to Buddhist, Manich\u00e6an and Catholic priests was often\ndue to their supposed knowledge of astrology.]\n\n[Footnote 571: I may again remind the reader that I am not speaking of\nthe Chinese Republic but of the Empire. The long history of its\nrelations to Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, though it concerns the\npast, is of great interest.]\n\n[Footnote 572: De Groot and Parker. For an elaboration of the first\nthesis see especially De Groot's _Sectarianism and Religious\nPersecution in China_.]\n\n[Footnote 573: But it must be remembered that the Chinese canon is not\nentirely analogous to the collections of the scriptures current in\nIndia, Ceylon or Europe.]\n\n[Footnote 574: The Emperor is the Lord of all spirits and has the\nright to sacrifice to all spirits, whereas others should sacrifice\nonly to such spirits as concern them. For the Emperor's title \"Lord of\nSpirits,\" see Shu Ching IV., VI. 2-3, and Shih Ching, III., II. 8, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 575: The title is undoubtedly very ancient and means Son of\nHeaven or Son of God. See Hirth, _Ancient History of China_, pp.\n95-96. But the precise force of _Son_ is not clear. The Emperor was\nViceregent of Heaven, high priest and responsible for natural\nphenomena, but he could not in historical times be regarded as sprung\n(like the Emperor of Japan) from a family of divine descent, because\nthe dynasties, and with them the imperial family, were subject to\nfrequent change.]\n\n[Footnote 576: Similarly it is a popular tenet that if a man becomes a\nmonk all his ancestors go to Heaven. See _Paraphrase of sacred Edict_,\nVII.]\n\n[Footnote 577: Japanese Emperors did the same, _e.g._ Kwamm\u016b\nTenn\u014d in 793.]\n\n[Footnote 578: [Chinese: ]\n\n[Footnote 579: K'ang Hsi is responsible only for the text of the Edict\nwhich merely forbids heterodoxy. But his son Yung Ch\u00eang who published\nthe explanation and paraphrase repaired the Buddhist temples at P'uto\nand the Taoist temple at Lung-hu-shan.]\n\n[Footnote 580: See Johnston, p. 352. I have not seen the Chinese text\nof this edict. In Laufer and Francke's _Epigraphische Denkm\u00e4ler aus\nChina_ is a long inscription of Kang Hsi's giving the history both\nlegendary and recent of the celebrated sandal-wood image of the\nBuddha.]\n\n[Footnote 581: This indicates that the fusion of Buddhism and Hinduism\nwas less complete than some scholars suppose. Where there was a\ngeneral immigration of Hindus, the mixture is found, but the Indian\nvisitors to China were mostly professional teachers and their teaching\nwas definitely Buddhist. There are, however, two non-Buddhist books in\nthe Chinese Tripitaka. Nanjio Cat. Nos. 1295 and 1300.]\n\n[Footnote 582: It has been pointed out by Fergusson and others that\nthere were high towers in China before the Buddhist period. Still, the\nnumerous specimens extant date from Buddhist times, many were built\nover relics, and the accounts of both Fa-hsien and Hs\u00fcan Chuang show\nthat the Stupa built by Kanishka at Peshawar had attracted the\nattention of the Chinese.\n\nI regret that de Groot's interesting work _Der Th\u00fcpa: das heiligste\nHeiligtum des Buddhismus in China_, 1919, reached me too late for me\nto make use of it.]\n\n[Footnote 583: The love of nature shown in the Pali Pitakas\n(particularly the Thera and Ther\u00ee G\u00e2th\u00e2) has often been noticed, but\nit is also strong in Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist literature. _E.g._ Bodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra\nVIII. 26-39 and 86-88.]\n\n[Footnote 584: See especially Watters, _Essays on the Chinese\nLanguage_, chaps, VIII and IX, and Clementi, _Cantonese Love Songs in\nEnglish_, pp. 9 to 12]\n\n[Footnote 585: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 586: I cannot refrain from calling attention to the\ndifference between the Chinese and most other Asiatic peoples\n(especially the Hindus) as exhibited in their literature. Quite apart\nfrom European influence the Chinese produced several centuries ago\ncatalogues of museums and descriptive lists of inscriptions, works\nwhich have no parallel in Hindu India.]\n\n[Footnote 587: There are said to have been four great schools of\nBuddhist painting under the T'ang. See Kokka 294 and 295.]\n\n[Footnote 588: Preserved in the British Museum and published.]\n\n[Footnote 589: [Chinese: ] of the [Chinese: ] dynasty.]\n\n[Footnote 590: [Chinese: ]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIII\n\nCHINA _(continued)_\n\nHISTORY.\n\n\nThe traditional date for the introduction of Buddhism is 62 A.D., when\nthe chronicles tell how the Emperor Ming-Ti of the Later Han Dynasty\ndreamt that he saw a golden man fly into his palace[591] and how his\ncourtiers suggested that the figure was Fo-t'o[592] or Buddha, an\nIndian God. Ming-Ti did not let the matter drop and in 65 sent an\nembassy to a destination variously described as the kingdom of the Ta\nY\u00fceh Chih[593] or India with instructions to bring back Buddhist\nscriptures and priests. On its return it was accompanied by a monk\ncalled K\u00e2\u015byapa M\u00e2tanga[594], a native of Central India. A second\ncalled Chu Fa-Lan[595], who came from Central Asia and found some\ndifficulty in obtaining permission to leave his country, followed\nshortly afterwards. Both were installed at Loyang, the capital of the\ndynasty, in the White Horse Monastery[596], so called because the\nforeign monks rode on white horses or used them for carrying books.\n\nThe story has been criticized as an obvious legend, but I see no\nreason why it should not be true to this extent that Ming-Ti sent an\nembassy to Central Asia (not India in our sense) with the result that\na monastery was for the first time established under imperial\npatronage. The gravest objection is that before the campaigns of Pan\nCh'ao[597], which began about 73 A.D., Central Asia was in rebellion\nagainst China. But those campaigns show that the Chinese Court was\noccupied with Central Asian questions and to send envoys to enquire\nabout religion may have been politically advantageous, for they could\nobtain information without asserting or abandoning China's claims to\nsovereignty. The story does not state that there was no Buddhism in\nChina before 62 A.D. On the contrary it implies that though it was not\nsufficiently conspicuous to be known to the Emperor, yet there was no\ndifficulty in obtaining information about it and other facts support\nthe idea that it began to enter China at least half a century earlier.\nThe negotiations of Chang Ch'ien[598] with the Y\u00fceh Chih (129-119\nB.C.) and the documents discovered by Stein in the ancient military\nposts on the western frontier of Kansu[599] prove that China had\ncommunication with Central Asia, but neither the accounts of Chang\nCh'ien's journeys nor the documents contain any allusion to Buddhism.\nIn 121 B.C. the Annals relate that \"a golden man\" was captured from\nthe Hsiung-nu but, even if it was an image of Buddha, the incident had\nno consequences. More important is a notice in the Wei-l\u00fceh which\ngives a brief account of the Buddha's birth and states that in the\nyear 2 B.C. an ambassador sent by the Emperor Ai to the court of the\nY\u00fceh Chih was instructed in Buddhism by order of their king[600]. Also\nthe Later Han Annals intimate that in 65 A.D. the Prince of Ch'u[601]\nwas a Buddhist and that there were \u015aramanas and Up\u00e2sakas in his\nterritory.\n\nThe author of the Wei-l\u00fceh comments on the resemblance of Buddhist\nwritings to the work of Lao-tz\u016d, and suggests that the latter left\nChina in order to teach in India. This theory found many advocates\namong the Taoists, but is not likely to commend itself to European\nscholars. Less improbable is a view held by many Chinese\ncritics[602] and apparently first mentioned in the Sui annals, namely,\nthat Buddhism was introduced into China at an early date but was\nexterminated by the Emperor Shih Huang Ti (221-206) in the course of\nhis crusade against literature. But this view is not supported by any\ndetails and is open to the general objection that intercourse between\nChina and India _vi\u00e2_ Central Asia before 200 B.C. is not only\nunproved but improbable.\n\nStill the mystical, quietist philosophy of Lao-tz\u016d and\nChuang-tz\u016d has an undoubted resemblance to Indian thought. No one\nwho is familiar with the Upanishads can read the Tao-T\u00ea-Ching without\nfeeling that if Brahman is substituted for Tao the whole would be\nintelligible to a Hindu. Its doctrine is not specifically Buddhist,\nyet it contains passages which sound like echoes of the Pitakas.\nCompare Tao-T\u00ea-Ching, 33. 1, \"He who overcomes others is strong: he\nwho overcomes himself is mighty,\" with Dhammapada, 103, \"If one man\novercome a thousand thousand in battle and another overcome himself,\nthis last is the greatest of conquerors\"; and 46. 2, \"There is no\ngreater sin that to look on what moves desire: there is no greater\nevil than discontent: there is no greater disaster than covetousness,\"\nwith Dhammapada, 251, \"There is no fire like desire, there is no\nmonster like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent\nlike covetousness.\" And if it be objected that these are the\ncoincidences of obvious ethics, I would call attention to 39. 1\u0323,\n\"Hence if we enumerate separately each part that goes to form a cart,\nwe have no cart at all.\" Here the thought and its illustration cannot\nbe called obvious and the resemblance to well-known passages in the\nSamyutta Nik\u00e2ya and Questions of Milinda[603] is striking.\n\nAny discussion of the indebtedness of the Tao-T\u00ea-Ching to India is too\ncomplicated for insertion here since it involves the question of\nits date or the date of particular passages, if we reject the\nhypothesis that the work as we have it was composed by Lao-tz\u016d in\nthe sixth century B.C.[604] But there is less reason to doubt the\ngenuineness of the essays of Chuang-tz\u016d who lived in the fourth\ncentury B.C. In them we find mention of trances which give superhuman\nwisdom and lead to union with the all-pervading spirit, and of magical\npowers enjoyed by sages, similar to the Indian _iddhi_. He approves\nthe practice of abandoning the world and enunciates the doctrines of\nevolution and reincarnation. He knows, as does also the Tao-T\u00ea-Ching,\nmethods of regulating the breathing which are conducive to mental\nculture and long life. He speaks of the six faculties of perception,\nwhich recall the Sha\u1e0d\u00e2yatana, and of name and real existence\n(n\u00e2mar\u00fbpam) as being the conditions of a thing[605]. He has also a\nremarkable comparison of death to the extinction of a fire: \"what we\ncan point to are the faggots that have been consumed: but the fire is\ntransmitted and we know not that it is over and ended.\" Several\nBuddhist parallels to this might be cited[606].\n\nThe list of such resemblances might be made longer and the explanation\nthat Indian ideas reached China sporadically, at least as early as the\nfourth century B.C., seems natural. I should accept it, if there were\nany historical evidence besides these literary parallels. But there\nseems to be none and it may be justly urged that the roots of this\nquietism lie so deep in the Chinese character, that the plant cannot\nhave sprung from some chance wind-wafted seed. That character has two\nsides, one seen in the Chinese Empire and the classical philosophy,\nexcellent as ethics but somewhat stiff and formal: the other in\nrevolutions and rebellions, in the free life of hermits and wanderers,\nin poetry and painting. This second side is very like the temper of\nIndian Buddhism and easily amalgamated with it[607], but it has a\nspecial note of its own.\n\nThe curiosity of Ming-Ti did not lead to any immediate triumph of\nBuddhism. We read that he was zealous in honouring Confucius but not\nthat he showed devotion to the new faith. Indeed it is possible that\nhis interest was political rather than religious. Buddhism was also\ndiscredited by its first convert, the Emperor's brother Chu-Ying, who\nrebelled unsuccessfully and committed suicide. Still it flourished in\na quiet way and the two foreign monks in the White Horse Monastery\nbegan that long series of translations which assumed gigantic\nproportions in the following centuries. To K\u00e2\u015byapa is ascribed a\ncollection of extracts known as the S\u00fbtra of forty-two sections which\nis still popular[608]. This little work adheres closely to the\nteaching of the Pali Tripitaka and shows hardly any traces of the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na. According to the Chinese annals the chief doctrines preached\nby the first Buddhist missionaries were the sanctity of all animal\nlife, metempsychosis, meditation, asceticism and Karma.\n\nIt is not until the third century[609] that we hear much of Buddhism\nas a force at Court or among the people, but meanwhile the task of\ntranslation progressed at Lo-yang. The Chinese are a literary race and\nthese quiet labours prepared the soil for the subsequent\nefflorescence. Twelve[610] translators are named as having worked\nbefore the downfall of the Han Dynasty and about 350 books are\nattributed to them. None of them were Chinese. About half came from\nIndia and the rest from Central Asia, the most celebrated of the\nlatter being An Shih-kao, a prince of An-hsi or Parthia[611]. The\nLater Han Dynasty was followed by the animated and romantic epoch\nknown as the Three Kingdoms (221-265) when China was divided between\nthe States of Wei, Wu and Shu. Loyang became the capital of Wei and\nthe activity of the White Horse Monastery continued. We have the names\nof five translators who worked there. One of them was the first to\ntranslate the P\u00e2timokkha[612], which argues that previously few\nfollowed the monastic life. At Nanking, the capital of Wu, we also\nhear of five translators and one was tutor of the Crown Prince. This\nimplies that Buddhism was spreading in the south and that monks\ninspired confidence at Court.\n\nThe Three Kingdoms gave place to the Dynasty known as Western\nTsin[613] which, for a short time (A.D. 265-316), claimed to unite the\nEmpire, and we now reach the period when Buddhism begins to become\nprominent. It is also a period of political confusion, of contest\nbetween the north and south, of struggles between Chinese and Tartars.\nChinese histories, with their long lists of legitimate sovereigns,\nexaggerate the solidity and continuity of the Empire, for the\nterritory ruled by those sovereigns was often but a small fraction of\nwhat we call China. Yet the Tartar states were not an alien and\ndestructive force to the same extent as the conquests made by\nMohammedan Turks at the expense of Byzantium. The Tartars were neither\nfanatical, nor prejudiced against Chinese ideals in politics and\nreligion. On the contrary, they respected the language, literature and\ninstitutions of the Empire: they assumed Chinese names and sometimes\nbased their claim to the Imperial title on the marriage of their\nancestors with Chinese princesses.\n\nDuring the fourth century and the first half of the fifth some twenty\nephemeral states, governed by Tartar chieftains and perpetually\ninvolved in mutual war, rose and fell in northern China. The most\npermanent of them was Northern Wei which lasted till 535 A.D. But the\nLater Chao and both the Earlier and Later Ts'in are important for our\npurpose[614]. Some writers make it a reproach to Buddhism that its\nprogress, which had been slow among the civilized Chinese, became\nrapid in the provinces which passed into the hands of these ruder\ntribes. But the phenomenon is natural and is illustrated by the fact\nthat even now the advance of Christianity is more rapid in Africa than\nin India. The civilization of China was already old and\nself-complacent: not devoid of intellectual curiosity and not\nintolerant, but sceptical of foreign importations and of dealings with\nthe next world. But the Tartars had little of their own in the way of\nliterature and institutions: it was their custom to assimilate the\narts and ideas of the civilized nations whom they conquered: the more\nwestern tribes had already made the acquaintance of Buddhism in\nCentral Asia and such native notions of religion as they possessed\ndisposed them to treat priests, monks and magicians with respect.\n\nOf the states mentioned, the Later Chao was founded by Shih-Lo[615]\n(273-332), whose territories extended from the Great Wall to the Han\nand Huai in the South. He showed favour to an Indian monk and diviner\ncalled Fo-t'u-ch'\u00eang[616] who lived at his court and he appears to\nhave been himself a Buddhist. At any rate the most eminent of his\nsuccessors, Shih Chi-lung[617], was an ardent devotee and gave general\npermission to the population to enter monasteries, which had not been\ngranted previously. This permission is noticeable, for it implies,\neven at this early date, the theory that a subject of the Emperor has\nno right to become a monk without his master's leave.\n\nIn 381 we are told that in north-western China nine-tenths of the\ninhabitants were Buddhists. In 372 Buddhism was introduced into Korea\nand accepted as the flower of Chinese civilization.\n\nThe state known as the Former Ts'in[618] had its nucleus in\nShensi, but expanded considerably between 351 and 394 A.D. under\nthe leadership of Fu-Chien[619], who established in it large colonies\nof Tartars. At first he favoured Confucianism but in 381 became a\nBuddhist. He was evidently in close touch with the western regions and\nprobably through them with India, for we hear that sixty-two states\nof Central Asia sent him tribute.\n\nThe Later Ts'in dynasty (384-417) had its headquarters in Kansu and\nwas founded by vassals of the Former Ts'in. When the power of Fu-Chien\ncollapsed, they succeeded to his possessions and established\nthemselves in Ch'ang-an. Yao-hsing[620], the second monarch of this\nline was a devout Buddhist, and deserves mention as the patron of\nKum\u00e2raj\u00eeva[621], the most eminent of the earlier translators.\n\nKum\u00e2raj\u00eeva was born of Indian parents in Kucha and, after following\nthe school of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins for some time, became a Mahayanist.\nWhen Kucha was captured in 383 by the General of Fu-Chien, he was\ncarried off to China and from 401 onwards he laboured at Ch'ang-an for\nabout ten years. He was appointed Kuo Shih[622], or Director of Public\nInstruction, and lectured in a hall specially built for him. He is\nsaid to have had 3000 disciples and fifty extant translations are\nascribed to him. Probably all the Tartar kingdoms were well disposed\ntowards Buddhism, though their unsettled condition made them\nprecarious residences for monks and scholars. This was doubtless true\nof Northern Wei, which had been growing during the period described,\nbut appears as a prominent home of Buddhism somewhat later.\n\nMeanwhile in the south the Eastern Tsin Dynasty, which represented the\nlegitimate Empire and ruled at Nanking from 317 to 420, was also\nfavourable to Buddhism and Hsiao Wu-Ti, the ninth sovereign of this\nline, was the first Emperor of China to become a Buddhist.\n\nThe times were troubled, but order was gradually being restored. The\nEastern Tsin Dynasty had been much disturbed by the struggles of rival\nprinces. These were brought to an end in 420 by a new dynasty known as\nLiu Sung which reigned in the south some sixty years. The north\nwas divided among six Tartar kingdoms, which all perished before 440\nexcept Wei. Wei then split into an Eastern and a Western kingdom which\nlasted about a hundred years. In the south, the Liu Sung gave place to\nthree short dynasties, Ch'i, Liang and Ch'\u00ean, until at last the Sui\n(589-605) united China.\n\nThe Liu Sung Emperor W\u00ean-Ti (424-454) was a patron of Confucian\nlearning, but does not appear to have discouraged Buddhism. The Sung\nannals record that several embassies were sent from India and Ceylon\nto offer congratulations on the flourishing condition of religion in\nhis dominions, but they also preserve memorials from Chinese officials\nasking for imperial interference to prevent the multiplication of\nmonasteries and the growing expenditure on superstitious ceremonies.\nThis marks the beginning of the desire to curb Buddhism by restrictive\nlegislation which the official class displayed so prominently and\npersistently in subsequent centuries. A similar reaction seems to have\nbeen felt in Wei, where the influential statesman Ts'ui Hao[623], a\nvotary of Taoism, conducted an anti-Buddhist campaign. He was helped\nin this crusade by the discovery of arms in a monastery at Ch'ang-an.\nThe monks were accused of treason and debauchery and in 446 Toba\nTao[624], the sovereign of Wei, issued an edict ordering the\ndestruction of Buddhist temples and sacred books as well as the\nexecution of all priests. The Crown Prince, who was a Buddhist, was\nable to save many lives, but no monasteries or temples were left\nstanding. The persecution, however, was of short duration. Toba Tao\nwas assassinated and almost the first act of his successor was to\nre-establish Buddhism and allow his subjects to become monks. From\nthis period date the sculptured grottoes of Y\u00fcn-Kang in northern\nShan-si which are probably the oldest specimens of Buddhist art in\nChina. In 471 another ruler of Wei, Toba Hung, had a gigantic image of\nBuddha constructed and subsequently abdicated in order to devote\nhimself to Buddhist studies. His successor marks a reaction, for\nhe was an ardent Confucianist who changed the family name to Y\u00fcan and\ntried to introduce the Chinese language and dress. But the tide of\nBuddhism was too strong. It secured the favour of the next Emperor in\nwhose time there are said to have been 13,000 temples in Wei.\n\nIn the Sung dominions a conspiracy was discovered in 458 in which a\nmonk was implicated, and restrictive, though not prohibitive,\nregulations were issued respecting monasteries. The Emperor Ming-Ti,\nthough a cruel ruler was a devout Buddhist and erected a monastery in\nHu-nan, at the cost of such heavy taxation that his ministers\nremonstrated. The fifty-nine years of Liu Sung rule must have been on\nthe whole favourable to Buddhism, for twenty translators flourished,\npartly natives and partly foreigners from Central Asia, India and\nCeylon. In 420 a band of twenty-five Chinese started on a pilgrimage\nto India. They had been preceded by the celebrated pilgrim\nFa-Hsien[625] who travelled in India from 399 to 414.\n\nIn the reign of Wu-Ti, the first Emperor of the Ch'i dynasty, one of\nthe imperial princes, named Tz\u016d Liang[626], cultivated the society\nof eminent monks and enjoyed theological discussions. From the\nspecimens of these arguments which have been preserved we see that the\nexplanation of the inequalities of life as the result of Karma had a\ngreat attraction for the popular mind and also that it provoked the\nhostile criticism of the Confucian literati.\n\nThe accession of the Liang dynasty and the long reign of its first\nemperor Wu-Ti (502-549) were important events in the history of\nBuddhism, for this monarch rivalled Asoka in pious enthusiasm if not\nin power and prosperity. He obviously set the Church above the state\nand it was while he was on the throne that Bodhidharma came to China\nand the first edition of the Tripitaka was prepared.\n\nHis reign, though primarily of importance for religion, was not\nwanting in political interest, and witnessed a long conflict with Wei.\nWu-Ti was aided by the dissensions which distracted Wei but failed to\nachieve his object, probably as a result of his religious\npreoccupations, for he seemed unable to estimate the power of the\nvarious adventurers who from time to time rose to pre-eminence in the\nnorth and, holding war to be wrong, he was too ready to accept\ninsincere overtures for peace. Wei split into two states, the Eastern\nand Western, and Hou-Ching[627], a powerful general who was not\nsatisfied with his position in either, offered his services to Wu-Ti,\npromising to add a large part of Ho-nan to his dominions. He failed in\nhis promise but Wu-Ti, instead of punishing him, first gave him a post\nas governor and then listened to the proposals made by the ruler of\nEastern Wei for his surrender. On this Hou-Ching conspired with an\nadopted son of Wu-Ti, who had been set aside as heir to the throne and\ninvested Nanking. The city was captured after the horrors of a\nprolonged siege and Wu-Ti died miserably.\n\nWu-Ti was not originally a Buddhist. In fact until about 510, when he\nwas well over forty, he was conspicuous as a patron of Confucianism.\nThe change might be ascribed to personal reasons, but it is noticeable\nthat the same thing occurred in Wei, where a period of Confucianism\nwas succeeded by a strong wave of Buddhism which evidently swept over\nall China. Hu[628], the Dowager Empress of Wei, was a fervent devotee,\nthough of indifferent morality in both public and private life since\nshe is said to have poisoned her own son. In 518 she sent Sung Y\u00fcn and\nHui Sh\u00eang[629] to Udy\u00e2na in search of Buddhist books of which they\nbrought back 175.\n\nWu-Ti's conversion is connected with a wandering monk and magician\ncalled Pao-Chih[630], who received the privilege of approaching him at\nall hours. A monastery was erected in Nanking at great expense and\nedicts were issued forbidding not only the sacrifice of animals but\neven the representation of living things in embroidery, on the ground\nthat people might cut up such figures and thus become callous to the\nsanctity of life. The emperor expounded s\u00fbtras in public and wrote a\nwork on Buddhist ritual[631]. The first Chinese edition of the\nTripitaka, in manuscript and not printed, was collected in 518.\nAlthough Wu-Ti's edicts, particularly that against animal\nsacrifices, gave great dissatisfaction, yet the Buddhist movement\nseems to have been popular and not merely an imperial whim, for many\ndistinguished persons, for instance the authors Liu Hsieh and Yao\nCh'a[632], took part in it.\n\nIn 520 (or according to others, in 525) Bodhidharma (generally called\nTa-mo in Chinese) landed in Canton from India. He is described as the\nson of a king of a country called Hsiang-chih in southern India, and\nthe twenty-eighth Patriarch[633]. He taught that merit does not lie in\ngood works and that knowledge is not gained by reading the scriptures.\nThe one essential is insight, which comes as illumination after\nmeditation. Though this doctrine had subsequently much success in the\nFar East, it was not at first appreciated and Bodhidharma's\nintroduction to the devout but literary Emperor in Nanking was a\nfiasco. He offended his Majesty by curtly saying that he had acquired\nno merit by causing temples to be built and books to be transcribed.\nThen, in answer to the question, what is the most important of the\nholy doctrines, he replied \"where all is emptiness, nothing can be\ncalled holy.\" \"Who,\" asked the astonished Emperor, \"is he who thus\nreplies to me?\" \"I do not know,\" said Bodhidharma.\n\nNot being able to come to any understanding with Wu-Ti, Bodhidharma\nwent northwards, and is said to have crossed the Yang-tse standing on\na reed, a subject frequently represented in Chinese art[634]. He\nretired to Lo-yang where he spent nine years in the Shao-Lin[635]\ntemple gazing silently at a wall, whence he was popularly known as the\nwall-gazer. One legend says that he sat so long in contemplation that\nhis legs fell off, and a kind of legless doll which is a favourite\nplaything in Japan is still called by his name. But according to\nanother tale he preserved his legs. He wished to return to India but\ndied in China. When Sung Y\u00fcn, the traveller mentioned above, was\nreturning from India, he met him in a mountain pass bare-footed and\ncarrying one sandal in his hand[636]. When this was reported, his\ncoffin was opened and was found to contain nothing but the other\nsandal which was long preserved as a precious relic in the Shao-Lin\ntemple.\n\nWu-Ti adopted many of the habits of a bonze. He was a strict\nvegetarian, expounded the scriptures in public and wrote a work on\nritual. He thrice retired into a monastery and wore the dress of a\nBhikkhu. These retirements were apparently of short duration and his\nministers twice redeemed him by heavy payments.\n\nIn 538 a hair of the Buddha was sent by the king of Fu-nan and\nreceived with great ceremony. In the next year a mission was\ndespatched to Magadha to obtain Sanskrit texts. It returned in 546\nwith a large collection of manuscripts and accompanied by the learned\nParam\u00e2rtha who spent twenty years in translating them[637]. Wu-Ti, in\nhis old age, became stricter. All luxury was suppressed at Court, but\nhe himself always wore full dress and showed the utmost politeness,\neven to the lowest officials. He was so reluctant to inflict the\npunishment of death that crime increased. In 547 he became a monk for\nthe third time and immediately afterwards the events connected with\nHou-Ching (briefly sketched above) began to trouble the peace of his\nold age. During the siege of Nanking he was obliged to depart from his\nvegetarian diet and eat eggs. When he was told that his capital was\ntaken he merely said, \"I obtained the kingdom through my own efforts\nand through me it has been lost. So I need not complain.\"\n\nHou-Ching proceeded to the palace, but[638], overcome with awe, knelt\ndown before Wu-Ti who merely said, \"I am afraid you must be fatigued\nby the trouble it has cost you to destroy my kingdom.\" Hou-Ching was\nashamed and told his officers that he had never felt such fear\nbefore and would never dare to see Wu-Ti again. Nevertheless, the aged\nEmperor was treated with indignity and soon died of starvation. His\nend, though melancholy, was peaceful compared with that in store for\nHou-Ching who, after two years of fighting and murdering, assumed the\nimperial title, but immediately afterwards was defeated and slain. The\npeople ate his body in the streets of Nanking and his own wife is said\nto have swallowed mouthfuls of his flesh.\n\nOne of Wu-Ti's sons, Y\u00fcan-Ti, who reigned from 552 to 555, inherited\nhis father's temper and fate with this difference that he was a\nTaoist, not a Buddhist. He frequently resided in the temples of that\nreligion, studied its scriptures and expounded them to his people. A\ngreat scholar, he had accumulated 140,000 volumes, but when it was\nannounced to him in his library that the troops of Wei were marching\non his capital, he yielded without resistance and burnt his books,\nsaying that they had proved of no use in this extremity.\n\nThis alternation of imperial patronage in the south may have been the\nreason why W\u00ean Hs\u00fcan Ti, the ruler of Northern Ch'i[639], and for the\nmoment perhaps the most important personage in China, summoned\nBuddhist and Taoist priests to a discussion in 555. Both religions\ncould not be true, he said, and one must be superfluous. After hearing\nthe arguments of both he decided in favour of Buddhism and ordered the\nTaoists to become bonzes on pain of death. Only four refused and were\nexecuted.\n\nUnder the short Ch'\u00ean dynasty (557-589) the position of Buddhism\ncontinued favourable. The first Emperor, a mild and intelligent\nsovereign, though circumstances obliged him to put a great many people\nout of the way, retired to a monastery after reigning for two years.\nBut in the north there was a temporary reaction. Wu-Ti, of the\nNorthern Chou dynasty[640], first of all defined the precedence of the\nthree religions as Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and then, in 575,\nprohibited the two latter, ordering temples to be destroyed and\npriests to return to the world. But as usual the persecution was not\nof long duration. Five years later Wu-Ti's son withdrew his father's\nedict and in 582, the founder of the Sui dynasty, gave the population\npermission to become monks. He may be said to have used Buddhism\nas his basis for restoring the unity of the Empire and in his old age\nhe became devout. The Sui annals observe that Buddhist books had\nbecome more numerous under this dynasty than those of the\nConfucianists, and no less than three collections of the Tripitaka\nwere made between 594 and 616.\n\nWith the seventh century began the great T'ang dynasty (620-907).\nBuddhism had now been known to the rulers of China for about 550\nyears. It began as a religion tolerated but still regarded as exotic\nand not quite natural for the sons of Han. It had succeeded in\nestablishing itself as the faith of the majority among both Tartars\nand Chinese. The rivalry of Taoism was only an instance of that\nimitation which is the sincerest flattery. Though the opposition of\nthe mandarins assumed serious proportions whenever they could induce\nan Emperor to share their views, yet the hostile attitude of the\nGovernment never lasted long and was not shared by the mass of the\npeople. It is clear that the permissions to practise Buddhism which\ninvariably followed close on the prohibitions were a national relief.\nThough Buddhism tended to mingle with Taoism and other indigenous\nideas, the many translations of Indian works and the increasing\nintercourse between Chinese and Hindus had diffused a knowledge of its\ntrue tenets and practice.\n\nThe T'ang dynasty witnessed a triangular war between Confucianism,\nBuddhism and Taoism. As a rule Confucianism attacked the other two as\nbase superstitions but sometimes, as in the reign of Wu Tsung, Taoism\nseized a chance of being able to annihilate Buddhism. This war\ncontinued under the Northern Sung, though the character of Chinese\nBuddhism changed, for the Contemplative School, which had considerable\naffinities to Taoism, became popular at the expense of the T'ien T'ai.\nAfter the Northern Sung (except under the foreign Mongol dynasty) we\nfeel that, though Buddhism was by no means dead and from time to time\nflourished exceedingly, yet Confucianism had established its claim to\nbe the natural code and creed of the scholar and statesman. The\nChinese Court remained a strange place to the end but scholarship and\ngood sense had a large measure of success in banishing extravagance\nfrom art and literature. Yet, alas, the intellectual life of China\nlost more in fire and brilliancy than it gained in sanity. Probably\nthe most critical times for literature and indeed for thought were\nthose brief periods under the Sui and T'ang[641] when Buddhist and\nTaoist books were accepted as texts for the public examinations and\nthe last half century of the Northern Sung, when the educational\nreforms of Wang An Shih were intermittently in force. The innovations\nwere cancelled in all cases. Had they lasted, Chinese style and\nmentality might have been different.\n\nThe T'ang dynasty, though on the whole favourable to Buddhism, and\nindeed the period of its greatest prosperity, opened with a period of\nreaction. To the founder, Kao Tsu, is attributed the saying that\nConfucianism is as necessary to the Chinese as wings to a bird or\nwater to a fish. The imperial historiographer Fu I[642] presented to\nhis master a memorial blaming Buddhism because it undervalued natural\nrelationships and urging that monks and nuns should be compelled to\nmarry. He was opposed by Hsiao Y\u00fc[643], who declared that hell was\nmade for such people as his opponent--an argument common to many\nreligions. The Emperor followed on the whole advice of Fu I.\nMagistrates were ordered to inquire into the lives of monks and nuns.\nThose found pure and sincere were collected in the large\nestablishments. The rest were ordered to return to the world and the\nsmaller religious houses were closed. Kao Tsu abdicated in 627 but his\nson Tai Tsung continued his religious policy, and the new Empress was\nstrongly anti-Buddhist, for when mortally ill she forbade her son to\npray for her recovery in Buddhist shrines. Yet the Emperor cannot have\nshared these sentiments at any rate towards the end of his reign[644].\nHe issued an edict allowing every monastery to receive five new monks\nand the celebrated journey of Hs\u00fcan Chuang[645] was made in his\nreign. When the pilgrim returned from India, he was received with\npublic honours and a title was conferred on him. Learned monks were\nappointed to assist him in translating the library he had brought back\nand the account of his travels was presented to the Emperor who also\nwrote a laudatory preface to his version of the Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2. It was\nin this reign also that Nestorian missionaries first appeared in China\nand were allowed to settle in the capital. Diplomatic relations were\nmaintained with India. The Indian Emperor Harsha sent an envoy in 641\nand two Chinese missions were despatched in return. The second, led by\nWang Hs\u00fcan-Ts'\u00ea[646], did not arrive until after the death of Harsha\nwhen a usurper had seized the throne. Wang Hs\u00fcan-Ts'\u00ea collected a\nsmall army in Tibet, dethroned the usurper and brought him as a\nprisoner to China.\n\nThe latter half of the seventh century is dominated by the figure of\nthe Dowager Empress Wu, the prototype of the celebrated lady who took\ncharge of China's fate in our own day and, like her, superhuman in\ndecision and unscrupulousness, yet capable of inspiring loyalty. She\nwas a concubine of the Emperor Tai Tsung and when he died in 649 lived\nfor a short time as a Buddhist nun. The eventful life of Wu Hou, who\nwas at least successful in maintaining order at home and on the\nfrontiers, belongs to the history of China rather than of Buddhism.\nShe was not an ornament of the faith nor an example of its principles,\nbut, mindful of the protection it had once afforded her, she gave it\nher patronage even to the extent of making a bonze named Huai I[647]\nthe minister of her mature passions when she was nearly seventy\nyears old. A magnificent temple, at which 10,000 men worked daily, was\nbuilt for him, but the Empress was warned that he was collecting a\nbody of vigorous monks nominally for its service, but really for\npolitical objects. She ordered these persons to be banished. Huai I\nwas angry and burnt the temple. The Empress at first merely ordered it\nto be rebuilt, but finding that Huai I was growing disrespectful, she\nhad him assassinated.\n\nWe hear that the Mah\u00e2megha-s\u00fbtra[648] was presented to her and\ncirculated among the people with her approval. About 690 she assumed\ndivine honours and accommodated these pretensions to Buddhism by\nallowing herself to be styled Maitreya or Kuan-yin. After her death at\nthe age of 80, there does not appear to have been any religious\nchange, for two monks were appointed to high office and orders were\nissued that Buddhist and Taoist temples should be built in every\nDepartment. But the earlier part of the reign of Hs\u00fcan Tsung[649]\nmarks a temporary reaction. It was represented to him that rich\nfamilies wasted their substance on religious edifices and that the\ninmates were well-to-do persons desirous of escaping the burdens of\npublic service. He accordingly forbade the building of monasteries,\nmaking of images and copying of sutras, and 12,000 monks were ordered\nto return to the world. In 725 he ordered a building known as \"Hall of\nthe Assembled Spirits\" to be renamed \"Hall of Assembled Worthies,\"\nbecause spirits were mere fables.\n\nIn the latter part of his life he became devout though addicted to\nTaoism rather than Buddhism. But he must have outgrown his\nanti-Buddhist prejudices, for in 730 the seventh collection of the\nTripitaka was made under his auspices. Many poets of this period such\nas Su Chin and the somewhat later Liu Tsung Y\u00fcan[650] were Buddhists\nand the paintings of the great Wu Tao-tz\u016d and Wang-wei (painter as\nwell as poet) glowed with the inspiration of the T'ien-t'ai teaching.\nIn 740 there were in the city of Ch'ang-An alone sixty-four\nmonasteries and twenty-seven nunneries. A curious light is thrown\non the inconsistent and composite character of Chinese religious\nsentiment--as noticeable to-day as it was twelve hundred years ago--by\nthe will of Yao Ch'ung[651] a statesman who presented a celebrated\nanti-Buddhist memorial to this Emperor. In his will he warns his\nchildren solemnly against the creed which he hated and yet adds the\nfollowing direction. \"When I am dead, on no account perform for me the\nceremonies of that mean religion. But if you feel unable to follow\northodoxy in every respect, then yield to popular custom and from the\nfirst seventh day after my death until the last (_i.e._ seventh)\nseventh day, let mass be celebrated by the Buddhist clergy seven\ntimes: and when, as these masses require, you must offer gifts to me,\nuse the clothes which I wore in life and do not use other valuable\nthings.\"\n\nIn 751 a mission was sent to the king of Ki-pin[652]. The staff\nincluded Wu-K'ung[653], also known as Dharmadh\u00e2tu, who remained some\ntime in India, took the vows and ultimately returned to China with\nmany books and relics. It is probable that in this and the following\ncenturies Hindu influence reached the outlying province of Y\u00fcnnan\ndirectly through Burma[654].\n\nLetters, art and pageantry made the Court of Hs\u00fcan Tsung brilliant,\nbut the splendour faded and his reign ended tragically in disaster and\nrebellion. The T'ang dynasty seemed in danger of collapse. But it\nemerged successfully from these troubles and continued for a century\nand a half. During the whole of this period the Emperors with one\nexception[655] were favourable to Buddhism, and the latter half of the\neighth century marks in Buddhist history an epoch of increased\npopularity among the masses but also the spread of ritual and\ndoctrinal corruption, for it is in these years that its connection\nwith ceremonies for the repose and honour of the dead became more\nintimate.\n\nThese middle and later T'ang Emperors were not exclusive\nBuddhists. According to the severe judgment of their own officials,\nthey were inclined to unworthy and outlandish superstitions. Many of\nthem were under the influence of eunuchs, magicians and soothsayers,\nand many of those who were not assassinated died from taking the\nTaoist medicine called Elixir of Immortality. Yet it was not a period\nof decadence and dementia. It was for China the age of Augustus, not\nof Heliogabalus. Art and literature flourished and against Han-Y\u00fc, the\nbrilliant adversary of Buddhism, may be set Liu Tsung Y\u00fcan[656], a\nwriter of at least equal genius who found in it his inspiration. A\nnoble school of painting grew up in the Buddhist monasteries and in a\nlong line of artists may be mentioned the great name of Wu Tao-tz\u016d,\nwhose religious pictures such as Kuan-yin, Purgatory and the death of\nthe Buddha obtained for him a fame which is still living. Among the\nstreams which watered this paradise of art and letters should\ndoubtless be counted the growing importance of Central and Western\nAsia in Chinese policy and the consequent influx of their ideas. In\nthe mid T'ang period Manich\u00e6ism, Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism all\nwere prevalent in China. The first was the religion of the Uigurs. So\nlong as the Chinese had to keep on good terms with this tribe\nManich\u00e6ism was respected, but when they were defeated by the Kirghiz\nand became unimportant, it was abruptly suppressed (843). In this\nperiod, too, Tibet became of great importance for the Chinese. Their\nobject was to keep open the passes leading to Ferghana and India. But\nthe Tibetans sometimes combined with the Arabs, who had conquered\nTurkestan, to close them and in 763 they actually sacked Chang An.\nChina endeavoured to defend herself by making treaties with the Indian\nborder states, but in 175 the Arabs inflicted a disastrous defeat on\nher troops. A treaty of peace was subsequently made with Tibet[657].\n\nWhen Su-Tsung (756-762), the son of Hs\u00fcan-Tsung, was safely\nestablished on the throne, he began to show his devotion to Buddhism.\nHe installed a chapel in the Palace which was served by several\nhundred monks and caused his eunuchs and guards to dress up as\nBodhisattvas and Genii. His ministers, who were required to worship\nthese maskers, vainly remonstrated as also when he accepted a sort of\nSibylline book from a nun who alleged that she had ascended to heaven\nand received it there.\n\nThe next Emperor, Tai-Tsung, was converted to Buddhism by his Minister\nWang Chin[658], a man of great abilities who was subsequently\nsentenced to death for corruption, though the Emperor commuted the\nsentence to banishment. Tai-Tsung expounded the scriptures in public\nhimself and the sacred books were carried from one temple to another\nin state carriages with the same pomp as the sovereign. In 768 the\neunuch Y\u00fc Chao-En[659] built a great Buddhist temple dedicated to the\nmemory of the Emperor's deceased mother. In spite of his minister's\nremonstrances, His Majesty attended the opening and appointed 1000\nmonks and nuns to perform masses for the dead annually on the\nfifteenth day of the seventh month. This anniversary became generally\nobserved as an All Souls' Day, and is still one of the most popular\nfestivals in China. Priests both Buddhist and Taoist recite prayers\nfor the departed, rice is scattered abroad to feed hungry ghosts and\nclothes are burnt to be used by them in the land of shadows. Large\nsheds are constructed in which are figures representing scenes from\nthe next world and the evening is enlivened by theatricals, music and\nfire-works[660].\n\nThe establishment of this festival was due to the celebrated teacher\nAmogha (Pu-k'ung), and marks the official recognition by Chinese\nBuddhism of those services for the dead which have rendered it popular\nat the cost of forgetting its better aspects. Amogha was a native of\nCeylon (or, according to others, of Northern India), who arrived in\nChina in 719 with his teacher Vajrabodhi. After the latter's death he\nrevisited India and Ceylon in search of books and came back in 746. He\nwished to return to his own country, but permission was refused and\nuntil his death in 774 he was a considerable personage at Court,\nreceiving high rank and titles. The Chinese Tripitaka contains 108\ntranslations[661] ascribed to him, mostly of a tantric character,\nthough to the honour of China it must be said that the erotic\nmysticism of some Indian tantras never found favour there. Amogha is a\nconsiderable, though not auspicious, figure in the history of Chinese\nBuddhism, and, so far as such changes can be the work of one man, on\nhim rests the responsibility of making it become in popular estimation\na religion specially concerned with funeral rites[662].\n\nSome authors[663] try to prove that the influx of Nestorianism under\nthe T'ang dynasty had an important influence on the later development\nof Buddhism in China and Japan and in particular that it popularized\nthese services for the dead. But this hypothesis seems to me unproved\nand unnecessary. Such ceremonies were an essential part of Chinese\nreligion and no faith could hope to spread, if it did not countenance\nthem: they are prominent in Hinduism and not unknown to Pali\nBuddhism[664]. Further the ritual used in China and Japan has often\nonly a superficial resemblance to Christian masses for the departed.\nPart of it is magical and part of it consists in acquiring merit by\nthe recitation of scriptures which have no special reference to the\ndead. This merit is then formally transferred to them. Doubtless\nNestorianism, in so far as it was associated with Buddhism, tended to\npromote the worship of Bodhisattvas and prayers addressed directly to\nthem, but this tendency existed independently and the Nestorian\nmonument indicates not that Nestorianism influenced Buddhism but that\nit abandoned the doctrine of the atonement.\n\nIn 819 a celebrated incident occurred. The Emperor Hsien-Tsung had\nbeen informed that at the Fa-m\u00ean monastery in Shen-si a bone of the\nBuddha was preserved which every thirty years exhibited miraculous\npowers. As this was the auspicious year, he ordered the relic to be\nbrought in state to the capital and lodged in the Imperial Palace,\nafter which it was to make the round of the monasteries in the city.\nThis proceeding called forth an animated protest from Han-Y\u00fc[665], one\nof the best known authors and statesmen then living, who presented a\nmemorial, still celebrated as a masterpiece. The following extract\nwill give an idea of its style. \"Your Servant is well aware that your\nMajesty does not do this (give the bone such a reception) in the vain\nhope of deriving advantage therefrom but that in the fulness of our\npresent plenty there is a desire to comply with the wishes of the\npeople in the celebration at the capital of this delusive mummery....\nFor Buddha was a barbarian. His language was not the language of\nChina. His clothes were of an alien cut. He did not utter the maxims\nof our ancient rulers nor conform to the customs which they have\nhanded down. He did not appreciate the bond between prince and\nminister, the tie between father and son. Had this Buddha come to our\ncapital in the flesh, your Majesty might have received him with a few\nwords of admonition, giving him a banquet and a suit of clothes,\nbefore sending him out of the country with an escort of soldiers.\n\n\"But what are the facts? The bone of a man long since dead and\ndecomposed is to be admitted within the precincts of the Imperial\nPalace. Confucius said, 'respect spiritual beings but keep them at a\ndistance.' And so when princes of old paid visits of condolence, it\nwas customary to send a magician in advance with a peach-rod in his\nhand, to expel all noxious influences before the arrival of his\nmaster. Yet now your Majesty is about to introduce without reason a\ndisgusting object, personally taking part in the proceedings without\nthe intervention of the magician or his wand. Of the officials not one\nhas raised his voice against it: of the Censors[666] not one has\npointed out the enormity of such an act. Therefore your servant,\noverwhelmed with shame for the Censors, implores your Majesty that\nthese bones may be handed over for destruction by fire or water,\nwhereby the root of this great evil may be exterminated for all time\nand the people may know how much the wisdom of your Majesty surpasses\nthat of ordinary men[667].\"\n\nThe Emperor became furious when he read the memorial and wished to\nexecute its author on the spot. But Han-Y\u00fc's many friends saved him\nand the sentence was commuted to honourable banishment as governor of\na distant town. Shortly afterwards the Emperor died, not of Buddhism,\nbut of the elixir of immortality which made him so irritable that his\neunuchs put him out of the way. Han-Y\u00fc was recalled but died the next\nyear. Among his numerous works was one called Y\u00fcan Tao, much of which\nwas directed against non-Confucian forms of religion. It is still a\nthesaurus of arguments for the opponents of Buddhism and, let it be\nadded, of Christianity.\n\nIt is not surprising that the prosperity of the Buddhist church should\nhave led to another reaction, but it came not so much from the\nliterary and sceptical class as from Taoism which continued to enjoy\nthe favour of the T'ang Emperors, although they died one after another\nof drinking the elixir. The Emperor Wu-Tsung was more definitely\nTaoist than his predecessors. In 843 he suppressed Manich\u00e6ism and in\n845, at the instigation of his Taoist advisers, he dealt Buddhism the\nseverest blow which it had yet received. In a trenchant edict[668] he\nrepeated the now familiar arguments that it is an alien and maleficent\nsuperstition, unknown under the ancient and glorious dynasties and\ninjurious to the customs and morality of the nation. Incidentally he\ntestifies to its influence and popularity for he complains of the\ncrowds thronging the temples which eclipse the imperial palaces in\nsplendour and the innumerable monks and nuns supported by the\ncontributions of the people. Then, giving figures, he commands that\n4600 great temples and 40,000 smaller rural temples be demolished,\nthat their enormous[669] landed property be confiscated, that 260,500\nmonks and nuns be secularized and 150,000 temple slaves[670] set free.\nThese statistics are probably exaggerated and in any case the Emperor\nhad barely time to execute his drastic orders, though all despatch\nwas used on account of the private fortunes which could be amassed\nincidentally by the executive.\n\nAs the Confucian chronicler of his doings observes, he suppressed\nBuddhism on the ground that it is a superstition but encouraged Taoism\nwhich is no better. Indeed the impartial critic must admit that it is\nmuch worse, at any rate for Emperors. Undeterred by the fate of his\npredecessors Wu-Tsung began to take the elixir of immortality. He\nsuffered first from nervous irritability, then from internal pains,\nwhich were explained as due to the gradual transformation of his\nbones, and at the beginning of 846 he became dumb. No further\nexplanation of his symptoms was then given him and his uncle Hs\u00fcan\nTsung was raised to the throne. His first act was to revoke the\nanti-Buddhist edict, the Taoist priests who had instigated it were put\nto death, the Emperor and his ministers vied in the work of\nreconstruction and very soon things became again much as they were\nbefore this great but brief tribulation. Nevertheless, in 852 the\nEmperor received favourably a memorial complaining of the Buddhist\nreaction and ordered that all monks and nuns must obtain special\npermission before taking orders. He was beginning to fall under Taoist\ninfluence and it is hard to repress a smile on reading that seven\nyears later he died of the elixir. His successor I-Tsung (860-874),\nwho died at the age of 30, was an ostentatious and dissipated\nBuddhist. In spite of the remonstrances of his ministers he again sent\nfor the sacred bone from Fa-m\u00ean and received it with even more respect\nthan his predecessor had shown, for he met it at the Palace gate and\nbowed before it.\n\nDuring the remainder of the T'ang dynasty there is little of\nimportance to recount about Buddhism. It apparently suffered no\nreverses, but history is occupied with the struggle against the\nTartars. The later T'ang Emperors entered into alliance with various\nfrontier tribes, but found it hard to keep them in the position of\nvassals. The history of China from the tenth to the thirteenth\ncenturies is briefly as follows. The T'ang dynasty collapsed chiefly\nowing to the incapacity of the later Emperors and was succeeded by a\ntroubled period in which five short dynasties founded by military\nadventurers, three of whom were of Turkish race, rose and fell in 53\nyears[671]. In 960 the Sung dynasty united the Chinese elements in\nthe Empire, but had to struggle against the Khitan Tartars in the\nnorth-east and against the kingdom of Hsia in the north-west. With the\ntwelfth century appeared the Kins or Golden Tartars, who demolished\nthe power of the Khitans in alliance with the Chinese but turned\nagainst their allies and conquered all China north of the Yang-tze and\ncontinually harassed, though they did not capture, the provinces to\nthe south of it which constituted the reduced empire of the Sungs. But\ntheir power waned in its turn before the Mongols, who, under Chinggiz\nKhan and Ogotai, conquered the greater part of northern Asia and\neastern Europe. In 1232 the Sung Emperor entered into alliance with\nthe Mongols against the Kins, with the ultimate result that though the\nKins were swept away, Khubilai, the Khan of the Mongols, became\nEmperor of all China in 1280.\n\nThe dynasties of T'ang and Sung mark two great epochs in the history\nof Chinese art, literature and thought, but whereas the virtues and\nvices of the T'ang may be summed up as genius and extravagance, those\nof the Sung are culture and tameness. But this summary judgment does\nnot do justice to the painters, particularly the landscape painters,\nof the Sung and it is noticeable that many of the greatest masters,\nincluding Li Lung-Mien[672], were obviously inspired by Buddhism. The\nschool which had the greatest influence on art and literature was the\nCh'an[673] or contemplative sect better known by its Japanese name\nZen. Though founded by Bodhidharma it did not win the sympathy and\nesteem of the cultivated classes until the Sung period. About this\ntime the method of block-printing was popularized and there began a\nsteady output of comprehensive histories, collected works,\nencyclop\u00e6dias and biographies which excelled anything then published\nin Europe. Antiquarian research and accessible editions of classical\nwriters were favourable to Confucianism, which had always been the\nreligion of the literati.\n\nIt is not surprising that the Emperors of this literary dynasty were\nmostly temperate in expressing their religious emotions. T'ai-Tsu, the\nfounder, forbade cremation and remonstrated with the Prince of T'ang,\nwho was a fervent Buddhist. Yet he cannot have objected to religion in\nmoderation, for the first printed edition of the Tripitaka was\npublished in his reign (972) and with a preface of his own. The early\nand thorough application of printing to this gigantic Canon is a\nproof--if any were needed--of the popular esteem for Buddhism.\n\nNor did this edition close the work of translation: 275 later\ntranslations, made under the Northern Sung, are still extant and\nreligious intercourse with India continued. The names and writings of\nmany Hindu monks who settled in China are preserved and Chinese\ncontinued to go to India. Still on the whole there was a decrease in\nthe volume of religious literature after 900 A.D.[674] In the twelfth\ncentury the change was still more remarkable. Nanjio does not record a\nsingle translation made under the Southern Sung and it is the only\ngreat dynasty which did not revise the Tripitaka.\n\nThe second Sung Emperor also, T'ai Tsung, was not hostile, for he\nerected in the capital, at enormous expense, a stupa 360 feet high to\ncontain relics of the Buddha. The fourth Emperor, J\u00ean-tsung, a\ndistinguished patron of literature, whose reign was ornamented by a\ngalaxy of scholars, is said to have appointed 50 youths to study\nSanskrit but showed no particular inclination towards Buddhism.\nNeither does it appear to have been the motive power in the projects\nof the celebrated social reformer, Wang An-Shih. But the dynastic\nhistory says that he wrote a book full of Buddhist and Taoist fancies\nand, though there is nothing specifically Buddhist in his political\nand economic theories, it is clear from the denunciations against him\nthat his system of education introduced Buddhist and Taoist subjects\ninto the public examinations[675]. It is also clear that this system\nwas favoured by those Emperors of the Northern Sung dynasty who were\nable to think for themselves. In 1087 it was abolished by the\nEmpress Dowager acting as regent for the young Ch\u00ea Tsung, but as soon\nas he began to reign in his own right he restored it, and it\napparently remained in force until the collapse of the dynasty in\n1127.\n\nThe Emperor Hui-Tsung (1101-1126) fell under the influence of a Taoist\npriest named Lin Ling-Su[676]. This young man had been a Buddhist\nnovice in boyhood but, being expelled for misconduct, conceived a\nhatred for his old religion. Under his influence the Emperor not only\nreorganized Taoism, sanctioning many innovations and granting many new\nprivileges, but also endeavoured to suppress Buddhism, not by\npersecution, but by amalgamation. By imperial decree the Buddha and\nhis Arhats were enrolled in the Taoist pantheon: temples and\nmonasteries were allowed to exist only on condition of describing\nthemselves as Taoist and their inmates had the choice of accepting\nthat name or of returning to the world.\n\nBut there was hardly time to execute these measures, so rapid was the\nreaction. In less than a year the insolence of Lin Ling-Su brought\nabout his downfall: the Emperor reversed his edict and, having begun\nby suppressing Buddhism, ended by oppressing Taoism. He was a painter\nof merit and perhaps the most remarkable artist who ever filled a\nthrone. In art he probably drew no distinction between creeds and\namong the pictures ascribed to him and preserved in Japan are some of\nBuddhist subjects. But like Hs\u00fcan Tsung he came to a tragic end, and\nin 1126 was carried into captivity by the Kin Tartars among whom he\ndied.\n\nFear of the Tartars now caused the Chinese to retire south of the\nYang-tse and Hang-chow was made the seat of Government. The century\nduring which this beautiful city was the capital did not produce the\ngreatest names in Chinese history, but it witnessed the perfection of\nChinese culture, and the background of impending doom heightens the\nbrilliancy of this literary and aesthetic life. Such a society was\nnaturally eclectic in religion but Buddhism of the Ch'an school\nenjoyed consideration and contributed many landscape painters to the\nroll of fame. But the most eminent and perhaps the most characteristic\nthinker of the period was Chu-Hsi (1130-1200), the celebrated\ncommentator on Confucius who reinterpreted the master's writings\nto the satisfaction of succeeding ages though in his own life he\naroused opposition as well as enthusiasm. Chu-Hsi studied Buddhism in\nhis youth and some have detected its influence in his works, although\non most important points he expressly condemned it. I do not see that\nthere is much definite Buddhism in his philosophy, but if Mahayanism\nhad never entered China this new Confucianism would probably never\nhave arisen or would have taken another shape. Though the final result\nmay be anti-Buddhist yet the topics chosen and the method of treatment\nsuggest that the author felt it necessary to show that the Classics\ncould satisfy intellectual curiosity and supply spiritual ideals just\nas well as this Indian religion. Much of his expositions is occupied\nwith cosmology, and he accepts the doctrine of world periods,\nrecurring in an eternal series of growth and decline: also he teaches\nnot exactly transmigration but the transformation of matter into\nvarious living forms[677]. His accounts of sages and saints point to\nideals which have much in common with Arhats and Buddhas and, in\ndealing with the retribution of evil, he seems to admit that when the\nuniverse is working properly there is a natural _Karma_ by which good\nor bad actions receive even in this life rewards in kind, but that in\nthe present period of decline nature has become vitiated so that vice\nand virtue no longer produce appropriate results.\n\nChu-Hsi had a celebrated controversy with Lu Chiu-Y\u00fcan[678], a thinker\nof some importance who, like himself, is commemorated in the tablets\nof Confucian temples, although he was accused of Buddhist tendencies.\nHe held that learning was not indispensable and that the mind could in\nmeditation rise above the senses and attain to a perception of the\ntruth. Although he strenuously denied the charge of Buddhist leanings,\nit is clear that his doctrine is near in spirit to the mysticism of\nBodhidharma and sets no store on the practical ethics and studious\nhabits which are the essence of Confucianism.\n\nThe attitude of the Y\u00fcan or Mongol dynasty (1280-1368) towards\nBuddhism was something new. Hitherto, whatever may have been the\nreligious proclivities of individual Emperors, the Empire had been\na Confucian institution. A body of official and literary opinion\nalways strong and often overwhelmingly strong regarded imperial\npatronage of Buddhism or Taoism as a concession to the whims of the\npeople, as an excrescence on the Son of Heaven's proper faith or even\na perversion of it. But the Mongol Court had not this prejudice and\nKhubilai, like other members of his house[679] and like Akbar in\nIndia, was the patron of all the religions professed by his subjects.\nHis real object was to encourage any faith which would humanize his\nrude Mongols. Buddhism was more congenial to them than Confucianism\nand besides, they had made its acquaintance earlier. Even before\nKhubilai became Emperor, one of his most trusted advisers was a\nTibetan lama known as Pagspa, Bashpa or Pa-ss\u016d-pa[680]. He received\nthe title of Kuo-Shih, and after his death his brother succeeded to\nthe same honours.\n\nKhubilai also showed favour to Mohammedans, Christians, Jews and\nConfucianists, but little to Taoists. This prejudice was doubtless due\nto the suggestions of his Buddhist advisers, for, as we have seen,\nthere was often rivalry between the two religions and on two occasions\nat least (in the reigns of Hui Tsung and Wu Tsung) the Taoists made\ndetermined, if unsuccessful, attempts to destroy or assimilate\nBuddhism. Khubilai received complaints that the Taoists represented\nBuddhism as an offshoot of Taoism and that this objectionable\nperversion of truth and history was found in many of their books,\nparticularly the Hua-Hu-Ching[681]. An edict was issued ordering all\nTaoist books to be burnt with the sole exception of the Tao-T\u00ea-Ching\nbut it does not appear that the sect was otherwise persecuted.\n\nThe Y\u00fcan dynasty was consistently favourable to Buddhism. Enormous\nsums were expended on subventions to monasteries, printing books and\nperforming public ceremonies. Old restrictions were removed and no new\nones were imposed. But the sect which was the special recipient of the\nimperial favour was not one of the Chinese schools but Lamaism,\nthe form of Buddhism developed in Tibet, which spread about this time\nto northern China, and still exists there. It does not appear that in\nthe Y\u00fcan period Lamaism and other forms of Buddhism were regarded as\ndifferent sects[682]. A lamaist ecclesiastic was the hierarchical head\nof all Buddhists, all other religions being placed under the\nsupervision of a special board.\n\nThe Mongol Emperors paid attention to religious literature. Khubilai\nsaw to it that the monasteries in Peking were well supplied with books\nand ordered the bonzes to recite them on stated days. A new collection\nof the Tripitaka (the ninth) was published 1285-87. In 1312, the\nEmperor J\u00ean-tsung ordered further translations to be made into Mongol\nand later had the whole Tripitaka copied in letters of gold. It is\nnoticeable that another Emperor, Ch\u00eang Tsung, had the Book of Filial\nPiety translated into Mongol and circulated together with a brief\npreface by himself.\n\nIt is possible that the Buddhism of the Y\u00fcan dynasty was tainted with\n\u015a\u00e2ktism from which the Lama monasteries of Peking (in contrast to\nall other Buddhist sects in China) are not wholly free. The last\nEmperor, Shun-ti, is said to have witnessed indecent plays and dances\nin the company of Lamas and created a scandal which contributed to the\ndownfall of the dynasty[683]. In its last years we hear of some\nopposition to Buddhism and of a reaction in favour of Confucianism, in\nconsequence of the growing numbers and pretensions of the Lamas.\n\nWhole provinces were under their control and Chinese historians dwell\nbitterly on their lawlessness. It was a common abuse for wealthy\npersons to induce a Lama to let their property be registered in his\nname and thus avoid all payment of taxes on the ground that priests\nwere exempt from taxation by law[684].\n\nThe Mongols were driven out by the native Chinese dynasty known as\nMing, which reigned from 1368 to 1644. It is not easy to point out\nany salient features in religious activity or thought during this\nperiod, but since the Ming claimed to restore Chinese civilization\ninterrupted by a foreign invasion, it was natural that they should\nencourage Confucianism as interpreted by Chu-Hsi. Yet Buddhism,\nespecially Lamaism, acquired a new political importance. Both for the\nMings and for the earlier Manchu Emperors the Mongols were a serious\nand perpetual danger, and it was not until the eighteenth century that\nthe Chinese Court ceased to be preoccupied by the fear that the tribes\nmight unite and again overrun the Empire. But the Tibetan and\nMongolian hierarchy had an extraordinary power over these wild\nhorsemen and the Government of Peking won and used their goodwill by\nskilful diplomacy, the favours shown being generally commensurate to\nthe gravity of the situation. Thus when the Grand Lama visited Peking\nin 1652 he was treated as an independent prince: in 1908 he was made\nto kneel.\n\nFew Ming Emperors showed much personal interest in religion and most\nof them were obviously guided by political considerations. They wished\non the one hand to conciliate the Church and on the other to prevent\nthe clergy from becoming too numerous or influential. Hence very\ndifferent pictures may be drawn according as we dwell on the\nfavourable or restrictive edicts which were published from time to\ntime. Thus T'ai-Tsu, the founder of the dynasty, is described by one\nauthority as always sympathetic to Buddhists and by another as a\ncrowned persecutor[685]. He had been a bonze himself in his youth but\nleft the cloister for the adventurous career which conducted him to\nthe throne. It is probable that he had an affectionate recollection of\nthe Church which once sheltered him, but also a knowledge of its\nweaknesses and this knowledge moved him to publish restrictive edicts\nas to the numbers and qualifications of monks. On the other hand he\nattended sermons, received monks in audience and appointed them as\ntutors to his sons. He revised the hierarchy and gave appropriate\ntitles to its various grades. He also published a decree ordering that\nall monks should study three sutras (Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2\nand Vajracchedik\u00e2), and that three brief commentaries on these works\nshould be compiled (see Nanjio's Catalogue, 1613-15).\n\nIt is in this reign that we first hear of the secular clergy, that is\nto say, persons who acted as priests but married and did not live in\nmonasteries. Decrees against them were issued in 1394 and 1412, but\nthey continued to increase. It is not clear whether their origin\nshould be sought in a desire to combine the profits of the priesthood\nwith the comforts of the world or in an attempt to evade restrictions\nas to the number of monks. In later times this second motive was\ncertainly prevalent, but the celibacy of the clergy is not strictly\ninsisted on by Lamaists and a lax observance of monastic rules[686]\nwas common under the Mongol dynasty.\n\nThe third Ming Emperor, Ch'\u00eang-tsu[687], was educated by a Buddhist\npriest of literary tastes named Yao Kuang-Hsiao[688], whom he greatly\nrespected and promoted to high office. Nevertheless he enacted\nrestrictions respecting ordination and on one occasion commanded that\n1800 young men who presented themselves to take the vows should be\nenrolled in the army instead. His prefaces and laudatory verses were\ncollected in a small volume and included in the eleventh collection of\nthe Tripitaka[689], called the Northern collection, because it was\nprinted at Peking. It was published with a preface of his own\ncomposition and he wrote another to the work called the Liturgy of\nKuan-yin[690], and a third introducing selected memoirs of various\nremarkable monks[691]. His Empress had a vision in which she imagined\na s\u00fbtra was revealed to her and published the same with an\nintroduction. He was also conspicuously favourable to the Tibetan\nclergy. In 1403 he sent his head eunuch to Tibet to invite the\npresence of Tso\u1e47-kha-pa, who refused to come himself but sent a\ncelebrated Lama called Halima[692]. On arriving at the capital Halima\nwas ordered to say masses for the Emperor's relatives. These\nceremonies were attended by supernatural manifestations and he\nreceived as a recognition of his powers the titles of Prince of the\nGreat Precious Law and Buddha of the Western Paradise[693]. His three\nprincipal disciples were styled Kuo Shih, and, agreeably to the\nprecedent established under the Y\u00fcan dynasty, were made the chief\nprelates of the whole Buddhist Church. Since this time the Red or\nTibetan Clergy have been recognized as having precedence over the Grey\nor Chinese.\n\nIn this reign the Chinese made a remarkable attempt to assert their\nauthority in Ceylon. In 1405 a mission was sent with offerings to the\nSacred Tooth and when it was ill received a second mission despatched\nin 1407 captured the king of Ceylon and carried him off as a prisoner\nto China. Ceylon paid tribute for fifty years, but it does not appear\nthat these proceedings had much importance for religion[694].\n\nIn the reigns of Ying Tsung and Ching-Ti[695] (1436-64) large numbers\nof monks were ordained, but, as on previous occasions, the great\nincrease of candidates led to the imposition of restrictions and in\n1458 an edict was issued ordering that ordinations should be held only\nonce a year. The influence of the Chief Eunuchs during this period was\ngreat, and two successive holders of this post, Wang-Ch\u00ean and\nHsing-An[696], were both devoted Buddhists and induced the Emperors\nwhom they served to expend enormous sums on building monasteries and\nperforming ceremonies at which the Imperial Court were present.\n\nThe end of the fifteenth century is filled by two reigns, Hsien\nTsung and Hsiao Tsung. The former fell under the influence of his\nfavourite concubine Wan and his eunuchs to such an extent that, in the\nlatter part of his life, he ceased to see his ministers and the chief\neunuch became the real ruler of China. It is also mentioned both in\n1468 and 1483 that he was in the hands of Buddhist priests who\ninstructed him in secret doctrines and received the title of Kuo-Shih\nand other distinctions. His son Hsiao Tsung reformed these abuses: the\nPalace was cleansed: the eunuchs and priests were driven out and some\nwere executed: Taoist books were collected and burnt. The celebrated\nwriter Wang Yang Ming[697] lived in this reign. He defended and\nillustrated the doctrine of Lu Chin-Y\u00fcan, namely that truth can be\nobtained by meditation. To express intuitive knowledge, he used the\nexpression _Liang Chih_[698] (taken from Mencius). _Liang Chih_ is\ninherent in all human minds, but in different degrees, and can be\ndeveloped or allowed to atrophy. To develop it should be man's\nconstant object, and in its light when pure all things are understood\nand peace is obtained. The phrases of the Great Learning \"to complete\nknowledge,\" \"investigate things,\" and \"rest in the highest\nexcellence,\" are explained as referring to the _Liang Chih_ and the\ncontemplation of the mind by itself. We cannot here shut our eyes to\nthe influence of Bodhidharma and his school, however fervently Wang\nYang Ming may have appealed to the Chinese Classics.\n\nThe reign of Wu-tsung (1506-21) was favourable to Buddhism. In 1507\n40,000 men became monks, either Buddhist or Taoist. The Emperor is\nsaid to have been learned in Buddhist literature and to have known\nSanskrit[699] as well as Mongol and Arabic, but he was in the hands of\na band of eunuchs, who were known as the eight tigers. In 1515 he sent\nan embassy to Tibet with the object of inducing the Grand Lama to\nvisit Peking, but the invitation was refused and the Tibetans expelled\nthe mission with force. The next Emperor, Shih-T'sung (1522-66),\ninclined to Taoism rather than Buddhism. He ordered the images of\nBuddha in the Forbidden City to be destroyed, but still appears to\nhave taken part in Buddhist ceremonies at different periods of his\nreign. Wan Li (1573-1620), celebrated in the annals of porcelain\nmanufacture, showed some favour to Buddhism. He repaired many\nbuildings at P'u-t'o and distributed copies of the Tripitaka to the\nmonasteries of his Empire. In his edicts occurs the saying that\nConfucianism and Buddhism are like the two wings of a bird: each\nrequires the co-operation of the other.\n\nEuropean missionaries first arrived during the sixteenth century, and,\nhad the Catholic Church been more flexible, China might perhaps have\nrecognized Christianity, not as the only true religion but as standing\non the same footing as Buddhism and Taoism. The polemics of the early\nmissionaries imply that they regarded Buddhism as their chief rival.\nThus Ricci had a public controversy with a bonze at Hang-Chou, and his\nprincipal pupil Hs\u00fc Kuang-Ch'i[700] wrote a tract entitled \"The errors\nof the Buddhists exposed.\" Replies to these attacks are preserved in\nthe writings of the distinguished Buddhist priest Shen Chu-Hung[701].\n\nIn 1644 the Ming dynasty collapsed before the Manchus and China was\nagain under foreign rule. Unlike the Mongols, the Manchus had little\ninclination to Buddhism. Even before they had conquered China, their\nprince, T'ai Tsung, ordered an inspection of monasteries and limited\nthe number of monks. But in this edict he inveighs only against the\nabuse of religion and admits that \"Buddha's teaching is at bottom pure\nand chaste, true and sincere: by serving him with purity and piety,\none can obtain happiness[702].\" Shun-Chih, the first Manchu Emperor,\nwrote some prefaces to Buddhist works and entertained the Dalai Lama\nat Peking in 1652[703]. His son and successor, commonly known as\nK'ang-Hsi (1662-1723), dallied for a while with Christianity, but the\nnet result of his religious policy was to secure to Confucianism all\nthat imperial favour can give. I have mentioned above his Sacred Edict\nand the partial favour which he showed to Buddhism. He gave\ndonations to the monasteries of P'u-t'o, Hang-chou and elsewhere: he\npublished the Kanjur with a preface of his own[704] and the twelfth\nand last collection of the Tripitaka was issued under the auspices of\nhis son and grandson. The latter, the Emperor Ch'ien Lung, also\nreceived the Teshu Lama not only with honour, but with interest and\nsympathy, as is clear from the inscription preserved at Peking, in\nwhich he extols the Lama as a teacher of spiritual religion[705]. He\nalso wrote a preface to a sutra for producing rain[706] in which he\nsays that he has ordered the old editions to be carefully corrected\nand prayer and worship to be offered, \"so that the old forms which\nhave been so beneficial during former ages might still be blessed to\nthe desired end.\" Even the late Empress Dowager accepted the\nministrations of the present Dalai Lama when he visited Peking in\n1908, although, to his great indignation she obliged him to kneel at\nCourt[707]. Her former colleague, the Empress Tz\u016d-An was a devout\nBuddhist. The statutes of the Manchu dynasty (printed in 1818) contain\nregulations for the celebration of Buddhist festivals at Court, for\nthe periodical reading of sutras to promote the imperial welfare, and\nfor the performance of funeral rites.\n\nStill on the whole the Manchu dynasty showed less favour to Buddhism\nthan any which preceded it and its restrictive edicts limiting the\nnumber of monks and prescribing conditions for ordination were\nfollowed by no periods of reaction. But the vitality of Buddhism is\nshown by the fact that these restrictions merely led to an increase of\nthe secular clergy, not legally ordained, who in their turn claimed\nthe imperial attention. Ch'ien Lung began in 1735 by giving them the\nalternative of becoming ordinary laymen or of entering a monastery but\nthis drastic measure was considerably modified in the next few years.\nUltimately the secular clergy were allowed to continue as such, if\nthey could show good reason, and to have one disciple each.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 591: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1910, Le Songe et l'Ambassade de\nl'Empereur Ming Ti, par M. H. Masp\u00e9ro, where the original texts are\ntranslated and criticized. It is a curious coincidence that Ptolemy\nSoter is said to have introduced the worship of Serapis to Egypt from\nSinope in consequence of a dream.]\n\n[Footnote 592: [Chinese: ] No doubt then pronounced something like\nVut-tha.]\n\n[Footnote 593: [Chinese: ] or [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 594: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 595: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 596: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 597: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 598: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 599: See Chavannes, _Les documents Chinois d\u00e9couverts par\nAurel Stein_, 1913, Introduction. The earliest documents are of 98\nB.C.]\n\n[Footnote 600: The Wei-l\u00fceh or Wei-lio [Chinese: ], composed between\n239 and 265 A.D., no longer exists as a complete work, but a\nconsiderable extract from it dealing with the countries of the West is\nincorporated in the San Kuo Chih [Chinese: ] of P'ei-Sung-Chih\n[Chinese: ] (429 A.D.). See Chavannes, translation and notes in\n_T'oung Pao_, 1905, pp. 519-571.]\n\n[Footnote 601: [Chinese: ]. See Chavannes, _l.c._ p. 550.]\n\n[Footnote 602: See Francke, _Zur Frage der Einf\u00fchrung des Buddhismus\nin China_, 1910, and Masp\u00e9ro's review in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1910, p. 629.\nAnother Taoist legend is that Dipankara Buddha or Jan T\u00eang, described\nas the teacher of \u015a\u00e2kyamuni was a Taoist and that \u015a\u00e2kyamuni\nvisited him in China. Giles quotes extracts from a writer of the\neleventh century called Sh\u00ean Kua to the effect that Buddhism had been\nflourishing before the Ch'in dynasty but disappeared with its advent\nand also that eighteen priests were imprisoned in 216 B.C. But the\nstory adds that they recited the Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 which is hardly\npossible at that epoch.]\n\n[Footnote 603: Sam. Nik. v. 10. 6. Cf. for a similar illustration in\nChuang-tz\u016d, _S.B.E._ XL. p. 126.]\n\n[Footnote 604: I may say, however, that I think it is a compilation\ncontaining very ancient sayings amplified by later material which\nshows Buddhist influence. This may be true to some extent of the\nEssays of Chuang-tz\u016d as well.]\n\n[Footnote 605: See Legge's translation in _S.B.E._ Part I. pp. 176,\n257, II. 46, 62; _ib._ I. pp. 171, 192, II. 13; _ib._ II. p. 13; _ib._\nII. p. 9, I. p. 249; _ib._ pp. 45, 95, 100, 364, II. p. 139; _ib._ II.\np. 139; _ib._ II. p. 129.]\n\n[Footnote 606: _Ib._ I. p. 202; cf. the Buddha's conversation with\nVaccha in Maj. Nik. 72.]\n\n[Footnote 607: Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva and other Buddhists actually wrote\ncommentaries on the Tao-T\u00ea-Ching.]\n\n[Footnote 608: [Chinese: ] It speaks, however, in section 36 of being\nborn in the condition or family of a Bodhisattva (P'u-sa-chia), where\nthe word seems to be used in the late sense of a devout member of the\nBuddhist Church.]\n\n[Footnote 609: But the Emperor Huan is said to have sacrificed to\nBuddha and Lao-tz\u016d. See Hou Han Shu in _T'oung Pao_, 1907, p. 194.\nFor early Buddhism see \"Communaut\u00e9s et Moines Bouddhistes Chinois au\nII et au III si\u00e8cles,\" by Masp\u00e9ro in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1910, p. 222. In the\nsecond century lived Mou-tz\u016d [Chinese: ] a Buddhist author with a\nstrong spice of Taoism. His work is a collection of questions and\nanswers, somewhat resembling the Questions of Milinda. See translation\nby Pelliot (in _T'oung Pao_, vol. XIX. 1920) who gives the date\nprovisionally as 195 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 610: Accounts of these and the later translators are found\nin the thirteen catalogues of the Chinese Tripitaka (see Nanjio, p.\nxxvii) and other works such as the Kao Sang-Chuan (Nanjio, No. 1490).]\n\n[Footnote 611: [Chinese: ]. He worked at translations in Loyang\n148-170.]\n\n[Footnote 612: Dharmak\u00e2la, see Nanjio, p. 386. The Vinaya used in\nthese early days of Chinese Buddhism was apparently that of the\nDharmagupta school. See _J.A._ 1916, II. p. 40. An Shih-kao (_c_. A.D.\n150) translated a work called The 3000 Rules for Monks (Nanjio, 1126),\nbut it is not clear what was the Sanskrit original.]\n\n[Footnote 613: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 614: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 615: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 616: [Chinese: ]. He was a remarkable man and famous in his\ntime, for he was credited not only with clairvoyance and producing\nrain, but with raising the dead. R\u00e9musat's account of him, based on\nthe Tsin annals, may still be read with interest. See _Nouv. M\u00e9langes\nAsiatiques_, II. 1829, pp. 179 ff. His biography is contained in chap.\n95 of the Tsin [Chinese: ] annals.]\n\n[Footnote 617: [Chinese: ]. Died 363 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 618: Ts'in [Chinese: ] must be distinguished from Tsin\n[Chinese: ], the name of three short but legitimate dynasties.]\n\n[Footnote 619: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 620: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 621: See Nanjio, Catalogue, p. 406.]\n\n[Footnote 622: [Chinese: ]. For this title see Pelliot in _T'oung\nPao_, 1911, p. 671.]\n\n[Footnote 623: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 624: [Chinese: ]. He was canonized under the name of Wu\n[Chinese: ], and the three great persecutions of Buddhism are\nsometimes described as the disasters of the three Wu, the others being\nWu of the North Chou dynasty (574) and Wu of the T'ang (845).]\n\n[Footnote 625: [Chinese: ]. For the 25 pilgrims see Nanjio, p. 417.]\n\n[Footnote 626: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 627: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 628: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 629: [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ]. See Chavannes, \"Voyage de Song\nYun dans l'Udy\u00e2na et le Gandh\u00e2ra, 518-522,\" p. E in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903,\npp. 379-441. For an interesting account of the Dowager Empress see pp.\n384-5.]\n\n[Footnote 630: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 631: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 632: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 633: See chap. XXIII. p. 95, and chap. XLV below (on schools\nof Chinese Buddhism), for more about Bodhidharma. The earliest Chinese\naccounts of him seem to be those contained in the Liang and Wei\nannals. But one of the most popular and fullest accounts is to be\nfound in the Wu T\u00eang Hui Y\u00fcan (first volume) printed at Kushan near\nFuchow.]\n\n[Footnote 634: His portraits are also frequent both in China and Japan\n(see _Ostasiat. Ztsft_ 1912, p. 226) and the strongly marked features\nattributed to him may perhaps represent a tradition of his personal\nappearance, which is entirely un-Chinese. An elaborate study of\nBodhidharma written in Japanese is noticed in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p.\n457.]\n\n[Footnote 635: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 636: The legend does not fit in well with chronology since\nSung-Y\u00fcn is said to have returned from India in 522.]\n\n[Footnote 637: See Takakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1905, p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 638: Mailla, _Hist. G\u00e9n. de la Chine_, p. 369.]\n\n[Footnote 639: [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 640: [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 641: See Biot, _Hist, de l'instruction publique en Chine_,\npp. 289, 313.]\n\n[Footnote 642: [Chinese: ]. Is celebrated in Chinese history as one\nof the greatest opponents of Buddhism. He collected all the objections\nto it in 10 books and warned his son against it on his death bed.\nGiles, _Biog. Dict_. 589.]\n\n[Footnote 643: [Chinese: ]. An important minister and apparently a\nman of talent but of ungovernable and changeable temper. In 639 he\nobtained the Emperor's leave to become a priest but soon left his\nmonastery. The Emperor ordered him to be canonized under the name Pure\nbut Narrow. Giles, _Biog. Dict._ 722. The monk Fa-Lin [Chinese: ]\nalso attacked the views of Fu I in two treatises which have been\nincorporated in the Chinese Tripitaka. See Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1500,\n1501.]\n\n[Footnote 644: Subsequently a story grew up that his soul had visited\nhell during a prolonged fainting fit after which he recovered and\nbecame a devout Buddhist. See chap. XI of the Romance called\nHsi-yu-chi, a fantastic travesty of Hs\u00fcan Chuang's travels, and\nWieger, _Textes Historiques_, p. 1585.]\n\n[Footnote 645: [Chinese: ]. This name has been transliterated in an\nextraordinary number of ways. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1905, pp. 424-430.\nGiles gives Hs\u00fcan Chuang in his _Chinese Dictionary_, but Hs\u00fcan Tsang\nin his _Biographical Dictionary_. Probably the latter is more correct.\nNot only is the pronunciation of the characters variable, but the\ncharacter [Chinese: ] was tabooed as being part of the Emperor K'ang\nHsi's personal name and [Chinese: ] substituted for it. Hence the\nspelling Y\u00fcan Chuang.]\n\n[Footnote 646: [Chinese: ]. See Vincent Smith, _Early History of\nIndia_, pp. 326-327, and Giles, _Biog. Dict._, _s.v._ Wang Hs\u00fcan-T's\u00ea.\nThis worthy appears to have gone to India again in 657 to offer robes\nat the holy places.]\n\n[Footnote 647: [Chinese: ] Some of the principal statues in the caves\nof Lung-men were made at her expense, but other parts of these caves\nseem to date from at least 500 A.D. Chavannes, _Mission Arch\u00e9ol._ tome\nI, deuxi\u00e8me partie.]\n\n[Footnote 648: [Chinese: ]. Ta-Y\u00fcn-Ching. See _J.A._ 1913, p. 149.\nThe late Dowager Empress also was fond of masquerading as Kuan-yin but\nit does not appear that the performance was meant to be taken\nseriously.]\n\n[Footnote 649: \"That romantic Chinese reign of Genso (713-756) which\nis the real absolute culmination of Chinese genius.\" Fenollosa,\n_Epochs of Chinese and Japanese art_ I. 102.]\n\n[Footnote 650: [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 651: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 652: [Chinese: ] The meaning of this name appears to vary\nat different times. At this period it is probably equivalent to Kapisa\nor N.E. Afghanistan.]\n\n[Footnote 653: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 654: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 161. This does not exclude\nthe possibility of an opposite current, _viz._ Chinese Buddhism\nflowing into Burma.]\n\n[Footnote 655: Wu-Tsung, 841-847.]\n\n[Footnote 656: \"Liu-Tsung-Yuan has left behind him much that for\npurity of style and felicity of expression has rarely been surpassed,\"\nGiles, _Chinese Literature_, p. 191.]\n\n[Footnote 657: Apparently in 783 A.D. See Waddell's articles on\nAncient Historical Edicts at Lhasa in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, 1910, 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 658: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 659: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 660: See Eitel, _Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_, p. 185\n_s.v._ Ullambana, a somewhat doubtful word, apparently rendered into\nChinese as Y\u00fc-lan-p'\u00ean.]\n\n[Footnote 661: Sec Nanjio Catalogue, pp. 445-448.]\n\n[Footnote 662: He is also said to have introduced the images of the\nFour Kings which are now found in every temple. A portrait of him by\nLi Chien is reproduced in Tajima's _Masterpieces_, vol. viii, plate\nix. The artist was perhaps his contemporary.]\n\n[Footnote 663: _E.g._ Sacki, _The Nestorian Monument in China_, 1916.\nSee also above, p. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 664: See Khuddaka-Patha, 7; Peta Vatthu, 1, 5 and the\ncommentary; Milinda Panha, iv. 8, 29; and for modern practices my\nchapter on Siam, and Copleston, _Buddhism_, p. 445.]\n\n[Footnote 665: [Chinese: ] Some native critics, however, have doubted\nthe authenticity of the received text and the version inserted in the\nOfficial History seems to be a summary. See Wieger, _Textes\nHistoriques_, vol. iii. pp. 1726 ff., and Giles, _Chinese Literature_,\npp. 200 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 666: The officials whose duty it was to remonstrate with the\nEmperor if he acted wrongly.]\n\n[Footnote 667: Giles, _Chinese Literature_, pp. 201, 202--somewhat\nabbreviated.]\n\n[Footnote 668: See Wieger, _Textes Historiques_, vol. III. pp. 1744\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 669: \"Thousands of ten-thousands of Ch'ing.\" A Ch'ing =\n15.13 acres.]\n\n[Footnote 670: Presumably similar to the temple slaves of Camboja,\netc.]\n\n[Footnote 671: One Emperor of this epoch, Shih-Tsung of the later Chou\ndynasty, suppressed monasteries and coined bronze images into\ncurrency, declaring that Buddha, who in so many births had sacrificed\nhimself for mankind, would have no objection to his statues being made\nuseful. But in the South Buddhism nourished in the province of Fukien\nunder the princes of Min [Chinese: ] and the dynasty which called\nitself Southern T'ang.]\n\n[Footnote 672: [Chinese: ] See Kokka No. 309, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 673: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 674: The decrease in translations is natural for by this\ntime Chinese versions had been made of most works which had any claim\nto be translated.]\n\n[Footnote 675: See Biot, _L'instruction publique en Chine_, p. 350.]\n\n[Footnote 676: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 677: See Le Gall, _Vari\u00e9t\u00e9s Sinologiques_, No. 6 Tchou-Hi:\nSa doctrine Son influence. Shanghai, 1894, pp. 90, 122.]\n\n[Footnote 678: [Chinese: ]. Compare the similar doctrines of Wang\nYang-Ming.]\n\n[Footnote 679: _E.g._ his elder brother Mangku who showed favour to\nBuddhists, Mohammedans and Nestorians alike. He himself wished to\nobtain Christian teachers from the Pope, by the help of Marco Polo,\nbut probably merely from curiosity.]\n\n[Footnote 680: More accurately hPhags-pa. It is a title rather than a\nname, being the Tibetan equivalent of Arya. Khubilai seems to be the\ncorrect transcription of the Emperor's name. The Tibetan and Chinese\ntranscriptions are Hvopilai and Hu-pi-lieh.]\n\n[Footnote 681: For this curious work see _B.E.F.E.O._ 1908, p. 515,\nand _J.A._ 1913, I, pp. 116-132. For the destruction of Taoist books\nsee Chavannes in _T'oung Pao_, 1904, p. 366.]\n\n[Footnote 682: At the present day an ordinary Chinese regards a Lama\nas quite different from a Hoshang or Buddhist monk.]\n\n[Footnote 683: The Y\u00fcan Emperors were no doubt fond of witnessing\nreligious theatricals in the Palace. See for extracts from Chinese\nauthors, _New China Review_, 1919, pp. 68 ff. Compare the performances\nof the T'ang Emperor Su Tsung mentioned above.]\n\n[Footnote 684: For the ecclesiastical abuses of the time see K\u00f6ppen,\nII. 103, and de Mailla, _Histoire de la Chine_, IX. 475, 538.]\n\n[Footnote 685: See Wieger, _Textes Historiques_, III. p. 2013, and De\nGroot, _Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in China_, I. p. 82. He\nis often called Hung Wu which is strictly speaking the title of his\nreign. He was certainly capable of changing his mind, for he degraded\nMencius from his position in Confucian temples one year and restored\nhim the next.]\n\n[Footnote 686: See de Mailla, _Histoire de la Chine_, IX. p. 470.]\n\n[Footnote 687: Often called Yung-Lo which is strictly the title of his\nreign.]\n\n[Footnote 688: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 689: See Nanjio, Cat. 1613-16.]\n\n[Footnote 690: See Beal, _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_, p. 398. The\nEmperor says: \"So we, the Ruler of the Empire ... do hereby bring\nbefore men a mode for attaining to the condition of supreme Wisdom. We\ntherefore earnestly exhort all men ... carefully to study the\ndirections of this work and faithfully to follow them.\"]\n\n[Footnote 691: Nanjio, Cat. 1620. See also _ib._ 1032 and 1657 for the\nEmpress's s\u00fbtra.]\n\n[Footnote 692: Or Kalima [Chinese: ] In Tibetan Karma de bshin\ngshegs-pa. He was the fifth head of the Karma-pa school. See Chandra\nDas's dictionary, _s.v._, where a reference is given to\nkLong-rdol-gsung-hbum. It is noticeable that the Karma-pa is one of\nthe older and more Tantric sects.]\n\n[Footnote 693: [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ]. Y\u00fcan Shih K'ai prefixed to\nthis latter the four characters [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 694: See Yule, _Cathay and the Way Thither_, pp. 75 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 695: When Ying Tsung was carried away by the Mongols in 1449\nhis brother Ching-Ti was made Emperor. Though Ying Tsung was sent back\nin 1450, he was not able to oust Ching-Ti from the throne till 1457.]\n\n[Footnote 696: [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 697: [Chinese: ] His real name was Wang Shou J\u00ean\n[Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 698: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 699: Though the ecclesiastical study of Sanskrit decayed\nunder the Ming dynasty, Yung-lo founded in 1407 a school of language\nfor training interpreters at which Sanskrit was taught among other\ntongues.]\n\n[Footnote 700: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 701: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 702: De Groot, _l.c._ p. 93.]\n\n[Footnote 703: Some authorities say that he became a monk before he\ndied, but the evidence is not good. See Johnston in _New China\nReview_, Nos. 1 and 2, 1920.]\n\n[Footnote 704: See _T'oung Pao_, 1909, p. 533.]\n\n[Footnote 705: See E. Ludwig, _The visit of the Tcshoo Lama to\nPeking_, Tien Tsin Press, 1904.]\n\n[Footnote 706: The Ta-y\u00fcn-lung-ch'ing-y\u00fc-ching. Nanjio's Catalogue,\nNos. 187-8, 970, and see Beal, _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_, pp.\n417-9.]\n\n[Footnote 707: See for an account of his visit \"The Dalai Lamas and\ntheir relations with the Manchu Emperor of China\" in _T'oung Pao_,\n1910, p. 774.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIV\n\nCHINA (_continued_)\n\nTHE CANON\n\n\nThe Buddhist scriptures extant in the Chinese language are known\ncollectively as San Tsang[708] or the three store-houses, that is to\nsay, Tripitaka. Though this usage is justified by both eastern and\nEuropean practice, it is not altogether happy, for the Chinese\nthesaurus is not analogous to the Pali Canon or to any collection of\nsacred literature known in India, being in spite of its name arranged\nin four, not in three, divisions. It is a great _Corpus Scriptorum\nSanctorum_, embracing all ages and schools, wherein translations of\nthe most diverse Indian works are supplemented by original\ncompositions in Chinese. Imagine a library comprising Latin\ntranslations of the Old and New Testaments with copious additions from\nthe Talmud and Apocryphal literature; the writings of the Fathers,\ndecrees of Councils and Popes, together with the _opera omnia_ of the\nprincipal schoolmen and the early protestant reformers and you will\nhave some idea of this theological miscellany which has no claim to be\ncalled a canon, except that all the works included have at some time\nor other received a certain literary or doctrinal hall-mark.\n\n1\n\n\nThe collection is described in the catalogue compiled by Bunyiu\nNanjio[709]. It enumerates 1662 works which are classified in four\ngreat divisions, (_a_) S\u00fbtra, (_b_) Vinaya, (_c_) Abhidharma, (_d_)\nMiscellaneous. The first three divisions contain translations only;\nthe fourth original Chinese works as well.\n\nThe first division called Ching or S\u00fbtras amounts to nearly two-thirds\nof the whole, for it comprises no less than 1081 works and is\nsubdivided as follows: (_a_) Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na S\u00fbtras, 541, (_b_) H\u00eenay\u00e2na\nS\u00fbtras, 240, (_c_) Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and H\u00eenay\u00e2na S\u00fbtras, 300 in number,\nadmitted into the canon under the Sung and Y\u00fcan dynasties, A.D.\n960-1368. Thus whereas the first two subdivisions differ in doctrine,\nthe third is a supplement containing later translations of both\nschools. The second subdivision, or H\u00eenay\u00e2na S\u00fbtras, which is less\nnumerous and complicated than that containing the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na S\u00fbtras,\nshows clearly the character of the whole collection. It is divided\ninto two classes of which the first is called A-han, that is,\nAgama[710]. This comprises translations of four works analogous to the\nPali Nik\u00e2yas, though not identical with the texts which we possess,\nand also numerous alternative translations of detached s\u00fbtras. All\nfour were translated about the beginning of the fifth century whereas\nthe translations of detached s\u00fbtras are for the most part earlier.\nThis class also contains the celebrated S\u00fbtra of Forty-two Sections,\nand works like the J\u00e2taka-nid\u00e2na. The second class is styled S\u00fbtras of\none translation[711]. The title is not used rigorously, but the works\nbearing it are relatively obscure and it is not always clear to what\nSanskrit texts they correspond. It will be seen from the above that\nthe Chinese Tripitaka is a literary and bibliographical collection\nrather than an ecclesiastical canon. It does not provide an authorized\nversion for the edification of the faithful, but it presents for the\nuse of the learned all translations of Indian works belonging to a\nparticular class which possess a certain age and authority.\n\nThe same characteristic marks the much richer collection of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\nS\u00fbtras, which contains the works most esteemed by Chinese Buddhists.\nIt is divided into seven classes:\n\n    1. [Chinese: ] Pan-jo (Po-jo) or Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2[712].\n\n    2. [Chinese: ] Pao-chi or Ratnak\u00fb\u1e6da.\n\n    3. [Chinese: ] Ta-chi or Mah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta.\n\n    4. [Chinese: ] Hua-yen or Avatamsaka.\n\n    5. [Chinese: ] Nieh-pan or Parinirv\u00e2\u1e47a.\n\n    6. [Chinese: ] S\u00fbtras in more than one translation\n    but not falling into any of the above five\n    classes.\n\n    7. [Chinese: ] Other s\u00fbtras existing in only one translation.\n\nEach of the first five classes probably represents a collection of s\u00fbtras\nanalogous to a Nik\u00e2ya and in one sense a single work but translated into\nChinese several times, both in a complete form and in extracts. Thus the\nfirst class opens with the majestic Mah\u00e2prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 in 600 fasciculi\nand equivalent to 200,000 stanzas in Sanskrit. This is followed by several\ntranslations of shorter versions including two of the little s\u00fbtras called\nthe Heart of the Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, which fills only one leaf. There are also\nsix translations of the celebrated work known as the Diamond-cutter[713],\nwhich is the ninth s\u00fbtra in the Mah\u00e2prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and all the works\nclassed under the heading Pan-jo seem to be alternative versions of parts\nof this great Corpus.\n\nThe second and third classes are collections of s\u00fbtras which no longer\nexist as collections in Sanskrit, though the Sanskrit text of some\nindividual s\u00fbtras is extant. That called Pao-chi or Ratnak\u00fb\u1e6da opens\nwith a collection of forty-nine s\u00fbtras which includes the longer\nversion of the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha. This collection is reckoned as one\nwork, but the other items in the same class are all or nearly all of\nthem duplicate translations of separate s\u00fbtras contained in it. This\nis probably true of the third class also. At least seven of the works\nincluded in it are duplicate translations of the first, which is\ncalled Mah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta, and the s\u00fbtras called Candragarbha, Kshitig.,\nSumerug., and Ak\u00e2\u015bag., appear to be merely sections, not separate\ncompositions, although this is not clear from the remarks of Nanjio\nand Wassiljew.\n\nThe principal works in class 4 are two translations, one fuller than\nthe other, of the Hua-yen or Avatamsaka S\u00fbtra[714], still one of the\nmost widely read among Buddhist works, and at least sixteen of the\nother items are duplicate renderings of parts of it. Class 5\nconsists of thirteen works dealing with the death of the Buddha and\nhis last discourses. The first s\u00fbtra, sometimes called the northern\ntext, is imperfect and was revised at Nanking in the form of the\nsouthern text[715]. There are two other incomplete versions of the\nsame text. To judge from a specimen translated by Beal[716] it is a\ncollection of late discourses influenced by Vishnuism and does not\ncorrespond to the Mah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2nasutta of the Pali Canon.\n\nClass 6 consists of s\u00fbtras which exist in several translations, but\nstill do not, like the works just mentioned, form small libraries in\nthemselves. It comprises, however, several books highly esteemed and\nhistorically important, such as the Saddharmapu\u1e47\u1e0dar\u00eeka (six\ntranslations), the Suvar\u1e47aprabh\u00e2sa, the Lalitavistara, the Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra,\nand the Shorter Sukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha[717], all extant in three translations.\nIn it are also included many short tracts, the originals of which are\nnot known. Some of them are J\u00e2takas, but many[718] deal with the ritual\nof image worship or with spells. These characteristics are still more\nprominent in the seventh class, consisting of s\u00fbtras which exist in a\nsingle translation only. The best known among them are the \u015a\u00fbr\u00e2ngama and\nthe Mah\u00e2vairocana (Ta-jih-ching), which is the chief text of the\nShin-gon or Mantra School[719].\n\nThe L\u00fc-tsang or Vinaya-pitaka is divided into Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and H\u00eenay\u00e2na texts,\nneither very numerous. Many of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na texts profess to be\nrevelations by Maitreya and are extracts of the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ryabh\u00fbmi\u015b\u00e2stra[720]\nor similar to it. For practical purposes the most important is the\nFan-wang-ching[721] or net of Brahm\u00e2. The Indian original of this work is\nnot known, but since the eighth century it has been accepted in China as\nthe standard manual for the monastic life[722].\n\nThe H\u00eenay\u00e2na Vinaya comprises five very substantial recensions of\nthe whole code, besides extracts, compendiums, and manuals. The five\nrecensions are: (_a_) Shih-sung-l\u00fc in sixty-five fasciculi, translated\nin A.D. 404. This is said to be a Vinaya of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, but\nI-Ching[723] expressly says that it does not belong to the\nM\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school, though not unlike it. (_b_) The Vinaya of\nthis latter translated by I-Ching who brought it from India. (_c_)\nShih-fen-l\u00fc-tsang in sixty fasciculi, translated in 405 and said to\nrepresent the Dharmagupta school. (_d_) The Mi-sha-so Wu-f\u00ean L\u00fc or\nVinaya of the Mah\u00ee\u015b\u00e2sakas, said to be similar to the Pali Vinaya,\nthough not identical with it[724]. (_e_) Mo-ko-s\u00eang-chi L\u00fc or\nMahasanghika Vinaya brought from India by Fa-Hsien and translated 416\nA.D. It is noticeable that all five recensions are classed as\nHinayanist, although (_b_) is said to be the Vinaya used by the\nTibetan Church. Although Chinese Buddhists frequently speak of the\nfive-fold Vinaya[725], this expression does not refer to these five\ntexts, as might be supposed, and I-Ching condemns it, saying that[726]\nthe real number of divisions is four.\n\nThe Abhidharma-Pitaka or Lun-tsang is, like the S\u00fbtra Pitaka, divided into\nMahayanist and Hinayanist texts and texts of both schools admitted into\nthe Canon after 960 A.D. The Mahayanist texts have no connection with the\nPali Canon and their Sanskrit titles do not contain the word\nAbhidharma[727]. They are philosophical treatises ascribed to A\u015bvaghosha,\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu and others, including three works supposed\nto have been revealed by Maitreya to Asanga[728]. The principal of these\nis the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2rya-bh\u00fbmi\u015b\u00e2stra, a scripture of capital importance for the\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2rya school. It describes the career of a Bodhisattva and hence parts\nof it are treated as belonging to the Vinaya. Among other important works\nin this section may be mentioned the Madhyamaka \u015a\u00e2stra of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra of Asanga, and the Awakening of Faith ascribed to\nA\u015bvaghosha[729].\n\nThe H\u00eenay\u00e2na texts also show no correspondence with the Pali Pitaka but\nare based on the Abhidharma works of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school[730]. These\nare seven in number, namely the Jn\u00e2naprasth\u00e2nas\u00e2stra of K\u00e2ty\u00e2yan\u00eeputra\nwith six accessory treatises or P\u00e2das[731]. The Mah\u00e2vibh\u00e2shas\u00e2stra, or\ncommentary on the Jn\u00e2naprasth\u00e2na, and the Abhidharmak\u00f3sa[732] are also in\nthis section.\n\nThe third division of the Abhidharma is of little importance but\ncontains two curious items: a manual of Buddhist terminology composed\nas late as 1272 by Pagspa for the use of Khubilai's son and the\nS\u00e2nkhyak\u00e2rik\u00e2bh\u00e2shya, which is not a Buddhist work but a compendium of\nS\u00e2nkhya philosophy[733].\n\nThe fourth division of the whole collection consists of miscellaneous\nworks, partly translated from Sanskrit and partly composed in Chinese.\nMany of the Indian works appear from their title not to differ much\nfrom the later Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na S\u00fbtras, but it is rather surprising to find in\nthis section four translations[734] of the Dharmapada (or at least of\nsome similar anthology) which are thus placed outside the S\u00fbtra\nPitaka. Among the works professing to be translated from Sanskrit are\na History of the Patriarchs, the Buddhacarita of A\u015bvaghosha, a work\nsimilar to the Questions of King Milinda, Lives of A\u015bvaghosha,\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, Vasubandhu and others and the Suhrillekha or Friendly\nEpistle ascribed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna.\n\nThe Chinese works included in this Tripitaka consist of nearly two\nhundred books, historical, critical, controversial and homiletic,\ncomposed by one hundred and two authors. Excluding late treatises on\nceremonial and doctrine, the more interesting may be classified as\nfollows:\n\n_(a) Historical._--Besides general histories of Buddhism, there are\nseveral collections of ecclesiastical biography. The first is the\nKao-s\u00eang-chuan[735], or Memoirs of eminent Monks (not, however,\nexcluding laymen), giving the lives of about five hundred worthies who\nlived between 67 and 519 A.D. The series is continued in other works\ndealing with the T'ang and Sung dynasties. For the Contemplative School\nthere are further supplements carrying the record on to the Y\u00fcan. There\nare also several histories of the Chinese patriarchs. Of these the\nlatest and therefore most complete is the Fo-tsu-t'ung-chi[736] composed\nabout 1270 by Chih P'an of the T'ien-T'ai school. The\nChing-t\u00ea-ch'uan-t\u00eang-lu[737] and other treatises give the succession of\npatriarchs according to the Contemplative School. Among historical works\nmay be reckoned the travels of various pilgrims who visited India.\n\n(_b_) _Critical_.--There are thirteen catalogues of the Tripitaka as it\nexisted at different periods. Several of them contain biographical\naccounts of the translators and other notes. The work called\nCh\u00ean-ch\u00eang-lun criticizes several false s\u00fbtras and names. There are also\nseveral encyclop\u00e6dic works containing extracts from the Tripitaka,\narranged according to subjects, such as the Fa-y\u00fcan-chu-lin[738] in 100\nvolumes; concordances of numerical categories and a dictionary of Sanskrit\nterms, Fan-i-ming-i-chi[739], composed in 1151.\n\n(_c_) The literature of several Chinese sects is well represented.\nThus there are more than sixty works belonging to the T'ien T'ai\nschool beginning with the San-ta-pu or three great books attributed to\nthe founder and ending with the ecclesiastical history of Chih-p'an,\nwritten about 1270. The Hua-yen school is represented by the writings\nof four patriarchs and five monks: the L\u00fc or Vinaya school by eight\nworks attributed to its founder, and the Contemplative School by a\ns\u00fbtra ascribed to Hui-n\u00eang, the sixth patriarch, by works on the\nhistory of the Patriarchs and by several collections of sayings or\nshort compositions.\n\n(_d_) _Controversial_.--Under this heading may be mentioned\npolemics against Taoism, including two collections of the\ncontroversies which took place between Buddhists and Taoists from A.D.\n71 till A.D. 730: replies to the attacks made against Buddhism by\nConfucian scholars and refutations of the objections raised by\nsceptics or heretics such as the Ch\u00ea-i-lun and the Y\u00fcan-j\u00ean-lun, or\nOrigin of man[740]. This latter is a well-known text-book written by\nthe fifth Patriarch of the Hua-yen school and while criticizing\nConfucianism, Taoism, and the H\u00een\u00e2yana, treats them as imperfect\nrather than as wholly erroneous[741]. Still more conciliatory is the\nTreatise on the three religions composed by Liu Mi of the Y\u00fcan\ndynasty[742], which asserts that all three deserve respect as teaching\nthe practice of virtue. It attacks, however, anti-Buddhist\nConfucianists such as Han-Y\u00fc and Chu-Hsi.\n\nThe Chinese section contains three compositions attributed to imperial\npersonages of the Ming, viz., a collection of the prefaces and laudatory\nverses written by the Emperor T'ai-Tsung, the Sh\u00ean-S\u00eang-Chuan or memoirs\nof remarkable monks with a preface by the Emperor Ch'\u00eang-tsu, and a\ncurious book by his consort the Empress J\u00ean-Hsiao, introducing a s\u00fbtra\nwhich Her Majesty states was miraculously revealed to her on New Year's\nday, 1398 (see Nanjio, No. 1657).\n\nThough the Hindus were careful students and guardians of their sacred\nworks, their temperament did not dispose them to define and limit the\nscriptures. But, as I have mentioned above[743], there is some\nevidence that there was a loose Mahayanist canon in India which was\nthe origin of the arrangement found in the Chinese Tripitaka, in so\nfar as it (1) accepted Hinayanist as well as Mahayanist works, and (2)\nincluded a great number of relatively late s\u00fbtras, arranged in classes\nsuch as Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and Mah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta.\n\n2\n\n\nThe Tripitaka analyzed by Nanjio, which contains works assigned to\ndates ranging from 67 to 1622 A.D., is merely the best known\nsurvivor among several similar thesauri[744]. From 518 A.D. onwards\ntwelve collections of sacred literature were made by imperial order\nand many of these were published in more than one edition. The\nvalidity of this Canon depends entirely on imperial authority, but,\nthough Emperors occasionally inserted the works of writers whom they\nesteemed[745], it does not appear that they aimed at anything but\ncompleteness nor did they favour any school. The Buddhist Church, like\nevery other department of the Empire, received from them its share of\nprotection and supervision and its claims were sufficient to induce\nthe founder, or at least an early Sovereign, of every important\ndynasty to publish under his patronage a revised collection of the\nscriptures. The list of these collections is as follows[746]:\n\n    1. A.D. 518 in the time of Wu-Ti, founder of the Liang.\n    2.  \"   533-4 Hsiao-Wu of the Northern Wei.\n    3.  \"   594 } Wan-ti, founder of the Sui.\n    4.  \"   602 } Wan-ti, founder of the Sui.\n    5.  \"   605-16 Yang-Ti of the Sui.\n    6.  \"   695 the Empress Wu of the T'ang.\n    7.  \"   730 Hs\u00fcan-Tsung of the T'ang.\n    8.  \"   971 T'ai-Tsu, founder of the Sung.\n    9.  \"  1285-7 Khubilai Khan, founder of the Y\u00fcan.\n    10. \"  1368-98 Hung-Wu, founder of the Ming.\n    11. \"  1403-24 Yung-Lo of the Ming.\n    12. \"  1735-7 Yung-Ching and Ch'ien-Lung of the Ch'ing[747].\n\nOf these collections, the first seven were in MS. only: the last five\nwere printed. The last three appear to be substantially the same. The\ntenth and eleventh collections are known as southern and\nnorthern[748], because they were printed at Nanking and Peking\nrespectively. They differ only in the number of Chinese works admitted\nand similarly the twelfth collection is merely a revision of the tenth\nwith the addition of fifty-four Chinese works.\n\nAs mentioned, the Tripitaka contains thirteen catalogues of the\nBuddhist scriptures as known at different dates[749]. Of these the\nmost important are (_a_) the earliest published between 506 and 512\nA.D., (_b_) three published under the T'ang dynasty and known as\nNei-tien-lu, T'u-chi (both about 664 A.D.), and K'ai-y\u00fcan-lu (about\n720 A.D.), (_c_) Chih-Y\u00fcan-lu or catalogue of Y\u00fcan dynasty, about\n1285, which, besides enumerating the Chinese titles, transliterates\nthe Sanskrit titles and states whether the Indian works translated are\nalso translated into Tibetan. (_d_) The catalogue of the first Ming\ncollection.\n\nThe later collections contain new material and differ from the earlier\nby natural accretion, for a great number of translations were produced\nunder the T'ang and Sung. Thus the seventh catalogue (695 A.D.)\nrecords that 859 new works were admitted to the Canon. But this\nexpansion was accompanied by a critical and sifting process, so that\nwhereas the first collection contained 2213 works, the Ming edition\ncontains only 1622. This compression means not that works of\nimportance were rejected as heretical or apocryphal, for, as we have\nseen, the Tripitaka is most catholic, but that whereas the earlier\ncollections admitted multitudinous extracts or partial translations of\nIndian works, many of these were discarded when complete versions had\nbeen made.\n\nNanjio considers that of the 2213 works contained in the first\ncollection only 276 are extant. Although the catalogues are preserved,\nall the earlier collections are lost: copies of the eighth and\nninth were preserved in the Z\u014d-j\u014d-ji Library of Tokyo[750] and\nChinese and Japanese editions of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth are\ncurrent. So far as one can judge, when the eighth catalogue, or\nK'ai-y\u00fcan-lu, was composed (between 713 and 741), the older and major\npart of the Canon had been definitively fixed and the later\ncollections merely add the translations made by Amogha, and by writers\nof the Sung and Y\u00fcan dynasties.\n\nThe editions of the Chinese Tripitaka must be distinguished from the\ncollections, for by editions are meant the forms in which each\ncollection was published, the text being or purporting to be the same\nin all the editions of each collection. It is said[751] that under the\nSung and Y\u00fcan twenty different editions were produced. These earlier\nissues were printed on long folding sheets and a nun called\nFa-ch\u00ean[752] is said to have first published an edition in the shape\nof ordinary Chinese books. In 1586 a monk named Mi-Tsang[753] imitated\nthis procedure and his edition was widely used. About a century later\na Japanese priest known as Tetsu-yen[754] reproduced it and his\npublication, which is not uncommon in Japan, is usually called the\n\u014c-baku edition. There are two modern Japanese editions: (_a_) that\nof Tokyo, begun in 1880, based on a Korean edition[755] with various\nreadings taken from other Chinese editions. (_b_) That of Kyoto, 1905,\nwhich is a reprint of the Ming collection[756]. A Chinese edition has\nbeen published at Shanghai (1913) at the expense of Mrs. Hardoon, a\nChinese lady well known as a munificent patron of the faith, and I\nbelieve another at Nanking, but I do not know if it is complete or\nnot[757].\n\n3\n\n\nThe translations contained in the Chinese Tripitaka belong to several\nperiods[758]. In the earliest, which extends to the middle of the\nfourth century, the works produced were chiefly renderings of detached\ns\u00fbtras[759]. Few treatises classified as Vinaya or Abhidharma were\ntranslated and those few are mostly extracts or compilations. The\ns\u00fbtras belong to both the H\u00eena and Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na. The earliest extant\ntranslation or rather compilation, the S\u00fbtra of Forty-two sections,\nbelongs to the former school, and so do the majority of the\ntranslations made by An-Shih-Kao (148-170 A.D.), but from the second\ncentury onwards the Prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and Amit\u00e2bha S\u00fbtras make their\nappearance[760]. Many of the translations made in this period are\ndescribed as incomplete or incorrect and the fact that most of them\nwere superseded or supplemented by later versions shows that the\nChinese recognized their provisional character. Future research will\nprobably show that many of them are paraphrases or compendiums rather\nthan translations in our sense.\n\nThe next period, roughly speaking 375-745 A.D., was extraordinarily\nprolific in extensive and authoritative translations. The translators\nnow attack not detached chapters or discourses but the great monuments\nof Indian Buddhist literature. Though it is not easy to make any\nchronological bisection in this period, there is a clear difference in\nthe work done at the beginning and at the end of it. From the end of\nthe fourth century onwards a desire to have complete translations of\nthe great canonical works is apparent. Between 385 and 445 A.D. were\ntranslated the four Agamas, analogous to the Nik\u00e2yas of the Pali\nCanon, three great collections of the Vinaya, and the principal\nscriptures of the Abhidharma according to the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school.\nFor the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na were translated the great s\u00fbtras known as Avatamsaka,\nLank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, and many others, as well as works ascribed to\nA\u015bvaghosha and N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. After 645 A.D. a further development of\nthe critical spirit is perceptible, especially in the labours of Hs\u00fcan\nChuang and I-Ching. They attempt to give the religious public not only\ncomplete works in place of extracts and compendiums, but also to\nselect the most authoritative texts among the many current in India.\nThus, though many translations had appeared under the name of\nPrajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, Hs\u00fcan Chuang filled 600 fasciculi with a new rendering\nof the gigantic treatise. I-Ching supplemented the already bulky\nlibrary of Vinaya works with versions of the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din\nrecension and many auxiliary texts.\n\nAmogha (Pu-K'ung) whose literary labours extended from 746 to 774 A.D.\nis a convenient figure to mark the beginning of the next and last\nperiod, although some of its characteristics appear a little earlier.\nThey are that no more translations are made from the great Buddhist\nclassics--partly no doubt because they had all been translated\nalready, well or ill--but that renderings of works described as\nDh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ee or Tantra pullulate and multiply. Though this literature\ndeserves such epithets as decadent and superstitious, yet it would\nappear that Indian Tantras of the worst class were not palatable to\nthe Chinese.\n\n4\n\n\nThe Chinese Tripitaka is of great importance for the literary history\nof Buddhism, but the material which it offers for investigation is\nsuperabundant and the work yet done is small. We are confronted by\nsuch questions as, can we accept the dates assigned to the\ntranslators, can we assume that, if the Chinese translations or\ntransliterations correspond with Indian titles, the works are the\nsame, and if the works are professedly the same, can we assume that\nthe Chinese text is a correct presentment of the Indian original?\n\nThe dates assigned to the translators offer little ground for\nscepticism. The exactitude of the Chinese in such matters is well\nattested, and there is a general agreement between several authorities\nsuch as the Catalogues of the Tripitaka, the memoirs known as\nKao-S\u00eang Chuan with their continuations, and the chapter on Buddhist\nbooks in the Sui annals. There are no signs of a desire to claim\nimprobable accuracy or improbable antiquity. Many works are said to be\nby unknown translators, doubtful authorship is frankly discussed, and\nthe movement of literature and thought indicated is what we should\nexpect. We have first fragmentary and incomplete translations\nbelonging to both the Mah\u00e2 and H\u00eenay\u00e2na: then a series of more\ncomplete translations beginning about the fifth century in which the\ngreat H\u00eenay\u00e2na texts are conspicuous: then a further series of\nimproved translations in which the H\u00eenay\u00e2na falls into the background\nand the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu come to the front. This\nevidently reflects the condition of Buddhist India about 500-650 A.D.,\njust as the translations of the eighth century reflect its later and\ntantric phase.\n\nBut can Chinese texts be accepted as reasonably faithful reproductions\nof the Indian originals whose names they bear, and some of which have\nbeen lost? This question is really double; firstly, did the\ntranslators reproduce with fair accuracy the Indian text before them,\nand secondly, since Indian texts often exist in several recensions,\ncan we assume that the work which the translators knew under a certain\nSanskrit name is the work known to us by that name? In reply it must\nbe said that most Chinese translators fall short of our standards of\naccuracy. In early times when grammars and dictionaries were unknown\nthe scholarly rendering of foreign books was a difficult business,\nfor professional interpreters would usually be incapable of\nunderstanding a philosophic treatise. The method often followed was\nthat an Indian explained the text to a literary Chinese, who recast\nthe explanation in his own language. The many translations of the more\nimportant texts and the frequent description of the earlier ones as\nimperfect indicate a feeling that the results achieved were not\nsatisfactory. Several so-called translators, especially Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva,\ngave abstracts of the Indian texts[761]. Others, like Dharmaraksha,\nwho made a Chinese version of A\u015bvaghosha's Buddhacarita, so\namplified and transposed the original that the result can hardly\nbe called a translation[762]. Others combined different texts in one.\nThus the work called Ta-o-mi-to-ching[763] consists of extracts taken\nfrom four previous translations of the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha and rearranged\nby the author under the inspiration of Avalokita to whom, as he tells\nus, he was wont to pray during the execution of his task. Others\nagain, like Dharmagupta, anticipated a method afterwards used in\nTibet, and gave a word for word rendering of the Sanskrit which is\nhardly intelligible to an educated Chinese. The later versions, _e.g._\nthose of Hs\u00fcan Chuang, are more accurate, but still a Chinese\nrendering of a lost Indian document cannot be accepted as a faithful\nrepresentation of the original without a critical examination[764].\n\nOften, however, the translator, whatever his weaknesses may have been,\nhad before him a text differing in bulk and arrangement from the Pali\nand Sanskrit texts which we possess. Thus, there are four Chinese\ntranslations of works bearing some relation to the Dhammapada of the\nPali Canon. All of these describe the original text as the compilation\nof Dharmatr\u00e2ta, to whom is also ascribed the compilation of the\nTibetan Ud\u00e2navarga[765]. His name is not mentioned in connection with\nthe Pali text, yet two of the Chinese translations are closely related\nto that text. The Fa-ch\u00fc-ching[766] is a collection of verses\ntranslated in 224 A.D. and said to correspond with the Pali except\nthat it has nine additional chapters and some additional stanzas. The\nFa-ch\u00fc-p'i-y\u00fc-ching[767] represents another edition of the same\nverses, illustrated by a collection of parables. It was translated\nbetween 290 and 306. The Ch'u-yao-ching[768], translated in 399, is a\nsimilar collection of verses and parables, but founded on another\nIndian work of much greater length. A revised translation containing\nonly the verses was made between 980 and 1001[769]. They are said to\nbe the same as the Tibetan Ud\u00e2na, and the characteristics of this\nbook, going back apparently to a Sanskrit original, are that it is\ndivided into thirty-three chapters, and that though it contains about\n300 verses found in Pali, yet it is not merely the Pali text plus\nadditions, but an anthology arranged on a different principle and only\npartly identical in substance[770].\n\nThere can be little doubt that the Pali Dhammapada is one among\nseveral collections of verses, with or without an explanatory\ncommentary of stories. In all these collections there was much common\nmatter, both prose and verse, but some were longer, some shorter, some\nwere in Pali and some in Sanskrit. Whereas the Chinese Dhammapada is\nlonger than the Indian texts, the Chinese version of Milinda's\nQuestions[771] is much shorter and omits books iv-vii. It was made\nbetween 317 and 420 A.D. and the inference is that the original Indian\ntext received later additions.\n\nA more important problem is this: what is the relation to the Pali Canon\nof the Chinese texts bearing titles corresponding to D\u00eergha, Madhyama,\nSamyukta and Ekottara? These collections of s\u00fbtras do not call themselves\nNik\u00e2ya but A-han or Agama: the titles are translated as Ch'ang (long),\nChung (medium), Tsa (miscellaneous) and Tseng-i, representing Ekottara\nrather than Anguttara[772]. There is hence _prima facie_ reason to\nsuppose that these works represent not the Pali Canon, but a somewhat\nsimilar Sanskrit collection. That one or many Sanskrit works may have\ncoexisted with a somewhat similar Pali work is clearly shown by the Vinaya\ntexts, for here we have the Pali Canon and Chinese translations of five\nSanskrit versions, belonging to different schools, but apparently covering\nthe same ground and partly identical. For the S\u00fbtra Pitaka no such body of\nevidence is forthcoming, but the Sanskrit fragments of the Samyukt\u00e2gama\nfound near Turfan contain parts of six s\u00fbtras which are arranged in the\nsame order as in the Chinese translation and are apparently the original\nfrom which it was made. It is noticeable that three of the four great\nAgamas were translated by monks who came from Tukhara or Kabul.\nGu\u1e47abhadra, however, the translator of the Samyukt\u00e2gama, came from\nCentral India and the text which he translated was brought from Ceylon by\nFa-Hsien. It apparently belonged to the Abhayagiri monastery and not to\nthe Mah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra. Nanjio[773], however, states that about half of it is\nrepeated in the Chinese versions of the Madhyama and Ekottara Agamas. It\nis also certain that though the Chinese Agamas and Pali Nik\u00e2yas contain\nmuch common matter, it is differently distributed[774].\n\nThere was in India a copious collection of s\u00fbtras, existing primarily\nas oral tradition and varying in diction and arrangement, but codified\nfrom time to time in a written form. One of such codifications is\nrepresented by the Pali Canon, at least one other by the Sanskrit text\nwhich was rendered into Chinese. With rare exceptions the Chinese\ntranslations were from the Sanskrit[775]. The Sanskrit codification of\nthe s\u00fbtra literature, while differing from the Pali in language\nand arrangement, is identical in doctrine and almost identical in\nsubstance. It is clearly the product of the same or similar schools,\nbut is it earlier or later than the Pali or contemporary with it? The\nChinese translations merely fix the latest possible date. A portion of\nthe Samyukt\u00e2gama (Nanjio, No. 547) was translated by an unknown author\nbetween 220 and 280. This is probably an extract from the complete\nwork which was translated about 440, but it would be difficult to\nprove that the Indian original was not augmented or rearranged between\nthese dates. The earliest translation of a complete Agama is that of\nthe Ekottar\u00e2gama, 384 A.D. But the evidence of inscriptions[776] shows\nthat works known as Nik\u00e2yas existed in the third century B.C. The\nSanskrit of the Agamas, so far as it is known from the fragments found\nin Central Asia, does not suggest that they belong to this epoch, but\nis compatible with the theory that they date from the time of Kanishka\nof which if we know little, we can at least say that it produced much\nBuddhist Sanskrit literature. M. Sylvain L\u00e9vi has suggested that the\nlater appearance of the complete Vinaya in Chinese is due to the late\ncompilation of the Sanskrit original[777]. It seems to me that other\nexplanations are possible. The early translators were clearly shy of\nextensive works and until there was a considerable body of Chinese\nmonks, to what public would these theological libraries appeal? Still,\nif any indication were forthcoming from India or Central Asia that the\nSanskrit Agamas were arranged or rearranged in the early centuries of\nour era, the late date of the Chinese translations would certainly\nsupport it. But I am inclined to think that the Nik\u00e2yas were rewritten\nin Sanskrit about the beginning of our era, when it was felt that\nworks claiming a certain position ought to be composed in what had\nbecome the general literary language of India[778]. Perhaps those\nwho wrote them in Sanskrit were hardly conscious of making a\ntranslation in our sense, but simply wished to publish them in the\nbest literary form.\n\nIt seems probable that the Hinayanist portion of the Chinese Tripitaka\nis in the main a translation of the Canon of the Sarvastiv\u00e2dins which\nmust have consisted of:\n\n    (1) Four Agamas or Nik\u00e2yas only, for the Dhammapada\n    is placed outside the Sutta Pitaka.\n\n    (2) A voluminous Vinaya covering the same ground as the\n    Pali recension but more copious in legend and anecdote.\n\n    (3) An Abhidharma entirely different from the Pali works\n    bearing this name.\n\nIt might seem to follow from this that the whole Pali Abhidharma and\nsome important works such as the Thera-Ther\u00eeg\u00e2th\u00e2 were unknown to the\nHinayanists of Central Asia and Northern India in the early centuries\nof our era. But caution is necessary in drawing such inferences, for\nuntil recently it might have been said that the Sutta Nip\u00e2ta also was\nunknown, whereas fragments of it in a Sanskrit version have now been\ndiscovered in Eastern Turkestan[779]. The Chinese editors draw a clear\ndistinction between Hinayanist and Mahayanist scriptures. They exclude\nfrom the latter works analogous to the Pali Nik\u00e2yas and Vinaya, and\nalso the Abhidharma of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins. But the labours of Hs\u00fcan\nChuang and I-Ching show that this does not imply the rejection of all\nthese works by Mahayanists.\n\n5\n\n\nBuddhist literary activity has an interesting side aspect, namely the\nexpedients used to transliterate Indian words, which almost\nprovided the Chinese with an alphabet. To some extent Indian names,\nparticularly proper names possessing an obvious meaning, are\ntranslated. Thus Asoka becomes Wu-yu, without sorrow: A\u015bvaghosha,\nMa-ming or horse-voice, and Udy\u00e2na simply Y\u00fcan or park[780]. But many\nproper names did not lend themselves to such renderings and it was a\ndelicate business to translate theological terms like Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a and\nSam\u00e2dhi. The Buddhists did not perhaps invent the idea of using the\nChinese characters so as to spell with moderate precision[781], but\nthey had greater need of this procedure than other writers and they\nused it extensively[782] and with such variety of detail that though\nthey invented some fifteen different syllabaries, none of them\nobtained general acceptance and Julien[783] enumerates 3000 Chinese\ncharacters used to represent the sounds indicated by 47 Indian\nletters. Still, they gave currency[784] to the system known as\n_fan-ch'ieh_ which renders a syllable phonetically by two characters,\nthe final of the first and the initial of the second not being\npronounced. Thus, in order to indicate the sound Chung, a Chinese\ndictionary will use the two characters _chu yung_, which are to be\nread together as _Ch ung_.\n\nThe transcriptions of Indian words vary in exactitude and the later\nare naturally better. Hs\u00fcan Chuang was a notable reformer and probably\nafter his time Indian words were rendered in Chinese characters as\naccurately as Chinese words are now transcribed in Latin letters. It\nis true that modern pronunciation makes such renderings as Fo seem a\nstrange distortion of the original. But it is an abbreviation of\nFo-t'o and these syllables were probably once pronounced something\nlike Vut-tha[785]. Similarly W\u00ean-shu-shih-li[786] seems a parody of\nManju\u015bri. But the evidence of modern dialects shows that the\nfirst two syllables may have been pronounced as Man-ju. The pupil was\nprobably taught to eliminate the obscure vowel of _shih_, and _li_ was\ntaken as the nearest equivalent of _ri_, just as European authors\nwrite _chih_ and _tz\u016d_ without pretending that they are more than\nconventional signs for Chinese sounds unknown to our languages. It was\ncertainly possible to transcribe not only names but Sanskrit prayers\nand formul\u00e6 in Chinese characters, and though many writers sneer at\nthe gibberish chanted by Buddhist priests yet I doubt if this\necclesiastical pronunciation, which has changed with that of the\nspoken language, is further removed from its original than the Latin\nof Oxford from the speech of Augustus.\n\nSanskrit learning flourished in China for a considerable period. In\nthe time of the T'ang, the clergy numbered many serious students of\nIndian literature and the glossaries included in the Tripitaka show\nthat they studied the original texts. Under the Sung dynasty (A.D.\n1151) was compiled another dictionary of religious terms[787] and the\nstudy of Sanskrit was encouraged under the Y\u00fcan. But the ecclesiastics\nof the Ming produced no new translations and apparently abandoned the\nstudy of the original texts which was no longer kept alive by the\narrival of learned men from India. It has been stated that Sanskrit\nmanuscripts are still preserved in Chinese monasteries, but no details\nrespecting such works are known to me. The statement is not improbable\nin itself[788] as is shown by the Library which Stein discovered at\nTun-huang and by the Japanese palm-leaf manuscripts which came\noriginally from China. A few copies of Sanskrit s\u00fbtras printed in\nChina in the Lanja variety of the Devan\u00e2gari alphabet have been\nbrought to Europe[789]. Max M\u00fcller published a facsimile of part of\nthe Vajracchedik\u00e2 obtained at Peking and printed in Sanskrit from\nwooden blocks. The place of production is unknown, but the characters\nare similar to those used for printing Sanskrit in Tibet, as may be\nseen from another facsimile (No. 3) in the same work. Placards and\npamphlets containing short invocations in Sanskrit and Tibetan are\ncommon in Chinese monasteries, particularly where there is any\nLamaistic influence, but they do not imply that the monks who use them\nhave any literary acquaintance with those languages.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 708: [Chinese: ] For an account of some of the scriptures\nhere mentioned see chap. XX.]\n\n[Footnote 709: _A catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist\nTripitaka_. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893. An index to the Tokyo\nedition has been published by Fujii. Meiji XXXI (1898). See too Forke,\n_Katalog des Pekinger Tripitaka_, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 710: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 711: Tan-i-ching [Chinese: ]. Some of the works classed\nunder Tan-i-ching appear to exist in more than one form, _e.g._\nNanjio, Nos. 674 and 804.]\n\n[Footnote 712: These characters are commonly read Pojo by Chinese\nBuddhists but the Japanese reading Han\u1e47ya shows that the\npronunciation of the first character was Pan.]\n\n[Footnote 713: Vajracchedik\u00e2 or [Chinese: ] Chin Kang.]\n\n[Footnote 714: Winternitz (_Gesch. Ind. Lit_. II. i. p. 242) states on\nthe authority of Takakusu that this work is the same as the\nGa\u1e47\u1e0davy\u00fbha. See also Pelliot in _J. A_. 1914, II. pp. 118-21. The\nGa\u1e47\u1e0davy\u00fbha is probably an extract of the Avatamsaka.]\n\n[Footnote 715: Nos. 113 and 114 [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 716: _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_, pp. 160 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 717: The longer Sukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha is placed in the Ratnak\u00fbta\nclass.]\n\n[Footnote 718: The S\u00fbtra of Kuan-yin with the thousand hands and eyes\nis very popular and used in most temples. Nanjio, No. 320.]\n\n[Footnote 719: No. 399 [Chinese: ] and 530 [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 720: Said to have been revealed to Asanga by Maitreya. No.\n1170.]\n\n[Footnote 721: [Chinese: ] No. 1087. It has nothing to do with the\nPali S\u00fbtra of the same name. Digha, I.]\n\n[Footnote 722: See below for an account of it.]\n\n[Footnote 723: _Record of Buddhist Practices_, p. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 724: See Oldenberg, _Vinaya_, vol. I. pp. xxiv-xlvi.]\n\n[Footnote 725: See Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. p. 227. The five schools\nare given as Dharmagupta, Mah\u00ees'\u00e2sika, Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din, K\u00e2'syap\u00eeya and\nMah\u00e2sanghika. For the last Vatsiputra or Sthavira is sometimes\nsubstituted.]\n\n[Footnote 726: _Record of Buddhist Practices_, p. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 727: The Chinese word lun occurs frequently in them, but\nthough it is used to translate Abhidharma, it is of much wider\napplication and means discussion of \u015a\u00e2stra.]\n\n[Footnote 728: See Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I, pp. 355 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 729: Nos. 1179, 1190, 1249.]\n\n[Footnote 730: For a discussion of this literature see Takakusu on the\nAbhidharma Literature of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, _J. Pali Text Society_,\n1905, pp. 67 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 731: Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1273, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1292, 1281,\n1282, 1296, 1317. This last work was not translated till the eleventh\ncentury.]\n\n[Footnote 732: Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1263, 1267 and 1269.]\n\n[Footnote 733: See Takakusu's study of these translations in\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 1 ff. and pp. 978 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 734: Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1321, 1353, 1365, 1439.]\n\n[Footnote 735: [Chinese: ] No. 1490.]\n\n[Footnote 736: [Chinese: ] No. 1661. For more about the Patriarchs see\nthe next chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 737: [Chinese: ] No. 1524, written A.D. 1006.]\n\n[Footnote 738: [Chinese: ] No. 1482.]\n\n[Footnote 739: [Chinese: ] No. 1640.]\n\n[Footnote 740: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]. Nos. 1634 and 1594.]\n\n[Footnote 741: See for some account of it Masson-Oursel's article in\n_J.A._ 1915, I. pp. 229-354.]\n\n[Footnote 742: [Chinese: ] by [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 743: See chap. XX on the Mahayanist canon in India.]\n\n[Footnote 744: It is described at the beginning as Ta Ming San Tsang,\nbut strictly speaking it must be No. 12 of the list, as it contains a\nwork said to have been written about 1622 A.D. (p. 468).]\n\n[Footnote 745: Thus the Emperor J\u00ean Tsung ordered the works of Ch'i\nSung [Chinese: ] to be admitted to the Canton in 1062.]\n\n[Footnote 746: Taken from Nanjio's Catalogue, p. xxvii.]\n\n[Footnote 747: Ch'ien-Lung is said to have printed the Tripitaka in\nfour languages, Chinese, Tibetan, Mongol and Manchu, the whole\ncollection filling 1392 vols. See M\u00f6llendorf in China Branch, _J.A.S._\nxxiv. 1890, p. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 748: But according to another statement the southern\nrecension was not the imperial collection begun in 1368 but a private\nedition now lost. See Nanjio, Cat. p. xxiii.]\n\n[Footnote 749: See for the complete list Nanjio, Cat. p. xxvii. Those\nnamed above are (_a_) [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ],\nNos. 1483, 1485, 1487, and (_b_) [Chinese: ], No. 1612. For the date\nof the first see Masp\u00e9ro in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1910, p. 114. There was a\nstill earlier catalogue composed by Tao-an in 374 of which only\nfragments have been preserved. See Pelliot in _T'oung Pao_, XIX. 1920,\np. 258.]\n\n[Footnote 750: For the Korean copy now in Japan, see Courant,\n_Bibliographie cor\u00e9enne_, vol. III. pp. 215-19.]\n\n[Footnote 751: See Nanjio, Cat. p. xxii.]\n\n[Footnote 752: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 753: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 754: Also called Do-ko.]\n\n[Footnote 755: The earlier collections of the Tripitaka seem to have\nbeen known in Korea and about 1000 A.D. the king procured from China a\ncopy of the Imperial Edition, presumably the eighth collection (971\nA.D.). He then ordered a commission of scholars to revise the text and\npublish an edition of his own. The copy of this edition, on which the\nrecent Tokyo edition was founded, was brought to Japan in the Bun-mei\nperiod 1469-1486.]\n\n[Footnote 756: A supplement to the Tripitaka containing non-canonical\nworks in 750 volumes (Dai Nippon Zoku-Z\u014dky\u014d) was published in\n1911.]\n\n[Footnote 757: The Peking Tripitaka catalogued by Forke appears to be\na set of 1223 works represented by copies taken from four editions\npublished in 1578, 1592, 1598 and 1735 A.D., all of which are editions\nof the collections numbered 11 and 12 above.]\n\n[Footnote 758: For two interesting lives of translators see the\n_T'oung Pao_, 1909, p. 199, and 1905, p. 332, where will be found the\nbiographies of S\u00eang Hui, a Sogdian who died in 280 and Jinagupta a\nnative of Gandh\u00e2ra (528-605).]\n\n[Footnote 759: But between 266 and 313 Dharmaraksha translated the\nSaddharmapundar\u00eeka (including the additional chapters 21-26) and the\nLalitavistara. His translation of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 is incomplete.]\n\n[Footnote 760: In the translations of Lok\u00e2ksh\u00ee 147-186, Chih-Ch'ien\n223-243, Dharmaraksha 266-313.]\n\n[Footnote 761: But his translation of the Lotus won admiration for its\nliterary style. See Anesaki Nichiren, p. 17. Wieger (_Croyances_, p.\n367) says that the works of An-shih-kao illustrate the various methods\nof translation: absolutely literal renderings which have hardly any\nmeaning in Chinese: word for word translations to which is added a\nparaphrase of each sentence in Chinese idiom: and elegant renderings\nby a native in which the original text obviously suffers.]\n\n[Footnote 762: Yet it must have been intended as such. The title\nexpressly describes the work as composed by the Bodhisattva Ma-Ming\n(A\u015bvaghosha) and translated by Dharmaraksha. Though his idea of a\ntranslation was at best an amplified metrical paraphrase, yet he\ncoincides verbally with the original so often that his work can hardly\nbe described as an independent poem inspired by it.]\n\n[Footnote 763: [Chinese: ] No. 203.]\n\n[Footnote 764: See Sukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha, ed. Max M\u00fcller and Bunyiu Nanjio,\nOxford, 1883. In the preface, pp. vii-ix, is a detailed comparison of\nseveral translations and in an appendix, pp. 79 ff., a rendering of\nSanghavarman's Chinese version of verses which occur in the work.\nChinese critics say that Tao-an in the third century was the first to\nintroduce a sound style of translation. He made no translations\nhimself which have survived but was a scholar and commentator who\ninfluenced others.]\n\n[Footnote 765: This is an anthology (edited by Beckh, 1911: translated\nby Rockhill, 1892) in which 300 verses are similar to the Pali\nDhammapada.]\n\n[Footnote 766: [Chinese: ] No. 1365.]\n\n[Footnote 767: [Chinese: ] No. 1353.]\n\n[Footnote 768: [Chinese: ] No. 1321.]\n\n[Footnote 769: [Chinese: ] Fa-chi-yao-sung-ching, No. 1439.]\n\n[Footnote 770: There seem to be at least two other collections.\nFirstly a Pr\u00e2krit anthology of which Dutreuil de Rhins discovered a\nfragmentary MS. in Khotan and secondly a much amplified collection\npreserved in the Korean Tripitaka and reprinted in the Tokyo edition\n(xxiv.'g). The relation of these to the other recensions is not\nclear.]\n\n[Footnote 771: Nanjio, Cat. 1358. See Pelliot, _J.A._ 1914, II. p.\n379.]\n\n[Footnote 772: [Chinese: ] For the relations of the Chinese\ntranslations to the Pali Tripitaka, and to a Sanskrit Canon now\npreserved only in a fragmentary state, see _inter alia_, Nanjio, Cat.\npp. 127 ff., especially Nos. 542, 543, 545. Anesaki, _J.R.A.S._ 1901,\np. 895; _id_. \"On some problems of the textual history of the Buddhist\nscriptures,\" in _Trans. A. S. Japan_, 1908, p. 81, and more especially\nhis longer article entitled, \"The Four Buddhist Agamas in Chinese\" in\nthe same year of the _Trans.; id._ \"Traces of Pali Texts in a Mah\u00e2yana\nTreatise,\" _Mus\u00e9on_, 1905. S. L\u00e9vi, Le Samyukt\u00e2gama Sanskrit, _T'oung\nPao_, 1904, p. 297.]\n\n[Footnote 773: No. 544.]\n\n[Footnote 774: Thus seventy s\u00fbtras of the Pali Anguttara are found in\nthe Chinese Madhyama and some of them are repeated in the Chinese\nEkottara. The Pali Majjhima contains 125 s\u00fbtras, the Chinese\nMadhyam\u00e2gama 222, of which 98 are common to both. Also twenty-two Pali\nMajjhima dialogues are found in the Chinese Ekottara and Samyukta,\nseventy Chinese Madhyama dialogues in Pali Anguttara, nine in Digha,\nseven in Samyutta and five in Khuddaka. Anesaki, _Some Problems of the\ntextual history of the Buddhist Scriptures_. See also Anesaki in\n_Mus\u00e9on_, 1905, pp. 23 ff. on the Samyutta Nik\u00e2ya.]\n\n[Footnote 775: Anesaki, \"Traces of Pali Texts,\" _Mus\u00e9on_, 1905, shows\nthat the Indian author of the Mah\u00e2prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 S\u00e2stra may have known\nPali texts, but the only certain translation from the Pali appears to\nbe Nanjio, No. 1125, which is a translation of the Introduction to\nBuddhaghosa's Samanta-p\u00e2s\u00e2dik\u00e2 or commentary on the Vinaya. See\nTakakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1896, p. 415. Nanjio's restoration of the title\nas Sudar\u015bana appears to be incorrect.]\n\n[Footnote 776: See _Epigraphia Indica_, vol. II. p. 93.]\n\n[Footnote 777: In support of this it may be mentioned that Fa-Hsien\nsays that at the time of his visit to India the Vinaya of the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins was preserved orally and not committed to writing.]\n\n[Footnote 778: The idea that an important book ought to be in Sanskrit\nor deserves to be turned into Sanskrit is not dead in India. See\nGrierson, _J.R.A.S._ 1913, p. 133, who in discussing a Sanskrit\nversion of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana of Tulsi Das mentions that translations of\nvernacular works into Sanskrit are not uncommon.]\n\n[Footnote 779: _J.R.A.S._ 1916, p. 709. Also, the division into five\nNik\u00e2yas is ancient. See B\u00fchler in _Epig. Indica_, II. p. 93. Anesaki\nsays (_Trans. A.S. Japan_, 1908, p. 9) that Nanjio, No. 714, P\u00ean Shih\nis the Itivuttakam, which could not have been guessed from Nanjio's\nentry. Portions of the works composing the fifth Nik\u00e2ya (_e.g._ the\nSutta Nipata) occur in the Chinese Tripitaka in the other Nik\u00e2yas. For\nmentions of the fifth Nik\u00e2ya in Chinese, see _J.A._ 1916, II. pp.\n32-33, where it is said to be called Tsa-Tsang. This is also the\ndesignation of the last section of the Tripitaka, Nanjio, Nos. 1321 to\n1662, and as this section contains the Dharmapada, it might be\nsupposed to be an enormously distended version of the Kshudraka\nNik\u00e2ya. But this can hardly be the case, for this Tsa-Tsang is placed\nas if it was considered as a fourth Pi\u1e6daka rather than as a fifth\nNik\u00e2ya.]\n\n[Footnote 780: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 781: See Watters, _Essays on the Chinese Language_, pp. 36,\n51, and, for the whole subject of transcription, Stanislas Julien,\n_M\u00e9thode pour d\u00e9chiffrer et transcrire les noms Sanscrits qui se\nrencontrent dans les livres chinois_.]\n\n[Footnote 782: Entire Sanskrit compositions were sometimes transcribed\nin Chinese characters. See Kien Ch'ui Fan Tsan, _Bibl. Budd_. XV. and\nMax M\u00fcller, _Buddhist Texts from Japan_, III. pp. 35-46.]\n\n[Footnote 783: _L.c._ pp. 83-232.]\n\n[Footnote 784: See _inter alia_ the Preface to K'ang Hsi's Dictionary.\nThe _fan-ch'ieh_ [Chinese: ] system is used in the well-known\ndictionary called Y\u00fc-Pien composed 543 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 785: Even in modern Cantonese Fo is pronounced as Fat.]\n\n[Footnote 786: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 787: Nanjio, Cat. No. 1640.]\n\n[Footnote 788: History repeats itself. I have seen many modern Burmese\nand Sinhalese MSS. in Chinese monasteries.]\n\n[Footnote 789: _Buddhist Texts from Japan_, ed. Max M\u00fcller in\n_Anecdota Oxoniensia_, Aryan Series, I, II and III. For the Lanja\nprinted text see the last facsimile in I, also III. p. 34 and _Bibl.\nBudd._ XIV (Kuan-si-im Pusar), pp. vi, vii. Another copy of this Lanja\nprinted text was bought in Kyoto, 1920.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLV\n\nCHINA (_continued_)\n\nSCHOOLS[790] OF CHINESE BUDDHISM\n\n\nThe Schools (Tsung) of Chinese Buddhism are an intricate subject of\nlittle practical importance, for observers agree that at the present\nday all salient differences of doctrine and practice have been\nobliterated, although the older monasteries may present variations in\ndetails and honour their own line of teachers. A particular\nBodhisattva may be singled out for reverence in one locality or some\nreligious observance may be specially enjoined, but there is little\naggressiveness or self assertion among the sects, even if they are\nconscious of having a definite name: they each tolerate the deities,\nrites and books of all and pay attention to as many items as leisure\nand inertia permit. There is no clear distinction between Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and\nH\u00eenay\u00e2na.\n\nThe main division is of course into Lamaism on one side and all\nremaining sects on the other. Apart from this we find a record of ten\nschools which deserve notice for various reasons. Some, though obscure\nin modern China, have flourished after transportation to Japan: some,\nsuch as the T'ien-t'ai, are a memorial of a brilliant epoch: some\nrepresent doctrines which, if not now held by separate bodies, at\nleast indicate different tendencies, such as magical ceremonies,\nmystical contemplation, or faith in Amit\u00e2bha.\n\nThe more important schools were comparatively late, for they date\nfrom the sixth and seventh centuries. For two or three hundred years\nthe Buddhists of China were a colony of strangers, mainly occupied in\nmaking translations. By the fifth century the extent and diversity of\nIndian literature became apparent and Fa-Hsien went to India to\nascertain which was the most correct Vinaya and to obtain copies of\nit. Theology was now sufficiently developed to give rise to two\nschools both Indian in origin and merely transported to China, known\nas Ch'\u00eang-shih-tsung and San-lun-tsung[791].\n\nThe first is considered as Hinayanist and equivalent to the\nSautr\u00e2ntikas[792]. In the seventh century it passed over to Japan\nwhere it is known as Ji-jitsu-shu, but neither there nor in China had\nit much importance. The San-lun-tsung recognizes as three authorities\n(from which it takes its name) the M\u00e2dhyamika\u015b\u00e2stra and\nDv\u00e2dasanik\u00e2ya\u015b\u00e2stra of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna with the \u015aata\u015b\u00e2stra of his\npupil Deva. It is simply the school of these two doctors and\nrepresents the extreme of Mahayanism. It had some importance in Japan,\nwhere it was called San-Ron-Shu.\n\nThe arrival of Bodhidharma at Canton in 520 (or 526) was a great event\nfor the history of Buddhist dogma, although his special doctrines did\nnot become popular until much later. He introduced the contemplative\nschool and also the institution of the Patriarchate, which for a time\nhad some importance. He wrote no books himself, but taught that true\nknowledge is gained in meditation by intuition[793] and communicated\nby transference of thought. The best account of his teaching is\ncontained in the Chinese treatise which reports the sermon preached by\nhim before the Emperor Wu-Ti in 520[794]. The chief thesis of this\ndiscourse is that the only true reality is the Buddha nature[795]\nin the heart of every man. Prayer, asceticism and good works are vain.\nAll that man need do is to turn his gaze inward and see the Buddha in\nhis own heart. This vision, which gives light and deliverance, comes\nin a moment. It is a simple, natural act like swallowing or dreaming\nwhich cannot be taught or learnt, for it is not something imparted but\nan experience of the soul, and teaching can only prepare the way for\nit. Some are impeded by their karma and are physically incapable of\nthe vision, whatever their merits or piety may be, but for those to\nwhom it comes it is inevitable and convincing.\n\nWe have only to substitute _\u00e2tman_ for Buddha or Buddha nature to see\nhow closely this teaching resembles certain passages in the\nUpanishads, and the resemblance is particularly strong in such\nstatements as that the Buddha nature reveals itself in dreams, or that\nit is so great that it embraces the universe and so small that the\npoint of a needle cannot prick it. The doctrine of M\u00e2y\u00e2 is clearly\nindicated, even if the word was not used in the original, for it is\nexpressly said that all phenomena are unreal. Thus the teaching of\nBodhidharma is an anticipation of \u015aankara's monism, but it is\nformulated in consistently Buddhist language and is in harmony with\nthe views of the M\u00e2dhyamika school and of the Diamond-cutter. This\nChinese sermon confirms other evidence which indicates that the ideas\nof the Advaita philosophy, though Brahmanic in their origin and\nseverely condemned by Gotama himself, were elaborated in Buddhist\ncircles before they were approved by orthodox Hindus.\n\nBodhidharma's teaching was Indian but it harmonized marvellously with\nTaoism and Chinese Buddhists studied Taoist books[796]. A current of\nChinese thought which was old and strong, if not the main stream, bade\nman abstain from action and look for peace and light within. It was, I\nthink, the junction of this native tributary with the river of\ninflowing Buddhism which gave the Contemplative School its importance.\nIt lost that importance because it abandoned its special doctrines\nand adopted the usages of other schools. When Taoism flourished\nunder the Sung Emperors it was also flourishing and influenced art as\nwell as thought, but it probably decayed under the Y\u00fcan dynasty which\nfavoured religion of a different stamp. It is remarkable that\nBodhidharma appears to be unknown to both Indian and Tibetan[797]\nwriters but his teaching has imparted a special tone and character to\na section (though not the whole) of Far Eastern Buddhism. It is called\nin Chinese Tsung-m\u00ean or Ch'an-tsung, but this word Ch'an[798] is\nperhaps better known to Europe in its Japanese form Zen.\n\nBodhidharma is also accounted the twenty-eighth Patriarch, a title\nwhich represents the Chinese Tsu Shih[799] rather than any Indian\ndesignation, for though in Pali literature we hear of the succession\nof teachers[800], it is not clear that any of them enjoyed a style or\nposition such as is implied in the word Patriarch. Hindus have always\nattached importance to spiritual lineage and every school has a list\nof teachers who have transmitted its special lore, but the sense of\nhierarchy is so weak that it is misleading to describe these\npersonages as Popes, Patriarchs or Bishops, and apart from the\npersonal respect which the talents of individuals may have won, it\ndoes not appear that there was any succession of teachers who could be\ncorrectly termed heads of the Church. Even in China such a title is of\ndubious accuracy for whatever position Bodhidharma and his successors\nmay have claimed for themselves, they were not generally accepted as\nbeing more than the heads of a school and other schools also gave\ntheir chief teachers the title of Tsu-shih. From time to time the\nEmperor appointed overseers of religion with the title of\nKuo-shih[801], instructor of the nation, but these were officials\nappointed by the Crown, not prelates consecrated by the Church.\n\nTwenty-eight Patriarchs are supposed to have flourished between the\ndeath of the Buddha and the arrival of Bodhidharma in China. The\nChinese lists[802] do not in the earlier part agree with the\nSinghalese accounts of the apostolic succession and contain few\neminent names with the exception of A\u015bvaghosha, N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, Deva and\nVasubandhu.\n\nAccording to most schools there were only twenty-four Patriarchs.\nThese are said to have been foretold by the Buddha and twenty-four is\na usual number in such series[803]. The twenty-fourth Patriarch Simha\nBhikshu or Simh\u00e2laputra went to Kashmir and suffered martyrdom there\nat the hands of Mihirakula[804] without appointing a successor. But\nthe school of Bodhidharma continues the series, reckoning him as the\ntwenty-eighth, and the first of the Chinese Patriarchs. Now since the\nthree Patriarchs between the martyr and Bodhidharma are all described\nas living in southern India, whereas such travellers as Fa-Hsien\nobviously thought that the true doctrine was to be found in northern\nIndia, and since Bodhidharma left India altogether, it is probable\nthat the later Patriarchs represent the spiritual genealogy of\nsome school which was not the Church as established at N\u00e2land\u00e2[805].\n\nIt will be convenient to summarize briefly here the history of\nBodhidharma's school. Finding that his doctrines were not altogether\nacceptable to the Emperor Wu-Ti (who did not relish being told that\nhis pious exertions were vain works of no value) he retired to Lo-yang\nand before his death designated as his successor Hui-k'o. It is\nrelated of Hui-k'o that when he first applied for instruction he could\nnot attract Bodhidharma's attention and therefore stood before the\nsage's door during a whole winter night until the snow reached his\nknees. Bodhidharma indicated that he did not think this test of\nendurance remarkable. Hui-k'o then took a knife, cut off his own arm\nand presented it to the teacher who accepted him as a pupil and\nultimately gave him the insignia of the Patriarchate--a robe and bowl.\nHe taught for thirty-four years and is said to have mixed freely with\nthe lowest and most debauched reprobates. His successors were\nS\u00eang-ts'an, Tao-hsin, Hung-j\u00ean, and Hui-n\u00eang[806] who died in 713 and\ndeclined to nominate a successor, saying that the doctrine was well\nestablished. The bowl of Bodhidharma was buried with him. Thus the\nPatriarch was not willing to be an Erastian head of the Church and\nthought the Church could get on without him. The object of the\nPatriarchate was simply to insure the correct transmission from\nteacher to scholar of certain doctrines, and this precaution was\nespecially necessary in sects which rejected scriptural authority and\nrelied on personal instruction. So soon as there were several\ncompetent teachers handing on the tradition such a safeguard was felt\nto be unnecessary.\n\nThat this feeling was just is shown by the fact that the school of\nBodhidharma is still practically one in teaching. But its small regard\nfor scripture and insistence on oral instruction caused the principal\nmonasteries to regard themselves as centres with an apostolic\nsuccession of their own and to form divisions which were geographical\nrather than doctrinal. They are often called school (tsung), but\nthe term is not correct, if it implies that the difference is similar\nto that which separates the Ch'an-tsung and L\u00fc-tsung or schools of\ncontemplation and of discipline. Even in the lifetime of Hui-n\u00eang\nthere seems to have been a division, for he is sometimes called the\nPatriarch of the South, Sh\u00ean-Hsiu[807] being recognized as Patriarch\nof the North. But all subsequent divisions of the Ch'an-tsung trace\ntheir lineage to Hui-n\u00eang. Two of his disciples founded two schools\ncalled Nan Y\u00fceh and Ch'ing Y\u00fcan[808] and between the eighth and tenth\ncenturies these produced respectively two and three subdivisions,\nknown together as Wu-tsung or five schools. They take their names from\nthe places where their founders dwelt and are the schools of Wei-Yang,\nLin-Chi, Ts'ao-Tung, Y\u00fcn-M\u00ean and Fa-Yen[809]. This is the\nchronological order, but the most important school is the Lin-Chi,\nfounded by I-Hs\u00fcan[810], who resided on the banks of a river[811] in\nChih-li and died in 867. It is not easy to discriminate the special\ndoctrines[812] of the Lin-Chi for it became the dominant form of the\nschool to such an extent that other variants are little more than\nnames. But it appears to have insisted on the transmission of\nspiritual truths not only by oral instruction but by a species of\ntelepathy between teacher and pupil culminating in sudden\nillumination. At the present day the majority of Chinese monasteries\nprofess to belong to the Ch'an-tsung and it has encroached on other\nschools. Thus it is now accepted on the sacred island of P'uto which\noriginally followed the L\u00fc-tsung.\n\nAlthough the Ch'an school did not value the study of scripture as part\nof the spiritual life, yet it by no means neglected letters and can\npoint to a goodly array of ecclesiastical authors, extending down\nto modern times[813]. More than twenty of their treatises have been\nadmitted into the Tripitaka. Several of these are historical and\ndiscuss the succession of Patriarchs and abbots, but the most\ncharacteristic productions of the sect are collections of aphorisms,\nusually compiled by the disciples of a teacher who himself committed\nnothing to writing[814].\n\nIn opposition to the Contemplative School or Tsung-m\u00ean, all the others\nare sometimes classed together as Chiao-m\u00ean. This dichotomy perhaps\ndoes no more than justice to the importance of Bodhidharma's school,\nbut is hardly scientific, for, whatever may be the numerical\nproportion, the other schools differ from one another as much as they\ndiffer from it. They all agree in recognizing the authority not only\nof a founder but of a special sacred book. We may treat first of one\nwhich, like the Tsung-m\u00ean, belongs specially to the Buddhism of the\nFar East and is both an offshoot of the Tsung-m\u00ean and a protest\nagainst it--there being nothing incompatible in this double\nrelationship. This is the T'ien-t'ai[815] school which takes its name\nfrom a celebrated monastery in the province of Ch\u00ea-kiang. The founder\nof this establishment and of the sect was called Chih-K'ai or\nChih-I[816] and followed originally Bodhidharma's teaching, but\nultimately rejected the view that contemplation is all-sufficient,\nwhile still claiming to derive his doctrine from N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. He had a\nspecial veneration for the Lotus S\u00fbtra and paid attention to\nceremonial. He held that although the Buddha-mind is present in all\nliving beings, yet they do not of themselves come to the knowledge and\nuse of it, so that instruction is necessary to remove error and\nestablish true ideas. The phrase Chih-kuan[817] is almost the motto of\nthe school: it is a translation of the two words Samatha and\nVipassan\u00e2, taken to mean calm and insight.\n\nThe T'ien-T'ai is distinguished by its many-sided and almost\nencyclop\u00e6dic character. Chih-I did not like the exclusiveness of the\nContemplative School. He approved impartially of ecstasy, literature,\nceremonial and discipline: he wished to find a place for everything\nand a point of view from which every doctrine might be admitted to\nhave some value. Thus he divided the teaching of the Buddha into five\nperiods, regarded as progressive not contradictory, and expounded\nrespectively in (_a_) the Hua-yen S\u00fbtra; (_b_) the H\u00eenay\u00e2na S\u00fbtras;\n(_c_) the L\u00eang-yen-ching; (_d_) the Prajn\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2; (_e_) the Lotus\nS\u00fbtra which is the crown, quintessence and plenitude of all Buddhism.\nHe also divided religion into eight parts[818], sometimes counted as\nfour, the latter half of the list being the more important. The names\nare collection, progress, distinction and completion. These terms\nindicate different ways of looking at religion, all legitimate but not\nequally comprehensive or just in perspective. By collection is meant\nthe H\u00eenay\u00e2na, the name being apparently due to the variously\ncatalogued phenomena which occupy the disciple in the early stages of\nhis progress: the scriptures, divisions of the universe, states of the\nhuman minds and so on. Progress (T'ung, which might also be rendered\nas transition or communication) is applicable to the H\u00eena and Mah\u00e2yan\u00e2\nalike and regards the religious life as a series of stages rising from\nthe state of an unconverted man to that of a Buddha. Pieh, or\ndistinction, is applicable only to the Mah\u00e2yan\u00e2 and means the special\nexcellences of a Bodhisattva. Y\u00fcan, completeness or plenitude, is the\ndoctrine of the Lotus which embraces all aspects of religion. In a\nsimilar spirit of synthesis and conciliation Chih-I uses N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna's\nview that truth is not of one kind. From the stand-point of absolute\ntruth all phenomena are void or unreal; on the other hand they are\nindubitably real for practical purposes. More just is the middle view\nwhich builds up the religious character. It sees that all phenomena\nboth exist and do not exist and that thought cannot content itself\nwith the hypothesis either of their real existence or of the void.\nChih-I's teaching as to the nature of the Buddha is almost\ntheistic. It regards the fundamental (p\u00ean) Buddhahood as not merely\nthe highest reality but as constant activity exerting itself for the\ngood of all beings. Distinguished from this fundamental Buddhahood is\nthe derivative Buddhahood or trace (chi) left by the Buddha among men\nto educate them. There has been considerable discussion in the school\nas to the relative excellence of the _p\u00ean_ and the _chi_[819].\n\nThe T'ien-T'ai school is important, not merely for its doctrines, but\nas having produced a great monastic establishment and an illustrious\nline of writers. In spite of the orders of the Emperor who wished to\nretain him at Nanking, Chih-I retired to the highlands of Ch\u00ea-Kiang\nand twelve monasteries still mark various spots where he is said to\nhave resided. He had some repute as an author, but more as a preacher.\nHis words were recorded by his disciple Kuan-Ting[820] and in this way\nhave been preserved two expositions of the Lotus and a treatise on his\nfavourite doctrine of Chih-Kuan which together are termed the\nSan-ta-pu, or Three Great Books. Similar spoken expositions of other\ns\u00fbtras are also preserved. Some smaller treatises on his chief\ndoctrines seem to be works of his own pen[821]. A century later\nChan-Jan[822], who is reckoned the ninth Patriarch of the T'ien-t'ai\nschool, composed commentaries on the Three Great Books as well as some\nshort original works. During the troubled period of the Five\nDynasties, the T'ien-t'ai monasteries suffered severely and the sacred\nbooks were almost lost. But the school had a branch in Korea and a\nKorean priest called Ti-Kuan[823] re-established it in China. It\ncontinued to contribute literature to the Tripitaka until 1270 but\nafter the tenth century its works, though numerous, lose their\ndistinctive character and are largely concerned with magical formul\u00e6\nand the worship of Amida.\n\nThe latter is the special teaching of the Pure Land school, also\nknown as the Lotus school, or the Short Cut[824]. It is indeed a\nshort cut to salvation, striking unceremoniously across all systems,\nfor it teaches that simple faith in Amit\u00e2bha (Amida) and invocation of\nhis name can take the place of moral and intellectual endeavour. Its\npopularity is in proportion to its facility: its origin is ancient,\nits influence universal, but perhaps for this very reason its\nexistence as a corporation is somewhat indistinct. It is also\nremarkable that though the Chinese Tripitaka contains numerous works\ndedicated to the honour of Amit\u00e2bha, yet they are not described as\ncomposed by members of the Pure Land school but appear to be due to\nauthors of all schools[825].\n\nThe doctrine, if not the school, was known in China before 186, in\nwhich year there died at Lo-yang, a monk of the Y\u00fceh-chih called\nLok\u00e2kshi, who translated the longer Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha. So far as I know,\nthere is no reason for doubting these statements[826]. The date is\nimportant for the history of doctrine, since it indicates that the\ns\u00fbtra existed in Sanskrit some time previously. Another translation by\nthe Parthian An Shih-Kao, whose activity falls between 148 and 170\nA.D. may have been earlier and altogether twelve translations were\nmade before 1000 A.D. of which five are extant[827]. Several of the\nearlier translators were natives of Central Asia, so it is permissible\nto suppose that the s\u00fbtra was esteemed there. The shorter\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha was translated by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva (_c._ 402) and later by\nHs\u00fcan Chuang. The Amit\u00e2yurdhy\u00e2nas\u00fbtra was translated by K\u00e2laya\u015bas\nabout 424. These three books[828] are the principal scriptures of the\nschool and copies of the greater Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee may still be found in\nalmost every Chinese monastery, whatever principles it professes.\n\nHui Y\u00fcan[829] who lived from 333 to 416 is considered as the founder\nof the school. He was in his youth an enthusiastic Taoist and\nafter he turned Buddhist is said to have used the writings of\nChuang-tz\u016d to elucidate his new faith. He founded a brotherhood,\nand near the monastery where he settled was a pond in which lotus\nflowers grew, hence the brotherhood was known as the White Lotus\nschool[830]. For several centuries[831] it enjoyed general esteem.\nPan-chou, one of its Patriarchs, received the title of Kuo-shih about\n770 A.D., and Shan-tao, who nourished about 650 and wrote\ncommentaries, was one of its principal literary men[832]. He\npopularized the doctrine of the Pai-tao or White Way, that is, the\nnarrow bridge leading to Paradise across which Amit\u00e2bha will guide the\nsouls of the faithful. But somehow the name of White Lotus became\nconnected with conspiracy and rebellion until it was dreaded as the\ntitle of a formidable secret society, and ceased to be applied to the\nschool as a whole. The teaching and canonical literature of the Pure\nLand school did not fall into disrepute but since it was admitted by\nother sects to be, if not the most excellent way, at least a\npermissible short cut to heaven, it appears in modern times less as a\nseparate school than as an aspect of most schools[833]. The simple and\nemotional character of Amidism, the directness of its \"Come unto me,\"\nappeal so strongly to the poor and uneducated, that no monastery or\ntemple could afford to neglect it.\n\nTwo important Indian schools were introduced into China in the sixth and\nseventh centuries respectively and flourished until about 900 A.D. when\nthey began to decay. These are the Ch\u00fc-sh\u00ea-tsung and Fa-hsiang-tsung[834].\nThe first name is merely a Chinese transcription of the Sanskrit Ko'sa and\nis due to the fact that the chief authority of the school is the\nAbhidharmako\u015ba\u015b\u00e2stra of Vasubandhu[835]. This work expounds the doctrine\nof the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, but in a liberal spirit and without ignoring other\nviews. Though the Ch\u00fc-sh\u00ea-tsung represented the best scholastic tradition\nof India more adequately than any other Chinese sect, yet it was too\ntechnical and arid to become popular and both in China and Japan (where it\nis known as Kusha-shu) it was a system of scholastic philosophy rather\nthan a form of religion. In China it did not last many centuries.\n\nThe Fa-Hsiang school is similar inasmuch as it represented Indian\nscholasticism and remained, though much esteemed, somewhat academic.\nThe name is a translation of Dharmalaksha\u1e47a and the school is also\nknown as Tz'\u016d-\u00ean-tsung[836], and also as Wei-shih-hsiang-chiao\nbecause its principal text-book is the Ch'\u00eang-wei-shih-lun[837]. This\nname, equivalent to Vidy\u00e2m\u00e2tra, or Vijn\u00e2nam\u00e2tra, is the title of a\nwork by Hs\u00fcan Chuang which appears to be a digest of ten Sanskrit\ncommentaries on a little tract of thirty verses ascribed to\nVasubandhu. As ultimate authorities the school also recognizes the\nrevelations made to Asanga by Maitreya[838] and probably the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra[839] expresses its views. It claims as its\nfounder \u015a\u00eelabhadra the teacher of Hs\u00fcan Chuang, but the latter was\nits real parent.\n\nClosely allied to it but reckoned as distinct is the school called the\nHua-yen-tsung[840] because it was based on the Hua-yen-ching or\nAvatamsakas\u00fbtra. The doctrines of this work and of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna may be\nconveniently if not quite correctly contrasted as pantheistic and\nnihilistic. The real founder and first patriarch was Tu-Fa-Shun who\ndied in 640 but the school sometimes bears the name of Hsien-Shou, the\nposthumous title of its third Patriarch who contributed seven works to\nthe Tripitaka[841]. It began to wane in the tenth century but has\na distinguished literary record.\n\nThe L\u00fc-tsung or Vinaya school[842] was founded by Tao Hs\u00fcan (595-667).\nIt differs from those already mentioned inasmuch as it emphasizes\ndiscipline and asceticism as the essential part of the religious life.\nLike the T'ien-t'ai this school arose in China. It bases itself on\nIndian authorities, but it does not appear that in thus laying stress\non the Vinaya it imitated any Indian sect, although it caught the\nspirit of the early H\u00eenay\u00e2na schools. The numerous works of the\nfounder indicate a practical temperament inclined not to mysticism or\ndoctrinal subtlety but to biography, literary history and church\ngovernment. Thus he continued the series called Memoirs of Eminent\nMonks and wrote on the family and country of the Buddha. He compiled a\ncatalogue of the Tripitaka, as it was in his time, and collections of\nextracts, as well as of documents relating to the controversies\nbetween Buddhists and Taoists[843]. Although he took as his chief\nauthority the Dharmagupta Vinaya commonly known as the Code in Four\nSections, he held, like most Chinese Buddhists, that there is a\ncomplete and perfect doctrine which includes and transcends all the\nvehicles. But he insisted, probably as a protest against the laxity or\nextravagance of many monasteries, that morality and discipline are the\nindispensable foundation of the religious life. He was highly esteemed\nby his contemporaries and long after his death the Emperor Mu-tsung\n(821-5) wrote a poem in his honour. The school is still respected and\nit is said that the monks of its principal monastery, Pao-hua-shan in\nKiangsu, are stricter and more learned than any other.\n\nThe school called Ch\u00ean-yen (in Japanese Shin-gon), true word, or\nMi-chiao[844], secret teaching, equivalent to the Sanskrit Mantray\u00e2na\nor Tantray\u00e2na, is the latest among the recognized divisions of Chinese\nBuddhism since it first made its appearance in the eighth century. The\ndate, like that of the translation of the Amida scriptures is\nimportant, for the school was introduced from India and it follows\nthat its theories and practices were openly advocated at this period\nand probably were not of repute much earlier. It is akin to the\nBuddhism of Tibet and may be described in its higher aspects as an\nelaborate and symbolic pantheism, which represents the one spirit\nmanifesting himself in a series of emanations and reflexes. In its\npopular and unfortunately commoner aspect it is simply polytheism,\nfetichism and magic. In many respects it resembles the Pure Land\nschool. Its principal deity (the word is not inaccurate) is Vairocana,\nanalogous to Amit\u00e2bha, and probably like him a Persian sun god in\norigin. It is also a short cut to salvation, for, without denying the\nefficiency of more laborious and ascetic methods, it promises to its\nfollowers a similar result by means of formul\u00e6 and ceremonies. Like\nthe Pure Land school it has become in China not so much a separate\ncorporation as an aspect, and often the most obvious and popular\naspect, of all Buddhist schools.\n\nIt claims Vajrabodhi as its first Patriarch. He was a monk of the\nBrahman caste who arrived in China from southern India[845] in 719 and\ndied in 730 after translating several Tantras and spells. His\ncompanion and successor was Amoghavajra of whose career something has\nalready been said. The fourth Patriarch, Hui Kuo, was the instructor\nof the celebrated Japanese monk Kobo Daishi who established the school\nin Japan under the name of Shingon[846].\n\nThe principal scripture of this sect is the Ta-jih-ching or s\u00fbtra of\nthe Sun-Buddha[847]. A distinction is drawn between exoteric and\nesoteric doctrine (the \"true word\") and the various phases of Buddhist\nthought are arranged in ten classes. Of these the first nine are\nmerely preparatory, but in the last or esoteric phase, the adept\nbecomes a living Buddha and receives full intuitive knowledge. In this\nrespect the Tantric school resembles the teaching of Bodhidharma but\nnot in detail. It teaches that Vairocana is the whole world, which is\ndivided into Garbhadh\u00e2tu (material) and Vajradh\u00e2tu (indestructible),\nthe two together forming Dharmadh\u00e2tu. The manifestations of\nVairocana's body to himself--that is Buddhas and Bodhisattvas--are\nrepresented symbolically by diagrams of several circles[848]. But it\nwould be out of place to dwell further on the dogmatic theology of the\nschool, for I cannot discover that it was ever of importance in China\nwhatever may have been its influence in Japan. What appealed only too\npowerfully to Chinese superstition was the use of spells, charms and\nmagical formul\u00e6 and the doctrine that since the universe is merely\nidea, thoughts and facts are equipollent. This doctrine (which need\nnot be the outcome of metaphysics, but underlies the magical practices\nof many savage tribes) produced surprising results when applied to\nfuneral ceremonies, which in China have always formed the major part\nof religion, for it was held that ceremonial can represent and control\nthe fortunes of the soul, that is to say that if a ceremony represents\nfiguratively the rescue of a soul from a pool of blood, then the soul\nwhich is undergoing that punishment will be delivered. It was not\nuntil the latter part of the eighth century that such theories and\nceremonies were accepted by Chinese Buddhism, but they now form a\nlarge part of it.\n\nAlthough in Japan Buddhism continued to produce new schools until the\nthirteenth century, no movement in China attained this status after\nabout 730, and Lamaism, though its introduction produced considerable\nchanges in the north, is not usually reckoned as a Tsung. But numerous\nsocieties and brotherhoods arose especially in connection with the\nPure Land school and are commonly spoken of as sects. They differ from\nthe schools mentioned above in having more or less the character of\nsecret societies, sometimes merely brotherhoods like the Freemasons\nbut sometimes political in their aims. Among those whose tenets are\nknown that which has most religion and least politics in its\ncomposition appears to be the Wu-wei-chiao[849], founded about 1620 by\none Lo-tsu[850] who claimed to have received a revelation contained in\nfive books. It is strictly vegetarian and antiritualistic,\nobjecting to the use of images, incense and candles in worship.\n\nThere are many other sects with a political tinge. The proclivity of the\nChinese to guilds, corporations and secret societies is well known and\nmany of these latter have a religious basis. All such bodies are under\nthe ban of the Government, for they have always been suspected with more\nor less justice of favouring anti-social or anti-dynastic ideas. But,\nmingled with such political aspirations, there is often present the\ndesire for co-operation in leading privately a religious life which, if\nmade public, would be hampered by official restrictions. The most\ncelebrated of these sects is the White Lotus. Under the Y\u00fcan dynasty it\nwas anti-Mongol, and prepared the way for the advent of the Ming. When\nthe Ming dynasty in its turn became decadent, we hear again of the White\nLotus coupled with rebellion, and similarly after the Manchus had passed\ntheir meridian, its beautiful but ill-omened name frequently appears. It\nseems clear that it is an ancient and persistent society with some idea\nof creating a millennium, which becomes active when the central\ngovernment is weak and corrupt. Not unlike the White Lotus is the secret\nsociety commonly known as the Triad but called by its members the Heaven\nand Earth Association. The T'ai-p'ing sect, out of which the celebrated\nrebellion arose, was similar but its inspiration seems to have come from\na perversion of Christianity. The Tsai-Li sect[851] is still prevalent\nin Peking, Tientsin, and the province of Shantung. I should exceed the\nscope of my task if I attempted to examine these sects in detail[852],\nfor their relation to Buddhism is often doubtful. Most of them combine\nwith it Taoist and other beliefs and some of them expect a Messiah or\nKing of Righteousness who is usually identified with Maitreya. It is\neasy to see how at this point hostility to the existing Government\narises and provokes not unnatural resentment[853].\n\nRecently several attempts have been made to infuse life and order into\nChinese Buddhism. Japanese influence can be traced in most of them and\nthough they can hardly be said to represent a new school, they attempt to\ngo back to Mahayanism as it was when first introduced into China. The\nHin\u00e2y\u00e2na is considered as a necessary preliminary to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na and the\nlatter is treated as existing in several schools, among which are included\nthe Pure Land school, though the Contemplative and Tantric schools seem\nnot to be regarded with favour. They are probably mistrusted as leading to\nnegligence and superstition[854].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 790: [Chinese: ] See especially Hackmann, \"Die Schulen des\nchinesischen Buddhismus\" (in the _Mitth. Seminars f\u00fcr Orientalische\nSprachen_, Berlin, 1911), which contains the text and translation of an\nEssay by a modern Chinese Buddhist, Yang W\u00ean Hui. Such a review of Chinese\nsects from the contemporary Buddhist point of view has great value, but it\ndoes not seem to me that Mr. Yang explains clearly the dogmatic tenets of\neach sect, the obvious inference being that such tenets are of little\npractical importance. Chinese monasteries often seem to combine several\nschools. Thus the Tz'\u016d-Fu-Ss\u016d monastery near Peking professes to belong\nboth to the Lin-Chi and Pure Land schools and its teachers expound the\nDiamond-cutter, Lotus and Shou-L\u00eang-Ching. So also in India. See Rhys\nDavids in article Sects Buddhist, _E.R.E._ Hackmann gives a list of\nauthorities. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_ (chaps. VII and VIII), may still\nbe consulted, though the account is far from clear.]\n\n[Footnote 791: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 792: It based itself on the Satyasiddhi\u015b\u00e2stra of Harivarman,\nNanjio, Cat. 1274.]\n\n[Footnote 793: This meditation however is of a special sort. The six\nP\u00e2ramit\u00e2s are, D\u00e2na, S\u00eela, Kshanti, V\u00eerya, Dhy\u00e2na and Praj\u00f1\u00e2. The\nmeditation of Bodhidharma is not the Dhy\u00e2na of this list, but\nmeditation on Praj\u00f1\u00e2, the highest of the P\u00e2ramit\u00e2s. See Hackmann's\nChinese text, p. 249.]\n\n[Footnote 794: Ta-mo-hs\u00fce-mai-lun, analyzed by Wieger in his _Histoire\ndes Croyances religieuses en Chine_, pp. 520 ff. I could wish for more\ninformation about this work, but have not been able to find the\noriginal.]\n\n[Footnote 795: Also called Fa-sh\u00ean or dharmak\u00e2ya in the discourse.\nBodhidharma said that he preached the _seal of the heart_ (hsinyin).\nThis probably corresponds to some Sanskrit expression, but I have not\nfound the Indian equivalent.]\n\n[Footnote 796: I-Ching, in his _Memoirs of Eminent Monks_, mentions\nthree pilgrims as having studied the works of Chuang-tz\u016d and his\nown style shows that he was well-read in this author.]\n\n[Footnote 797: He is not mentioned by T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha.]\n\n[Footnote 798: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 799: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 800: Ac\u00e2riyaparampar\u00e2. There is a list of such teachers in\nMah\u00e2va\u1e43sa, V. 95 ff., D\u00eepava\u1e43sa, IV. 27 ff. and V. 69.]\n\n[Footnote 801: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 802: The succession of Patriarchs is the subject of several works\ncomprised in the Chinese Tripitaka. Of these the Fu-fa-tsang-yin-y\u00fcan-ching\n(Nanjio, 1340) is the most important, because it professes to be translated\n(A.D. 472) from an Indian work, which, however, is not in the Tibetan Canon\nand is not known in Sanskrit. The Chinese text, as we have it, is probably\nnot a translation from the Sanskrit, but a compilation made in the sixth\ncentury which, however, acquired considerable authority. See Masp\u00e9ro in\n_M\u00e9langes d'Indianisme_: Sylvain L\u00e9vi, pp. 129-149, and _B.E.F.E.O._1911,\npp. 344-348. Other works are the Fo-tsu-t'ung-chi (Nanjio, 1661), of Chih\nP'an (_c._ 1270), belonging to the T'ien-t'ai school, and the\nChing-t\u00ea-ch'uan-t\u00eang-lu together with the Tsung-m\u00ean-t'ung-yao-hs\u00fc-chi\n(Nanjio, 1524, 1526) both belonging to the school of Bodhidharma. See also\nNanjio, 1528, 1529. The common list of Patriarchs is as follows: 1.\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2\u015byapa; 2. Ananda; 3. \u015aanav\u00e2sa or \u015aanakav\u00e2sa; 4. Upagupta; 5.\nDh\u1e5bitaka; 6. Micchaka. Here the name of Vasumitra is inserted by some but\nomitted by others; 7. Buddhanandi; 8. Buddhamitra; 9. P\u00e2r\u015bva; 10.\nPunyayasas; 11. A\u015bvaghosha; 12. Kapimala; 13. N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna; 14. Deva\n(K\u00e2\u1e47adeva); 15. R\u00e2hulata; 16. Sanghanandi; 17. Sanghaya\u015bas; 18. Kum\u00e2rata;\n19. Jayata; 20. Vasubandhu; 21. Manura; 22. Haklena or Padmaratna; 23.\nSimha Bhikshu; 24. Basiasita; 25. Put\u1e47omita or Punyamitra; 26. Prajn\u00e2tara;\n27 (or 28, if Vasumitra is reckoned) Bodhidharma. Many of these names are\nodd and are only conjectural restorations made from the Chinese\ntranscription, for which see Nanjio, 1340. Other lists of Patriarchs vary\nfrom that given above, partly because they represent the traditions of\nother schools. It is not strange, for instance, if the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins did\nnot recognize N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna as a Patriarch. Two of their lists have been\npreserved by S\u00eang-yu (Nanjio, 1476) who wrote about 520. Some notes on the\nPatriarchs and reproductions of Chinese pictures representing them will be\nfound in Dor\u00e9, pp. 244 ff. It is extremely curious that A\u015bvaghosha is\nrepresented as a woman.]\n\n[Footnote 803: It is found, for instance, in the lists of the Jain\nTirthankaras and in some accounts of the Buddhas and of the Avat\u00e2ras\nof Vishnu.]\n\n[Footnote 804: See Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, p. 290. But the dates offer\nsome difficulty, for Mihirakula, the celebrated Hun chieftain, is\nusually supposed to have reigned about 510-540 A.D. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha\n(Schiefner, p. 95) speaks of a martyr called M\u00e2likabuddhi. See, too,\n_ib._ p. 306.]\n\n[Footnote 805: It is clear that the school of Valabhi was to some\nextent a rival of N\u00e2land\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 806: For a portrait of Hui-n\u00eang see Kokka, No. 297. The\nnames of Bodhidharma's successors are in Chinese characters [Chinese:\n]]\n\n[Footnote 807: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 808: [Chinese: ] Much biographical information respecting\nthis and other schools will be found in Dor\u00e9, vols. VII and VIII. But\nthere is little to record in the way of events or literary and\ndoctrinal movements.]\n\n[Footnote 809: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 810: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 811: Lin-Chi means coming to the ford. Is this an allusion\nto the Pali expression Sot\u00e2panno? The name appears in Japanese as\nRinzai. Most educated Chinese monks when asked as to their doctrine\nsay they belong to the Lin-Chi.]\n\n[Footnote 812: They are generally called the three mysteries (Hs\u00fcan)\nand the three important points (Yao), but I have not been able to\nobtain any clear explanation of what they mean. See Edkins, _Chinese\nBuddhism_, p. 164, and Hackmann, _l.c._ p. 250.]\n\n[Footnote 813: Wieger, _Bouddhisme Chinois_, p. 108, states that 230\nworks belonging to this sect were published under the Manchu dynasty.]\n\n[Footnote 814: See _e.g._ Nanjio, Cat. 1527, 1532.]\n\n[Footnote 815: [Chinese: ]. Tendai in Japanese. It is also called in\nChina [Chinese: ] Fa-hua.]\n\n[Footnote 816: [Chinese: ]. Also often spoken of as Chih-ch\u00ea-ta-shih\n[Chinese: ]. Officially he is often styled the fourth Patriarch of\nthe school. See Dor\u00e9, p. 449.]\n\n[Footnote 817: [Chinese: ]. In Pali Buddhism also, especially in\nlater works, Samatha and Vipassan\u00e2 may be taken as a compendium of the\nhigher life as they are respectively the results of the two sets of\nreligious exercises called Adhicitta and Adhipa\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2. (See Ang. Nik. III\n88.)]\n\n[Footnote 818: In Chinese [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ],\n[Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ], [Chinese: ].\nTun, Chien, Pi-mi, Pu-ting, Tsang, T'ung, Pieh, Y\u00fcan. See Nanjio,\n1568, and for very different explanations of these obscure words.\nEdkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 182, and Richard's _New Testament of\nHigher Buddhism_, p. 41. Masson-Oursel in _J.A._ 1915, I. p. 305.]\n\n[Footnote 819: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 820: [Chinese: ] The books are Nanjio, Nos. 1534, 1536,\n1538.]\n\n[Footnote 821: Among them is the compendium for beginners called\nHsiao-chih-kuan, (Nanjio, 1540), partly translated in Beal's _Catena_,\npp. 251 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 822: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 823: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 824: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 825: The list of Chinese authors in Nanjio's Catalogue, App.\nIII, describes many as belonging to the T'ien-t'ai, Avatamsaka or\nDhy\u00e2na schools, but none as belonging to the Ching-T'u.]\n\n[Footnote 826: For the authorities, see Nanjio, p. 381.]\n\n[Footnote 827: Nanjio, p. 10, note.]\n\n[Footnote 828: They are all translated in _S.B.E._ XLIX. The two\nformer exist in Sanskrit. The Amit\u00e2yurdhy\u00e2na is known only in the\nChinese translation. They are called in Chinese [Chinese: ],\n[Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 829: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 830: [Chinese: ] The early history of the school is\nrelated in a work called Lien-sh\u00ea-kao-hsien-ch'uan, said to date from\nthe Tsin dynasty. See for some account of the early worthies, Dor\u00e9,\npp. 280 ff. and 457 ff. Their biographies contain many visions and\nmiracles.]\n\n[Footnote 831: Apparently at least until 1042. See De Groot,\n_Sectarianism_, p. 163. The dated inscriptions in the grottoes of\nLung-m\u00ean indicate that the cult of Amit\u00e2bha flourished especially from\n647 to 715. See Chavannes, _Mission. Arch\u00e9ol._ Tome I, deuxi\u00e8me\npartie, p. 545.]\n\n[Footnote 832: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 833: See for instance the tract called Hs\u00fcan-Fo-P'u\n[Chinese: ] and translated by Richard under the title of _A Guide to\nBuddhahood_, pp. 97 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 834: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 835: See Watters, _On Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. 210, and also\nTakakusu, _Journal of the Pali Text Soc_. 1905, p. 132.]\n\n[Footnote 836: [Chinese: ] The name refers not to the doctrines of\nthe school, but to Tz'\u016d-\u00ean-tai-shih, a title given to Kuei-chi the\ndisciple of Hs\u00fcan Chuang who was one of its principal teachers and\ntaught at a monastery called Tz'\u016d-\u00ean.]\n\n[Footnote 837: [Chinese: ] See Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1197 and 1215.]\n\n[Footnote 838: See Watters, _On Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. pp. 355 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 839: Ed. and transl. by Sylvain L\u00e9vi, 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 840: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 841: His name when alive was Fa-tsang. See Nanjio, Cat. p.\n462, and Dor\u00e9, 450. The Empress Wu patronized him.]\n\n[Footnote 842: [Chinese: ]. Also called Nan Shan or Southern mountain\nschool from a locality in Shensi.]\n\n[Footnote 843: [Chinese: ]. Nanjio, Cat. 1493, 1469, 1470, 1120,\n1481, 1483, 1484, 1471.]\n\n[Footnote 844: [Chinese: ] or [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 845: From Mo-lai-y\u00e8, which seems to mean the extreme south\nof India. Dor\u00e9 gives some Chinese legends about him, p. 299.]\n\n[Footnote 846: For an appreciative criticism of the sect as known in\nJapan, see Anesaki's _Buddhist Art_, chap. III.]\n\n[Footnote 847: Nanjio, No. 530. Nos. 533, 534 and 1039 are also\nimportant texts of this sect.]\n\n[Footnote 848: In the T'ien-t'ai and Ch\u00ean-yen schools, and indeed in\nChinese Buddhism generally, Dharma (_Fa_ in Chinese) is regarded as\ncosmic law. Buddhas are the visible expression of Dharma. Hence they\nare identified with it and the whole process of cosmic evolution is\nregarded as the manifestation of Buddhahood.]\n\n[Footnote 849: [Chinese: ] See the account by Edkins, _Chinese\nBuddhism_, pp. 271 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 850: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 851: [Chinese: ] See _China Mission Year Book_, 1896, p.\n43.]\n\n[Footnote 852: For some account of them, see Stanton, The Triad\nSociety, White Lotus Society, etc., 1900, reprinted from _China\nReview_, vols. XXI, XXII, and De Groot, _Sectarianism and religious\npersecution in China_, vol. I. pp. 149-259.]\n\n[Footnote 853: The Republic of China has not changed much from the\nways of the Empire. The Peking newspapers of June 17, 1914, contain a\nPresidential Edict stating that \"the invention of heretical religions\nby ill-disposed persons is strictly prohibited by law,\" and that\ncertain religious societies are to be suppressed.]\n\n[Footnote 854: See, for an account of such a reformed sect, O.\nFrancke, \"Ein Buddhistischer Reformversuch in China,\" _T'oung Pao_,\n1909, p. 567.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVI\n\nCHINA _(continued)_\n\nCHINESE BUDDHISM AT THE PRESENT DAY\n\n\nThe Buddhism treated of in this chapter does not include Lamaism,\nwhich being identical with the religion of Tibet and Mongolia is more\nconveniently described elsewhere. Ordinary Chinese Buddhism and\nLamaism are distinct, but are divided not so much by doctrine as by\nthe race, language and usages of the priests. Chinese Buddhism has\nacquired some local colour, but it is still based on the teaching and\npractice imported from India before the Y\u00fcan dynasty, whereas Lamaist\ntradition is not direct: it represents Buddhism as received not from\nIndia but from Tibet. Some holy places, such as P'uto and Wu-t'ai-shan\nare frequented by both Lamas and Chinese monks, and Tibetan prayers\nand images may sometimes be seen in Chinese temples, but as a rule the\ntwo divisions do not coalesce.\n\nChinese Buddhism has a physiognomy and language of its own. The\nParaphrase of the Sacred Edict in a criticism, which, though\nunfriendly, is not altogether inaccurate, says that Buddhists attend\nonly to the heart, claim that Buddha can be found in the heart, and\naim at becoming Buddhas. This sounds strange to those who are\nacquainted only with the Buddhism of Ceylon and Burma, but is\nintelligible as a popular statement of Bodhidharma's doctrine.\nHeart[855] means the spiritual nature of man, essentially identical\nwith the Buddha nature and capable of purification and growth so that\nall beings can become Buddhas. But in the Far East the doctrine became\nless pantheistic and more ethical than the corresponding Indian ideas.\nThe Buddha in the heart is the internal light and monitor rather than\nthe universal spirit. Amida, Kuan-yin and Ti-tsang with other radiant\nand benevolent spirits have risen from humanity and will help man to\nrise as they have done. Chinese Buddhists do not regard Amida's vows\nas an isolated achievement. All Boddhisattvas have done the same\nand carried out their resolution in countless existences. Like the\nMadonna these gracious figures appeal directly to the emotions and\nartistic senses and their divinity offers no difficulty, for in China\nChurch and State alike have always recognized deification as a natural\nprocess. One other characteristic of all Far Eastern Buddhism may be\nnoticed. The Buddha is supposed to have preached many creeds and codes\nat different periods of his life and each school supposes its own to\nbe the last, best and all inclusive.\n\nAs indicated elsewhere, the essential part of the Buddhist Church is\nthe monkhood and it is often hard to say if a Chinese layman is a\nBuddhist or not. It will therefore be best to describe briefly the\norganization and life of a monastery, then the services performed\nthere and to some extent attended by the laity, and thirdly the rites\nperformed by monks on behalf of the laity, especially funeral\nceremonies.\n\nThe Chinese Tripitaka contains no less than five recensions of the\nVinaya, and the later pilgrims who visited India made it their special\nobject to obtain copies of the most correct and approved code. But\nthough the theoretical value of these codes is still admitted, they\nhave for practical purposes been supplemented by other manuals of\nwhich the best known are the Fan-wang-ching or Net of Brahm\u00e2[856] and\nthe Pai-chang-ts'ung-lin-ch'ing-kuei or Rules of Purity of the\nMonasteries of Pai Chang.\n\nThe former is said to have been translated in A.D. 406 by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva\nand to be one chapter of a larger Sanskrit work. Some passages of it,\nparticularly the condemnation of legislation which forbids or imposes\nconditions on the practice of Buddhism[857], read as if they had been\ncomposed in China rather than India, and its whole attitude towards\nthe Hinayanist Vinaya as something inadequate and superseded, can\nhardly have been usual in India or China even in the time of I-Ching\n(700 A.D.). Nothing is known of the Indian original, but it certainly\nwas not the Brahmaj\u00e2lasutta of the Pali Canon[858]. Though the\ntranslation is ascribed to so early a date, there is no evidence\nthat the work carried weight as an authority before the eighth\ncentury. Students of the Vinaya, like I-Ching, ignore it. But when the\nscholarly endeavour to discover the most authentic edition of the\nVinaya began to flag, this manual superseded the older treatises.\nWhatever external evidence there may be for attributing it to\nKum\u00e2raj\u00eeva, its contents suggest a much later date and there is no\nguarantee that a popular manual may not have received additions. The\nrules are not numbered consecutively but as 1-10 and 1-48, and it may\nbe that the first class is older than the second. In many respects it\nexpounds a late and even degenerate form of Buddhism for it\ncontemplates not only a temple ritual (including the veneration of\nimages and sacred books), but also burning the head or limbs as a\nreligious practice. But it makes no allusion to salvation through\nfaith in Amit\u00e2bha and says little about services to be celebrated for\nthe dead[859].\n\nIts ethical and disciplinary point of view is dogmatically Mahayanist\nand similar to that of the Bodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra. The H\u00eenay\u00e2na is several\ntimes denounced[860] and called heretical, but, setting aside a little\nintolerance and superstition, the teaching of this manual is truly\nadmirable and breathes a spirit of active charity--a desire not only\nto do no harm but to help and rescue.\n\nIt contains a code of ten primary and forty-eight secondary\ncommandments, worded as prohibitions, but equivalent to positive\ninjunctions, inasmuch as they blame the neglect of various active\nduties. The ten primary commandments are called Pr\u00e2timoksha and he who\nbreaks them is P\u00e2r\u00e2jika[861], that is to say, he _ipso facto_ leaves\nthe road leading to Buddhahood and is condemned to a long series of\ninferior births. They prohibit taking life, theft, unchastity, lying,\ntrading in alcoholic liquors, evil speaking, boasting, avarice, hatred\nand blasphemy. Though infraction of the secondary commandments has\nless permanently serious consequence, their observance is\nindispensable for all monks. Many of them are amplifications of the\nten major commandments and are directed against indirect and\npotential sins, such as the possession of weapons. The Bhikshu may not\neat flesh, drink alcohol, set forests on fire or be connected with any\nbusiness injurious to others, such as the slave trade. He is warned\nagainst gossip, sins of the eye, foolish practices such as divination\nand even momentary forgetfulness of his high calling and duties. But\nit is not sufficient that he should be self-concentrated and without\noffence. He must labour for the welfare and salvation of others, and\nit is a sin to neglect such duties as instructing the ignorant,\ntending the sick, hospitality, saving men or animals from death or\nslavery, praying[862] for all in danger, exhorting to repentance,\nsympathy with all living things. A number of disciplinary rules\nprescribe a similarly high standard for daily monastic life. The monk\nmust be strenuous and intelligent; he must yield obedience to his\nsuperiors and set a good example to the laity: he must not teach for\nmoney or be selfish in accepting food and gifts. As for creed he is\nstrictly bidden to follow and preach the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na: it is a sin to\nfollow or preach the doctrine of the Sr\u00e2vakas[863] or read their books\nor not aspire to ultimate Buddhahood. Very remarkable are the\ninjunctions to burn one's limbs in honour of Buddhas: to show great\nrespect to copies of the scriptures and to make vows. From another\npoint of view the first and forty-seventh secondary commandments are\nequally remarkable: the first bids officials discharge their duties\nwith due respect to the Church and the other protests against improper\nlegislation.\n\nThe Fan-wang-ching is the most important and most authoritative\nstatement of the general principles regulating monastic life in China.\nSo far as my own observation goes, it is known and respected in all\nmonasteries. The Pai-chang-ch'ing-kuei[864] deals rather with the\ndetails of organization and ritual and has not the same universal\ncurrency. It received the approval of the Y\u00fcan dynasty[865] and is\nstill accepted as authoritative in many monasteries and gives a\ncorrect account of their general practice. It was composed by a monk\nof Kiang-si, who died in 814 A.D. He belonged to the Ch'an school, but\nhis rules are approved by others. I will not attempt to summarize\nthem, but they include most points of ritual and discipline mentioned\nbelow. The author indicates the relations which should prevail between\nChurch and State by opening his work with an account of the ceremonies\nto be performed on the Emperor's birthday, and similar occasions.\n\nLarge Buddhist temples almost always form part of a monastery, but\nsmaller shrines, especially in towns, are often served by a single\npriest. The many-storeyed towers called pagodas which are a\ncharacteristic beauty of Chinese landscapes, are in their origin\nstupas erected over relics but at the present day can hardly be called\ntemples or religious buildings, for they are not places of worship and\ngenerally owe their construction to the dictates of F\u00eang-shui or\ngeomancy. Monasteries are usually built outside towns and by\npreference on high ground, whence _shan_ or mountain has come to be\nthe common designation of a convent, whatever its position. The sites\nof these establishments show the deep feeling of cultivated Chinese\nfor nature and their appreciation of the influence of scenery on\ntemper, an appreciation which connects them spiritually with the\npsalms of the monks and nuns preserved in the Pali Canon. The\narchitecture is not self-assertive. Its aim is not to produce edifices\ncomplete and satisfying in their own proportions but rather to\nharmonize buildings with landscape, to adjust courts and pavilions to\nthe slope of the hillside and diversify the groves of fir and bamboo\nwith shrines and towers as fantastic and yet as natural as the\nmountain boulders. The reader who wishes to know more of them should\nconsult Johnston's _Buddhist China_, a work which combines in a rare\ndegree sound knowledge and literary charm.\n\nA monastery[866] is usually a quadrangle surrounded by a wall.\nBefore the great gate, which faces south, or in the first court is\na tank, spanned by a bridge, wherein grows the red lotus and tame fish\nawait doles of biscuit. The sides of the quadrangle contain dwelling\nrooms, refectories, guest chambers, store houses, a library, printing\npress and other premises suitable to a learned and pious foundation.\nThe interior space is divided into two or three courts, bordered by a\nveranda. In each court is a hall of worship or temple, containing a\nshelf or alcove on which are set the sacred images: in front of them\nstands a table, usually of massive wood, bearing vases of flowers,\nbowls for incense sticks and other vessels. The first temple is called\nthe Hall of the Four Great Kings and the figures in it represent\nbeings who are still in the world of transmigration and have not yet\nattained Buddhahood. They include gigantic images of the Four Kings,\nMaitreya, the Buddha designate of the future, and Wei-to[867], a\nmilitary Bodhisattva sometimes identified with Indra. Kuan-ti, the\nChinese God of War, is often represented in this building. The chief\ntemple, called the Precious Hall of the Great Hero[868], is in the\nsecond court and contains the principal images. Very commonly there\nare nine figures on either side representing eighteen disciples of the\nBuddha and known as the Eighteen Lohan or Arhats[869]. Above the altar\nare one or more large gilt images. When there is only one it is\nusually \u015a\u00e2kya-muni, but more often there are three. Such triads are\nvariously composed and the monks often speak of them vaguely as the\n\"three precious ones,\" without seeming to attach much importance to\ntheir identity[870]. The triad is loosely connected with the idea of\nthe three bodies of Buddha but this explanation does not always apply\nand the central figure is sometimes O-mi-to or Kuan-yin, who are the\nprincipal recipients of the worship offered by the laity. The latter\ndeity has usually a special shrine at the back of the main altar and\nfacing the north door of the hall, in which her merciful activity as\nthe saviour of mankind is represented in a series of statuettes or\nreliefs. Other Bodhisattvas such as Ta-shih-chi (Mah\u00e2sth\u00e2mapr\u00e2pta) and\nTi-tsang also have separate shrines in or at the side of the great\nhall[871]. The third hall contains as a rule only small images. It is\nused for expounding the scriptures and for sermons, if the monastery\nhas a preacher, but is set apart for the religious exercises of the\nmonks rather than the devotions of the laity. In very large\nmonasteries there is a fourth hall for meditation.\n\nMonasteries are of various sizes and the number of monks is not\nconstant, for the peripatetic habit of early Buddhism is not extinct:\nat one time many inmates may be absent on their travels, at\nanother there may be an influx of strangers. There are also wandering\nmonks who have ceased to belong to a particular monastery and spend\ntheir time in travelling. A large monastery usually contains from\nthirty to fifty monks, but a very large one may have as many as three\nhundred. The majority are dedicated by their parents as children, but\nsome embrace the career from conviction in their maturity and these,\nif few, are the more interesting. Children who are brought up to be\nmonks receive a religious education in the monastery, wear monastic\nclothes and have their heads shaved. At the age of about seventeen\nthey are formally admitted as members of the order and undergo three\nceremonies of ordination, which in their origin represented stages of\nthe religious life, but are now performed by accumulation in the\ncourse of a few days. One reason for this is that only monasteries\npossessing a licence from the Government[872] are allowed to hold\nordinations and that consequently postulants have to go some distance\nto be received as full brethren and are anxious to complete the\nreception expeditiously. At the first ordination the candidates are\naccepted as novices: at the second, which follows a day or two\nafterwards and corresponds to the upasampad\u00e2, they accept the robes\nand bowl and promise obedience to the rules of the Pr\u00e2timoksha. But\nthese ceremonies are of no importance compared with the third, called\nShou Pu-sa-chieh[873] or acceptance of the Bodhisattva precepts, that\nis to say the fifty-eight precepts enunciated in the Fan-wang-ching.\nThe essential part of this ordination is the burning of the\ncandidate's head in from three to eighteen places. The operation\ninvolves considerable pain and is performed by lighting pieces of\ncharcoal set in a paste which is spread over the shaven skull.\n\nAlthough the Fan-wang-ching does not mention this burning of the head\nas part of ordination, yet it emphatically enjoins the practice of\nburning the body or limbs, affirming that those who neglect it are not\ntrue Bodhisattvas[874]. The prescription is founded on the\ntwenty-second chapter of the Lotus[875] which, though a later\naddition, is found in the Chinese translation made between 265 and\n316 A.D.[876] I-Ching discusses and reprobates such practices. Clearly\nthey were known in India when he visited it, but not esteemed by the\nbetter Buddhists, and the fact that they form no part of the ordinary\nTibetan ritual indicates that they had no place in the decadent Indian\nBuddhism which in various stages of degeneration was introduced into\nTibet[877]. In Korea and Japan branding is practised but on the breast\nand arms rather than on the head.\n\nIt would appear then that burning and branding as part of initiation\nwere known in India in the early centuries of our era but not commonly\napproved and that their general acceptance in China was subsequent to\nthe death of I-Ching in A.D. 713[878]. This author clearly approved of\nnothing but the double ordination as novice and full monk. The third\nordination as Bodhisattva must be part of the later phase inaugurated\nby Amogha about 750[879].\n\nThis practice is defended as a trial of endurance, but the earlier and\nbetter monks were right in rejecting it, for in itself it is an\nunedifying spectacle and it points to the logical conclusion that, if\nit is meritorious to cauterize the head, it is still more meritorious\nto burn the whole body. Cases of suicide by burning appear to have\noccurred in recent years, especially in the province of\nChe-Kiang[880]. The true doctrine of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na is that everyone\nshould strive for the happiness and salvation of all beings, but this\nbeautiful truth may be sadly perverted if it is held that the\nendurance of pain is in itself meritorious and that such acquired\nmerit can be transferred to others. Self-torture, seems not to be\nunknown in the popular forms of Chinese Buddhism[881].\n\nThe postulant, after receiving these three ordinations, becomes a full\nmonk or Ho-shang[882] and takes a new name. The inmates of every\nmonastery owe obedience to the abbot and some abbots have an official\nposition, being recognized by the Government as representing the\nclergy of a prefecture, should there be any business to be transacted\nwith the secular authorities. But there is no real hierarchy outside\nthe monasteries, each of which is an isolated administrative unit.\nWithin each monastery due provision is made for discipline and\nadministration. The monks are divided into two classes, the Western\nwho are concerned with ritual and other purely religious duties and\nthe Eastern who are relatively secular and superintend the business of\nthe establishment[883]. This is often considerable for the income is\nusually derived from estates, in managing which the monks are assisted\nby a committee of laymen. Other laymen of humbler status[884] live\naround the monastery and furnish the labour necessary for agriculture,\nforestry and whatever industries the character of the property calls\ninto being. As a rule there is a considerable library. Even a\nsympathetic stranger will often find that the monks deny its\nexistence, because many books have been destroyed in political\ntroubles, but most monasteries possess copies of the principal\nscriptures and a complete Tripitaka, usually the edition of 1737, is\nnot rare. Whether the books are much read I do not know, but I have\nobserved that after the existence of the library has been\nadmitted, it often proves difficult to find the key. There is also\na printing press, where are prepared notices and prayers, as well as\ncopies of popular s\u00fbtras.\n\nThe food of the monks is strictly vegetarian, but they do not go round\nwith the begging bowl nor, except in a few monasteries, is it\nforbidden to eat after midday. As a rule there are three meals, the\nlast about 6 p.m., and all must be eaten in silence. The three\ngarments prescribed by Indian Buddhism are still worn, but beneath\nthem are trousers, stockings, and shoes which are necessary in the\nChinese climate. There is no idea that it is wrong to sleep on a bed,\nto receive presents or own property.\n\nTwo or three services are performed daily in the principal temple,\nearly in the morning, about 4 p.m., and sometimes in the middle of the\nday. A specimen of this ritual may be seen in the service called by\nBeal the Liturgy of Kuan Yin[885]. It consists of versicles, responses\nand canticles, and, though strangely reminiscent both in structure and\nexternals (such as the wearing of vestments) of the offices of the\nRoman Church[886], appears to be Indian in origin. I-Ching describes\nthe choral services which he attended in Nalanda and elsewhere--the\nchanting, bowing, processions--and the Chinese ritual is, I think,\nonly the amplification of these ceremonies. It includes the\npresentation of offerings, such as tea, rice and other vegetables. The\nChinese pilgrims testify that in India flowers, lights and incense\nwere offered to relics and images (as in Christian churches), and the\nBodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra[887], one of the most spiritual of later Mahayanist\nworks, mentions offerings of food and drink as part of worship. Many\nthings in Buddhism lent themselves to such a transformation or parody\nof earlier teaching. Offerings of food to hungry ghosts were\ncountenanced, and it was easy to include among the recipients other\nspirits. It was meritorious to present food, raiment and property to\nliving saints: oriental, and especially Chinese, symbolism found\nit natural to express the same devotion by offerings made before\nimages.\n\nIn the course of most ceremonies, the monks make vows on behalf of all\nbeings and take oath to work for their salvation. They are also\nexpected to deliver and hear sermons and to engage in meditation. Some\nof them superintend the education of novices which consists chiefly in\nlearning to read and repeat religious works. Quite recently elementary\nschools for the instruction of the laity have been instituted in some\nmonasteries[888].\n\nThe regularity of convent life is broken by many festivals. The year\nis divided into two periods of wandering, two of meditation and one of\nrepose corresponding to the old Vassa. Though this division has become\nsomewhat theoretical, it is usual for monks to set out on excursions\nin the spring and autumn. In each month there are six fasts, including\nthe two uposatha days. On these latter the 250 rules of the\nPr\u00e2timoksha are recited in a refectory or side hall and subsequently\nthe fifty-eight rules of the Fan-wang-ching are recited with greater\nceremony in the main temple.\n\nAnother class of holy days includes the birthdays[889] not only of\nS\u00e2kya-muni, but of other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the anniversaries\nof events in S\u00e2kya-muni's life and the deaths of Bodhidharma and other\nSaints, among whom the founder or patron of each monastery has a\nprominent place. Another important and popular festival is called\nY\u00fc-lan-p\u00ean or All Souls' day, which is an adaptation of Buddhist\nusages to Chinese ancestral worship. Of many other festivals it may be\nsaid that they are purely Chinese but countenanced by Buddhism: such\nare the days which mark the changes of the seasons, those sacred to\nKuan-ti and other native deities, and (before the revolution) imperial\nbirthdays.\n\nThe daily services are primarily for the monks, but the laity may\nattend them, if they please. More frequently they pay their devotions\nat other hours, light a few tapers and too often have recourse to some\nform of divination before the images. Sometimes they defray the\ncost of more elaborate ceremonies to expiate sins or ensure\nprosperity. But the lay attendance in temples is specially large at\nseasons of pilgrimage. For an account of this interesting side of\nChinese religious life I cannot do better than refer the reader to Mr.\nJohnston's volume already cited.\n\nThough the services of the priesthood may be invoked at every crisis\nof life, they are most in requisition for funeral ceremonies. A\ndetailed description of these as practised at Amoy has been given by\nDe Groot[890] which is probably true in essentials for all parts of\nChina. These rites unite in incongruous confusion several orders of\nideas. Pre-Buddhist Chinese notions of the life after death seem not\nto have included the idea of hell. The disembodied soul is honoured\nand comforted but without any clear definition of its status. Some\nrepresentative--a person, figure, or tablet--is thought capable of\ngiving it a temporary residence and at funeral ceremonies offerings\nare made to such a representative and plays performed before it.\nThough Buddhist language may be introduced into this ritual, its\nspirit is alien to even the most corrupt Buddhism.\n\nBuddhism familiarized China with the idea that the average man stands\nin danger of purgatory and this doctrine cannot be described as late\nor Mahayanist[891]. Those epithets are, however, merited by the\nsubsidiary doctrine that such punishment can be abridged by vicarious\nacts of worship which may take the form of simple prayer addressed to\nbenevolent beings who can release the tortured soul. More often the\nidea underlying it is that the recitation of certain formul\u00e6 acquires\nmerit for the reciter who can then divert this merit to any\npurpose[892]. This is really a theological refinement of the ancient\nand widespread notion that words have magic force. Equally ancient and\nunBuddhist in origin is the theory of sympathetic magic. Just as by\nsticking pins into a wax figure you may kill the person represented,\nso by imitating physical operations of rescue, you may deliver a soul\nfrom the furnaces and morasses of hell. Thus a paper model of\nhades is made which is knocked to pieces and finally burnt: the spirit\nis escorted with music and other precautions over a mock bridge, and,\nmost singular of all, the priests place over a receptacle of water a\nspecial machine consisting of a cylinder containing a revolving\napparatus which might help a creature immersed in the fluid to climb\nup. This strange mummery is supposed to release those souls who are\ncondemned to sojourn in a pool of blood[893]. This, too, is a\nsuperstition countenanced only by Chinese Buddhism, for the punishment\nis incurred not so much by sinners as by those dying of illnesses\nwhich defile with blood. Many other rites are based on the notion that\nobjects--or their paper images--ceremonially burnt are transmitted to\nthe other world for the use of the dead. Thus representations in paper\nof servants, clothes, furniture, money and all manner of things are\nburned together with the effigy of the deceased and sometimes also\ncertificates and passports giving him a clean bill of health for the\nKingdom of Heaven.\n\nAs in funeral rites, so in matters of daily life, Buddhism gives its\ncountenance and help to popular superstition, to every kind of charm\nfor reading the future, securing happiness and driving away evil\nspirits. In its praise may be said that this patronage, though far too\neasy going, is not extended to cruel or immoral customs. But the\nreader will ask, is there no brighter side? I believe that there is,\nbut it is not conspicuous and, as in India, public worship and temple\nritual display the lower aspects of religion. But in China a devout\nBuddhist is generally a good man and the objects of Buddhist\nassociations are praiseworthy and philanthropic. They often include\nvegetarianism and abstinence from alcohol and drugs. The weakness of\nthe religion to-day is no doubt the want of intelligence and energy\namong the clergy. There are not a few learned and devout monks, but\neven devotion is not a characteristic of the majority. On the other\nhand, those of the laity who take their religion seriously generally\nattain a high standard of piety and there have been attempts to\nreform Buddhism, to connect it with education and to spread a\nknowledge of the more authentic scriptures[894].\n\nWhen one begins to study Buddhism in China, one fears it may be\ntypified by the neglected temples on the outskirts of Peking, sullen\nand mouldering memorials of dynasties that have passed away. But later\none learns not only that there are great and nourishing monasteries in\nthe south, but that even in Peking one may often step through an\narchway into courtyards of which the prosaic streets outside give no\nhint and find there refreshment for the eye and soul, flower gardens\nand well-kept shrines tended by pious and learned guardians.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 855: [Chinese: ] For a specimen of devotional literature\nabout the heart see the little tract translated in China Branch,\n_R.A.S._ XXIII. pp. 9-22.]\n\n[Footnote 856: [Chinese: ] For text translation and commentary, see\nDe Groot, _Code du Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na en Chine_, 1893, see also Nanjio, No.\n1087.]\n\n[Footnote 857: De Groot, p. 81.]\n\n[Footnote 858: The identity of name seems due to a similarity of\nmetaphor. The Brahmaj\u00e2la sutta is a net of many meshes to catch all\nforms of error. The Fan-wang-ching compares the varieties of Buddhist\nopinion to the meshes of a net (De Groot, _l.c._ p. 26), but the net\nis the all-inclusive common body of truth.]\n\n[Footnote 859: See, however, sections 20 and 39.]\n\n[Footnote 860: See especially De Groot, _l.c._ p. 58, where the\nreading of the Abhidharma is forbidden. Though this name is not\nconfined to the H\u00eenay\u00e2na, A-pi-t'an in Chinese seems to be rarely used\nas a title of Mahayanist books.]\n\n[Footnote 861: The Indian words are transliterated in the Chinese\ntext.]\n\n[Footnote 862: More accurately reading the s\u00fbtras on their behalf, but\nthis exercise is practically equivalent to intercessory prayer.]\n\n[Footnote 863: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 864: The full title is [Chinese: ] Pai Chang is apparently\nto be taken as the name of the author, but it is the designation of a\nmonastery used as a personal name. See Hackmann in _T'oung Pao_, 1908,\npp. 651-662. It is No. 1642 in Nanjio's Catalogue. He says that it has\nbeen revised and altered.]\n\n[Footnote 865: See _T'oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 437 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 866: It is probable that the older Chinese monasteries\nattempted to reproduce the arrangement of N\u00e2landa and other Indian\nestablishments. Unfortunately Hs\u00fcan Chuang and the other pilgrims give\nus few details as to the appearance of Indian monasteries: they tell\nus, however, that they were surrounded by a wall, that the monks'\nquarters were near this wall, that there were halls where choral\nservices were performed and that there were triads of images. But the\nIndian buildings had three stories. See Chavannes, _M\u00e9moire sur les\nReligieux Eminents_, 1894, p. 85.]\n\n[Footnote 867: [Chinese: ] or [Chinese: ] For this personage see the\narticle in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1916. No. 3, by P\u00e9ri who identifies him with\nWei, the general of the Heavenly Kings who appeared to Tao Hs\u00fcan the\nfounder of the Vinaya school and became popular as a protecting deity\nof Buddhism. The name is possibly a mistaken transcription of\nSkandha.]\n\n[Footnote 868: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 869: [Chinese: ] See L\u00e9vi and Chavannes' two articles in\n_J.A._ 1916, I and II, and Watters in _J.R.A.S._ 1898, p. 329, for an\naccount of these personages. The original number, still found in a few\nChinese temples as well as in Korea, Japan and Tibet was sixteen.\nSeveral late s\u00fbtras contain the idea that the Buddha entrusted the\nprotection of his religion to four or sixteen disciples and bade them\nnot enter Nirvana but tarry until the advent of Maitreya. The\nTa-A-lo-han-nan-t'i-mi-to-lo-so-shuo-fa-chu-chi (Nanjio, 1466) is an\naccount of these sixteen disciples and of their spheres of influence.\nThe Buddha assigned to each a region within which it is his duty to\nguard the faith. They will not pass from this life before the next\nBuddha comes. Pi\u1e47\u1e0dola is the chief of them. Nothing is known of\nthe work cited except that it was translated in 654 by Hs\u00fcan Chuang,\nwho, according to Watters, used an earlier translation. As the Arhats\nare Indian personalities, and their spheres are mapped out from the\npoint of view of Indian geography, there can be no doubt that we have\nto do with an Indian idea, imported into Tibet as well as into China\nwhere it became far more popular than it had ever been in India. The\ntwo additional Arhats (who vary in different temples, whereas the\nsixteen are fixed) appear to have been added during the T'ang dynasty\nand, according to Watters, in imitation of a very select order of\nmerit instituted by the Emperor T'ai Tsung and comprising eighteen\npersons. Chavannes and L\u00e9vi see in them spirits borrowed from the\npopular pantheon.\n\nChinese ideas about the Lohans at the present day are very vague.\nTheir Indian origin has been forgotten and some of them have been\nprovided with Chinese biographies. (See Dor\u00e9, p. 216.) One popular\nstory says that they were eighteen converted brigands.\n\nIn several large temples there are halls containing 500 images of\nArhats, which include many Chinese Emperors and one of them is often\npointed out as being Marco Polo. But this is very doubtful. See,\nhowever, Hackmann, _Buddhismus_, p. 212.]\n\n[Footnote 870: Generally they consist of \u015a\u00e2kya-muni and two\nsuperhuman Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, such as O-mi-to (Amit\u00e2bha) and\nYo-shih-fo (Vaid\u00fbrya): Pi-lu-fo (Vairocana) and Lo-shih-fo (Lochana):\nW\u00ean-shu (Manju\u015b-ri) and P'u-hsien (\u015aamantabhadra). The common\nEuropean explanation that they are the Buddhas of the past, present\nand future is not correct.]\n\n[Footnote 871: [Chinese: ] and [Chinese: ]. For the importance of\nTi-tsang in popular Buddhism, which has perhaps been underestimated,\nsee Johnston, chap. VII.]\n\n[Footnote 872: I speak of the Old Imperial Government which came to an\nend in 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 873: [Chinese: ]]\n\n[Footnote 874: De Groot, _l.c._ p.51.]\n\n[Footnote 875: See Kern's translation, especially pp. 379 and 385.]\n\n[Footnote 876: See Nanjio, Nos. 138 and 139. The practice is not\nentirely unknown in the legends of Pali Buddhism. In the Lokapa\u00f1\u00f1atti,\na work existing in Burma but perhaps translated from the Sanskrit,\nAsoka burns himself in honour of the Buddha, but is miraculously\npreserved. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, pp. 421 and 427.]\n\n[Footnote 877: See I-Tsing, _Records of the Buddhist Religion_, trans.\nTakakusu, pp. 195 ff., and for Tibet, Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, p.\n178, note 3, from which it appears that it is only in Eastern Tibet\nand probably under Chinese influence that branding is in vogue. For\napparent instances in Central Asian art, see Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Budd.\nKultst._ p. 23, note 1.]\n\n[Footnote 878: Branding is common in many Hindu sects, especially the\nM\u00e2dhvas, but is reprobated by others.]\n\n[Footnote 879: It is condemned as part of the superstition of Buddhism\nin a memorial of Han Y\u00fc, 819 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 880: See those cited by De Groot, _l.c_. p. 228, and the\narticle of MacGowan (_Chinese Recorder_, 1888) there referred to. See\nalso Hackmann, _Buddhism as a Religion_, p. 228. Chinese sentiment\noften approves suicide, for instance, if committed by widows or the\nadherents of defeated princes. For a Confucian instance, see Johnston,\np. 341.]\n\n[Footnote 881: See _e.g._ Du Bose, _The Dragon, Image and Demon_, p.\n265. I have never seen such practices myself. See also _Paraphrase of\nthe Sacred Edict_, VII. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 882: [Chinese: ] This word, which has no derivation in\nChinese, is thought to be a corruption of some vernacular form of the\nSanskrit Up\u00e2dhy\u00e2ya current in Central Asia. See I-tsing, transl.\nTakakusu, p. 118. Up\u00e2dhy\u00e2ya became Vajjha (as is shown by the modern\nIndian forms Ojha or Jha and Tamil V\u00e2ddyar). See Bloch in\n_Indo-Germanischen Forschungen_, vol. XXV. 1909, p. 239. Vajjha might\nbecome in Chinese Ho-sho or Ho-shang for Ho sometimes represents the\nIndian syllable _va_. See Julien, _M\u00e9thode_, p. 109, and Eitel,\n_Handbook of Chinese Buddhism_, p. 195.]\n\n[Footnote 883: For details see Hackmann in _T'oung Pao_, 1908.]\n\n[Footnote 884: They apparently correspond to the monastic lay servants\nor \"pure men\" described by I-Ching, chap. XXXII, as living as\nN\u00e2landa.]\n\n[Footnote 885: _A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese_, pp.\n339 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 886: The abbot and several upper priests wear robes, which\nare generally red and gold, during the service. The abbot also carries\na sort of sceptre. The vestments of the clergy are said to be derived\nfrom the robes of honour which used to be given to them when they\nappeared at Court.]\n\n[Footnote 887: II. 16. Cf. the rituals in De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin's\n_Bouddhisme et Mat\u00e9riaux_, pp. 214 ff. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha frequently mentions\nburnt offerings as part of worship in medieval Magadha.]\n\n[Footnote 888: I do not refer to the practice of turning disused\ntemples into schools which is frequent. In some monasteries the monks,\nwhile retaining possession, have themselves opened schools.]\n\n[Footnote 889: It is not clear to me what is really meant by the\n_birthdays_ of beings like Maitreya and Amit\u00e2bha.]\n\n[Footnote 890: _Actes du Sixi\u00e8me Congres des Orientalistes_, Leide,\n1883, sec. IV. pp. 1-120.]\n\n[Footnote 891: _E.g._ in Dipavamsa, XIII; Mah\u00e2v. XIV. Mahinda is\nrepresented as converting Ceylon by accounts of the terrors of the\nnext world.]\n\n[Footnote 892: The merit of good deeds can be similarly utilized. The\nsurviving relatives feed the poor or buy and maintain for the rest of\nits life an animal destined to slaughter. The merit then goes to the\ndeceased.]\n\n[Footnote 893: It may possibly be traceable to Manich\u00e6ism which taught\nthat souls are transferred from one sphere to another by a sort of\ncosmic water wheel. See Cumont's article, \"La roue \u00e0 puiser les \u00e2mes\ndu Manich\u00e9isme\" in _Rev. de l'Hist, des Religions_, 1915, p. 384.\nChavannes and Pelliot have shown that traces of Manich\u00e6ism lingered\nlong in Fu-Kien. The metaphor of the endless chain of buckets is also\nfound in the Y\u00fcan J\u00ean Lun.]\n\n[Footnote 894: See Francke, \"Ein Buddhistischer Reformversuch in\nChina,\" _T'oung Pao_, 1909, pp. 567-602.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVII\n\nKOREA[895]\n\n\nThe Buddhism of Korea cannot be sharply distinguished from the\nBuddhism of China and Japan. Its secluded mountain monasteries have\nsome local colour, and contain halls dedicated to the seven stars and\nthe mountain gods of the land. And travellers are impressed by the\ncolumns of rock projecting from the soil and carved into images\n(miriok), by the painted walls of the temples and by the huge\nrolled-up pictures which are painted and displayed on festival days.\nBut there is little real originality in art: in literature and\ndoctrine none at all. Buddhism started in Korea with the same\nadvantages as in China and Japan but it lost in moral influence\nbecause the monks continually engaged in politics and it did not win\ntemporal power because they were continually on the wrong side. Yet\nKorea is not without importance in the annals of far-eastern Buddhism\nfor, during the wanderings and vicissitudes of the faith, it served as\na rest-house and depot. It was from Korea that Buddhism first entered\nJapan: when, during the wars of the five dynasties the T'ien-t'ai\nschool was nearly annihilated in China, it was revived by a Korean\npriest and the earliest extant edition of the Chinese Tripitaka is\nknown only by a single copy preserved in Korea and taken thence to\nJapan.\n\nFor our purposes Korean history may be divided into four periods:\n\n      I. The three States (B.C. 57-A.D. 668).\n     II. The Kingdom of Silla (668-918).\n    III. The Kingdom of Korye (918-1392).\n     IV. The Kingdom of Chosen (1392-1910).\n\nThe three states were Koguryu in the north, Pakche in the south-west\nand Silla in the south-east[896]. Buddhism, together with Chinese\nwriting, entered Koguryu from the north in 372 and Pakche from the\nsouth a few years later. Silla being more distant and at war with the\nother states did not receive it till about 424. In 552 both Japan and\nPakche were at war with Silla and the king of Pakche, wishing to make\nan alliance with the Emperor of Japan sent him presents which included\nBuddhist books and images. Thus Korea was the intermediary for\nintroducing Buddhism, writing, and Chinese culture into Japan, and\nKorean monks played an important part there both in art and religion.\nBut the influence of Korea must not be exaggerated. The Japanese\nsubmitted to it believing that they were acquiring the culture of\nChina and as soon as circumstances permitted they went straight to the\nfountain head. The principal early sects were all imported direct from\nChina.\n\nThe kingdom of Silla, which became predominant in the seventh century,\nhad adopted Buddhism in 528, and maintained friendly intercourse with\nthe T'ang dynasty. As in Japan Chinese civilization was imitated\nwholesale. This tendency strengthened Buddhism at the time, but its\nformidable rival Confucianism was also introduced early in the eighth\ncentury, although it did not become predominant until the\nthirteenth[897].\n\nIn the seventh century the capital of Silla was a centre of Buddhist\nculture and also of trade. Merchants from India, Tibet and Persia are\nsaid to have frequented its markets and several Korean pilgrims\nvisited India.\n\nIn 918 the Wang dynasty, originating in a northern family of humble\nextraction, overthrew the kingdom of Silla and with it the old Korean\naristocracy. This was replaced by an official nobility modelled on\nthat of China: the Chinese system of examinations was adopted and a\nclass of scholars grew up. But with this attempt to reconstruct\nsociety many abuses appeared. The number of slaves greatly\nincreased[898], and there were many hereditary low castes, the\nmembers of which were little better than slaves. Only the higher\ncastes could compete in examinations or hold office and there were\ncontinual struggles and quarrels between the military and civil\nclasses. Buddhism flourished much as it flourished in the Hei-an\nperiod of Japan, but its comparative sterility reflected the inferior\nsocial conditions of Korea. Festivals were celebrated by the Court\nwith great splendour: magnificent monasteries were founded: the bonzes\nkept troops and entered the capital armed: the tutor of the heir\napparent and the chancellor of the kingdom were often ecclesiastics,\nand a law is said to have been enacted to the effect that if a man had\nthree sons one of them must become a monk. But about 1250 the\ninfluence of the Sung Confucianists began to be felt. The bonzes were\nheld responsible for the evils of the time, for the continual feuds,\nexactions and massacres, and the civil nobility tended to become\nConfucianist and to side against the church and the military. The\ninevitable outburst was delayed but also rendered more disastrous when\nit came by the action of the Mongols who, as in China, were patrons of\nBuddhism. The Y\u00fcan dynasty invaded Korea, placed regents in the\nprincipal towns and forced the Korean princes to marry Mongol wives.\nIt was from Korea that Khubilai despatched his expeditions against\nJapan, and in revenge the Japanese harried the Korean coast throughout\nthe fourteenth century. But so long as the Y\u00fcan dynasty lasted the\nKorean Court which had become Mongol remained faithful to it and to\nBuddhism; when it was ousted by the Ming, a similar movement soon\nfollowed in Korea. The Mongolized dynasty of Korye was deposed and\nanother, which professed to trace its lineage back to Silla, mounted\nthe throne and gave the country the name of Chosen.\n\nThis revolution was mainly the work of the Confucianist party in the\nnobility and it was not unnatural that patriots and reformers should\nsee in Buddhism nothing but the religion of the corrupt old regime of\nthe Mongols. During the next century and a half a series of\nrestrictive measures, sometimes amounting to persecution, were applied\nto it. Two kings who dared to build monasteries and favour bonzes were\ndeposed. Statues were melted down, Buddhist learning was forbidden:\nmarriages and burials were performed according to the rules of\nChu-hsi. About the beginning of the sixteenth century (the date is\nvariously given as 1472 and 1512 and perhaps there was more than\none edict) the monasteries in the capital and all cities were closed\nand this is why Korean monasteries are all in the country and often in\nalmost inaccessible mountains. It is only since the Japanese\noccupation that temples have been built in towns.\n\nAt first the results of the revolution were beneficial. The great\nfamilies were compelled to discharge their body-guards whose\ncollisions had been a frequent cause of bloodshed. The public finances\nand military forces were put into order. Printing with moveable type\nand a phonetic alphabet were brought into use and vernacular\nliterature began to flourish. But in time the Confucian literati\nformed a sort of corporation and became as troublesome as the bonzes\nhad been. The aristocracy split into two hostile camps and Korean\npolitics became again a confused struggle between families and\ndistricts in which progress and even public order became impossible.\nFor a moment, however, there was a national cause. This was when\nHideyoshi invaded Korea in 1592 as part of his attack on China. The\npeople rose against the Japanese troops and, thanks to the death of\nHideyoshi rather than to their own valour, got rid of them. It is said\nthat in this struggle the bonzes took part as soldiers fighting under\ntheir abbots and that the treaty of peace was negotiated by a Korean\nand a Japanese monk[899].\n\nNevertheless it does not appear that Buddhism enjoyed much\nconsideration in the next three centuries. The Hermit Kingdom, as it\nhas been called, became completely isolated and stagnant nor was there\nany literary or intellectual life except the mechanical study of the\nChinese classics. Since the annexation by Japan (1910) conditions have\nchanged and Buddhism is encouraged. Much good work has been done in\ncollecting and reprinting old books, preserving monuments and copying\ninscriptions. The monasteries were formerly under the control of\nthirty head establishments or sees, with somewhat conflicting\ninterests. But about 1912 these thirty sees formed a union under a\npresident who resides in Seoul and holds office for a year. A\ntheological seminary also has been founded and a Buddhist magazine is\npublished.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 895: See various articles in the _Trans. of the Korean\nBranch of the R.A.S._, and F. Starr, _Korean Buddhism_. Also M.\nCourant, _Bibliographie cor\u00e9enne_, especially vol. III. chap. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 896: The orthography of these three names varies\nconsiderably. The Japanese equivalents are Koma, Kudara and Shiragi.\nThere are also slight variations in the dates given for the\nintroduction of Buddhism into various states. It seems probable that\nM\u00e2r\u00e2nanda and Mukocha, the first missionaries to Pakche and Silla were\nHindus or natives of Central Asia who came from China and some of the\nearly art of Silla is distinctly Indian in style. See Starr, _l.c._\nplates VIII and IX.]\n\n[Footnote 897: These dates are interesting, as reflecting the changes\nof thought in China. In the sixth century Chinese influence meant\nBuddhism. It is not until the latter part of the Southern Sung, when\nthe philosophy of Chu-hsi had received official approval, that\nChinese influence meant Confucianism.]\n\n[Footnote 898: The reasons were many, but the upper classes were\nevidently ready to oppress the lower. Poor men became the slaves of\nthe rich to obtain a livelihood. All children of slave women were\ndeclared hereditary slaves and so were the families of criminals.]\n\n[Footnote 899: These statements are taken from Maurice Courant's\nEpitome of Korean History in Madrolle's _Guide to North China_, p.\n428. I have not been successful in verifying them in Chinese or\nJapanese texts. See, however, Starr, _Korean Buddhism_, pp. 29-30.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVIII\n\nANNAM\n\n\nThe modern territory called Annam includes the ancient Champa, and it\nfalls within the French political sphere which includes Camboja. Of\nChampa I have treated elsewhere in connection with Camboja, but Annam\ncannot be regarded as the heir of this ancient culture. It represents\na southward extension of Chinese influence, though it is possible that\nBuddhism may have entered it in the early centuries of our era either\nby sea or from Burma.\n\nAt the present day that part of the French possessions which occupies\nthe eastern coast of Asia is divided into Tonkin, Annam and Cochin\nChina. The Annamites are predominant in all three provinces and the\nlanguage and religion of all are the same, except that Cochin China\nhas felt the influence of Europe more strongly than the others. But\nbefore the sixteenth century the name Annam meant rather Tonkin and\nthe northern portion of modern Annam, the southern portion being the\nnow vanished kingdom of Champa.\n\nUntil the tenth century A.D.[900] Annam in this sense was a part of\nthe Chinese Empire, although it was occasionally successful in\nasserting its temporary independence. In the troubled period which\nfollowed the downfall of the T'ang dynasty this independence became\nmore permanent. An Annamite prince founded a kingdom called\nDai-c\u00f4-vi\u00eat[901] and after a turbulent interval there arose the Li\ndynasty which reigned for more than two centuries (1009-1226 A.D.). It\nwas under this dynasty that the country was first styled An-nam:\npreviously the official designation of the land or its inhabitants was\nGiao-Chi[902]. The Annamites were at this period a considerable\nmilitary power, though their internal administration appears to have\nbeen chaotic. They were occasionally at war with China, but as a rule\nwere ready to send complimentary embassies to the Emperor. With\nChampa, which was still a formidable antagonist, there was a continual\nstruggle. Under the Tran dynasty (1225-1400) the foreign policy of\nAnnam followed much the same lines. A serious crisis was created by\nthe expedition of Khubilai Khan in 1285, but though the Annamites\nsuffered severely at the beginning of the invasion, they did not lose\ntheir independence and their recognition of Chinese suzerainty\nremained nominal. In the south the Chams continued hostilities and,\nafter the loss of some territory, invoked the aid of China with the\nresult that the Chinese occupied Annam. They held it, however, only\nfor five years (1414-1418).\n\nIn 1428 the Li dynasty came to the throne and ruled Annam at least in\nname until the end of the eighteenth century. At first they proved\nvigorous and capable; they organized the kingdom in provinces and\ncrushed the power of Champa. But after the fifteenth century the kings\nbecame merely titular sovereigns and Annamite history is occupied\nentirely with the rivalry of the two great families, Trinh and Nguyen,\nwho founded practically independent kingdoms in Tonkin and\nCochin-China respectively. In 1802 a member of the Nguyen family made\nhimself Emperor of all Annam but both he and his successors were\ncareful to profess themselves vassals of China.\n\nThus it will be seen that Annam was at no time really detached from\nChina. In spite of political independence it always looked towards the\nChinese Court and though complimentary missions and nominal vassalage\nseem unimportant, yet they are significant as indicating admiration\nfor Chinese institutions. Between Champa and Annam on the other hand\nthere was perpetual war: in the later phases of the contest the\nAnnamites appear as invaders and destroyers. They seem to have\ndisliked the Chams and were not disposed to imitate them. Hence it is\nnatural that Champa, so long as it existed as an independent kingdom,\nshould mark the limit of _direct_ Indian influence on the mainland of\nEastern Asia, though afterwards Camboja became the limit. By direct, I\ndo not mean to exclude the possibility of transmission through Java or\nelsewhere, but by whatever route Indian civilization came to\nChampa, it brought its own art, alphabet and language, such\ninstitutions as caste and forms of Hinduism and Buddhism which had\nborrowed practically nothing from non-Indian sources. In Annam, on the\nother hand, Chinese writing and, for literary purposes, a form of the\nChinese language were in use: the arts, customs and institutions were\nmainly Chinese: whatever Buddhism can be found was imported from China\nand is imperfectly distinguished from Taoism: of Hinduism there are\nhardly any traces[903].\n\nThe Buddhism of Annam is often described as corrupt and decadent.\nCertainly it would be vain to claim for it that its doctrine and\nworship are even moderately pure or primitive, but it cannot be said\nto be moribund. The temples are better kept and more numerously\nattended than in China and there are also some considerable\nmonasteries. As in China very few except the monks are exclusive\nBuddhists and even the monks have no notion that the doctrines of\nLao-tz\u016d and Confucius are different from Buddhism. The religion of\nthe ordinary layman is a selection made according to taste from a mass\nof beliefs and observances traceable to several distinct sources,\nthough no Annamite is conscious that there is anything incongruous in\nthis heterogeneous combination. This fusion of religions, which is\nmore complete even than in China, is illustrated by the temples of\nAnnam which are of various kinds[904]. First we have the Chua or\nBuddhist temples, always served by bonzes or nuns. They consist of\nseveral buildings of which the principal contains an altar bearing a\nseries of images arranged on five or six steps, which rise like the\ntiers of a theatre. In the front row there is usually an image of the\ninfant \u015a\u00e2kyamuni and near him stand figures of At-nan (\u0102nanda)\nand Muc-Lien (Maudgaly\u00e2yana). On the next stage are Taoist deities\n(the Jade Emperor, the Polar Star, and the Southern Star) and on the\nhigher stages are images representing (_a_) three Buddhas[905] with\nattendants, (_b_) the Buddhist Triratna and (_c_) the three\nreligions, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. But the arrangement of\nthe images is subject to much variation and the laity hardly know who\nare the personages represented. At side altars there are generally\nstatues of Quan-Am, guardian deities, eminent bonzes and other\nworthies. Representations of hell are also common. Part of the temple\nis generally set apart for women who frequent it in the hope of\nobtaining children by praying to Quan-Am and other goddesses. Buddhist\nliterature is sometimes printed in these Chua and such works as the\nAmit\u00e2yurdhy\u00e2nas\u00fbtra and collections of Dh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ees are commonly placed\non the altars.\n\nQuan-Am (Kuan-Yin) is a popular deity and the name seems to be given\nto several goddesses. They would probably be described as incarnations\nof Avalokita, if any Annamite were to define his beliefs (which is not\nusual), but they are really legendary heroines who have left a\nreputation for superhuman virtue. One was a daughter of the Emperor\nChuang of the Chou dynasty. Another (Quan-Am-Thi-Kinh), represented as\nsitting on a rock and carrying a child in her arms, was a much\npersecuted lady who passed part of her life disguised as a bonze. A\nthird form, Quan-Am-Toa-Son, she who dwells on the mountains, has an\naltar in nearly every temple and is specially worshipped by women who\nwish for sons. At Hanoi there is a small temple, rising on one column\nout of the water near the shore of a lake, like a lotus in a tank,\nand containing a brass image of Quan-Am with eight arms, which is\nevidently of Indian origin. Sometimes popular heroines such as Cao\nTien, a princess who was drowned, are worshipped without (it would\nseem) being identified with Quan-Am.\n\nBut besides the Chua there are at least three other kinds of religious\nedifices: (i) Dinh. These are municipal temples dedicated to beings\ncommonly called genii by Europeans, that is to say, superhuman\npersonages, often, but not always, departed local worthies, who for\none reason or another are supposed to protect and supervise a\nparticular town or village. The Dinh contains a council room as well\nas a shrine and is served by laymen. The genius is often represented\nby an empty chair and his name must not be pronounced within the\ntemple. (ii) Taoist deities are sometimes worshipped in special\ntemples, but the Annamites do not seem to think that such worship is\nantagonistic to Buddhism or even distinct from it. (iii) Temples\ndedicated to Confucius (Van mien) are to be found in the towns, but\nare generally open only on certain feast days, when they are visited\nby officials. Sometimes altars dedicated to the sage may be found in\nnatural grottoes or other picturesque situations. Besides these\nnumerous elements, Annamite religion also includes the veneration of\nancestors and ceremonies such as the worship of Heaven and Earth\nperformed in imitation of the Court of Peking. To this must be added\nmany local superstitions in which the worship of animals, especially\nthe tiger, is prominent. But a further analysis of this composite\nreligion does not fall within my province.\n\nThere is little to be said about the history of Buddhism in Annam, but\nnative tradition places its introduction as late as the tenth\ncentury[906]. Buddhist temples usually contain a statue of Phat\nTo[907] who is reported to have been the first adherent of the faith\nand to have built the first pagoda. He was the tutor of the Emperor\nLi-Thai-To who came to the throne in 1009. Phat-To may therefore have\nbeen active in the middle of the tenth century and this agrees with\nthe statement that the Emperor Dinh Tien-Hoang D\u00ea (968-979) was a\nfervent Buddhist who built temples and did his best to make\nconverts[908]. One Emperor, Li Hu\u00e9-Ton, abdicated and retired to a\nmonastery.\n\nThe Annals of Annam[909] record a discussion which took place before\nthe Emperor Thai-T\u00f4n (1433-1442) between a Buddhist and a sorcerer.\nBoth held singularly mixed beliefs but recognized the Buddha as a\ndeity. The king said that he could not decide between the two sects,\nbut gave precedence to the Buddhists.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 900: The dates given are 111 B.C.-939 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 901: French scholars use a great number of accents and even\nnew forms of letters to transcribe Annamite, but since this language\nhas nothing to do with the history of Buddhism or Hinduism and the\naccurate orthography is very difficult to read, I have contented\nmyself with a rough transcription.]\n\n[Footnote 902: This is the common orthography, but Chiao Chih would be\nthe spelling according to the system of transliterating Chinese\nadopted in this book.]\n\n[Footnote 903: It is said that the story of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana is found in\nAnnamite legends (_B.E.F.E.O._ 1905, p. 77), and in one or two places\nthe Annamites reverence statues of Indian deities.]\n\n[Footnote 904: The most trustworthy account of Annamite religion is\nperhaps Dumoutier, _Les Cultes Annamites_, Hanoi, 1907. It was\npublished after the author's death and consists of a series of notes\nrather than a general description. See also Diguet, _Les Annamites_,\n1906, especially chap. VI.]\n\n[Footnote 905: Maitreya is called Ri-lac = Chinese Mi-le. The\nequivalence of the syllables _ri_ and _mi_ seems strange, but certain.\nCf. A-ri-da = Amida or O-mi-to.]\n\n[Footnote 906: Pelliot (Meou-Tseu, traduit et annot\u00e9, in _T'oung Pao_,\nvol. XIX. p. 1920) gives reasons for thinking that Buddhism was\nprevalent in Tonkin in the early centuries of our era, but, if so, it\nappears to have decayed and been reintroduced. Also at this time\nChiao-Chih may have meant Kuang-tung.]\n\n[Footnote 907: Diguet, _Les Annamites_, p. 303.]\n\n[Footnote 908: Maybon et Russier, _L'Histoire d'Annam_, p. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 909: Dumoutier, _Les Cultes Annamites_, p. 58.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIX\n\nTIBET\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\nThe religion of Tibet and Mongolia, often called Lamaism, is probably\nthe most singular form of Buddhism in existence and has long attracted\nattention in Europe on account of its connection with politics and its\ncurious resemblance to the Roman Church in ritual as well as in\nstatecraft. The pontiffs and curia of Lhasa emulated the authority of\nthe medieval papacy, so that the Mings and Manchus in China as well as\nthe British in India had to recognize them as a considerable power.\n\nTibet had early relations with Kashmir, Central Asia and China which\nmay all have contributed something to its peculiar civilization, but\nits religion is in the main tantric Buddhism imported from Bengal and\ninvigorated from time to time by both native and Indian reformers. But\nthough almost every feature of Lamaism finds a parallel somewhere in\nIndia, yet too great insistence on its source and historical\ndevelopment hardly does justice to the originality of the Tibetans.\nThey borrowed a foreign faith wholesale, but still the relative\nemphasis which they laid on its different aspects was something new.\nThey had only a moderate aptitude for asceticism, meditation and\nmetaphysics, although they manfully translated huge tomes of Sanskrit\nphilosophy, but they had a genius for hierarchy, discipline and\necclesiastical polity unknown to the Hindus. Thus taking the common\nAsiatic idea that great and holy men are somehow divine, they made it\nthe principle of civil and sacerdotal government by declaring the\nprelates of the church to be deities incarnate. Yet in strange\ncontrast to these practical talents, a certain innate devilry made\nthem exaggerate all the magical, terrifying and demoniac elements to\nbe found in Indian Tantrism.\n\nThe extraordinary figures of raging fiends which fill Tibetan shrines\nsuggest at first that the artists simply borrowed and made more\nhorrible the least civilized fancies of Indian sculpture, yet the\nmajesty of Tibetan architecture (for, judging by the photographs of\nLhasa and Tashilhumpo, it deserves no less a name) gives another\nimpression. The simplicity of its lines and the solid, spacious walls\nunadorned by carving recall Egypt rather than India and harmonize not\nwith the many-limbed demons but with the calm and dignified features\nof the deified priests who are also portrayed in these halls.\n\nAn atmosphere of mystery and sorcery has long hung about the\nmountainous regions which lie to the north of India. Hindus and\nChinese alike saw in them the home of spirits and wizards, and the\ngrand but uncanny scenery of these high plateaux has influenced the\nart and ideas of the natives. The climate made it natural that priests\nshould congregate in roomy strongholds, able to defy the cold and\ncontain the stores necessary for a long winter, and the massive walls\nseem to imitate the outline of the rocks out of which they grow. But\nthe strange shapes assumed by mists and clouds, often dyed many\ncolours by the rising or setting sun, suggest to the least imaginative\nmind an aerial world peopled by monstrous and magical figures. At\nother times, when there is no fog, distant objects seem in the still,\nclear atmosphere to be very near, until the discovery that they are\nreally far away produces a strange feeling that they are unreal and\nunattainable.\n\nIn discussing this interesting faith, I shall first treat of its\nhistory and then of the sacred books on which it professes to be\nbased. In the light of this information it will be easier to\nunderstand the doctrines of Lamaism and I shall finally say something\nabout its different sects, particularly as there is reason to think\nthat the strength of the Established Church, of which the Grand Lama\nis head, has been exaggerated.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER L\n\nTIBET (_continued_)\n\nHISTORY\n\n\nIt is generally stated that Buddhism was first preached in Tibet at\nthe instance of King Srong-tsan-gam-po[910] who came to the throne in\n629 A.D. Some legendary notices of its earlier appearance[911] will\nbear the natural interpretation that the Tibetans (like the Chinese)\nhad heard something about it from either India or Khotan before they\ninvited instructors to visit them[912].\n\nAt this time Tibet played some part in the politics of China and\nnorthern India. The Emperor Harsha and the T'ang Emperor T'ai Tsung\nexchanged embassies but a second embassy sent from China arrived after\nHarsha's death and a usurper who had seized the throne refused to\nreceive it. The Chinese with the assistance of the kings of Tibet and\nNepal dethroned him and carried him off captive. There is therefore\nnothing improbable in the story that Srong-tsan-gam-po had two wives,\nwho were princesses of Nepal and China respectively. He was an active\nruler, warlike but progressive, and was persuaded by these two ladies\nthat Buddhism was a necessary part of civilization. According to\ntradition he sent to India a messenger called Thonmi Sanbhota, who\nstudied there for several years, adapted a form of Indian writing to\nthe use of his native language and translated the Kara\u1e47\u1e0da Vy\u00fbha.\nRecent investigators however have advanced the theory that the Tibetan\nletters are derived from the alphabet of Indian origin used in Khotan\nand that Sanbhota made its acquaintance in Kashmir[913]. Though the\nking and his two wives are now regarded as the first patrons of\nLamaism and worshipped as incarnations of Avalokita and T\u00e2r\u00e2, it does\nnot appear that his direct religious activity was great or that he\nbuilt monasteries. But his reign established the foundations of\ncivilization without which Buddhism could hardly have flourished, he\nto some extent unified Central Tibet, he chose the site of Lhasa as\nthe capital and introduced the rudiments of literature and art. But\nafter his death in 650 we hear little more of Buddhism for some\ndecades.\n\nAbout 705 King Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan is said to have built monasteries,\ncaused translations to be made, and summoned monks from Khotan. His\nefforts bore little fruit, for no Tibetans were willing to take the\nvows, but the edict of 783 preserved in Lhasa mentions his zeal for\nreligion, and he prepared the way for Khri-sro\u1e47-lde-btsan in whose\nreign Padma-Sambhava, the real founder of Lamaism, arrived in\nTibet[914].\n\nThis event is said to have occurred in 747 and the epoch is\nnoticeable for two reasons. Firstly Tibet, which had become an\nimportant military power, was now brought into contact both in peace\nand war with China and Central Asia. It was predominant in the Tarim\nBasin and ruled over parts of Ss\u016d-chuan and Yunnan. China was\nobliged to pay tribute and when it was subsequently refused the\nTibetans sacked the capital, Chang-an. In 783 China made a treaty of\npeace with Tibet. The king was the son of a Chinese princess and thus\nblood as well as wide experience disposed him to open Tibet to foreign\nideas. But in 747 relations with China were bad, so he turned towards\nIndia and invited to his Court a celebrated Pandit named\n\u015a\u00e2ntarakshita, who advised him to send for Padma-Sambhava.\n\nSecondly this was the epoch when Amogha flourished in China and\nintroduced the Mantray\u00e2na system or Ch\u00ean Yen. This was the same form\nof corrupt Buddhism which was brought to Tibet and was obviously the\ndominant sect in India in the eighth century. It was pliant and\namalgamated easily with local observances, in China with funeral\nrites, in Tibet with demonolatry.\n\nAt this time Padma-Sambhava was one of the most celebrated exponents\nof Tantric Buddhism, and in Tibet is often called simply the Teacher\n(Guru or Mah\u00e2c\u00e2rya). His portraits represent him as a man of strongly\nmarked and rather angry features, totally unlike a conventional monk.\nA popular account of his life[915] is still widely read and may\ncontain some grains of history, though the narrative as a whole is\nfantastic. It describes him as born miraculously in Udy\u00e2na but as\nhaving studied at Bodhgaya and travelled in many regions with the\nintention of converting all the world. According to his plan, the\nconversion of his native land was to be his last labour, and when he\nhad finished his work in Tibet he vanished thither miraculously. Thus\nUdy\u00e2na is not represented as the source and home of Tantric Buddhism\nbut as being like Tibet a land of magic and mystery but, like\nTibet, needing conversion: both are disposed to welcome Tantric ideas\nbut those ideas are elaborated by Padma-Sambhava not in Udy\u00e2na but in\nBengal which from other sources we know to have been a centre of\nTantrism.\n\nSome other points of interest in these legends may be noticed.\nPadma-Sambhava is not celibate but is accompanied by female\ncompanions. He visits many countries which worship various deities and\nfor each he has a new teaching suited to its needs. Thus in Tibet,\nwhere the older religion consisted of defensive warfare against the\nattacks of evil spirits[916], he assumes the congenial character of a\nvictorious exorcist, and in his triumphant progress subdues local\ndemons as methodically as if he were suppressing the guerilla warfare\nof native tribes. He has new revelations called Terma which he hides\nin caves to be discovered by his successors. These revelations are\nsaid to have been in an unknown language[917]. Those at present\nexisting are in Tibetan but differ from the canonical scriptures in\ncertain orthographical peculiarities. The legend thus admits that\nPadma-Sambhava preached a non-celibate and magical form of Buddhism,\nready to amalgamate with local superstitions and needing new\nrevelations for its justification.\n\nHe built the monastery of Samye[918] about thirty miles from Lhasa on\nthe model of Odantapuri in Bengal. \u015a\u00e2ntarakshita became abbot and\nfrom this period dates the foundation of the order of Lamas[919]. Mara\n(Thse Ma-ra) was worshipped as well as the Buddhas, but however\ncorrupt the cultus may have been, Samye was a literary centre where\nmany translations were made. Among the best known translators was a\nmonk from Kashmir named Vairocana[920]. It would appear however that\nthere was considerable opposition to the new school not only from\nthe priests of the old native religion but from Chinese\nBuddhists[921].\n\nNumerous Tibetan documents discovered in the Tarim basin[922] date\nfrom this period. The absence in them of Buddhist personal names and\nthe rarity of direct references to Buddhism indicate that though known\nin Tibet it was not yet predominant. Buddhist priests (ban-de) are\noccasionally mentioned but the title Lama has not been found. The\nusages of the Bonpo religion seem familiar to the writers and there\nare allusions to religious struggles.\n\nWhen Padma-Sambhava vanished from Tibet, the legend says that he left\nbehind him twenty-five disciples, all of them magicians, who\npropagated his teaching. At any rate it flourished in the reign of\nRalpachan (the grandson of Khri-sro\u1e47-lde-btsan). Monasteries\nmultiplied and received land and the right to collect tithes. To each\nmonk was assigned a small revenue derived from five tenants and the\nhierarchy was reorganized[923]. Many translators were at work in this\nperiod and a considerable part of the present canon was then rendered\ninto Tibetan. The king's devotion to Buddhism was however unpopular\nand he was murdered[924] apparently at the instigation of his brother\nand successor Lang-dar-ma[925], who endeavoured to extirpate Lamaism.\nMonasteries were destroyed, books burnt, Indian monks were driven out\nof the country and many Lamas were compelled to become hunters or\nbutchers. But the persecution only lasted three years[926], for the\nwicked king was assassinated by a Lama who has since been canonized by\nthe Church and the incident of his murder or punishment is still acted\nin the mystery plays performed at Himis and other monasteries.\n\nAfter the death of Lang-dar-ma Tibet ceased to exist as a united\nkingdom and was divided among clans and chieftains. This was\ndoubtless connected with the collapse of Tibetan power in the Tarim\nbasin, but whether as effect or cause it is hard to say. The\npersecution may have had a political motive: Lang-dar-ma may have\nthought that the rise of monastic corporations, and their right to own\nland and levy taxes were a menace to unity and military efficiency.\nBut the political confusion which followed on his death was not due to\nthe triumphant restoration of Lamaism. Its recovery was slow. The\ninterval during which Buddhism almost disappeared is estimated by\nnative authorities as from 73 to 108 years, and its subsequent revival\nis treated as a separate period called phyi-dar or later diffusion in\ncontrast to the s\u1e47a-dar or earlier diffusion. The silence of\necclesiastical history during the tenth century confirms the gravity\nof the catastrophe[927]. On the other hand the numerous translations\nmade in the ninth century were not lost and this indicates that there\nwere monasteries to preserve them, for instance Samye.\n\nAt the beginning of the eleventh century we hear of foreign monks arriving\nfrom various countries. The chronicles[928] say that the chief workers in\nthe new diffusion were La-chen, Lo-chen, the royal Lama Ye\u015bes \u1e24od and\nAt\u00ee\u015ba. The first appears to have been a Tibetan but the pupil of a teacher\nwho had studied in Nepal. Lo-chen was a Kashmiri and several other\nKashmiri Lamas are mentioned as working in Tibet. Ye\u015bes \u1e24od was a king or\nchieftain of m\u1e44\u0307\u0307\u0307\u0307\u0307\u0307\u0307\u0307\u0307a-ris in western Tibet who is said to have been\ndisgusted with the debased Tantrism which passed as Buddhism. He therefore\nsent young Lamas to study in India and also invited thence learned monks.\nThe eminent Dharmap\u00e2la, a monk of Magadha who was on a pilgrimage in\nNepal, became his tutor. Ye\u015bes \u1e24od came to an unfortunate end. He was\ntaken captive by the Raja of Garlog, an enemy of Buddhism, and died in\nprison. It is possible that this Raja was the ruler of Garhwal and a\nMohammedan. The political history of the period is far from clear, but\nevidently there were numerous Buddhist schools in Bengal, Kashmir and\nNepal and numerous learned monks ready to take up their residence in\nTibet. This readiness has been explained as due to fear of the rising tide\nof Islam, but was more probably the result of the revival of Buddhism in\nBengal during the eleventh century. The most illustrious of these pandits\nwas At\u00ee\u015ba[929] (980-1053), a native of Bengal, who was ordained at\nOdontapuri and studied in Burma[930]. Subsequently he was appointed head\nof the monastery of Vikrama\u015b\u00eela and was induced to visit Tibet in\n1038[931]. He remained there until his death fifteen years later;\nintroduced a new calendar and inaugurated the second period of Tibetan\nBuddhism which is marked by the rise of successive sects described as\nreforms. It may seem a jest to call the teaching of At\u00ee\u015ba a reform, for he\nprofessed the K\u00e2lacakra, the latest and most corrupt form of Indian\nBuddhism, but it was doubtless superior in discipline and coherency to the\nnative superstitions mixed with debased tantrism, which it replaced.\n\nAs in Japan during the eleventh and twelfth centuries many monasteries\nwere founded and grew in importance, and what might have happened in Japan\nbut for the somewhat unscrupulous prescience of Japanese statesmen\nactually did happen in Tibet. Among the numerous contending chiefs none\nwas pre-eminent: the people were pugnacious but superstitious. They were\nready to build and respect when built the substantial structures required\nto house monastic communities during the rigorous winter. Hence the\nmonasteries became the largest and safest buildings in the land,\npossessing the double strength of walls and inviolability. The most\nimportant was the Sakya monastery. Its abbots were of royal blood and not\ncelibate, and this dynasty of ecclesiastical statesmen practically ruled\nTibet at a critical period in the history of eastern Asia and indeed of\nthe world, namely, the conquests of Chinggiz[932] and the rise of the\nMongol Empire.\n\nThere is no evidence that Chinggiz was specially favourable to\nBuddhism. His principle was one King and one God[933] and like other\nprinces of his race he thought of religions not as incompatible\nsystems but as different methods of worship of no more importance than\nthe different languages used in prayer. The destruction wrought by the\nMongol conquerors has often been noticed, but they had also an ample,\nunifying temper which deserves recognition. China, Russia and Persia\nall achieved a unity after the Mongol conquest which they did not\npossess before, and though this unification may be described as a\nprotest and reaction, yet but for the Mongols and their treatment of\nlarge areas as units it would not have been possible. The Mings could\nnot have united China before the Y\u00fcan dynasty as they did after it.\n\nIn spite of some statements to the contrary there is no proof that the\nearly Mongols invaded or conquered central Tibet, but Khubilai subdued\nthe eastern provinces and through the Lamaist hierarchy established a\nspecial connection between Tibet and his dynasty. This connection\nbegan even in the time of his predecessor, for the head Lama of the\nSakya monastery commonly known as Sakya Pandita (or Sa-skya-pan-cen)\nwas summoned to the Mongol Court in 1246-8, and cured the Emperor of\nan illness[934]. This Lama was a man of great learning and influence.\nHe had received a double education both secular and religious, and was\nacquainted with foreign languages. The favourable impression which he\ncreated no doubt facilitated the brilliant achievements of his nephew\nand successor, who is commonly known as Bashpa or Pagspa[935].\n\nKhubilai Khan was not content with the vague theism of Central Asia\nand wished to give his rude Mongols a definite religion with some\naccessories of literature and manners. Confucianism was clearly too\nscholastic for a fighting race and we may surmise that he rejected\nChristianity as distant and unimportant, Mohammedanism as\ninconveniently mixed with politics. But why did he prefer Lamaism to\nChinese Buddhism? The latter can hardly have been too austerely pure\nto suit his ends, and Tibetan was as strange as Chinese to the\nMongols. But the Mongol Court had already been favourably impressed by\nTibetan Lamas and the Emperor probably had a just feeling that the\nintellectual calibre of the Mongols and Tibetans was similar and also\nthat it was politic to conciliate the uncanny spiritual potentates who\nruled in a land which it was difficult to invade. At any rate he\nsummoned the abbot of Sakya to China in 1261 and was initiated by him\ninto the mysteries of Lamaism[936].\n\nIt is said that before Pagspa's birth the God Gane\u015ba showed his\nfather all the land of Tibet and told him that it would be the kingdom\nof his son. In later life when he had difficulties at the Chinese\nCourt Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la appeared and helped him, and the mystery which he\nimparted to Khubilai is called the Hevajrava\u015b\u00eet\u00e2[937]. These\nlegends indicate that there was a large proportion of Sivaism in the\nreligion first taught to the Mongols, larger perhaps than in the\npresent Lamaism of Lhasa.\n\nThe Mongol historian Sanang Setsen relates[938] that Pagspa took a\nhigher seat than the Emperor when instructing him and on other\noccasions sat on the same level. This sounds improbable, but it is\nclear that he enjoyed great power and dignity. In China he received\nthe title of Kuo-Shih or instructor of the nation and was made the\nhead of all Buddhists, Lamaists and other. In Tibet he was recognized\nas head of the Church and tributary sovereign, though it would appear\nthat the Emperor named a lay council to assist him in the government\nand also had a commissioner in each of the three provinces. This was a\ngood political bargain and laid the foundations of Chinese influence\nin a country which he could hardly have subdued by force.\n\nPagspa was charged by the Emperor to provide the Mongols with an\nalphabet as well as a religion. For this purpose he used a square\nform of the Tibetan letters[939], written not in horizontal but in\nvertical lines. But the experiment was not successful. The characters\nwere neither easy to write nor graceful, and after Pagspa's death his\ninvention fell into disuse and was replaced by an enlarged and\nmodified form of the Uigur alphabet. This had already been employed\nfor writing Mongol by Sakya Pandita and its definitive form for that\npurpose was elaborated by the Lama Chos-kyi-\u1e25od-zer in the reign of\nKhubilai's successor. This alphabet is of Aramaic origin, and had\nalready been utilized by Buddhists for writing religious works, so its\napplication to Mongol was merely an extension of its general currency\nin Asia[940].\n\nPagspa also superintended the preparation of a new edition of the\nTripitaka, not in Mongol but in Chinese. Among the learned editors\nwere persons acquainted with Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan and Uigur. An\ninteresting but natural feature of this edition is that it notes\nwhether the various Chinese texts are found in the Tibetan Canon or\nnot.\n\nKhubilai further instituted a bureau of fine arts, the head of which\nwas a Lama called Aniko, skilled in both sculpture and painting. He\nand his Chinese pupil Liu Y\u00fcan introduced into Peking various branches\nof Tibetan art such as Buddhist images of a special type, ornamental\nironwork and gold tapestry. The Chinese at this period appear to have\nregarded Tibetan art as a direct importation from India[941]. And no\ndoubt Tibetan art was founded on that of Nepal which in its turn came\nfrom Bengal. Miniature painting is a characteristic of both. But in\nlater times the individuality of Tibet, shown alike in its monstrous\ndeities and its life-like portraits of Lamas, imposed itself on Nepal.\nIndian and Tibetan temples are not alike. In the former there is\nlittle painting but the walls and pillars are covered with a\nsuperabundance of figures carved in relief: in Tibet pictures and\npainted banners are the first thing to strike the eye, but carvings in\nrelief are rare.\n\nIt is hard to say to what extent the Mongols beyond such parts of\nnorthern China as felt the direct influence of the imperial court were\nconverted to Lamaism. At any rate their conversion was only temporary\nfor, as will be related below, a reconversion was necessary in the\nsixteenth century. It looks as if the first growth of Mongolian\nBuddhism was part of a political system and collapsed together with\nit. But so long as the Y\u00fcan dynasty reigned, Lamaist influence was\nstrong and the downfall of the Y\u00fcan was partly caused by their\nsubservience to the clergy and extravagant expenditure on religious\nbuildings and ceremonies. After the departure of Pagspa, other Lamas\nheld a high position at the Court of Peking such as Chos-kyi-hod-zer\nand gYu\u1e47-ston rDo-rje-dpal. The latter was a distinguished exponent\nof the K\u00e2lacakra system and the teacher of the historian Bu-ston who\nis said to have arranged the Tibetan Canon.\n\nAlthough the Y\u00fcan dynasty heaped favours upon priests and monasteries,\nit does not appear that religion flourished in Tibet during the\nfourteenth century for at the end of that period the grave abuses\nprevalent provoked the reforming zeal of Tsong-kha-pa. Prom 1270 to\n1340 the abbots of Sakya were rulers of both Church and State, and we\nhear that in 1320 they burned the rival monastery of Dikung. The\nlanguage of Sanang Setsen implies that each abbot was appointed or\ninvested by the Emperor[942] and their power declined with the Y\u00fcan\ndynasty. Other monasteries increased in importance and a chief known\nas Phagmodu[943] succeeded, after many years of fighting, in founding\na lay dynasty which ruled parts of Tibet until the seventeenth\ncentury.\n\nIn 1368 the Ming superseded the Y\u00fcan. They were not professed\nBuddhists to the same extent and they had no preference for Lamaism\nbut they were anxious to maintain good relations with Tibet and to\ntreat it as a friendly but vassal state. They accorded imperial\nrecognition (with an implication of suzerainty) to the dynasty of\nPhagmodu and also to the abbots of eight monasteries. Though they were\ndoubtless glad to see Tibet a divided and contentious house, it does\nnot appear that they interfered actively in its affairs or did more\nthan recognize the _status quo_. In the time of Khubilai the\nprimacy of Sakya was a reality: seventy years later Sakya was only one\namong several great monasteries.\n\nThe advent of the Ming dynasty coincided with the birth of\nTsong-kha-pa[944], the last reformer of Lamaism and organizer of the\nChurch as it at present exists. The name means the man of the\nonion-bank, a valley near the monastery of Kumbum in the district of\nAmdo, which lies on the western frontiers of the Chinese province of\nKansu. He became a monk at the age of seven and from the hair cut off\nwhen he received the tonsure is said to have sprung the celebrated\ntree of Kumbum which bears on its leaves wondrous markings[945].\nAccording to the legend, his birth and infancy were attended by\nmiracles. He absorbed instruction from many teachers and it has been\nconjectured that among them were Roman Catholic missionaries[946]. In\nearly manhood he proceeded to Tibet and studied at Sakya, Dikung and\nfinally at Lhasa. His reading convinced him that Lamaism as he found\nit was not in harmony with the scriptures, so with the patronage of\nthe secular rulers and the support of the more earnest clergy he\nsuccessfully executed a thorough and permanent work of reform. This\ntook visible shape in the Gelugpa, the sect presided over by the Grand\nLama, which acquired such paramount importance in both ecclesiastical\nand secular matters that it is justly termed the Established Church of\nTibet. It may also be conveniently termed the Yellow Church, yellow\nbeing its special colour particularly for hats and girdles, in\nopposition to the red or unreformed sects which use red for the same\npurpose. Tsong-kha-pa's reforms took two principal lines. Firstly he\nmade monastic discipline stricter, insisting on celibacy and frequent\nservices of prayer: secondly he greatly reduced, although he did not\nannihilate, the tantric and magical element in Lamaism. These\nprinciples were perpetuated by an effective organization. He himself\nfounded the great monastery of Gandan near Lhasa and became its first\nabbot. During his lifetime or shortly afterwards were founded three\nothers, Sera and Depung both near Lhasa and Tashilhunpo[947]. He\nhimself seems to have ruled simply in virtue of his personal authority\nas founder, but his nephew and successor Geden-dub[948] claimed the\nsame right as an incarnation of the divine head of the Church, and\nthis claim was supported by a hierarchy which became overwhelmingly\npowerful.\n\nTsong-kha-pa died in 1417 and is said to have been transfigured and\ncarried up into heaven while predicting to a great crowd the future\nglories of his church. His mortal remains, however, preserved in a\nmagnificent mausoleum within the Gandan monastery, still receive great\nveneration.\n\nAmong his more eminent disciples were Byams-chen-chos-rje and\nmKhas-grub-rje who in Tibetan art are often represented as accompanying\nhim. The first played a considerable part in China. The Emperor Yung-Lo\nsent an embassy to invite Tsong-kha-pa to his capital. Tsong-kha-pa felt\nunable to go himself but sent his pupil to represent him.\nByams-chen-chos-rje was received with great honour[949]. The main object\nof the Ming Emperors was to obtain political influence in Tibet through\nthe Lamas but in return the Lamas gained considerable prestige. The Kanjur\nwas printed in China (1410) and Byams-chen-chos-rje and his disciples were\nrecognized as prelates of the whole Buddhist Church within the Empire. He\nreturned to Tibet laden with presents and titles and founded the monastery\nof Serra in 1417. Afterwards he went back to China and died there at the\nage of eighty-four.\n\nmKhas-grub-rje founded the monastery of Tashilhunpo and became its\nabbot, being accepted as an incarnation of the Buddha Amit\u00e2bha. He was\neighth in the series of incarnations, which henceforth were localized\nat Tashilhunpo, but the first is said to have been Subh\u00fbti, a disciple\nof Gotama, and the second Ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00eekirti, king of the country of\n\u015aambhala[950].\n\nThe abbot of Tashilhunpo became the second personage in the ecclesiastical\nand political hierarchy. The head of it was the prelate commonly known as\nthe Grand Lama and resident at Lhasa. Geden-dub[951], the nephew of\nTsong-kha-pa, is reckoned by common consent as the first Grand Lama\n(though he seems not to have borne the title) and the first incarnation of\nAvalokita as head of the Tibetan Church[952]. The Emperor Ch'\u00eang Hua\n(1365-1488) who had occasion to fight on the borders of Tibet confirmed\nthe position of these two sees as superior to the eight previously\nrecognized and gave the occupants a patent and seal. From this time they\nbore the title of rGyal-po or king.\n\nIt was about this time that the theory of successive incarnations[953]\nwhich is characteristic of Lamaism was developed and defined. At least\ntwo ideas are combined in it. The first is that divine persons appear\nin human form. This is common in Asia from India to Japan, especially\namong the peoples who have accepted some form of Hindu religion. The\nsecond is that in a school, sect or church there is real continuity of\nlife. In the unreformed sects of Tibet this was accomplished by the\nsimple principle of heredity so that celibacy, though undeniably\ncorrect, seemed to snap the thread. But it was reunited by the theory\nthat a great teacher is reborn in the successive occupants of his\nchair. Thus the historian T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha is supposed to be reborn in the\nhierarchs of Urga. But frequently the hereditary soul is identified\nwith a Buddha or Bodhisattva, as in the great incarnations of\nLhasa and Tashilhunpo. This dogma has obvious advantages. It imparts\nto a Lamaist see a dignity which the papacy cannot rival but it is to\nthe advantage of the Curia rather than of the Pope for the incarnate\ndeity of necessity succeeds to his high office as an infant, is in\nthe hands of regents and not unfrequently dies when about twenty years\nof age. These incarnations are not confined to the great sees of\nTibet. The heads of most large monasteries in Mongolia claim to be\nliving Buddhas and even in Peking there are said to be six.\n\nThe second Grand Lama[954] enjoyed a long reign, and set the hierarchy\nin good order, for he distinguished strictly clerical posts, filled by\nincarnations, from administrative posts. He was summoned to Peking by\nthe Emperor, but declined to go and the somewhat imperative embassy\nsent to invite him was roughly handled. His successor, the third Grand\nLama bSod-nams[955], although less noticed by historians than the\nfifth, perhaps did more solid work for the holy see of Lhasa than any\nother of his line for he obtained, or at least received, the\nallegiance of the Mongols who since the time of Khubilai had woefully\nbackslidden from the true faith.\n\nAs mentioned above, the conversion of the Mongols to Buddhism took\nplace when their capital was at Peking and chiefly affected those\nresident in China. But when the Y\u00fcan dynasty had been dethroned and\nthe Mongols, driven back into their wilds, were frequently at war with\nChina, they soon relapsed into their original superstitions. About\n1570 Altan[956] Khagan, the powerful chief of the T\u00fcmed, became\nmore nearly acquainted with Tibet, since some Lamas captured in a\nborder fray had been taken to his Court. After causing China much loss\nand trouble he made an advantageous peace and probably formed the idea\n(which the Manchus subsequently proved to be reasonable) that if the\nMongols were stronger they might repeat the conquests of Khubilai. The\nMing dynasty was clearly decadent and these mysterious priests of\nTibet appeared to be on the upward grade[957]. They might help him\nboth to become the undisputed chief of all the Mongol tribes and also\nto reconquer Peking. So he sent an embassy to invite the Grand Lama's\npresence, and when it was not successful he followed it with a second.\n\nThe Grand Lama then accepted and set out on his travels with great\npomp. According to the story he appeared to the astonished Mongols in\nthe guise of Avalokita with four arms (of which two remained folded on\nhis breast) and the imprint of his horse's hoofs showed the six mystic\nsyllables _om mani padme hum_. These wonders are so easily explicable\nthat they may be historical.\n\nA great congregation was held near Lake Kokonor and Sanang Setsen\nrecords an interesting speech made there by one of his ancestors\nrespecting the relations of Church and State, which he compared with\nthe sun and moon. The Lama bestowed on the Khagan high sounding titles\nand received himself the epithet Dalai or Talai, the Mongol word for\nsea, signifying metaphorically vast extent and profundity[958]. This\nis the origin of the name Dalai Lama by which the Tibetan pontiff is\ncommonly known to Europeans. The hierarchy was divided into four\nclasses parallel to the four ranks of Mongol nobles: the use of meat\nwas restricted and the custom of killing men and horses at funerals\nforbidden. The observance of Buddhist festivals was made compulsory\nand native idols were destroyed, but the deities which they\nrepresented were probably identified with others in the new pantheon.\nThe Grand Lama specially recommended to the Mongols the worship of the\nBlue Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la, a six armed representation of \u015aiva standing on a\nfigure of Gane\u015ba, and he left with them a priest who was esteemed\nan incarnation of Ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee, and for whom a temple and monastery\nwere built in Kuku-khoto.\n\nHis Holiness then returned to Tibet, but when Altan Khagan died in\n1583 he made a second tour in Mongolia in order to make sure of the\nallegiance of the new chiefs. He also received an embassy from the\nChinese Emperor Wan-Li, who conferred on him the same titles that\nKhubilai had given to Pagspa. The alliance between the Tibetans and\nMongols was naturally disquieting to the Ming dynasty and they sought\nto minimize it by showing extreme civility to the Lamas.\n\nThis Grand Lama died at the age of forty-seven, and it is significant\nthat the next incarnation appeared in the Mongol royal house, being a\ngreat-grandson of Altan Khagan. Until he was fourteen he lived in\nMongolia and when he moved to Lhasa a Lama was appointed to be his\nvicar and Primate of all Mongolia with residence at Kuren or\nUrga[959]. The prelates of this line are considered as incarnations of\nthe historian T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[960]. In common language they bear the name of\nrJe-btsun-dam-pa but are also called Maidari Khutuktu, that is\nincarnation of Maitreya. About this time the Emperor of China issued a\ndecree, which has since been respected, that these hierarchs must be\nreborn in Tibet, or in other words that they must not reappear in a\nMongol family for fear of uniting religion and patriotism too closely.\n\nLozang[961], the fifth Grand Lama, is by common consent the most\nremarkable of the pontifical line. He established the right of himself\nand his successors--or, as he might have said, of himself in his\nsuccessive births--to the temporal and ecclesiastical sovereignty of\nTibet: he built the Potala and his dealings with the Mongols and\nthe Emperor of China are of importance for general Asiatic history.\n\nFrom the seventeenth century onwards there were four factors in\nTibetan politics.\n\n1. The Gelugpa or Yellow Church, very strong but anxious to become\nstronger both by increasing its temporal power and by suppressing\nother sects. Its attitude towards Chinese and Mongols showed no\nprejudice and was dictated by policy.\n\n2. The Tibetan chiefs and people, on the whole respectful to the\nYellow Church but not single-hearted nor forgetful of older sects:\naverse to Chinese and prone to side with Mongols.\n\n3. The Mongols, conscious of their imperfect civilization and anxious\nto improve themselves by contact with the Lamas. As a nation they\nwished to repeat their past victories over China, and individual\nchiefs wished to make themselves the head of the nation. People and\nprinces alike respected all Lamas.\n\n4. The Chinese, apprehensive of the Mongols and desirous to keep them\ntranquil, caring little for Lamaism in itself but patiently determined\nto have a decisive voice in ecclesiastical matters, since the Church\nof Lhasa had become a political power in their border lands.\n\nLo-zang was born as the son of a high Tibetan official about 1616 and\nwas educated in the Depung monastery under the supervision of\nChos-kyi-Gyal-tsan, abbot of Tashilhunpo and a man of political\nweight. The country was then divided into Khamdo, Wu and Tsang, or\nEastern, Central and Western Tibet, and in each province there ruled a\nking of the Phagmodu dynasty. In Central Tibet, and specially at\nLhasa, the Gelugpa was the established church and accepted by the king\nbut in the other provinces there was much religious strife and the\nolder sects were still predominant. About 1630 the regent of Tsang\ncaptured Lhasa and made himself sovereign of all Tibet. He was a\nfollower of the Sakya sect and his rule was a menace to the authority\nand even to the existence of the Yellow Church, which for some years\nsuffered much tribulation. When the young Grand Lama grew up, he and\nhis preceptor determined to seek foreign aid and appealed to Gushi\nKhan[962]. This prince was a former pupil of Chos-kyi-Gyal-tsan\nand chief of the Oel\u00f6t, the ancestors of the Kalmuks and other western\ntribes, but then living near Kokonor. He was a staunch member of the\nYellow Church and had already made it paramount in Khamdo which he\ninvaded in 1638. He promptly responded to the appeal, invaded Tibet,\ntook the regent prisoner, and, after making himself master of the\nwhole country, handed over his authority to the Grand Lama, retaining\nonly the command of his Mongol garrisons. This arrangement was\nadvantageous to both parties. The Grand Lama not only greatly\nincreased his ecclesiastical prestige but became a temporal sovereign\nof considerable importance. Gushi, who had probably no desire to\nreside permanently in the Snow Land, received all the favours which a\ngrateful Pope could bestow on a king and among the superstitious\nMongols these had a real value. Further the Oel\u00f6t garrisons which\ncontinued to occupy various points in Tibet gave him a decisive voice\nin the affairs of the country, if there was ever a question of using\nforce.\n\nThe Grand Lamas had hitherto resided in the Depung monastery but\nLo-zang now moved to the hill of Marpori, the former royal residence\nand began to build on it the Potala[963] palace which, judging from\nphotographs, must be one of the most striking edifices in the world,\nfor its stately walls continue the curves of the mountain side and\nseem to grow out of the living rock. His old teacher was given the\ntitle of Panchen Rinpoche, which has since been borne by the abbots of\nTashilhunpo, and the doctrine that the Grand Lamas of Lhasa and\nTashilhunpo are respectively incarnations of Avalokita and Amit\u00e2bha\nwas definitely promulgated[964].\n\nThe establishment of the Grand Lama as temporal ruler of Tibet\ncoincided with the advent of the Manchu dynasty (1644). The Emperor\nand the Lama had everything to gain from friendly relations and their\nnegotiations culminated in a visit which Lo-zang paid to Peking in\n1652-3. He was treated as an independent sovereign and received from\nthe Emperor a long title containing the phrase \"Self-existent Buddha,\nUniversal Ruler of the Buddhist faith.\" In return he probably\nundertook to use his influence with the Mongols to preserve peace and\nprevent raids on China.\n\nAfter his return to Tibet, he appears to have been a real as well as a\nnominal autocrat for his preceptor and Gushi Khan both died, and the\nnew Manchu dynasty had its hands full. His chief adviser was the\nDesi[965] or Prime Minister, supposed to be his natural son. In 1666\nthe great Emperor K'ang-hsi succeeded to the throne: and shortly\nafterwards the restlessness of the Mongol Princes began to inspire the\nChinese Court with apprehension. In 1680 Lo-zang died but his death\nwas a state secret. It was apparently known in Tibet and an infant\nsuccessor was selected but the Desi continued to rule in Lo-zang's\nname and even the Emperor of China had no certain knowledge of his\nsuspected demise but probably thought that the fiction of his\nexistence was the best means of keeping the Mongols in order. It was\nnot until 1696 that his death and the accession of a youth named\nThsang-yang Gya-thso were made public.\n\nBut the young Grand Lama, who owing to the fiction that his\npredecessor was still alive had probably been brought up less strictly\nthan usual, soon began to inspire alarm at Peking for he showed\nhimself wilful and intelligent. He wrote love songs which are still\npopular and his licentious behaviour was quite out of harmony with the\ntraditions of the holy see. In 1701, under joint pressure from the\nChinese and Mongols, he resigned his ecclesiastical rights and handed\nover the care of the Church to the abbot of Tashilhunpo, while\nretaining his position as temporal ruler. But the Chinese still felt\nuneasy and in 1705 succeeded in inducing him to undertake a journey to\nPeking. When he got as far as Mongolia he died of either dropsy or\nassassination. The commander of the Oel\u00f6t garrisons in Tibet was a\nfriend of the Chinese, and at once produced a new Grand Lama called\nYe\u015bes, a man of about twenty-five, who claimed to be the true\nreincarnation of the fifth Grand Lama, the pretensions of the\ndissolute youth who had just died being thus set aside. It suited the\nChinese to deal with an adult, who could be made to understand\nthat he had received and held his office only through their good will,\nbut the Tibetans would have none of this arrangement. They clung to\nthe memory of the dissolute youth and welcomed with enthusiasm the\nnews that he had reappeared in Li-t'ang as a new-born child, who was\nultimately recognized as the seventh Grand Lama named Kalzang. The\nChinese imprisoned the infant with his parents in the monastery of\nKumbum in Kansu and gave all their support to Ye\u015bes. For the better\ncontrol of affairs in Lhasa two Chinese Agents were appointed to\nreside there with the Manchu title of Amban[966].\n\nBut the Tibetans would not accept the rule of Ye\u015bes and in 1717 the\nrevolutionary party conspired with the Oel\u00f6t tribes of Ili to put\nKalzang on the throne by force. The troops sent to take the holy child\nwere defeated by the Chinese but those which attacked Lhasa were\ncompletely successful. Ye\u015bes abdicated and the city passed into the\npossession of the Mongols. The Chinese Government were greatly alarmed\nand determined to subdue Tibet. Their first expedition was a failure\nbut in 1720 they sent a second and larger, and also decided to install\nthe youthful Kalzang as Grand Lama, thus conciliating the religious\nfeelings of the Tibetans. The expedition met with little difficulty\nand the result of it was that China became suzerain of the whole\ncountry. By imperial edict the young Grand Lama was recognized as\ntemporal ruler, the four ministers or Kal\u00f6n were given Chinese titles,\nand garrisons were posted to keep open the road from China. But the\nTibetans were still discontented. In 1727 a rebellion, instigated it\nwas said by the family of the Grand Lama, broke out, and the Prime\nMinister was killed. This rising was not permanently successful and\nthe Chinese removed the Grand Lama to the neighbourhood of their\nfrontier. They felt however that it was unsafe to give ground for\nsuspicion that they were ill-treating him and in 1734 he was\nreinstated in the Potala. But the dislike of the Tibetans for Chinese\nsupervision was plain. In 1747 there was another rebellion. The\npopulation of Lhasa rose and were assisted by Oel\u00f6t troops who\nsuddenly arrived on the scene. Chinese rule was saved only by the\nheroism of the two Chinese Agents, who invited the chief conspirators\nto a meeting and engaged them in personal combat. They lost their\nown lives but killed the principal rebels. The Chinese then\nabolished the office of Prime Minister, increased their garrison and\ngave the Agents larger powers.\n\nAbout 1758 the Grand Lama died and was succeeded by an infant called\nJambal. The real authority was wielded by the Panchen Lama who acted\nas regent and was so influential that the Emperor Ch'ien-Lung insisted\non his visiting Peking[967]. He had a good reception and probably\nobtained some promise that the government of Tibet would be left more\nin the hands of the Church but he died of smallpox in Peking and\nnothing came of his visit except a beautiful tomb and an epitaph\nwritten by the Emperor. After his death a new complication appeared.\nThe prelates of the Red Church encouraged an invasion of the Gurkhas\nof Nepal in the hope of crushing the Yellow Church. The upshot was\nthat the Chinese drove out the Gurkhas but determined to establish a\nmore direct control. The powers of the Agents were greatly increased\nand not even the Grand Lama was allowed the right of memorializing the\nthrone, but had to report to the Agents and ask their orders.\n\nIn 1793 Ch'ien-Lung issued a remarkable edict regulating the\nappearance of incarnations which, as he observed, had become simply\nthe hereditary perquisites of certain noble Mongol families. He\ntherefore ordered that when there was any question of an incarnation\nthe names of the claimants to the distinction should be written on\nslips of paper and placed in a golden bowl: that a religious service\nshould be held and at its close a name be drawn from the bowl in the\npresence of the Chinese Agents and the public. The child whose name\nshould be drawn was to be recognized as the true incarnation but\nrequired investiture by an imperial patent.\n\nA period of calm followed, and when the Grand Lama died in 1804 the\nTibetans totally neglected this edict and selected a child born in\neastern Tibet. The Chinese Court, desirous of avoiding unnecessary\ntrouble, approved[968] the choice on the ground that the infant's\nprecocious ability established his divine character but when he\ndied in 1815 and an attempt was made to repeat this irregularity, a\nsecond edict was published, insisting that the names of at least three\ncandidates must be placed in the golden urn and that he whose name\nshould be first drawn must be Grand Lama. This procedure was followed\nbut the child elected by the oracle of the urn died before he was\ntwenty and another infant was chosen as his successor in 1838. As a\nresult the Lama who was regent acquired great power and also\nunpopularity. His tyranny caused the Tibetans to petition the Emperor;\nand His Majesty sent a new Agent to investigate his conduct. Good\nreason was shown for holding him responsible for the death of the\nGrand Lama in 1838 and for other misdeeds. The Emperor then degraded\nand banished him and, what is more singular, forbade him to reappear\nin a human reincarnation.\n\nThe reigns of Grand Lamas in the nineteenth century have mostly been\nshort. Two others were selected in 1858 and 1877 respectively. The\nlatter who is the present occupant of the post was the son of a\nTibetan peasant: he was duly chosen by the oracle of the urn and\ninvested by the Emperor. In 1893 he assumed personal control of the\nadministration and terminated a regency which seems to have been\noppressive and unpopular. The British Government were anxious to\nnegotiate with him about Sikhim and other matters, but finding it\nimpossible to obtain answers to their communications sent an\nexpedition to Lhasa in 1904. The Grand Lama then fled to Urga, in\nwhich region he remained until 1907. In the autumn of 1908 he was\ninduced to visit Peking where he was received with great ceremony but,\ncontrary to the precedent established when the fifth Grand Lama\nattended Court, he was obliged to kneel and kotow before the Empress\nDowager. Neither could he obtain the right to memorialize the throne,\nbut was ordered to report to the Agents. The Court duly recognized his\nreligious position. On the birthday of the Empress he performed a\nservice for her long life, at which Her Majesty was present. It was\nnot wholly successful, for a week or two later he officiated at her\nfuneral. At the end of 1908 he left for Lhasa. He visited India in\n1910 but this created dissatisfaction at Peking. In the same year[969]\na decree was issued deposing him from his spiritual as well as his\ntemporal powers and ordering the Agents to seek out a new child by\ndrawing lots from the golden urn. This decree was probably _ultra\nvires_ and certainly illogical, for if the Chinese Government\nrecognized the Lama as an incarnation, they could not, according to\nthe accepted theory, replace him by another incarnation before his\ndeath. And if they regarded him as a false incarnation, they should\nhave ordered the Agents to seek out not a child but a man born about\nthe time that the last Grand Lama died. At any rate the Tibetans paid\nno attention to the decree.\n\nThe early deaths of Grand Lamas in the nineteenth century have\nnaturally created a presumption that they were put out of the way and\ncontemporary suspicion accused the regent in 1838. There is no\nevidence that the deaths of the other three were regarded as unnatural\nbut the earlier Grand Lamas as well as the abbots of Tashilhunpo lived\nto a good age. On the other hand the Grand Lamas of Urga are said to\ndie young. If the pontiffs of some lines live long and those of others\ndie early, the inference is not that the life of a god incarnate is\nunhealthy but that in special cases special circumstances interfere\nwith it, and on the whole there are good grounds for suspecting foul\nplay. But it is interesting to note that most Europeans who have made\nthe acquaintance of high Lamas speak in praise of their character and\nintelligence. So Manning (the friend of Charles Lamb) of the ninth\nGrand Lama (1811), Bogle of the Tashi Lama about 1778, Sven Hedin of\nhis successor in 1907, and Waddell of the Lama Regent in 1904.\n\nThe above pages refer to the history of Lamaism in Tibet and Mongolia.\nIt also spread to China, European Russia, Ladak, Sikhim and Bhutan. In\nChina it is confined to the north and its presence is easily\nexplicable by the genuine enthusiasm of Khubilai and the encouragement\ngiven on political grounds by the Ming and Manchu dynasties. Further,\nseveral Mongol towns such as Kalgan and Kuku-khoto are within the\nlimits of the eighteen provinces.\n\nThe Kalmuks who live in European Russia are the descendants of tribes\nwho moved westwards from Dzungaria in the seventeenth century. Many of\nthem left Russia and returned to the east in 1771, but a considerable\nnumber remained behind, chiefly between the Volga and the Don, and\nthe population professing Lamaism there is now reckoned at about\n100,000.\n\nBuddhist influences may have been at work in Ladak from an early\nperiod. In later times it can be regarded as a dependency of Tibet, at\nany rate for ecclesiastical purposes, for it formed part of Tibet\nuntil the disruption of the kingdom in the tenth century and it\nsubsequently accepted the sovereignty of Lhasa in religious and\nsometimes in political matters. Concerning the history of Bhutan, I\nhave been able to discover but little. The earliest known inhabitants\nare called Tephu and the Tibetans are said to have conquered them\nabout 1670. Lamaism probably entered the country at this time, if not\nearlier[970]. At any rate it must have been predominant in 1774 when\nthe Tashi Lama used his good offices to conclude peace between the\nBhutiyas and the East India Company. The established church however is\nnot the Gelugpa but the Dugpa, which is a subdivision of the\nKar-gyu-pa. There are two rulers in Bhutan, the Dharmar\u00e2ja or\nspiritual and the Debr\u00e2ja or temporal. The former is regarded as an\nincarnation of the first class, though it is not clear of what\ndeity[971].\n\nThe conversion of Sikhim is ascribed to a saint named Lats\u00fcn Ch'embo,\nwho visited it about 1650 with two other Lamas. They associated with\nthemselves a native chief whom they ordained as a Lama and made king.\nAll four then governed Sikhim. Though Lats\u00fcn Ch'embo is represented as\na friend of the fifth Grand Lama, the two sects at present found in\nSikhim are the Nying-ma-pa, the old unreformed style of Lamaism, and\nthe Karmapa, a branch of the Kar-gyu-pa, analogous to the Dugpa of\nBhutan. The principal monasteries are at Pemiongchi (Peme-yang-tse)\nand Tashiding[972].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 910: Tibetan orthography Sro\u1e47-btsan-sgam-po. It is hard\nto decide what is the best method of representing Tibetan words in\nLatin letters:\n\n(_a_) The orthography differs from the modern pronunciation more than\nin any other language, except perhaps English, but it apparently\nrepresents an older pronunciation and therefore has historical value.\nAlso, a word can be found in a Tibetan dictionary only if the native\nspelling is faithfully reproduced. On the other hand readers\ninterested in oriental matters know many words in a spelling which is\na rough representation of the modern pronunciation. It seems pedantic\nto write bKa\u1e96-\u1e96gyur and \u1e96Bras-spu\u1e47s when the best known\nauthorities speak of Kanjur and Debung. On the whole, I have decided\nto represent the commoner words by the popular orthography as given by\nRockhill, Waddell and others while giving the Tibetan spelling in a\nfoot-note. But when a word cannot be said to be well known even among\nOrientalists I have reproduced the Tibetan spelling.\n\n(_b_) But it is not easy to reproduce this spelling clearly and\nconsistently. On the whole I have followed the system used by Sarat\nChandra Das in his Dictionary. It is open to some objections, as, for\ninstance, that the sign h has more than one value, but the more\naccurate method used by Gr\u00fcnwedel in his _Mythologie_ is extremely\nhard to read. My transcription is as follows in the order of the\nTibetan consonants.\n\n    k, kh, g, \u1e47, c, oh, j, ny.\n    t, th, d, n, p, ph, b, m.\n    ts, ths, ds, w.\n    zh, z, \u1e25, y.\n    r, l, \u015b, s, h.\n\nAlthough tsh is in some respects preferable to represent an aspirated\nts, yet it is liable to be pronounced as in the English words _hat\nshop_, and perhaps ths is on the whole better.]\n\n[Footnote 911: See Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, p. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 912: It has been argued (_e.g., J.R.A.S._, 1903, p. 11) that\ndiscoveries in Central Asia indicate that Tibetan civilization and\ntherefore Tibetan Buddhism are older than is generally supposed. But\nrecent research shows that Central Asian MSS. of even the eighth\ncentury say little about Buddhism, whatever testimony they may bear to\ncivilization.]\n\n[Footnote 913: See Hoernle MS. _Remains found in E. Turkestan_, 1916,\npp. xvii ff., and Francke, _Epig. Ind_. XI. 266 ff., and on the other\nside Laufer in _J.A.O.S._ 1918, pp. 34 ff. There is a considerable\ndifference between the printed and cursive forms of the Tibetan\nalphabet. Is it possible that they have different origins and that the\nformer came from Bengal, the latter from Khotan?]\n\n[Footnote 914: There were some other streams of Buddhism, for the king\nhad a teacher called S\u00e2ntarakshita who advised him to send for\nPadma-Sambhava and Padma-Sambhava was opposed by Chinese bonzes.]\n\n[Footnote 915: The Pad-ma-than-yig. It indicates some acquaintance\nwith Islam and mentions Hulugu Khan. See _T'oung Pao_, 1896, pp. 526\nff. See for a further account Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 47, Waddell,\n_Buddhism_, p. 380, and the Tibetan text edited and translated by\nLaufer under the title _Der Roman einer tibetischen K\u00f6nigin_,\nespecially pp. 250 ff. Also E. Schlagintweit, \"Die Lebensbeschreibung\nvon Padma-Sambhava,\" _Abhand. k. bayer. Akad._ I. CL. xxi. Bd. ii.\nAbth. 419-444, and _ib._ I. CL. xxii. Bd. iii. Abth. 519-576.]\n\n[Footnote 916: Much of Chinese popular religion has the same\ncharacter. See De Groot, _Religious System of China_, vol. VI. pp.\n929, 1187. \"The War against Spectres.\"]\n\n[Footnote 917: Both he and the much later Saskya Pandita are said to\nhave understood the Bruzha language, for which see _T'oung Pao_,\n1908, pp. 1-47.]\n\n[Footnote 918: Or bSam-yas. See Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 266, for an\naccount of this monastery at the present day.]\n\n[Footnote 919: The Tibetan word bLama means upper and is properly\napplicable to the higher clergy only though commonly used of all.]\n\n[Footnote 920: He was temporarily banished owing to the intrigues of\nthe Queen, who acted the part of Potiphar's wife, but he was\ntriumphantly restored. A monk called Vairocana is also said to have\nintroduced Buddhism into Khotan from Kashmir, but at a date which\nthough uncertain must be considerably earlier than this.]\n\n[Footnote 921: See _Journal of Buddhist Text Society_, 1893, p. 5. I\nimagine that by Hoshang Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na the followers of Bodhidharma are\nmeant.]\n\n[Footnote 922: _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 37-59.]\n\n[Footnote 923: See Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, p. 225.]\n\n[Footnote 924: Various dates are given for his death, ranging from 838\nto 902. See Rockhill (_Life of the Buddha_), p. 225, and Bushell in\n_J.R.A.S._ 1880, pp. 440 ff. But the treaty of 822 was made in his\nreign.]\n\n[Footnote 925: g Lan-dar-ma.]\n\n[Footnote 926: But see for other accounts Rockhill (_Life of the\nBuddha_), p. 226. According to Csoma de K\u00f6r\u00f6s's tables the date of the\npersecution was 899.]\n\n[Footnote 927: See the chronological table in Waddell's _Buddhism_, p.\n576. Not a single Tibetan event is mentioned between 899 and 1002.]\n\n[Footnote 928: Pag Som Jon Zang. Ed. Sarat Chandra Das, p. 183.]\n\n[Footnote 929: Or D\u00eepa\u1e47kara \u015ar\u00eej\u00f1\u00e2na. See for a life of him\n_Journal of Buddhist Text Society_, 1893, \"Indian Pandits in Tibet,\"\npp. 7 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 930: Suvar\u1e47adv\u00eepa, where he studied, must be Thaton and\nit is curious to find that it was a centre of tantric learning.]\n\n[Footnote 931: From 1026 onwards see the chronological tables of\nSum-pa translated by Sarat Chandra Das in _J.A.S.B._ 1889, pp. 40-82.\nThey contain many details, especially of ecclesiastical biography. The\nTibetan system of computing time is based on cycles of sixty years\nbeginning it would seem not in 1026 but 1027, so that in many dates\nthere is an error of a year. See Pelliot, _J.A._ 1913, I. 633, and\nLaufer, _T'oung Pao_, 1913, 569.]\n\n[Footnote 932: Or Jenghiz Khan. The form in the text seems to be the\nmore correct.]\n\n[Footnote 933: Tegri or Heaven. This monotheism common to the ancient\nChinese, Turks and Mongols did not of course exclude the worship of\nspirits.]\n\n[Footnote 934: Guyuk was Khagan at this time but the _Mongol History\nof Sanang Setsen_ (Schmidt, p. 3) says that the Lama was summoned by\nthe Khagan Godan. It seems that Godan was never Khagan, but as an\ninfluential prince he may have sent the summons.]\n\n[Footnote 935: \u1e25Phagspa (corrupted in Mongol to Bashpa) is merely a\ntitle equivalent to Ayra in Sanskrit. His full style was \u1e25Phagspa\nbLo-gros-rgyal-mthsan.]\n\n[Footnote 936: By abhi\u015bekha or sprinkling with water.]\n\n[Footnote 937: Va\u015bit\u00e2 is a magical formula which compels the\nobedience of spirits or natural forces. Hevajra (apparently the same\nas Heruka) is one of the fantastic beings conceived as manifestations\nof Buddhas and Bodhisattvas made for a special purpose, closely\ncorresponding, as Gr\u00fcnwedel points out, to the manifestations of\n\u015aiva.]\n\n[Footnote 938: Schmidt's edition, p. 115.]\n\n[Footnote 939: It is given in Isaac Taylor's _The Alphabet_, vol. II.\np. 336. See also _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 1208-1214.]\n\n[Footnote 940: _E.g._ see the Tisastvustik, a s\u00fbtra in a Turkish\ndialect and Uigur characters found at Turfan and published in\n_Bibliotheca Buddhica_, XII.]\n\n[Footnote 941: See Kokka, No. 311, 1916, _Tibetan Art in China_.]\n\n[Footnote 942: _Sanang Setsen_, p. 121. The succession of the Sakya\nabbots is not clear but the primacy continued in the family. See\nK\u00f6ppen, II. p. 105.]\n\n[Footnote 943: Strictly speaking a place-name.]\n\n[Footnote 944: The Tibetan orthography is bTso\u1e47 (or\nTso\u1e47)-kha-pa. He was called rJe-rin-po-che bLo-bza\u1e47-grags-pa in\nTibetan and Arya-mah\u00e2ratna Sumatik\u00eerti in Sanskrit. The Tibetan\northography of the monastery is sKu-\u1e25bum or hundred thousand\npictures. See, for accounts of his life, Sarat Chandra Das in\n_J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 53-57 and 127. Huth, _Buddhismus in der\nMongolei_, ii. pp. 175 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 945: There is some difference of statement as to whether\nthese markings are images of Tsong-kha-pa or Tibetan characters. Hue,\nthough no Buddhist, thought them miraculous. See his _Travels in\nTartary_, vol. ii. chap. ii. See also Rockhill, _Land of the Lamas_,\np. 67, and Filchner, _Das Kloster Kumbum_, chap. vi.]\n\n[Footnote 946: But the tradition mentioned by Hue that he was\ninstructed by a long-nosed stranger from the west, has not been found\nin any Tibetan biography.]\n\n[Footnote 947: Tibetan orthography writes dGa\u1e25-ldan, Se-ra,\nhBras-spuns and bKra-\u015bis-Lhun-po. dGa\u1e25-ldan, the happy, is a\ntranslation of the Sanskrit Tushita or Paradise. Tsong-kha-pa's\nreformed sect was originally called dGa\u1e25-lugs-pa or those who\nfollow the way of dGa[.]-ldan. But this possibly suggested those who\npursue pleasure and the name was changed to dGe-lugs-pa or those of\nthe virtuous order.]\n\n[Footnote 948: dGe-'dun grub.]\n\n[Footnote 949: He was not the same as Ha-li-ma (see p. 277) of whom more\nis heard in Chinese accounts. Ha-li-ma or Karma was fifth head of the\nKarma-pa school and was invited on his own merits to China where he died\nin 1426 or 1414. See Huth, _l.c._ vol. I. p. 109 and vol. II. p. 171. Also\nK\u00f6ppen, _die Rel. des Buddha_, II. 107. Byams-chen-chos-rje was invited as\nthe representative of Tsong-ka-pa. See Huth, _l.c._ vol. I. p. 120, vol.\nII. p. 129.]\n\n[Footnote 950: See for a list of the Lamas of Tashilhunpo and their\nlives _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 15-52. The third incarnation was Abhayakara\nGupta, a celebrated Bengali Pandit who flourished in the reign of\nR\u00e2map\u00e2la. This appears to have been about 1075-1115, but there is\nconsiderable discrepancy in the dates given.]\n\n[Footnote 951: See for his life _J.A.S.B._ 1882, p. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 952: Tsong-kha-pa is not reckoned in this series of\nincarnations, for firstly he was regarded as an incarnation of\nMa\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee and secondly Geden-dub was born before his death and\nhence could not represent the spirit which dwelt in him.]\n\n[Footnote 953: Tibetan sPrul-pa, Mongol Khubilghan. Both are\ntranslations of the Sanskrit Nirm\u00e2na and the root idea is not\nincarnation but transformation in an illusive form.]\n\n[Footnote 954: The following list of Grand Lamas is taken from\nGr\u00fcnwedel's _Mythologie_, p. 206. Their names are followed by the\ntitle rGya-mThso and in many cases the first part of the name is a\ntitle.\n\n    1. dGe-\u1e25dun-dub, 1391-1478.\n    2. dGe-\u1e25dun, 1479-1541.\n    3. bSod-nams, 1543-1586.\n    4. Yon-tan, 1587-1614.\n    5. \u1e44ag-dba\u1e47 bLo-bza\u1e47, 1617-1680.\n    6. Rin-chen Thsa\u1e47s-dbya\u1e47s, 1693-1703.\n    7. bLo-bza\u1e47 sKal-dan, 1705-1758.\n    8. bLo-bza\u1e47 \u1e25Jam-dpal, 1759-1805.\n    9. bLo-bza\u1e47 Lu\u1e47-rtogs, 1806-1815.\n    10. bLo-bza\u1e47 Thsul-khrims, 1817-1837.\n    11. bLo-bza\u1e47 dGe-dmu, 1838-1855.\n    12. bLo-bza\u1e47 Phrin-las, 1856-1874.\n    13. \u1e44ag-dba\u1e47 bLo-bza\u1e47 Thub-ldam, 1875.\n]\n\n[Footnote 955: See for an account of his doings Sanang Setsen, chap.\nIX. Huth, _Geschichte_, II. pp. 200 ff. K\u00f6ppen, II. pp. 134 ff. It\nwould appear that about 1545 northwestern Tibet was devastated by\nMohammedans from Kashgar. See Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 583.]\n\n[Footnote 956: Also known as Yenta or Anda. See, for some particulars\nabout him, Parker in N. China Branch of _R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 92 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 957: Naturally the narrative is not told without miraculous\nembellishment, including the singular story that Altan who suffered\nfrom the gout used to put his feet every month into the ripped up body\nof a man or horse and bathe them in the warm blood. Avalokita appeared\nto him when engaged in this inhuman cure and bade him desist and atone\nfor his sins.]\n\n[Footnote 958: In Tibetan rGya-mThso. Compare the Chinese expression\nhai liang (sea measure) meaning capacious or broad minded. The Khagan\nreceived the title of lHai thsa\u1e47s-pa chen-po equivalent to\nDivyamah\u00e2brahm\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 959: The correct Mongol names of this place seem to be \u00d6rg\u00f6\nand K\u00fcr\u00e4. The Lama's name was bSam-pa rGya-mThso.]\n\n[Footnote 960: He finished his history in 1608 and lived some time\nlonger so that bSam-pa rGya-mThso cannot have been an incarnation of\nhim.]\n\n[Footnote 961: This is an accepted abbreviation of his full name\n\u1e44ag-dba\u1e47 bLo-za\u1e47 rGya-mThso. \u1e44ag-dba\u1e47 is an epithet meaning\neloquent.]\n\n[Footnote 962: The name is variously written Gushi, Gushri, Gus'ri,\netc., and is said to stand for Guru\u015br\u00ee. The name of the tribe also\nvaries: Oirad and Oegeled are both found.]\n\n[Footnote 963: So called from the sacred hill in India on which\nAvalokita lives. The origin of the name is doubtful but before the\ntime of Hs\u00fcan Chuang it had come to be applied to a mountain in South\nIndia.]\n\n[Footnote 964: Some European authorities consider that Lo-zang\ninvented this system of incarnations. Native evidence seems to me to\npoint the other way, but it must be admitted that if he was the first\nto claim for himself this dignity it would be natural for him to claim\nit for his predecessors also and cause ecclesiastical history to be\nwritten accordingly.]\n\n[Footnote 965: sDe-srid.]\n\n[Footnote 966: It is said that all Ambans were Manchus.]\n\n[Footnote 967: See E. Ludwig, _The visit of the Teshoo Lama to\nPeking_, Tientsin Press, 1904. See also _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 29-52.]\n\n[Footnote 968: See the curious edict of Chia Ch'ing translated by\nWaddell in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 69 ff. The Chinese Government were\ndisposed to discredit the sixth, seventh and eighth incarnations and\nto pass straight from the fifth Grand Lama to the ninth.]\n\n[Footnote 969: See for a translation of this curious decree, _North\nChina Herald_ of March 4th, 1910.]\n\n[Footnote 970: In the List of the Bhutan Hierarchs given by Waddell\n(_Buddhism_, p. 242) it is said that the first was contemporary with\nthe third Grand Lama, 1543-1580.]\n\n[Footnote 971: According to Waddell (_Buddhism_, p. 242) he appears to\nbe a rebirth of Dupgani Sheptun, a Lama greatly respected by the\nTibetan invaders of Bhutan. For some account of the religion of Bhutan\nin the early 19th century, see the article by Davis in _T.R.A.S._ vol.\nII. 1830, p. 491.]\n\n[Footnote 972: The fullest account of Sikhimese Buddhism is given by\nWaddell in the _Gazetteer of Sikhim_, 1894. See also R\u00e9my, _P\u00e8lerinage\nau Monast\u00e8re de Pemmiontsi_, 1880; Silacara \"Buddhism in Sikkim,\"\n_Buddhist Review_, 1916, p. 97.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LI\n\nTIBET _(continued)_\n\nTHE CANON\n\n\nTibet is so remote and rude a land that it is a surprise to learn that\nit has a voluminous literature and further that much of this\nliterature, though not all, is learned and scholastic. The explanation\nis that the national life was most vigorous in the great monasteries\nwhich were in close touch with Indian learning. Moreover Tibetan\nbecame to some extent the Latin of the surrounding countries, the\nlanguage of learning and religion.\n\nFor our purpose the principal works are the two great collections of\nsacred and edifying literature translated into Tibetan and known as\nthe Kanjur and Tanjur[973]. The first contains works esteemed as\ncanonical, including Tantras. The second is composed of exegetical\nliterature and also of many treatises on such subjects as medicine,\nastronomy and grammar[974]. The two together correspond roughly\nspeaking to the Chinese Tripitaka, but are more bulky. The canonical\npart is smaller but the commentaries and miscellaneous writings more\nnumerous. There are also other differences due to the fact that the\ngreat literary epoch of Tibet was in the ninth century, whereas nearly\nthree-quarters of the Chinese Tripitaka had been translated before\nthat date. Thus the Kanjur appears to contain none[975] of the\nAbhidhamma works of the H\u00eenay\u00e2na and none of the great Nik\u00e2yas as\nsuch, though single s\u00fbtras are entered in the catalogues as separate\nbooks. Further there is only one version of the Vinaya whereas the\nChinese Tripitaka has five, but there are several important\nTantras which are wanting in Chinese. The Tibetan scriptures reflect\nthe late Buddhism of Magadha when the great books of the Hinayanist\nCanon were neglected, though not wholly unknown, and a new tantric\nliterature was flourishing exuberantly.\n\nThe contents of the Kanjur and Tanjur are chiefly known by analyses\nand indices[976], although several editions and translations of short\ntreatises have been published[977]. The information obtained may be\nbriefly summarized as follows.\n\nThe Kanjur in its different editions consists of one hundred or one\nhundred and eight volumes, most of which contain several treatises,\nalthough sometimes one work, for instance the Vinaya, may fill many\nvolumes. The whole collection is commonly divided into seven\nparts[978].\n\nI. The Dulva[979], equivalent to the Vinaya. It is stated to be the\nM\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da Vinaya, and so far as any opinion can be formed from\nthe small portions available for comparison, it agrees with the\nChinese translation of Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva and also (though with some\ndifference in the order of paragraphs) with the Sanskrit Pr\u00e2timoksha\nfound at Kucha[980]. It is longer and more mixed with narrative than\nthe corresponding Pali code.\n\nII. The second division is known as \u015aer-chin[981], corresponding to the\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and in the estimation of the Tibetans to the Abhidharma.\nIt is said to have been first collected by K\u00e2\u015byapa and to represent the\nteaching delivered by the Buddha in his fifty-first year. This section\nappears to contain nothing but versions, longer or shorter, of the\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, the limit of concentration being reached by a text in\nwhich the Buddha explains that the whole of this teaching is comprised in\nthe letter A. As in China and Japan, the Vajracchedik\u00e2 (rDo-rJe-gCod-pa)\nis very popular and has been printed in many editions.\n\nIII. The third division is called Phal-chen, equivalent to\nAvata\u1e43saka. Beckh treats it as one work in six volumes with out\nsubdivisions. Feer gives forty-five subdivisions, some of which appear\nas separate treatises in the section of the Chinese Tripitaka called\nHua Yen[982].\n\nIV. The fourth division called dKon-brtsegs or Ratnak\u00fb\u1e6da agrees\nclosely with the similar section of the Chinese Tripitaka but consists\nof only forty-eight or forty-five s\u00fbtras, according to the\nedition[983].\n\nV. The fifth section is called mDo, equivalent to S\u00fbtra. In its narrower\nsense mDo means s\u00fbtras which are miscellaneous in so far as they do not\nfall into special classes, but it also comprises such important works as\nthe Lalita-vistara, Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra and Saddharma-pu\u1e47\u1e0dar\u00eeka. Of the 270\nworks contained in this section about 90 are _prima facie_ identical with\nworks in the Ching division of the Chinese Tripitaka and probably the\nidentity of many others is obscured by slight changes of title. An\ninteresting point in the mDo is that it contains several s\u00fbtras translated\nfrom the Pali[984], viz. Nos. 13-25 of vol. XXX, nine of which are taken\nfrom the collection known as Paritta. The names and dates of the\ntranslators are not given but the existence of these translations probably\nindicates that a knowledge of Pali lingered on in Magadha later than is\ngenerally supposed. It will also be remembered that about A.D. 1000, At\u00ee\u015ba\nthough a Tantrist, studied in Burma and presumably came in contact with\nPali literature. Rockhill notes that the Tanjur contains a commentary on\nthe Lotus S\u00fbtra written by Prithivibandhu, a monk from Ceylon, and Pali\nmanuscripts have been found in Nepal[985]. It is possible that Sinhalese\nmay have brought Pali books to northern India and given them to Tibetans\nwhom they met there.\n\nVI. The sixth division is called Mya\u1e47g-\u1e25das or Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a,\nmeaning the description of the death of the Buddha which also forms a\nspecial section in the Chinese Tripitaka. Here it consists of only one\nwork, apparently corresponding to Nanjio 113[986].\n\nVII. The seventh and last section is called rGyud[987] or Tantra. It\nconsists of twenty-two volumes containing about 300 treatises. Between\nthirty and forty are _prima facie_ identical with treatises comprised\nin the Chinese Tripitaka and perhaps further examination might greatly\nincrease the number, for the titles of these books are often long and\ncapable of modification. Still it is probable that the major part of\nthis literature was either deliberately rejected by the Chinese or was\ncomposed at a period when religious intercourse had become languid\nbetween India and China but was still active between India and Tibet.\nFrom the titles it appears that many of these works are Brahmanic in\nspirit rather than Buddhist; thus we have the Mah\u00e2ga\u1e47apati-tantra,\nthe Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la-tantra, and many others. Among the better known Tantras\nmay be mentioned the Arya-ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee-m\u00fbla-tantra and the \u015ar\u00ee-Guhya\nSamaja[988], both highly praised by Csoma de K\u00f6r\u00f6s: but perhaps more\nimportant is the Tantra on which the K\u00e2lacakra system is founded.\nIt is styled Param\u00e2dibuddha-uddh\u1e5bita-\u015br\u00ee-k\u00e2lacakra and there is\nalso a compendium giving its essence or H\u1e5bidaya.\n\nThe Tanjur is a considerably larger collection than the Kanjur for it\nconsists of 225 volumes but its contents are imperfectly known. A\nportion has been catalogued by Palmyr Cordier. It is known to contain\na great deal of relatively late Indian theology such as the works of\nA\u015bvaghosha, N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu, and other Mahayanist\ndoctors, and also secular literature such as the Meghad\u00fbta of\nK\u00e2lid\u00e2sa, together with a multitude of works on logic, rhetoric,\ngrammar and medicine[989]. Some treatises, such as the Ud\u00e2na[990]\noccur in both collections but on the whole the Tanjur is clearly\nintended as a thesaurus of exegetical and scientific literature,\nscience being considered, as in the middle ages of Europe, to be the\nhandmaid of the Church. Grammar and lexicography help the\nunderstanding of scripture: medicine has been of great use in\nestablishing the influence of the Lamas: secular law is or should be\nan amplification of the Church's code: history compiled by sound\ntheologians shows how the true faith is progressive and triumphant:\nart and ritual are so near together that their boundaries can hardly\nbe delimitated. Taking this view of the world, we find in the Tanjur\nall that a learned man need know[991].\n\nIt is divided into two parts, mDo (S\u00fbtra) and rGyud (Tantra), besides\na volume of hymns and an index. The same method of division is really\napplicable to the Kanjur, for the Tibetan Dulva is little more than a\ncombination of S\u00fbtras and J\u00e2takas and sections two, three, four and\nsix of the Kanjur are collections of special s\u00fbtras. In both\ncompilations the tantric section appears to consist of later books\nexpounding ideas which are further from the teaching of Gotama than\nthe Mahayanist s\u00fbtras.\n\nTo the great majority of works in both collections is prefixed a\ntitle which gives the Sanskrit name first in transcription and then in\ntranslation, for instance \"In Sanskrit Citralakshana: in Tibetan\nRi-moi-mthsan-\u00f1id[992].\" Hence there is usually no doubt as to what\nthe Tibetan translations profess to be. Sometimes however the headings\nare regrettably brief. The Vinaya for instance appears to be\nintroduced with that simple superscription and with no indication of\nthe school or locality to which the text belonged.\n\nAlthough the titles of books are given in Sanskrit, yet all Indian\nproper names which have a meaning (as most have) are translated. Thus\nthe name Drona (signifying a measure and roughly equivalent to such an\nEnglish name as Dr. Bushell) is rendered by Bre-bo, a similar measure\nin Tibetan. This habit greatly increases the difficulty of reading\nTibetan texts. The translators apparently desired to give a Tibetan\nequivalent for every word and even for every part of a word, so as to\nmake clear the etymology as well as the meaning of the sacred\noriginal. The learned language thus produced must have varied greatly\nfrom the vernacular of every period but its slavish fidelity makes it\npossible to reconstruct the original Sanskrit with tolerable\ncertainty.\n\nI have already mentioned the presence of translations from the Pali.\nThere are also a few from the Chinese[993] which appear to be of no\nspecial importance. One work is translated from the Bruza language\nwhich was perhaps spoken in the modern Gilgit[994] and another from\nthe language of Khotan[995]. Some works in the Kanjur have no Sanskrit\ntitles and are perhaps original compositions in Tibetan. The Tanjur\nappears to contain many such.\n\nBut the Kanjur and Tanjur as a whole represent the literature\napproved by the late Buddhism of Bengal and certain resemblances to\nthe arrangement of the Chinese Tripitaka suggest that not only new\ns\u00fbtras but new classifications of s\u00fbtras had replaced the old Pitakas\nand Agamas. The Tibetan Canon being later than the Chinese has lost\nthe Abhidharma and added a large section of Tantras. But both canons\nrecognize the divisions known as Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, Ratnaku\u1e6da,\nAvatamsaka, and Mah\u00e2parinirv\u00e2\u1e47a as separate sections. The Ratnak\u00fbta\nis clearly a collection of s\u00fbtras equivalent to a small Nik\u00e2ya[996].\nThis is probably also true of the voluminous Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 in its\nvarious editions, but the divisions are not commonly treated as\nseparate works except the Vajracchedik\u00e2. The imperfectly known\nAvatamsaka S\u00fbtra appears to be a similar collection, since it is\ndescribed as discourses of the Buddha pronounced at eight\nassemblies. The Mah\u00e2parinirv\u00e2\u1e47a S\u00fbtra though not nominally a\ncollection of s\u00fbtras (at least in its Pali form) is unique both in\nsubject and structure, and it is easy to understand why it was put in\na class by itself.\n\nThe translation of all this literature falls into three periods, (i)\nfrom the seventh century until the reign of Ralpachan in the ninth,\n(ii) the reign of Ralpachan, and (in) some decades following the\narrival of At\u00ee\u015ba in 1038. In the first period work was sporadic and\nthe translations made were not always those preserved in the Kanjur.\nThonmi Sanbhota, the envoy sent to India in 616 is said to have made\nrenderings of the Kara\u1e47\u1e0da Vy\u00fbha and other works (but not those\nnow extant) and three items in the Tanjur are attributed to him[997].\nThe existence of early translations has been confirmed by Stein who\ndiscovered at Endere a Tibetan manuscript of the \u015aalistambhas\u00fbtra\nwhich is said not to be later than about 740 A.D.[998] The version now\nfound in the Kanjur appears to be a revision and expansion of this\nearlier text.\n\nA few translations from Chinese texts are attributed to the reign of\nKhri-gtsug-lde-btsan (705-755) and Rockhill calls attention to the\ninteresting statement that he sent envoys to India who learned\nSanskrit books by heart and on their return reproduced them in\nTibetan. If this was a common habit, it may be one of the reasons why\nTibetan translations sometimes show differences in length,\narrangement and even subject matter when compared with Sanskrit and\nChinese versions bearing the same name. During the reign of\nKhri-sro\u1e47-lde-btsan and the visit of Padma-Sambhava (which began in\nA.D. 747 according to the traditional chronology) the number of\ntranslations began to increase. Two works ascribed to the king and one\nto the saint are included in the canon, but the most prolific writer\nand translator of this period was Kamala\u015b\u00eela. Seventeen of his\noriginal works are preserved in the Tanjur and he translated part of\nthe Ratnak\u00fbta. The great period of translation--the Augustan age of\nTibet as it is often called--was beginning and a solid foundation was\nlaid by composing two dictionaries containing a collection of Sanskrit\nBuddhist terms[999].\n\nThe Augustus of Tibet was Ralpachan who ruled in the ninth century,\nthough Tibetan and Chinese chronicles are not in accord as to his\nexact date. He summoned from Kashmir and India many celebrated doctors\nwho with the help of native assistants took seriously in hand the\nbusiness of rendering the canon into Tibetan. They revised the\nexisting translations and added many more of their own. It is probable\nthat at least half of the works now contained in the Kanjur and Tanjur\nwere translated or revised at this time and that the additions made\nlater were chiefly Tantras (rGyud). On the other hand it is also\nprobable that many tantric translations ascribed to this epoch are\nreally later[1000]. The most prolific of Ralpachan's translators was\nJinamitra, a pandit of Kashmir described as belonging to the\nVaibh\u00e2shika school, who translated a large part of the Vinaya and many\ns\u00fbtras[1001]. Among the many Tibetan assistants Ye'ses-sde and\nDpal-brTsegs are perhaps those most frequently mentioned. These\nTibetan translators are commonly described by the title of Lo-tsa-va.\nAs in China the usual procedure seems to have been that an Indian\npandit explained the sacred text to a native. The latter then wrote it\ndown, but whereas in China he generally paraphrased whatever he\nunderstood, in Tibet he endeavoured to reproduce it with laborious\nfidelity.\n\nThe language of the translations, which is now the accepted form\nof literary Tibetan, appears to have been an archaic and classical\ndialect even in the early days of Tibetan Buddhism, for it is not the\nsame as the language of the secular documents dating from the eighth\ncentury, which have been found in Turkestan, and it remains unchanged\nin the earliest and later translations. It may possibly have been the\nsacred language of the Bonpo[1002] priests.\n\nAs narrated in the historical section Buddhism suffered a severe\nreverse with the death of Ralpachan and it was nearly a century before\na revival began. This revival was distinctly tantric and the most\ncelebrated name connected with it is At\u00ee\u015ba. According to Csoma de\nK\u00f6r\u00f6s's chronology the K\u00e2lacakra system was introduced in 1025 and the\neminent translator bLo-ldan-shes-rab[1003], a follower of At\u00ee\u015ba,\nwas born in 1057. It is thus easy to understand how during the\neleventh century a great number of tantric works were translated and\nthe published catalogues of the Kanjur and Tanjur confirm the fact,\nalthough the authors of the translations are not mentioned so often as\nin the other divisions. To At\u00ee\u015ba is ascribed the revision of many\nworks in the Tantra section of the Kanjur and twenty others composed\nby him are found in the Tanjur[1004]. It is said that the definitive\narrangement of the two collections as we know them was made by Bu-ston\nearly in the thirteenth century[1005]. The Kanjur (but not the Tanjur)\nwas translated into Mongol by order of Khutuktu Khagan (1604-1634)\nthe last prince of the Chakhar Mongols but a printed edition was\nfirst published by the Emperor K'ang-Hsi. Though it is said that the\nTanjur was translated and printed by order of Ch'ien-Lung, the\nstatement is doubtful. If such a translation was made it was probably\npartial and in manuscript[1006].\n\nManuscripts are still extensively copied and used in Tibet but the\nKanjur has been printed from wooden blocks for the last 200 years.\nThere are said to be two printing presses, the older at Narthang near\nTashilhunpo where an edition in 100 volumes is produced and another at\nDerge in the eastern province. This edition is in 108 volumes. An\nedition was also printed at Peking by order of K'ang-Hsi in red type\nand with a preface by the Emperor himself[1007].\n\nBesides the canon the Tibetans possess many religious or edifying\nworks composed in their own language[1008]. Such are the\nPadma-than-yig, or life of Padma-Sambhava, the works of Tsong-kha-pa,\nand several histories such as those of Bu-ston, T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, Sum-pa, and\nhJigs-med-nam-mkha[1009], biographies of Lamas without number,\naccounts of holy places, works of private devotion, medical treatises\nand grammars.\n\nThere are also numerous works called Terma which profess to be\nrevelations composed by Padma-Sambhava. They are said to be popular,\nthough apparently not accepted by the Yellow Church.\n\nAlthough it hardly comes within the scope of the present study, I may\nmention that there is also some non-Buddhist literature in Tibet,\nsometimes described as scriptures of the B\u00f6n religion and sometimes as\nfolklore. As samples may be cited Laufer's edition and translation of\nthe _Hundred Thousand N\u00e2gas_[1010] and Francke's of parts of the\n_Kesar-saga_[1011].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 973: The Tibetan orthography is bKah-hgyur (the translated\ncommand) and bsTan-\u1e25gyur (the translated explanation). Various\nspellings are used by European writers such as Kah-gyur, Kandjour,\nBkahgyur, etc. Waddell writes Kah-gyur and T\u00e4n-gyur.]\n\n[Footnote 974: Though this distinction seems to hold good on the\nwhole, yet it is not strictly observed. Thus the work called Ud\u00e2na and\ncorresponding to the Dhammapada is found in both the Kanjur and\nTanjur.]\n\n[Footnote 975: Nanjio's catalogue states that a great many\nAbhidha\u1e5bma works in Chinese agree with Tibetan, but their titles\nare not to be found in Csoma's analysis of the Kanjur. They may\nhowever be in the Tanjur, which is less fully analyzed.]\n\n[Footnote 976: Analysis of the Dulva, etc., four parts in _Asiatic\nResearches_, vol. XX. 1836, by A. Csoma K\u00f6r\u00f6si. Translated into French\nby Feer, _Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, tome 2me, 1881. _Index des\nKanjur_, herausgegeben von I.J. Schmidt (in Tibetan), 1845. Huth,\n_Verzeichnis der in Tibetischen Tanjur, Abtheilung mDo, erhaltenen\nWerke_ in _Sitzungsber. Berlin. Akad._ 1895. P. Cordier, _Catalogue du\nfonds Tib\u00e9tain de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale_. Beckh, _Verzeichnis der\ntibetischen Handscriften der K. Bibliothek zu Berlin_, 1 Abth.,\nKanjur, 1914. This is an analysis of the edition in 108 volumes,\nwhereas Csoma de K\u00f6r\u00f6si and Feer analyzed the edition in 100 volumes.\nThe arrangement of the two editions is not quite the same. See too\nPelliot's review of Beckh's catalogue in _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 111 ff.\nSee also Waddell, \"Tibetan Manuscripts and Books\" in _Asiatic\nQuarterly_, July, 1912, pp. 80-113, which, though not an analysis of\nthe Canon, incidentally gives much information.]\n\n[Footnote 977: _E.g._ Ud\u00e2na ( = Dhammapada) by Rockhill, 1892\n(transl.), and Beckh (text 1911) Madhyamak\u00e2vat\u00e2ra: de la Vall\u00e9e\nPoussin, 1912, Madyamika-\u015b\u00e2stra: Max Walleser, 1911 (transl.),\nCitralakshana, ed. and trans. Laufer, 1913; Feer, _Fragments extraits\ndu Kanjur, Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, tome 5me, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 978: It is also sometimes divided into three Pitakas. When\nthis is done, the Dulva is the Vinaya P., the \u015aer-chin is the\nAbhidharma P., and all the other works whether S\u00fbtras or Tantras are\nclassed together as the S\u00fbtra P.]\n\n[Footnote 979: hDul-ba.]\n\n[Footnote 980: See Nanjio, Nos. 1115-1119, 1122, 1132-4. Rockhill,\n_Pr\u00e2timoksha S\u00fbtra selon la version Tib\u00e9taine_, 1884. Huth,\n_Tibetische Version der Naihsargikapr\u00e2yaccittikadharm\u00e2s_, 1891. Finot\nand H\u00fcber, \"Le Pr\u00e2timoksa des Sarv\u00e2stivadins,\" _J.A._ 1913, II. p.\n465.]\n\n[Footnote 981: Strictly \u015aer-phyin.]\n\n[Footnote 982: Waddell in _Asiatic Quarterly_, 1912, XXXIV. p. 98, renders\nthe title as Vata sangha, which probably represents Avata\u1e43saka. Sarat\nChandra Das, _sub voce_, says Phal-chen-sde-pa = Mah\u00e2sanghika.]\n\n[Footnote 983: The statements of Nanjio as to \"deest in Tibetan\" are\nnot quite accurate as regards the edition in 108 volumes. Compare his\ncatalogue with Beckh's.]\n\n[Footnote 984: This statement made by such scholars as Feer (_Anal. du\nKanjour_, p. 288) and Rockhill (_Ud\u00e2na_, p. x) is of great weight,\nbut I have not found in their works any quotation from the Tibetan\ntranslation saying that the original language was not Sanskrit and the\ntitles given by Peer are in Sanskrit not in Pali. I presume it is not\nmeant that the Tibetan text is a translation from a Sanskrit text\nwhich corresponds with the Pali text known to us. In Beckh's catalogue\nof the edition in 108 volumes the same titles occur in the\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 section, but without any statement that the works are\ntranslated from Pali. See Beckh, p. 12, and Feer, pp. 288 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 985: _Life of the Buddha_, p. 224, and _J.R.A.S._ 1899, p.\n422.]\n\n[Footnote 986: There is another shorter s\u00fbtra on the same subject in\nthe mDo section of the Kanjur. Feer, p. 247. In the edition of 108\nvolumes, the whole section is incorporated in the mDo, Beckh, p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 987: The word seems originally to mean string or chain.]\n\n[Footnote 988: Apparently not the same as the Tath\u00e2gata-Guhyaka\n_alias_ Guhya Samagha described by R. Mitra, _Sk. Bud. Lit_. p. 261.]\n\n[Footnote 989: See notices of these in four articles by Sati\u015bcandra\nVidy\u00e2bh\u00fbshana in _J.A.S. Beng._ 1907.]\n\n[Footnote 990: _I.e._ the Dhammapada.]\n\n[Footnote 991: Huth's analysis of vols. 117-124 of the Tanjur\n(_Sitzungsber. K\u014dn. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin_, 1895) shows that\nthey contain _inter alia_, eight works on Sanskrit literature and\nphilology besides the Meghad\u00fbta, nine on medicine and alchemy with\ncommentaries, fourteen on astrology and divination, three on chemistry\n(the composition of incense), eight on gnomic poetry and ethics, one\nencyclop\u00e6dia, six lives of the Saints, six works on the Tibetan\nlanguage and five on painting and fine art. Cordier gives further\nparticulars of the medical works in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, p. 604. They\ninclude a veterinary treatise.]\n\n[Footnote 992: See title in Laufer's edition.]\n\n[Footnote 993: See Feer, _l.c._ for instance, pp. 287, 248.]\n\n[Footnote 994: See Feer, _l.c._ p. 344, and Laufer, \"Die Bruza\nSprache\" in _T'oung Pao_, 1908. It is said that King Ru-che-tsan of\nBrusha or Dusha translated (? what date) the M\u00fbla-Tantra and\nVy\u00e2khy\u00e2-Tantra into the language of his country. See _J.A.S.B._ 1882,\np. 12. Beckh states that four works have titles in Chinese, one in\nBru\u017ea and one in Tartar (Hor-gyi-skad-du).]\n\n[Footnote 995: Laufer, _ibid_. p. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 996: See Nanjio, No. 87, and Feer, _l.c._ pp. 208-212, but\nthe two works may not be the same. The Tibetan seems to be a\ncollection of 45 s\u00fbtras.]\n\n[Footnote 997: Rockhill, _l.c._ p. 212.]\n\n[Footnote 998: Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, pp. 426-9 and App. B. See also\nPelliot in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1908, pp. 507 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 999: The Mah\u00e2vyutpatti edited by Minayeff in _Bibl.\nBuddhica_ and an abridgement.]\n\n[Footnote 1000: According to Feer (_Analyse_, p. 325) Tibetan\nhistorians state that at this epoch kings prohibited the translation\nof more than a few tantric works.]\n\n[Footnote 1001: Numerous works are also ascribed to Sarvaj\u00f1\u00e2deva and\nDharmaka, both of Kashmir, and to the Indian Vidy\u00e2karaprabh\u00e2 and\nSurendrabodhi.]\n\n[Footnote 1002: See Francke in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 56-7.]\n\n[Footnote 1003: See Pander, _Pantheon_, No. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 1004: Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 36, gives a list of them.]\n\n[Footnote 1005: It appears to me that there is some confusion between\nBrom-ston, a disciple of At\u00ee\u015ba, who must have flourished about 1060\nand Bu-ston, who was born in 1288. Gr\u00fcnwedel says that the latter is\ncredited with the compilations of the Kanjur and Tanjur, but Rockhill\n(_Life of the Buddha_, p. 227) describes Bu-ston as a disciple of\nAt\u00ee\u015ba.]\n\n[Footnote 1006: See Huth, _Geschichte des Budd. in der Mongolei_, 291,\nand Laufer, \"Skizze der Mongolischen Literatur\" (in _Keleti Szemle_,\n1907), p. 219. Also Pelliot in _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 112-3.]\n\n[Footnote 1007: See Laufer in _Bull. de l'Acad. de S. P\u00e9tersbourg_,\n1909, pp. 567-574. There are some differences in the editions. That of\nNarthang is said to contain a series of s\u00fbtras translated from the\nPali and wanting in the Red Edition, but not to contain two\ntranslations from Chinese which are found in the Red Edition. See the\npreface to Beckh's catalogue. The MS. analyzed by him was obtained at\nPeking, but it is not known whence it came. An edition by Ch'ien Lung\nis mentioned by some authors. It is also said that an edition is\nprinted at Punakha in Bhutan, and another in Mongolian at Kumbum.]\n\n[Footnote 1008: Some of these are probably included in the Tanjur,\nwhich has not been fully catalogued. See _J.A.S. Beng_. 1904, for a\nlist of 85 printed books bought in Lhasa, 1902, and Waddell's article\nin _Asiatic Quarterly_, July, 1912, already referred to.]\n\n[Footnote 1009: Edited and translated by Huth as _Geschichte des\nBuddhismus in der Mongolei_, 1892.]\n\n[Footnote 1010: Finno Ugrian Society of Helsingfors, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 1011: Same Society, 1900 and 1902, and _J.A.S.B._ 1906-7.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LII\n\nTIBET (_continued_)\n\nDOCTRINES OF LAMAISM\n\n\nLamaism may be defined as a mixture of late Indian Buddhism (which is\nitself a mixture of Buddhism and Hinduism) with various Tibetan\npractices and beliefs. The principal of these are demonophobia and the\nworship of human beings as incarnate deities. Demonophobia is a\ncompendious expression for an obsession which victimizes Chinese and\nHindus to some extent as well as Tibetans, namely, the conviction that\nthey are at all times surrounded by fierce and terrible beings against\nwhom they must protect themselves by all the methods that religion and\nmagic can supply. This is merely an acute form of the world-wide\nbelief that all nature is animated by good and bad spirits, of which\nthe latter being more aggressive require more attention, but it\nassumes startlingly conspicuous forms in Tibet because the Church has\nenlisted all the forces of art, theology and philosophy to aid in this\nwar against demons. The externals of Tibetan worship suffer much from\nthe idea that benevolent deities assume a terrible guise in order to\nstrike fear into the hosts of evil[1012]. The helpers and saviours of\nmankind such as Avalokita and T\u00e2r\u00e2 are often depicted in the shape of\nraging fiends, as hideous and revolting as a fanciful brush and\ndistorted brain can paint them. The idea inspiring these monstrous\nimages is not the worship of cruelty and terror, but the hope that\nevil spirits may be kept away when they see how awful are the powers\nwhich the Church can summon. Nevertheless the result is that a Lama\ntemple often looks like a pandemonium and meeting house for\ndevil-worship, an Olympus tenanted by Gorgons, Hydras and Furies. It\nis only fair to say that Tibetan art sometimes represents with success\ngods and saints in attitudes of repose and authority, and has produced\nsome striking portraits[1013], but its most marked feature (which\nit shares with literature) is a morbid love of the monstrous and\nterrible, a perpetual endeavour to portray fiends surrounded with\nevery circumstance of horror, and still more appalling deities, all\neyes, heads and limbs, wreathed with fire, drinking blood from skulls\nand trampling prostrate creatures to death beneath their feet.\nProbably the wild and fantastic landscapes of Tibet, the awful\nsuggestions of the spectral mists, the real terrors of precipice,\ndesert and storm have wrought for ages upon the minds of those who\nlive among them.\n\nLike demonophobia, the worship of incarnate deities is common in\neastern Asia but here it acquires an extent and intensity unknown\nelsewhere. The Tibetans show a strange power of organization in\ndealing with the supernatural. In India incarnations have usually been\nrecognized post-mortem and as incalculable manifestations of the\nspirit[1014]. But at least since the seventeenth century, the Lamas\nhave accepted them as part of the Church's daily round and\nadministrative work. The practices of Shamanism probably prepared the\nway, for in his mystic frenzies the Shaman is temporarily inhabited by\na god and the extreme ease with which distinguished persons are turned\ninto gods or Bodhisattvas in China and Japan is another manifestation\nof the same spirit. An ancient inscription[1015] applies to the kings\nof Tibet the word _\u1e25phrul_ which is also used of the Grand Lamas\nand means that a deity is transformed, or as we say, incarnate in a\nhuman person. The Yellow Church officially recognized[1016] the\nEmperor of China as an incarnation of Ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee and the Mongols\nbelieved the Tsar of Russia to be an incarnation of the White T\u00e2r\u00e2.\n\nThe admixtures received by Buddhism in Tibet are not alien to Indian\nthought. They received an unusual emphasis but India provided terrible\ndeities, like K\u00e2l\u00ee with her attendant fiends, and also the idea that\nthe divine embodies itself in human personalities or special\nmanifestations. Thus Tibetan Buddhism is not so much an amalgam, as a\nphase of medieval Hindu religion disproportionately developed in\nsome directions. The Lamas have acquired much the same status as the\nBrahmans. If they could not make themselves a hereditary caste, they\nat least enforced the principle that they are the necessary\nintermediaries between gods and men. Though they adopted the monastic\nsystem of Buddhism, they are not so much monks as priests and ghostly\nwarriors who understand the art of fighting with demons.\n\nYet Tibet like Japan could assimilate and transform as well as borrow.\nThe national and original element in Lamaism becomes plain when we\ncompare Tibet with the neighbouring land of Nepal. There late Indian\nBuddhism simply decayed under an overgrowth of Brahmanism. In Tibet it\nacquired more life and character than it had in its native Bengal.\nThis new character has something monstrous and fantastic in government\nas well as art: the magic fortresses of the Snowland, peopled by\npriests and demons, seem uncanny homes for plain mortals, yet Lamaism\nhas the strength belonging to all genuine expressions of national\ncharacter and it clearly suits the Tibetans and Mongols. The oldest\nknown form of Tibetan religion had some of the same characteristics.\nIt is called B\u00f6n or P\u00f6n. It would be outside my province to discuss it\nhere, but even when first heard of it was more than a rude form of\nanimism. In the eighth century its hierarchy was sufficiently strong\nto oppose the introduction of Buddhism and it possibly contained a\npre-buddhist stratum of Iranian ideas[1017]. In later times it adopted\nor travestied Buddhist dogma, ritual and literature, much as Taoism\ndid in China, but still remained a repository of necromancy, magic,\nanimal sacrifices, devil-dancing, and such like practices, which have\nin all ages corrupted Tibetan Buddhism though theoretically\ndisapproved.\n\nOf Tibetan Buddhism anterior to 747 there is little to be said. It\nconsisted in the sporadic introduction of books and images from India\nand did not assume any national character, for it is clear that in\nthis period Tibet was not regarded as a Buddhist country. The first\nphase deserving the name of Lamaism begins with the arrival of\nPadma-Sambhava in 747. The Nying-ma-pa or Old School claims to\nrepresent his teaching, but, as already mentioned, the various sects\nhave interacted on one another so much that their tenets are hardly\ndistinctive. Still it is pretty clear that what Padma-Sambhava brought\nwith him was the late form of India Buddhism called Mantray\u00e2na,\nclosely allied to the Ch\u00ean Yen of China, and transported to Japan\nunder the name of Shingon and also to the Buddhism of Java as\nrepresented in the sculptures of Boroboedoer. The Far East felt shy of\nthe tantric element in this teaching, whereas the Tibetans exaggerated\nit, but the doctrinal basis is everywhere the same, namely, that there\nare five celestial Buddhas, of whom Vairocana is the principal and in\nsome sense the origin. These give rise to celestial emanations, female\nas well as male, and to terrestrial reflexes such as \u015a\u00e2kyamuni.\nAmong the other features of Padma-Sambhava's teaching the following\nmay be enumerated with more or less certainty: (_a_) A readiness to\ntolerate and incorporate the local cults of the countries where he\npreached. (_b_) A free use of spells (dh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ee) and magical figures\n(ma\u1e47\u1e0dala) for the purpose of subduing demons and acquiring\nsupernatural powers. (_c_) The belief that by such methods an adept\ncan not only summon a deity but assume his form and in fact become the\ndeity. (_d_) The worship of Amit\u00e2bha, among other deities, and a\nbelief in his paradise. (_e_) The presentation of offerings, though\nnot of flesh, in sacrifice[1018] and the performance of ceremonies on\nbehalf of departed souls. (_f_) The worship of departed and perhaps of\nliving teachers. His image is a conspicuous object of veneration in\nthe Nying-ma-pa sect but he does not appear to have taught the\ndoctrine of hierarchical succession by incarnation. Gr\u00fcnwedel[1019]\nhas pointed out that the later corruptions of Buddhism in northern\nIndia, Tibet and Central Asia are connected with the personages known\nas the eighty-four Mah\u00e2siddhas, or great magicians. Their appearance\nas shown in pictures is that of Brahmanic ascetics rather than of\nBuddhist Bhikshus, but many of them bear names which are not Indian.\nTheir dates cannot be fixed at present and appear to cover a\nperiod from the early centuries of our era up to about 1200, so that\nthey represent not a special movement but a continuous tendency to\nimport into Buddhism very various currents of thought, north Indian,\nIranian, Central Asian and even Mohammedan.\n\nThe visit of Padma-Sambhava was followed by a period of religious\nactivity which culminated in the ninth century under King Ralpachan,\nbut it does not appear that the numerous translations from Indian\nworks made in this reign did more than supplement and amplify the\ndoctrine already preached. But when after a lengthy eclipse Buddhism\nwas reinstated in the eleventh century under the auspices of At\u00ee\u015ba\nand other foreign teachers we hear of something new, called the\nK\u00e2lacakra[1020] system also known as the Vajray\u00e2na. Pending the\npublication of the K\u00e2lacakra Tantra[1021], it is not easy to make\ndefinite statements about this school which presumably marks the\nextreme point of development or degeneration in Buddhism, but a\npersistent tradition connects it with a country called \u015aambhala or\nZhambhala, translated in Tibetan as bDe-\u1e25byu\u1e47 or source of\nhappiness. This country is seen only through a haze of myth: it may\nhave been in India or it may have been somewhere in Central Asia,\nwhere Buddhism mingled with Turkish ideas[1022]. Its kings were called\nKulika and the Tibetan calendar introduced by At\u00ee\u015ba is said to have\ncome from it. This fact and the meaning of the word K\u00e2lacakra (wheel\nof time) suggest that the system has some connection with the Turkish\ncycle of twelve animals used for expressing dates[1023]. A\nlegend[1024] states that \u015a\u00e2kyamuni promulgated the K\u00e2lacakra system\nin Orissa (Dh\u00e2nyaka\u1e6daka) and that Sucandra, king of \u015aambhala,\nhaving miraculously received this teaching wrote the K\u00e2lacakra Tantra\nin a prophetic spirit, although it was not published until 965\nA.D. This is really the approximate date of its compilation and I can\nonly add the following disjointed data[1025].\n\nTibetan authorities state that it was introduced into N\u00e2land\u00e2 by a\nPandit called Tsilu or Chilu and accepted by Narotapa who was then head\nof the University. From N\u00e2land\u00e2 it spread to Tibet. Manju\u015br\u00eek\u00eerti, king\nof \u015aambhala, is said to have been an exponent of it and to have begun\nhis reign 674 years after the death of the Buddha. But since he is also\nthe second incarnation of the Panchen Lama and since the fourth\n(Abhayakara) lived about 1075, he may really have been a historical\ncharacter in the latter part of the tenth century. Its promulgation is\nalso ascribed to a personage called Siddha Pito. It must be late for it\nis said to mention Islam and Mohammed. It is perhaps connected with\nanti-mohammedan movements which looked to Kalk\u00ee, the future incarnation\nof Vishnu, as their Messiah, for Hindu tradition says that Kalk\u00ee will be\nborn in \u015aambhalagr\u00e2ma[1026]. We hear also of a Siddha called Telopa or\nTailopa, who was a vigorous opponent of Islam. The mythology of the\nschool is Vishnuite, not Sivaitic, and it is noticeable that the\nP\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra system which had some connection with Kashmir lays stress on\nthe wheel or discus (_cakra_ or _sudar\u015bana_) of Vishnu which is said to\nbe the support of the Universe and the manifestation of Creative will.\nThe K\u00e2lacakra is mentioned as a special form of this cosmic wheel having\nsix spokes[1027].\n\nThe peculiar doctrine of the Buddhist K\u00e2lacakra is that there is an\nAdi-Buddha[1028], or primordial Buddha God, from whom all other\nBuddhas are derived. It is possible that it represents a last effort\nof Central Asian Buddhism to contend with Moslims, which instead of\ndenying the bases of Mohammed's teaching tried to show that monotheism\n(like everything else) could be found in Buddhism--a method of\nargument frequent in India. The doctrine of the Adi-Buddha was not\nhowever new or really important. For the Indian mind it is implied\nin the dogma of the three bodies of Buddha, for the Sambhogak\u00e2ya is\npractically an Indian Deva and the Dharmak\u00e2ya is the pantheos or\nBrahm\u00e2. Under the influence of the K\u00e2lacakra the Lamas did not become\ntheists in the sense of worshipping one supreme God but they\nidentified with the Adi-Buddha some particular deity, varying\naccording to the sects. Thus Samantabhadra, who usually ranks as a\nBodhisattva--that is as inferior to a Buddha--was selected by some for\nthe honour. The logic of this is hard to explain but it is clearly\nanalogous to the procedure, common to the oldest and newest phases of\nHindu religion, by which a special deity is declared to be not only\nall the other gods but also the universal spirit[1029]. It does not\nappear that the K\u00e2lacakra Tantra met with general acceptance. It is\nunknown in China and Japan and not well known in Nepal[1030].\n\nThe K\u00e2lacakra adopted all the extravagances of the Tantras and\nprovided the principal Buddhas and Bodhisattvas with spouses, even\ngiving one to the Adi-Buddha himself[1031]. Extraordinary as this is\nfrom a Buddhist point of view, it is little more than the Hindu idea\nthat the Supreme Being became male and female for the purpose of\nproducing the universe. But the general effect of the system on\nmonastic and religious life was bad. Celibacy was not observed;\nmorals, discipline and doctrine alike deteriorated. A striking\ninstance is afforded by the ceremonies used by Pagspa when receiving\nKublai into the Church. The Tibetan prelate presumably wished to give\nthe Emperor what was best and most important in his creed and selected\na formula for invoking a demoniac Buddha.\n\nThe latest phase of Lamaism was inaugurated by Tsong-kha-pa's\nreformation and is still vigorous. Politically and socially it was of\ncapital importance, for it disciplined the priesthood and enabled\nthe heads of the Church to rule Tibet. In doctrine it was not marked\nby the importation of new ideas, but it emphasized the worship of\nAvalokita as the patron of Tibet, it systematized the existing beliefs\nabout reincarnation, thereby creating a powerful hierarchy, and it\nrestricted Tantrism, without abolishing it. But many monasteries\npersistently refused to accept these reforms.\n\nTibetan mythology and ceremonial have been described in detail by\nGr\u00fcnwedel, Waddell and others. The pantheon is probably the largest in\nthe world. All heaven and hell seem to meet in it. The originals of\nthe deities are nearly all to be found in Nepalese Buddhism[1032] and\nthe perplexing multiplicity of Tibet is chiefly due to the habit of\nrepresenting one deity in many forms and aspects, thus making him a\ndozen or more personages both for art and for popular worship. The\nadoration of saints and their images is also more developed than in\nNepal and forms some counterpoise to the prevalent demonolatry.\n\nI will not attempt to catalogue this fantastic host but will merely\nnotice the principal elements in it.\n\nThe first of these may be called early Buddhist. The figure of\n\u015a\u00e2kyamuni is frequent in poses which illustrate the familiar story\nof his life and the statue in the cathedral of Lhasa representing him\nas a young man is the most venerated image in all Tibet. The human\nBuddhas anterior to him also receive recognition together with\nMaitreya. The Pratimoksha is still known, the Uposatha days are\nobserved and the details of the ordination services recall the\nprescriptions of the Pali Vinaya; formul\u00e6 such as the four truths, the\neightfold path and the chain of causation are still in use and form\nthe basis of ethics.\n\nThe later (but still not tantric) doctrines of Indian Mahayanism are\nnaturally prominent. The three bodies of Buddha are well known and\nalso the series of five Celestial Buddhas with corresponding\nBodhisattvas and other manifestations. I feel doubtful whether the\ntable given by Waddell[1033] can be accepted as a compendium of\nthe Lamaist creed. The symmetry is spoiled by the existence of other\ngroups such as the Thirty Buddhas, the Thousand Buddhas, and the\nBuddhas of Healing, and also by the habit just mentioned of\nrepresenting deities in various forms. For instance Amoghap\u00e2\u015ba,\ntheoretically a form of Avalokita, is in practice distinct. The fact\nis that Lamaism accepted the whole host of Indian Buddhas and\nBodhisattvas, with additions of its own. The classifications made by\nvarious s\u00fbtras and tantras were not sufficiently dogmatic to become\narticles of faith: chance and fancy determined the prominence and\npopularity of a given figure. Among the Buddhas those most worshipped\nare Amit\u00e2bha, \u015a\u00e2kya and Bhaishajyaguru or the Buddha of Healing:\namong the Bodhisattvas, Avalokita, Maitreya and Ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee.\n\nThere is nothing in the above differing materially from Chinese or\nJapanese Buddhism. The peculiarities of Tibet are brought out by the\ntantric phase which those countries eschewed. Three characteristics of\nTibetan Tantrism, which are all more or less Indian, may be mentioned.\nFirstly, all deities, even the most august, become familiar spirits,\nwho are not so much worshipped as coerced by spells. The neophyte is\ninitiated into their mysteries by a special ceremonial[1034]: the\nadept can summon them, assume their attributes and attain union with\nthem. Secondly, great prominence is given to goddesses, either as the\ncounterparts of male deities or as independent. Thirdly, deities\nappear in various forms, described as mild, angry or fiendish. It is\nspecially characteristic of Lamaism that naturally benevolent deities\nare represented as raging in furious frenzy.\n\nWhether the superhuman beings of Tantrism are Buddhas, Bodhisattvas,\nor Hindu gods like Mah\u00e2kala, it is correct to describe them as\ndeities, for they behave and are treated like Indian Devas. Besides\nthe relatively old and simple forms of the various Buddhas and\nBodhisattvas, there are many others which are usually accommodated to\nthe system by being described as protecting spirits, that is virtuous\nand religious fiends who expend their ferocity on the enemies of the\nChurch.\n\nOf these Protectors there are two classes, which are not mutually\nexclusive, namely, the tutelary deities of individuals, and the\ndefenders of the faith or tutelaries of the whole Church. The former,\nwho are extremely important in the religious life of the Lamas, are\ncalled Yi-dam and may be compared with the Ish\u1e6da-devat\u00e2s of the\nHindus: the latter or Chos Skyo\u1e47 correspond to the Dharmap\u00e2las.\nEvery Lama selects a Yi-dam either for life or for a period. His\nchoice must remain a secret but he himself has no doubts, as after\nfasting and meditation the deity will appear to him[1035]. Henceforth\nhe every morning repeats formul\u00e6 which are supposed to give him the\nappearance of his tutelary and thus scare away hostile demons. The\nmost efficacious tutelaries are tantric forms of the Dhy\u00e2ni Buddhas,\nespecially Vajrasattva, Vajradhara and Amit\u00e2yus. The deity is\nrepresented not in the guise of a Buddha but crowned, robed, and\nholding a thunderbolt, and his attributes appear to be derived from\nthose of Indra[1036]. In his arms he always clasps a \u015aakti.\n\nA second class of tutelaries is composed of so-called Buddhas,\naccompanied by \u015aaktis and terrific in aspect, who are manifestations of\nthe Buddhahood for special purposes. I do not know if this description\nis theologically correct, for these fantastic figures have no relation\nto anything deserving the name of Buddhism, but Gr\u00fcnwedel[1037] has\nshown that they are comparable with the various forms of \u015aiva. This god\ndoes not become incarnate like Vishnu but manifests himself from time to\ntime in many shapes accompanied by a retinue who are sometimes merely\nattendants and sometimes alternative forms of the Lord. V\u00eerabhadra, the\nterrible being created by \u015aiva from himself in order to confound\nDaksha's sacrifice, is a close parallel to the demoniac Buddhas of\nLamaism. Some of them, such as Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la and Samvara, show their origin\nin their names and the rest, such as Hevajra, Buddhakap\u00e2la and\nYam\u00e2ntaka, are similar. This last is a common subject for art, a many\nheaded and many limbed minotaur, convulsed by a paroxysm of devilish\npassion. Among his heads the most conspicuous is the face of an ox, yet\nthis grotesque demon is regarded as a manifestation of the benign and\nintellectual Ma\u00f1ju\u015bri whose images in other lands are among the most\ngracious products of Buddhist sculpture.\n\nMost tutelary deities of this class act as defenders of the faith\nand each sect has one or two as its special guardians[1038]. The idea\nis ancient for even in the Pitakas, Sakka and other spirits\nrespectfully protect the Buddha's disciples, and the Dharmap\u00e2las of\nGandharan art are the ancestors of the Chos Skyo\u1e47. But in Tibet\nthese assume monstrous and manifold disguises. The oldest is\nVajrap\u00e2\u1e47i and nearly all the others are forms of \u015aiva (such as\nAcala or Mi-gyo-ba who reappears in Japan as Fudo) or personages of\nhis retinue. Eight of them are often adored collectively under the\nname of the Eight Terrible Ones. Several of these are well-known\nfigures in Hindu mythology, for though the Lamas usually give Buddhist\ntitles to their principal deities, yet they also venerate Hindu gods,\nwithout any explanation of their status. Thus hJigs-med-nam-mkha says\nthat he composed his history with the help of \u015aiva[1039]. The\nmembers of this group vary in different enumerations but the following\nusually form part of it.\n\n(_a_) Hayagr\u00eeva[1040], the horse-necked god. In India he appears to be\nconnected with Vishnu rather than \u015aiva. The magic dagger with which\nLamas believe they can stab demons is said to be a form of him. The\nMongols regard him as the protector of horses. (_b_) Yama, the Indian\ngod of the dead, accompanied by a hellish retinue including living\nskeletons. (_c_) Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la, the form of \u015aiva already mentioned. It\nwas by his inspiration that Pagspa was able to convert Khubilai Khan.\n(_d_) Lha-mo, the goddess, that is Dev\u00ee, the spouse of \u015aiva. (_e_)\nlCam-sra\u1e47, a war god of somewhat uncertain origin but perhaps a\nTibetan form of K\u00e2rtikeya. Other deities frequently included in this\ngroup are Yam\u00e2ntaka, mentioned above, Kubera or Vai\u015bravana, the\nHindu god of wealth, and a deity called the White Brahm\u00e2 (Thsangspa\ndKarpo). This last is an ordinary human figure riding on a white horse\nand brandishing a sword. He wears white clothes and a crown or turban.\nHe is perhaps Kalk\u00ee who, as suggested above, had some connection with\nthe K\u00e2lacakra. The Eight Terrible Ones and their attendants are\nrepresented by grotesquely masked figures in the dances and mystery\nplays enacted by Lamas. These performances are said to be still\nknown among the vulgar as dances of the Red Tiger Devil, but in\nthe hands of the Yellow Church have become a historical drama\nrepresenting the persecution of Buddhism under King Lang-dar-ma and\nits ultimate triumph after he has been slain by the help of these\nghostly champions.\n\nLamaist books mention numerous other Indian divinities, such as\nBrahm\u00e2, the thirty-three Devas, the Kings of the four quarters, etc.\nThese have no particular place in the system but their appearance in\nart and literature is natural, since they are decorative though not\nessential parts of early Buddhism. The same may be said of all the\nhost of N\u00e2gas, Yakshas, Rakshasas, etc. But though these multitudinous\nspirits have been rearranged and classified in conformity with Hindu\nideas they are not an importation but rather part of the old folklore\nof Tibet, in many ways identical with the same stratum of thought in\nIndia. Thus the snake demigods or N\u00e2gas[1041] occupy in both countries\na large place in the popular imagination. In the higher ranks of the\nLamaist pantheon all the figures seem to be imported, but some\nindigenous godlings have retained a place in the lower classes. Such\nare rDo-rje-legs, at first an opponent of Buddhism as preached by\nPadma-Sambhava but honoured as a deity after making due submission,\nand the Five Kings[1042], a group of fierce spirits, under the\npresidency of dPe-dkar.\n\nIt remains to say a word of the numerous goddesses who play an important\npart in Tibetan Buddhism, as in Hindu Tantrism. They are usually\nrepresented as the female counterparts or better halves of male deities,\nbut some are self-sufficient. The greatest of these goddesses is\nT\u00e2r\u00e2[1043]. Though Lamaist theology describes her as the spouse of\nAvalokita she is not a single personality but a generic name applied to\na whole class of female deities and, as in many other cases, no clear\ndistinction is drawn between her attendants and the forms which she\nherself assumes. Originally benevolent and depicted with the attributes\nof Lakshm\u00ee she is transformed by a turn of Tibetan imagination, with\nwhich the reader is now familiar, into various terrible shapes and is\npractically the same as the spouse of \u015aiva, celebrated in the Tantras\nunder countless names. Twenty-one T\u00e2r\u00e2s are often enumerated in a list\nsaid to be well known even to the laity[1044] and there are others.\nAmong them are (_a_) the Green T\u00e2r\u00e2, the commonest form in Tibet. (_b_)\nThe White T\u00e2r\u00e2, much worshipped by Mongols and supposed to be incarnate\nin the Tsar of Russia, (_c_) Bhrikut\u00ee, a dark blue, angry, frowning\nform, (_d_) Ush\u1e47\u00eeshavijay\u00e2[1045], a graceful and benevolent form known\nto the Japanese. She is mentioned in the Horiuji palm-leaf manuscript\nwhich dates from at least 609 A.D. (_e_) Par\u1e47a\u015bavar\u00ee, represented as\nwearing a girdle of leaves and also called Gandh\u00e2r\u00ee, Pi\u015b\u00e2c\u00ee and\nSarva-\u015aavar\u00e2\u1e47\u00e2m Bhagavat\u00ee[1046]. She is apparently the goddess of an\naboriginal tribe in India. (_f_) Kurukull\u00e2, a goddess of riches,\ninhabiting caves. She is said to have given great wealth to the fifth\nGrand Lama, and though she might be suspected of being a native deity\nwas known in Nepal and India[1047].\n\nThe Goddess Mar\u00eec\u00ee, often depicted with T\u00e2r\u00e2, appears to be distinct\nand in one form is represented with a sow's head and known as\nVajravar\u00e2h\u00ee. As such she is incarnate in the abbesses of several\nmonasteries, particularly Samding on lake Yamdok[1048].\n\nA notice of Tibetan Buddhism can hardly avoid referring to the use of\npraying wheels and the celebrated formula Om ma\u1e47i padme hum. Though\nthese are among the most conspicuous and ubiquitous features of\nLamaism their origin is strangely obscure[1049]. Attempts to connect\nthe praying wheel with the wheel of the law, the cakravartin and other\nuses of the wheel in Indian symbolism, are irrelevant, for the object\nto be explained is not really a wheel but a barrel, large or small,\ncontaining written prayers, or even a whole library. Those who turn\nthe barrel acquire all the merit arising from repeating the\nprayers or reading the books. In Tibet this form of devotion is a\nnational mania. People carry small prayer wheels in their hands as\nthey walk and place large ones in rivers to be turned by the current.\nIn China, Japan and Korea we find revolving libraries and occasional\npraying machines, though not of quite the same form as in Tibet[1050],\nbut, so far as I know, there is nothing to show that these were not\nintroduced from Tibet into China and thence found their way further\nEast. The hypothesis that they were known in India and thence exported\nto Tibet on one side and China on the other naturally suggests itself,\nbut the total absence of praying machines in India as well as in the\nruined cities of Central Asia and the general Hindu habit of regarding\nscriptures and spells as words rather than written documents lend it\nno support. It may be that when the illiterate Tibetans first became\nacquainted with written prayers, they invented this singular method of\nutilizing them without reading them.\n\nEqually obscure is the origin of the formula Om ma\u1e47i padme[1051]\nhum, which permeates Tibet, uttered by every human voice, revolved in\ncountless machines, graven on the rocks, printed on flags. It is\nobviously a Dh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00ee[1052] and there is no reason to doubt that it\ncame to Tibet with the first introduction of Buddhism, but also no\nrecord. The earliest passage hitherto quoted for its occurrence is a\nChinese translation made between 980 and 1001 A.D.[1053] and said to\ncorrespond with the Kanjur and the earliest historical mention of its\nuse is found in Willelm de Rubruk (1254) and in the writings of\nBu-ston[1054]. The first legend of its origin is contained in the\nManikambum, a work of doubtful age and authorship but perhaps as\nold as the fifteenth century[1055]. The popularity of the prayer may\ndate from the time when the pontiffs of Lhasa were recognized as\nincarnations of Avalokita. The first and last words are mystic\nsyllables such as often occur in these formul\u00e6. Ma\u1e47i padme is\ngenerally interpreted to mean the jewel in the lotus[1056], but Thomas\nhas pointed out that it is more consonant with grammar and usage to\nregard the syllables as one word and the vocative of a feminine title\nsimilar to Padmap\u00e2\u1e47i, one of Avalokita's many names. The analogy of\nsimilar spells supports this interpretation and it seems probable that\nthe formula was originally an invocation of the \u015aakti under the\ntitle of Ma\u1e47ipadm\u00e2, although so far as I know it is now regarded by\nthe Tibetans as an address to the male Avalokita. It has also been\nsuggested that the prominence of this prayer may be due to Manich\u00e6an\ninfluence and the idea that it contained the name of Mani. The\nsuggestion is not absurd for in many instances Manich\u00e6ism and Buddhism\nwere mixed together, but if it were true we should expect to find the\nformula frequently used in the Tarim basin, but of such use there is\nno proof.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1012: The Shingon sect in Japan depict benevolent deities in\na raging form, Funnu. See Kokka, No. 292, p. 58. The idea goes back to\nIndia where the canons of sacred art recognize that deities can be\nrepresented in a pacific (\u015b\u00e2nta or saumya) or in a terrific (ugra\nor raudra) form. See Gopinath Rao, _Hindu Iconography_, vol. I. p. 19,\nand vol. II of the same for a lengthy description of the aspects of\n\u015aiva.]\n\n[Footnote 1013: _E.g._ Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddhist art in India_, fig. 149,\n_id. Mythologie_, fig. 54.]\n\n[Footnote 1014: But there is still a hereditary incarnation of\nGane\u015ba near Poona, which began in the seventeenth century. See\n_Asiatic Researches_, VII. 381.]\n\n[Footnote 1015: See Waddell in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 941.]\n\n[Footnote 1016: See _e.g. J.A.S.B._ 1882, p. 41. The Svayambh\u00fb Pur\u00e2na\nalso states that Ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee lives in China. See _J. Buddhist Text\nSociety_, 1894, vol. II. part II. p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 1017: See _T'oung Pao_, 1908, p. 13. For the B\u00f6n generally\nsee also _J.A.S. Bengal_, 1881, p. 187; Rockhill, _Land of the Lamas_,\npp. 217-218; and _T'oung Pao_, 1901, pp. 24-44.]\n\n[Footnote 1018: The Lamas offer burnt sacrifices but it is not quite\nclear whether these are derived from the Indian _homa_ adopted by\nTantric Buddhism or from Tibetan and Mongol ceremonies. See, for a\ndescription of this ceremony, _My Life in Mongolia_, by the Bishop of\nNorwich, pp. 108-114.]\n\n[Footnote 1019: _Mythologie des Buddhismus_, p. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 1020: In Tibetan Dus-kyi-hkhor-lo. Mongol, Tsagun k\u00fcrd\u00fcn.]\n\n[Footnote 1021: Announced in the _Bibliotheca Buddhica_.]\n\n[Footnote 1022: See Pelliot, _Quelques transcriptions apparent\u00e9es \u00c3\nCambhala dans les textes Chinois_ (in _T'oung Pao_, vol. XX. 1920, p.\n73) for some conjectures. Kulika is translated into Tibetan as\nRigs-Ldan. Tibetan texts speak of books coming from \u015aambhala, see\nLaufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1913, p. 596.]\n\n[Footnote 1023: See Laufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1907, p. 402. In Sumpa's\nchronology, _J.A.S. Beng._ p. 46, the reign of a Kulika Emperor seems\nto be simply a designation for a century.]\n\n[Footnote 1024: See _J.A.S.B._ 82, p. 225. The king is also (but\napparently incorrectly) called Candra-Bhadra.]\n\n[Footnote 1025: See Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 41. Sarat Chandra Das\nin _J.A.S. Beng_. 1882, p. 15, and _J.A.S. Beng_. 1912, p. 21, being\nreprints of earlier articles by Csoma de K\u00f6r\u00f6s.]\n\n[Footnote 1026: See Kalk\u00ee Pur\u00e2na. Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, IV. XXIV, Bh\u00e2g. Pur.\nXII. ii. 18, and Norman in _Trans. III, Int. Congress Religions_, vol.\nII. p. 85. Also Aufrecht, _Cat. Cod. Sansk._ 73A, 84B.]\n\n[Footnote 1027: See Schrader, _Introd. to the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_, pp. 100-106\nand 96.]\n\n[Footnote 1028: See the article \"Adi Buddha\" by De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin\nin Hastings' _Encyc. of Religion and Ethics_.]\n\n[Footnote 1029: See, for a modern example of this, the\nGane\u015b\u00e2tharva\u015birshopanishad (An\u00e2nd\u00e2 srama edition, pp. 11 and 16)\nTvam eva sarvam khalvidam Brahm\u00e2si ... Tvam Brahm\u00e2 Tvam Vishnus Tvam\nRudras Tvam Indras Tvam Agnis Tvam V\u00e2yus Tvam S\u00fbryas Tvam Candram\u00e2s\nTvam _Brahma_. Here Ga\u1e47e\u015ba includes all the deities and the\nPantheos. There is also a book called Ga\u1e47e\u015badar\u015banam in which\nthe Vedanta s\u00fbtras are rewritten and Ga\u1e47e\u015ba made equivalent to\nBrahma. See Madras, _Cat. of Sk. MSS_. 1910-1913, p. 1030.]\n\n[Footnote 1030: It is just mentioned in S. L\u00e9vi's _Nepal II_, p. 385,\nbut is not in Rajendralal Mitra's _Catalogue_.]\n\n[Footnote 1031: Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 131. Pander, _Pantheon_, p.\n59, No. 56.]\n\n[Footnote 1032: Nepalese Buddhism knows not only the Dhy\u00e2ni Buddhas,\n\u015aaktis and Bodhisattvas including Vajrasattva and Vajradhara, but\nalso deities like Hayagr\u00eeva, Yam\u00e2ntaka, Bhrikut\u00ee, Mar\u00eec\u00ee, Kurukull\u00e2.\nIn both Nepal and Tibet are found pictures called Thsogs-\u015bi\u1e47 in\nwhich the deities of the Pantheon (or at least the principal of them)\nare grouped according to rank. See for an example containing 138\ndeities the frontispiece of Getty's _Gods of Northern Buddhism_.]\n\n[Footnote 1033: _Buddhism_, pp. 350-1.]\n\n[Footnote 1034: For an outline of the method followed by Tibetans in\nstudying the Tantras, see _Journal Buddhist Text Society_, 1893, vol.\nI. part III. pp. 25-6.]\n\n[Footnote 1035: The deity may appear in an unusual form, so the\nworshipper can easily persuade himself that he has received the\ndesired revelation.]\n\n[Footnote 1036: A figure identified with Indra or Vajrap\u00e2ni is found\nin Gandhara sculptures.]\n\n[Footnote 1037: _Mythologie_, p. 97.]\n\n[Footnote 1038: The Dhy\u00e2ni Buddhas however seem to be the Yi-dam of\nindividuals only.]\n\n[Footnote 1039: Huth's edition, p. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 1040: See _Buddhist Text Society_, vol. II. part II.\nappendix II. 1904, p. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 1041: See Laufer, \"Hundert Tausend N\u00e2gas\" in _Memoirs of\nFinno-Ugrian Society_, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 1042: Or Five Bodies, sKu-L\u1e47a. dPe-dKar or Pe-har is by\nsome authorities identified with the Chinese deity Wei-to. This latter\nis represented in the outer court of most Chinese temples.]\n\n[Footnote 1043: In Tibetan sGrol-ma, in Mongol Dara \u00e4k\u00e4. For the early\nhistory of T\u00e2r\u00e2 see Blonay, _Mat\u00e9riaux pour servir \u00e0 l'histoire de ...\nT\u00e2r\u00e2_, 1895.]\n\n[Footnote 1044: Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 360.]\n\n[Footnote 1045: Tibetan gTsug-tor-rnam-par-rgyal-ma.]\n\n[Footnote 1046: Cf. Whitehead's statement (_Village Gods of S. India_,\np. 79) that women worshipping certain goddesses are clad only in the\ntwigs of the mimosa tree.]\n\n[Footnote 1047: See Foucher, _Icon. Bouddhique_, 1900, p. 142, and\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha tr. Schiefner, p. 102.]\n\n[Footnote 1048: See Waddell. Gr\u00fcnwedel seems to regard Vajra-Var\u00e2h\u00ee as\ndistinct from Mar\u00eec\u00ee.]\n\n[Footnote 1049: As for instance is also the origin of Linga worship in\nIndia.]\n\n[Footnote 1050: See Steiner in _Mitth. der Deutsch. Gesellsch.\nNatur-u. V\u00f6lkerkunde Ost-Asiens_, 1909-10, p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 1051: Padme is said to be commonly pronounced peme.]\n\n[Footnote 1052: Waddell quotes a similar spell known in both Tibet and\nJapan, but addressed to Vairocana. Om Amogha Vairocanamah\u00e2mudra mani\npadma jvalapravarthtaya h\u016bm. _Buddhism_, p. 149.]\n\n[Footnote 1053: _Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na_ (Cowell and Neil), pp. 613-4, and Raj.\nMitra, _Nepalese Bud. Lit._ p. 98. See also the learned note of\nChavannes and Pelliot, based on Japanese sources in _J.A._ 1913, I.\n314. The text referred to is Nanjio, No. 782. It is not plain if it is\nthe same as earlier translations with similar titles. A mantra of six\nsyllables not further defined is extolled in the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na and the\nGu\u1e47ak\u00e2ra\u1e47\u1e0davy\u00fbha.]\n\n[Footnote 1054: Bu-ston was born in 1288 and the summary of his\nwritings contained in the _Journal of the Buddhist Text Society_, vol.\nI. 1893, represents the formula as used in the times of At\u00ee\u015ba, _c_.\n1030.]\n\n[Footnote 1055: See for this legend, which is long but not very\nilluminating, Rockhill's _Land of the Lamas_, pp. 326-334.]\n\n[Footnote 1056: _J.R.A.S._ 1906, p. 464, and Francke, _ib_. 1915, pp.\n397-404. He points out the parallel between the three formulae: _Om\nvag\u00ee\u015bvari mum: Om ma\u1e47ipadme hum: Om vajrap\u00e2\u1e47i hum_. The hymn\nto Durg\u00e2 in Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2r. Bh\u00eeshmapar, 796 (like many other hymns) contains\na long string of feminine vocatives ending in _e_ or _i_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIII\n\nTIBET _(continued)_\n\nSECTS\n\n\nLamaism is divided into various sects, which concern the clergy rather\nthan the laity. The differences in doctrine are not very important.\nEach sect has special tutelary deities, scriptures and practices of\nits own but they all tend to borrow from one another whatever inspires\nrespect or attracts worshippers. The baser sort try to maintain their\ndignity by imitating the institutions of the superior sects, but the\nsuperior cannot afford to neglect popular superstitions. So the\ngeneral level is much the same. Nevertheless, these sectarian\ndifferences are not without practical importance for each sect has\nmonasteries and a hierarchy of its own and is outwardly distinguished\nby peculiarities of costume, especially by the hat. Further, though\nthe subject has received little investigation, it is probable that\ndifferent sects possess different editions of the Kanjur or at any\nrate respect different books[1057]. Since the seventeenth century the\nGelugpa has been recognized as the established church and the divinity\nof the Grand Lama is not disputed, but in earlier times there were\nmany monastic quarrels and forced conversions. In the eighteenth\ncentury the Red clergy intrigued with the Gurkhas in the hope of\nsupplanting their Yellow brethren and even now they are so powerful in\neastern Tibet that this hope may not be unreasonable, should political\ntroubles shake the hierarchy of Lhasa. In spite of the tendency to\nborrow both what is good and what is bad, some sects are on a higher\ngrade intellectually and morally than others. Thus the older sects do\nnot insist on celibacy or abstinence from alcohol, and Tantrism and\nmagic form the major part of religion, whereas the Gelugpa or\nestablished church maintains strict discipline, and tantric and\nmagical rites, though by no means prohibited, are at least practised\nin moderation.\n\nSetting aside the earliest period, the history of Buddhism in Tibet is\nbriefly that it was established by Padma-Sambhava about 750, reformed by\nAt\u00ee\u015ba about 1040 and again reformed by Tsong-kha-pa about 1400. The\nsects correspond to these epochs. The oldest claims to preserve the\nteaching of Padma-Sambhava, those of middle date are offshoots of the\nmovement started by At\u00ee\u015ba, and the newest represents At\u00ee\u015ba's principal\nsect corrected by the second reformation. The oldest sect is known as\nNying-ma-pa or rNyi\u1e47-ma-pa, signifying the old ones, and also as the\nRed Church from the colour of the hats worn by the clergy. Among its\nsubdivisions one called the sect of Udy\u00e2na[1058], in reference to\nPadma-Sambhava's birthplace, appears to be the most ancient and still\nexists in the Himalayas and eastern Tibet. The Nying-ma Lamas are said\nto have kept the necromancy of the old Tibetan religion more fully than\nany of the reformed sects. They pay special worship to Padma-Sambhava\nand accept the revelations ascribed to him. Celibacy and abstinence are\nrarely observed in their monasteries but these are by no means of low\nrepute. Among the more celebrated are Dorje-dag and Mindolling: the\ngreat monastery of Pemiongchi[1059] in Sikhim is a branch establishment\nof the latter.\n\nOf the sects originating in At\u00ee\u015ba's reformation the principal was the\nKadampa[1060], but it has lost much of its importance because it was\nremodelled by Tsong-kha-pa and hence hardly exists to-day as an\nindependent body. The Sakya sect is connected with the great monastery\nof the same name situated about fifty miles to the north of Mount\nEverest and founded in 1071 by Sakya, a royal prince. It acquired great\npolitical importance, for from 1270 to 1340 its abbots were the rulers\nof Tibet. The historian T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha belonged to one of its sub-sects, and\nabout 1600 settled in Mongolia where he founded the monastery of Urga\nand established the line of reincarnate Lamas which still rules there.\nBut shortly after his death this monastery was forcibly taken over by\nthe Yellow Church and is still the centre of its influence in Mongolia.\nIn theology the Sakya offers nothing specially distinctive but it mixes\nthe Tantras of the old and new sects and according to Waddell[1061] is\npractically indistinguishable from the Nying-ma-pa. The same is probably\ntrue of the Kar-gyu-pa[1062] said to have been founded by Marpa and his\nfollower Milar\u00e4pa, who set an example of solitary and wandering lives.\nIt is sometimes described as a Nying-ma sect[1063] but appears to date\nfrom after At\u00ee\u015ba's reforms, although it has a strong tendency to revert\nto older practices. It has several important sub-sects, such as the\nKarmapa found in Sikhim and Darjiling, as well as in Tibet, the Dugpa\nwhich is predominant in Bhotan and perhaps in Ladak[1064], and the\nDikung-pa, which owns a large monastery one hundred miles north-east of\nLhasa. Milar\u00e4pa (or Mila), the cotton-clad saint who wandered over the\nSnow-land in the light garments of an Indian ascetic, is perhaps the\npost picturesque figure in Lamaism and in some ways reminds us of St.\nFrancis of Assisi[1065]. He was a worker of miracles and, what is rarer\nin Tibet, a poet. His compositions known as the Hundred Thousand Songs\nare still popular and show the same delicately sensitive love of nature\nas the Psalms of the Therag\u00e2th\u00e2.\n\nThe main distinction is between the Gelugpa or Yellow Church and all\nthe other sects. This is merely another way of saying that At\u00ee\u015ba\nreformed the corrupt superstitions which he found but that his\nreformed church in its turn became corrupt and required correction.\nThis was given by Tsong-kha-pa who belonged originally to the Kadampa.\nHe collected the scattered members of this sect, remodelled its\ndiscipline, and laid the foundations of the system which made the\nGrand Lamas rulers of Tibet. In externals the Gelugpa is characterized\nby the use of the yellow cap and the veneration paid to Tsong-kha-pa's\nimage. Its Lamas are all celibate and hereditary succession is not\nrecognized. Among the many great establishments which belong to it are\nthe four royal monasteries or Ling in Lhasa; Gandan, Depung and Serra\nnear Lhasa; and Tashilhunpo.\n\nIt has often been noticed that the services performed by the\nGelugpa[1066] and by the Roman Catholic Church are strangely\nsimilar in appearance. Is this an instance of borrowing or of\nconvergence? On the one hand it is stated that there were Roman\nmissions in Amdo in Tsong-kha-pa's youth, and the resemblances are\nsuch as would be natural if he had seen great celebrations of the mass\nand taken hints. In essentials the similarity is small but in\nexternals such as the vestments and head-dresses of the officiants,\nthe arrangement of the choir, and the general _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_, it is\nstriking. On the other hand many points of resemblance in ceremonial,\nthough not all, are also found in the older Japanese sects, where\nthere can hardly be any question of imitating Christianity, and it\nwould seem that a ritual common to Tibet and Japan can be explained\nonly as borrowed from India. Further, although Tsong-kha-pa may have\ncome in contact with missionaries, is it likely that he had an\nopportunity of seeing Roman rites performed with any pomp? It is in\nthe great choral services of the two religions that the resemblance is\nvisible, not in their simpler ritual. For these reasons, I think that\nthe debt of Lamaism to the Catholic Church must be regarded as not\nproven, while admitting the resemblance to be so striking that we\nshould be justified in concluding that Tsong-kha-pa copied Roman\nceremonial, could it be shown that he was acquainted with it.\n\nThe life and ritual of the Lamas have often been described, and I need\nnot do more than refer the reader to the detailed account given by\nWaddell in his _Buddhism of Tibet_ [1067], but it is noticeable that\nthe monastic system is organized on a larger scale and inspired by\nmore energy than in any other country. The monasteries of Tibet, if\ninferior to those of Japan in the middle ages, are the greatest\nBuddhist establishments now existing. For instance Depung has 7000\nmonks, Serra 5500 and Tashilhunpo 3800: at Urga in Mongolia there are\nsaid to be 14,000. One is not surprised to hear that these\ninstitutions are veritable towns with their own police and doubtless\nthe spirit of discipline learned in managing such large bodies of\nmonks has helped the Lamaist Church in the government of the country.\nAlso these monasteries are universities. Candidates for ordination\nstudy a course of theology and are not received as novices or full\nmonks unless they pass successive examinations. In every monastery\nthere is a central temple in which the monks assemble several times a\nday to chant lengthy choral offices. Of these there are at least five,\nthe first before dawn and the last at 7 p.m. Though the value of\nLamas' learning and ritual may be questioned, it is clear that many of\nthem lead strenuous lives in the service of a religion which, if\nfantastic, still expresses with peculiar intensity the beliefs and\nemotions of the Tibetans and Mongols and has forced men of violence to\nbelieve that a power higher than their own is wielded by intellect and\nasceticism.\n\nThere seems to be no difference between Tibetan and Mongolian Lamaism\nin deities, doctrines or observances[1068]. Mongolian Lamas imitate\nthe usages of Tibet, study there when they can and recite their\nservices in Tibetan, although they have translations of the scriptures\nin their own language. Well read priests in Peking have told me that\nit is better to study the canon in Tibetan than in Mongol, because\ncomplete copies in Mongol, if extant, are practically unobtainable.\n\nThe political and military decadence of the Mongols has been ascribed\nby some authors to Lamaism and to the substitution of priestly for\nwarlike ideals. But such a substitution is not likely to have taken\nplace except in minds prepared for it by other causes and it does not\nappear that the Moslims of Central Asia are more virile and vigorous\nthan the Buddhists. The collapse of the Mongols can be easily\nillustrated if not explained by the fate of Turks and Tartars in the\nBalkan Peninsula and Russia. Wherever the Turks are the ruling race\nthey endeavour to assert their superiority over all Christians, often\nby violent methods. But when the positions are reversed and the\nChristians become rulers as in Bulgaria, the Turks make no resistance\nbut either retire or acquiesce meekly in the new regime.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1057: See for instance the particulars given as to various\nbranches of the Nying-ma pa sect in _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 6-14.]\n\n[Footnote 1058: Urgyen-pa or Dzok-chen-pa.]\n\n[Footnote 1059: Or Pemayangtse.]\n\n[Footnote 1060: bKah-gDams-pa.]\n\n[Footnote 1061: _Buddhism_, p. 70.]\n\n[Footnote 1062: bKah-brGyud-pa.]\n\n[Footnote 1063: Sandberg, _Handbook of Tibetan_, p. 207.]\n\n[Footnote 1064: Authorities differ as to the name of the sect which\nowns Himis and other monasteries in Ladak.]\n\n[Footnote 1065: See for some account of him and specimens of his\npoems, Sandberg, _Tibet and the Tibetans_, chap. XIII.]\n\n[Footnote 1066: I do not know whether the ceremonies of the other\nsects offer the same resemblance. Probably they have all imitated the\nGelugpa. Some authors attribute the resemblance to contact with\nNestorian Christianity in early times but the resemblance is\ndefinitely to Roman costumes and ceremonies not to those of the\nEastern church. Is there any reason to believe that the Nestorian\nritual resembled that of western catholics?]\n\n[Footnote 1067: See also Filchner, _Das Kloster Kumbum_, 1906.]\n\n[Footnote 1068: Almost the only difference that I have noticed is that\nwhereas Tibetans habitually translate Indian proper names, Mongols\nfrequently use Sanskrit words, such as Manju\u015br\u00ee, or slightly\nmodified forms such as Dara, Maidari ( = T\u00e2r\u00e2, Maitreya). The same\npractice is found in the old Uigur translations. See _Bibl. Buddh._\nXII. Tisastvustik. For an interesting account of contemporary Lamaism\nin Mongolia see Binstead, \"Life in a Khalkha Steppe Monastery,\"\n_J.R.A.S._ 1914, 847-900.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIV\n\nJAPAN\n\n\nThis work as originally planned contained a section on Japanese\nBuddhism consisting of three chapters, but after it had been sent to\nthe publishers I was appointed H.M. Ambassador in Tokyo and I decided\nto omit this section. Let not any Japanese suppose that it contained\ndisparaging criticism of his country or its religions. It would, I\nhope, have given no offence to either Buddhists or Shintoists, but an\nambassador had better err on the side of discretion and refrain from\npublic comments on the institutions of the country to which he is\naccredited.\n\nThe omission is regrettable in so far as it prevents me from noticing\nsome of the most interesting and beautiful developments of Buddhism,\nbut for historical purposes and the investigation of the past the loss\nis not great, for Japanese Buddhism throws little light on ancient\nIndia or even on ancient China. It has not influenced other countries.\nIts interest lies not in the relics of antiquity which it has\npreserved but in the new shape and setting which a race at once\nassimilative and inventive has given to old ideas.\n\nThough the doctrine of the Buddha reached Japan from China through\nKorea[1069], Chinese and Japanese Buddhism differ in several respects.\nLamaism never gained a footing in Japan, probably because it was the\nreligion of the hated Mongols. There was hardly any direct intercourse\nwith India. Whereas the state religion of China was frequently hostile\nto Buddhism, in Japan such relations were generally friendly and from\nthe seventh century until the Meiji era an arrangement known as\nRy\u014d-bu Shint\u014d or two-fold Shint\u014d was in force, by which\nShint\u014d shrines were with few exceptions handed over to the custody\nof Buddhist priests, native deities and historical personages being\ndeclared to be manifestations of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.\nAgain, Buddhism in Japan has had a more intimate connection with\nsocial, political and even military matters in various periods than in\nChina. This is one reason for its chief characteristic, namely,\nthe large number and distinct character of its sects. They are not\nmerely schools like the religious divisions of India and China, but\nreal sects with divergent doctrines and sometimes antagonistic to one\nanother.\n\nIt became the fashion in Japan to talk of the twelve sects, but the\nnames given are not always the same.\n\nOne of the commonest lists is as follows[1070]:\n\n    1. Kusha.                 5. Hoss\u014d.     9. J\u014ddo.\n    2. Jo-jitsu.              6. Kegon.    10. Zen.\n    3. Ritsu-shu or Risshu    7. Tendai.   11. Shin.\n    4. Sanron.                8. Shingon.  12. Nichiren.\n\nThis list is historically correct, but Nos. 1-4 are almost or quite\nextinct, and the number twelve is therefore sometimes made up as\nfollows:\n\n    1. Hoss\u014d.           5. Y\u016bz\u016b Nembutsu.        9. \u014cbaku.\n    2. Kegon.           6. J\u014ddo.                10. Shin.\n    3. Tendai.          7. Rinzai.              11. Nichiren.\n    4. Shingon.         8. S\u014dd\u014d.                12. Ji.\n\nHere Nos. 7, 8, 9 are subdivisions of the Zen and 5 and 12 are two\nsmall sects.\n\nTaking the first list, we may easily distinguish two classes. The\nfirst eight, called by the Japanese Hassh\u016b, are all old and all\nimported from China. They represent the Buddhism of the Nara and\nHei-an periods. The other four all arose after 1170 and were all\nremodelled, if not created, in Japan. Chronologically the sects may be\narranged as follows, the dates marking the foundation or introduction\nof each:\n\n    (i)   Seventh century: Sanron, 625; Jo-jitsu, 625; Hoss\u014d, 657;\n          Kusha, 660.\n    (ii)  Eighth century: Kegon, 735; Ritsu, 745.\n    (iii) Ninth century: Tendai, 805; Shingon, 806.\n    (iv)  Twelfth and thirteenth centuries: Y\u016bz\u016b Nembutsu,\n             1123; J\u014ddo, 1174; Zen, 1202; Shin, 1224; Nichiren,\n             1253; Ji, 1275.\n\nAll Japanese sects of importance are Mahayanist. The Hinayana is\nrepresented only by the Kusha, Jo-jitsu and Risshu. The two former are\nboth extinct: the third still numbers a few adherents, but is not\nanti-Mahayanist. It merely insists on the importance of discipline.\n\nThough the Hoss\u014d and Kegon sects are not extinct, their survival is\ndue to their monastic possessions rather than to the vitality of their\ndoctrines, but the great sects of the ninth century, the Tendai and\nShingon, are still flourishing. For some seven hundred years,\nespecially in the Fujiwara period, they had great influence not only\nin art and literature, but in political and even in military matters,\nfor they maintained large bodies of troops consisting of soldier monks\nor mercenaries and were a considerable menace to the secular\nauthority. So serious was the danger felt to be that in the sixteenth\ncentury Nobunaga and Hideyoshi destroyed the great monasteries of\nHieizan and Negoro and the pretensions of the Buddhist Church to\ntemporal power were brought to an end.\n\nBut apart from this political activity, new sects which appeared in\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries suited the popular needs of the\ntime and were a sign of true religious life. Two of these sects, the\nJ\u014ddo and Shinsh\u016b[1071], are Amidist--that is to say they teach\nthat the only or at least the best way of winning salvation is to\nappeal to the mercy of Amida, who will give his worshippers a place in\nhis paradise after death. The J\u014ddo is relatively old fashioned, and\ndoes not differ much in practice from the worship of Amida as seen in\nChina, but the Shinsh\u016b has no exact parallel elsewhere. Though it\nhas not introduced many innovations in theology, its abandonment of\nmonastic discipline, its progressive and popular spirit and its\nconspicuous success make it a distinct and remarkable type. Its\npriests marry and eat meat: it has no endowments and relies on\nvoluntary subscription, yet its temples are among the largest and most\nconspicuous in Japan. But the hierarchical spirit is not absent and\nsince Shinsh\u016b priests can marry, there arose the institution of\nhereditary abbots who were even more like barons than the celibate\nprelates of the older sects.\n\nThe Nichiren sect is a purely Japanese growth, without any prototype\nin China, and is a protest against Amidism and an attempt to\nrestore Shaka--the historical Buddha--to his proper position from\nwhich he has been ousted. Nichiren, the founder, is one of the most\npicturesque figures of Japanese history. His teaching, which was based\non the Lotus S\u00fbtra, was remarkable for its combative spirit and he\nhimself played a considerable part in the politics of his age. His\nfollowers form one of the most influential and conspicuous sects at\nthe present day, although not so numerous as the Amidists.\n\nZen is the Japanese equivalent of Ch'an or Dhy\u00e2na and is the name\ngiven to the sect founded in China by Bodhidharma. It is said to have\nbeen introduced into Japan in the seventh century, but died out.\nLater, under the H\u014dj\u014d Regents, and especially during the\nAshikaga period, it flourished exceedingly. Zen ecclesiastics managed\npolitics like the French cardinals of the seventeenth century and\nprofoundly influenced art and literature, since they produced a long\nline of painters and writers. But the most interesting feature in the\nhistory of this sect in Japan is that, though it preserves the\nteaching of Bodhidharma without much change, yet it underwent a\ncurious social metamorphosis, for it became the chosen creed of the\nmilitary class and contributed not a little to the Bushido or code of\nchivalry. It is strange that this mystical doctrine should have spread\namong warriors, but its insistence on simplicity of life, discipline\nof mind and body, and concentration of thought harmonized with their\nideals.\n\nApart from differences of doctrine such as divide the Shinshu,\nNichiren and Zen, Japanese sects show a remarkable tendency to\nmultiply subdivisions, due chiefly to disputes as to the proper\nsuccession of abbots. Thus the J\u014ddo sect has four subsects, and the\nfirst and second of these are again subdivided into six and four\nrespectively. And so with many others. Even the little Ji sect, which\nis credited with only 509 temples in all Japan, includes thirteen\nsubdivisions.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1069: The accepted date is A.D. 552.]\n\n[Footnote 1070: These names are mostly borrowed from the Chinese and\nrepresent: 1. Ch\u00fc-sh\u00ea; 2. Ch'\u00eang-shih; 3. L\u00fc; 4. San-lun; 5.\nFa-hsiang; 6. Hua-yen; 7. T'ien-t'ai; 8. Ch\u00ean-yen; 9. Ching-t'u; 10.\nCh'an. See my remarks on these sects in the section on Chinese\nBuddhism. See Haas, _Die Sekten dea Japanischen Buddhismus_, 1905:\nmany notices in the same author's _Annalen des Jap. Bud._ cited\nabove and Ryauon Fujishima, _Le Buddhisme Japonais_, 1889.]\n\n[Footnote 1071: As well as the smaller sects called Ji and\nY\u016bz\u016bnembutsu.]:\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII\n\nMUTUAL INFLUENCE OF EASTERN AND WESTERN RELIGIONS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LV\n\nINFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\n\n\nIn phrases like the above title, the word influence is easy and\nconvenient. When we hesitate to describe a belief or usage as borrowed\nor derived, it comes pat to say that it shows traces of external\ninfluence. But in what circumstances is such influence exercised? It\nis not the necessary result of contact, for in the east of Europe the\nChristian Church has not become mohammedanized nor in Poland and\nRoumania has it contracted any taint of Judaism. In these cases there\nis difference of race as well as of religion. In business the Turk and\nJew have some common ground with the oriental Christian: in social\nlife but little and in religion none at all. Europe has sometimes\nshown an interest in Asiatic religions, but on the whole an antipathy\nto them. Christianity originated in Palestine, which is a\nMediterranean rather than an Asiatic country, and its most important\nforms, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, took shape on European\nsoil. Such cults as the worship of Isis and Mithra were prevalent in\nEurope but they gained their first footing among Asiatic slaves and\nsoldiers and would perhaps not have maintained themselves among\nEuropean converts only. And Buddhism, though it may have attracted\nindividual minds, has never produced any general impression west of\nIndia. Both in Spain and in south-eastern Europe Islam was the\nreligion of invaders and made surprisingly few converts. Christian\nheretics, such as the Nestorians and Monophysites, who were expelled\nfrom Constantinople and had their home in Asia, left the west alone\nand proselytized in the east. The peculiar detestation felt by the\nChurch for the doctrines of the Manich\u00e6ans was perhaps partly due to\nthe fact that they were in spirit Asiatic. And the converse of this\nantipathy is also true: the progress of Christianity in Asia has been\ninsignificant.\n\nBut when people of the same race profess different creeds, these\ncreeds do influence one another and tend to approximate. This is\nspecially remarkable in India, where Islam, in theory the\nuncompromising opponent of image worship and polytheism, is\nsometimes in practice undistinguishable from the lower superstitions\nof Hinduism. In the middle ages Buddhism and Hinduism converged until\nthey coincided so completely that Buddhism disappeared. In China it\noften needs an expert to distinguish the manifestations of Taoism and\nBuddhism: in Japan Buddhism and the old national religion were\ncombined in the mixed worship known as Ry\u014dbu Shint\u014d. In the\nBritish Isles an impartial observer would probably notice that\nAnglicans and English Roman Catholics (not Irish perhaps) have more in\ncommon than they think.\n\nThere are clearly two sets of causes which may divide a race between\nreligions: internal movements, such as the rise of Buddhism, and\nexternal impulses, such as missions or conquest. Conquest pure and\nsimple is best illustrated by the history of Islam, also by the\nconversion of Mexico and South America to Roman Catholicism. But even\nwhen conversion is pacific, it will generally be found that, if it is\nsuccessful on a large scale, it means the introduction of more than a\ncreed. The religious leader in his own country can trust to his\neloquence and power over his hearers. The real support of the\nmissionary, however little he may like the idea, is usually that he\nrepresents a superior type of civilization. At one time in their\ncareer Buddhism and Christianity were the greatest agencies for\nspreading civilization in Asia and Europe respectively. They brought\nwith them art and literature: they had the encouragement of the most\nenlightened princes: those who did not accept them in many cases\nremained obviously on a lower level. Much the same thing happens in\nAfrica to-day. The natives who accept Mohammedanism or Christianity\nare moved, not by the arguments of the Koran or Bible, but by the idea\nthat it is a fine thing to be like an Arab or a European. A pagan in\nUganda is literally a pagan; an uninstructed rustic from a distant\nvillage.\n\nNow if we consider the relations of India with the west, we find on\nneither side the conditions which usually render propaganda\nsuccessful. Before the Mohammedan invasions and the Portuguese\nconquest of Goa, no faith can have presented itself to the Hindus with\nanything like the prestige which marked the advent of Buddhism in\nChina and Japan. Alexander opened a road to India for Hellenic culture\nand with it came some religious ideas, but the Greeks had no\nmissionary spirit and if there were any early Christian missions they\nmust have been on a small scale. The same is true of the west: if\nAsoka's missions reached their destination, they failed to inspire any\nrecord of their doings. Still there was traffic by land and sea. The\nHindus, if self-complacent, were not averse to new ideas, and before\nthe establishment of Christianity there was not much bigotry in the\nwest, for organized religion was unknown in Europe: practices might be\nforbidden as immoral or anti-social but such expressions as contrary\nto the Bible or Koran had no equivalent. Old worships were felt to be\nunsatisfying: new ones were freely adopted: mysteries were\nrelished. There was no invasion, nothing that suggested foreign\nconquest or alarmed national jealousy, but the way was open to ideas,\nthough they ran some risk of suffering transformation on their long\njourney.\n\nAs I have repeatedly pointed out, Hinduism and Buddhism are\nessentially religions of central and eastern, not of western Asia, but\nthey came in contact with the west in several regions and an enquiry\ninto the influence which they exercised or felt can be subdivided.\nThere is the question whether they owe anything to Christianity in\ntheir later developments and also the question whether Christianity\nhas borrowed anything from them[1072]. Other questions to be\nconsidered are the relations of Indian religions to Zoroastrianism in\nancient and to Islam in more recent times, which, if of less general\ninterest than problems involving Christianity, are easier to\ninvestigate and of considerable importance.\n\nLet us begin with the influence of Christianity on Indian religion.\nFor earlier periods the record of contact between Hindus and\nChristians is fragmentary, but the evidence of the last two centuries\nmay give a significant indication as to the effect of early Christian\ninfluence. In these two centuries Christianity has been presented to\nthe Hindus in the most favourable circumstances: it has come as the\nreligion of the governing power and associated with European\ncivilization: it has not, like Mohammedanism, been propagated by force\nor accompanied by any intolerance which could awaken repugnance, but\nits doctrines have been preached and expounded by private\nmissionaries, if not always with skill and sympathy, at least with\nzeal and a desire to persuade. The result is that according to the\ncensus of 1911 there are now 3,876,000 Christians including Europeans,\nthat is to say, a sect a little stronger than the Sikhs as against\nmore than sixty-six million Mohammedans. Of these 3,876,000 many are\ndrawn from the lowest castes or from tribes that are hardly considered\nas Hindus. Some religious associations, generally known as Somaj, have\nbeen founded under the influence of European philosophy as much as of\nChristianity: imitation of European civilization (which is quite a\ndifferent thing from Christianity) is visible in the objects and\nmethods of religious and philanthropic institutions: some curious\nmixed sects of small numerical strength have been formed by the fusion\nof Christian with Hindu or Mohammedan elements or of all three\ntogether. Yet the religious thought and customs of India in general\nseem hardly conscious of contact with Christianity: there is no sign\nthat they have felt any fancy for the theology of the Athanasian\nCreed or the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church which might have\ninterested speculative and ritualistic minds. Similarly, though\nintellectual intercourse between India and China was long and fairly\nintimate and though the influence of Indian thought on China was very\ngreat, yet the influence of China on Indian thought is negligible.\nThis being so, it would be rash to believe without good evidence that,\nin the past, doctrines which have penetrated Indian literature during\ncenturies and have found acceptance with untold millions owe their\norigin to obscure foreign colonists or missions.\n\nWriters who wish to prove that Indian religions are indebted to\nChristianity often approach their task with a certain misconception.\nThey assume that if at some remote epoch a few stray Christians\nreached India, they could overcome without difficulty the barriers of\nlanguage and social usage and further that their doctrine would be\naccepted as something new and striking which would straightway\ninfluence popular superstition and philosophic thought. But Lyall\ngives a juster perspective in his poem about the Meditations of a\nHindu Prince who, grown sceptical in the quest of truth, listens to\nthe \"word of the English,\" and finds it:\n\n    \"Naught but the world wide story how the earth and the heavens began,\n     How the gods were glad and angry and a deity once was man.\"\n\nMany doctrines preached by Christianity such as the love of God,\nsalvation by faith, and the incarnation, had been thought out in India\nbefore the Christian era, and when Christian missionaries preached\nthem they probably seemed to thoughtful Hindus a new and not very\nadequate version of a very old tale. On the other hand the central and\npeculiar doctrine of dogmatic Christianity is that the world has been\nsaved by the death of Christ. If this doctrine of the atonement or the\nsacrifice of a divine being had appeared in India as an importation\nfrom the west, we might justly talk of the influence of Christianity\non Indian religion. But it is unknown in Hinduism and Buddhism or\n(since it is rash to make absolute statements about these vast and\nmultifarious growths of speculation) it is at any rate exceedingly\nrare. These facts create a presumption that the resemblances between\nChristianity and Indian religion are due to coincidence rather than\nborrowing, unless borrowing can be clearly proved, and this\nconclusion, though it may seem tame, is surely a source of\nsatisfaction. The divagations of human thought are manifold and its\nconclusions often contradictory, but if there is anything that can be\ncalled truth it is but natural that logic, intuition, philosophy,\npoetry, learning and saintship should in different countries sometimes\nattain similar results.\n\nChristianity, like other western ideas, may have reached India both by\nland and by sea. After the conquests of Alexander had once opened the\nroute to the Indus and established Hellenistic kingdoms in its\nvicinity, the ideas and art of Greece and Rome journeyed without\ndifficulty to the Panjab, arriving perhaps as somewhat wayworn and\ncosmopolitan travellers but still clearly European. A certain amount\nof Christianity _may_ have come along this track, but for any\nhistorical investigation clearly the first question is, what is the\nearliest period at which we have any record of its presence in India?\nIt would appear[1073] that the first allusions to the presence of\nChristians in Parthia, Bactria and the border lands of India date from\nthe third century and that the oldest account[1074] of Christian\ncommunities in southern India is the narrative of Cosmas\nIndicopleustes (_c._ 525 A.D.). These latter Christians probably came\nto India by sea from Persia in consequence of the persecutions which\nraged there in 343 and 414, exactly as at a later date the Parsees\nescaped the violence of the Moslims by emigrating to Gujarat and\nBombay.\n\nThe story that the Apostle Thomas preached in some part of India has\noften been used as an argument for the early introduction and\ninfluence of Christianity, but recent authorities agree in thinking\nthat it is legendary or at best not provable. The tale occurs first in\nthe Acts of St. Thomas[1075], the Syriac text of which is considered to\ndate from about 250. It relates how the apostle was sold as a slave\nskilled in architecture and coming to the Court of Gundaphar, king of\nIndia, undertook to build, a palace but expended the moneys given to\nhim in charity and, when called to account, explained that he was\nbuilding for the king a palace in heaven, not made with hands. This\nsounds more like an echo of some Buddhist J\u00e2taka written in praise of\nliberality than an embellishment of any real biography. Other legends\nmake southern India the sphere of Thomas's activity, though he can\nhardly have taught in both Madras and Parthia, and a similar\nuncertainty is indicated by the tradition that his relics were\ntransported to Edessa, which doubtless means that according to other\naccounts he died there. Tradition connects Thomas with Parthians quite\nas much as with Indians, and, if he really contributed to the\ndiffusion of Christianity, it is more likely that he laboured in\nthe western part of Parthia than on its extreme eastern frontiers. The\nfact that there really was an Indo-Parthian king with a name something\nlike Gondophares no more makes the legend of St. Thomas historical than\nthe fact that there was a Bohemian king with a name something like\nWenceslas makes the Christmas carol containing that name historical.\n\nOn the other hand it is clear that during the early centuries of our\nera no definite frontier in the religious and intellectual sphere can\nbe drawn between India and Persia. Christianity reached Persia early:\nit formed part of the composite creed of Mani, who was born about 216,\nand Christians were persecuted in 343. From at least the third century\nonwards Christian ideas _may_ have entered India, but this does not\nauthorize the assumption that they came with sufficient prestige and\nfollowing to exercise any lively influence, or in sufficient purity to\nbe clearly distinguished from Zoroastrianism and Manich\u00e6ism.\n\nBy water there was an ancient connection between the west coast of\nIndia and both the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Traffic by the former\nroute was specially active, from the time of Augustus to that of Nero.\nPliny[1076] complains that every year India and the East took from\nItaly a hundred million sesterces in return for spices, perfumes and\nornaments. Strabo[1077] who visited Egypt tells how 120 ships sailed\nfrom Myos Hormos (on the Red Sea) to India \"although in the time of\nthe Ptolemies scarcely any one would undertake this voyage.\" Muziris\n(Cranganore) was the chief depot of western trade and even seems to\nhave been the seat of a Roman commercial colony. Roman coins have been\nfound in northern and even more abundantly in southern India, and\nHindu mints used Roman models. But only rarely can any one except\nsailors and merchants, who made a speciality of eastern trade, have\nundertaken the long and arduous journey. Certainly ideas travel with\nmysterious rapidity. The debt of Indian astronomy to Greece is\nundeniable[1078] and if the same cannot be affirmed of Indian\nmathematics and medicine yet the resemblance between Greek and Indian\ntreatises on these sciences is remarkable. Early Tamil poems[1079]\nspeak of Greek wines and dumb (that is unintelligible) Roman soldiers\nin the service of Indian kings, but do not mention philosophers,\nteachers or missionaries. After 70 A.D. this trade declined, perhaps\nbecause the Flavian Emperors and their successors were averse to the\noriental luxuries which formed its staple, and in 215 the massacre\nordered by Caracalla dealt a blow to the commercial importance of\nAlexandria from which it did not recover for a long time. Thus the\nperiod when intercourse between Egypt and India was most active is\nanterior to the period when Christianity began to spread: it is hardly\nlikely that in 70 or 80 A.D. there were many Christians in Egypt.\n\nAs already mentioned, colonies of Christians from Persia settled on\nthe west coast of India, where there are also Jewish colonies of\nconsiderable antiquity. The story that this Church was founded by St.\nThomas and that his relics are preserved in south India has not been\nfound in any work older than Marco Polo[1080]. Cosmas Indicopleustes\nstates that the Bishop of Kalliana was appointed from Persia, and this\nexplains the connection of Nestorianism with southern India, for at\nthat time the Nestorian Catholicos of Ctesiphon was the only Christian\nprelate tolerated by the Persian Government.\n\nThis Church may have had a considerable number of adherents for it was\nnot confined to Malabar, its home and centre, but had branches on the\neast coast near Madras. But it was isolated and became corrupt. It is\nsaid that in 660 it had no regular ministry and in the fourteenth\ncentury even baptism had fallen into disuse. Like the popular forms of\nMohammedanism it adopted many Hindu doctrines and rites. This implies\non the one hand a considerable exchange of ideas: on the other hand,\nif such reformers as R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and R\u00e2m\u00e2nanda were in touch with these\nNestorians we may doubt if they would have imbibed from them the\nteaching of the New Testament. There is evidence that Roman Catholic\nmissions on their way to or from China landed in Malabar during the\nthirteenth and fourteenth centuries and made some converts. In 1330\nthe Pope sent a Bishop to Quilon with the object of bringing the\nNestorians into communion with the see of Rome. But the definite\nestablishment of Roman Catholicism dates from the Portuguese conquest\nof Goa in 1510, followed by the appointment of an Archbishop and the\nintroduction of the Inquisition. Henceforth there is no difficulty in\naccounting for Christian influence, but it is generally admitted that\nthe intolerance of the Portuguese made them and their religion\ndistasteful to Hindus and Moslims alike. We hear, however, that Akbar,\ndesiring to hear Christian doctrines represented in a disputation held\nat his Court, sent for Christian priests from Goa, and his Minister\nAbul Fazl is quoted as having written poetry in which mosques,\nchurches and temples are classed together as places where people seek\nfor God[1081].\n\nSuch being the opportunities and approximate dates for Christian\ninfluence in India, we may now examine the features in Hinduism which\nhave been attributed to it. They may be classified under three\nprincipal heads, (i) The monotheistic Sivaism of the south. (ii)\nVarious doctrines of Vaishnavism such as _bhakti_, grace, the love and\nfatherhood of God, the Word, and incarnation. (iii) Particular\nceremonies or traditions such as the sacred meal known as Pras\u00e2da and\nthe stories of Krishna's infancy.\n\nIn southern India we have a seaboard in communication with Egypt,\nArabia and the Persian Gulf. The reality of intercourse with the west\nis attested by Roman, Jewish, Nestorian and Mohammedan settlements,\nbut on the other hand the Brahmans of Malabar are remarkable even\naccording to Hindu standards for their strictness and aloofness. As I\nhave pointed out elsewhere, the want of chronology in south Indian\nliterature makes it difficult to sketch with any precision even the\noutlines of its religious history, but it is probable that Aryan\nreligion came first in the form of Buddhism and Jainism and that\nSivaism made its appearance only when the ground had been prepared by\nthem. They were less exposed than the Buddhism of the north to the\ninfluences which created the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, but they no doubt mingled with\nthe indigenous beliefs of the Dravidians. There is no record of what\nthese may have been before contact with Hindu civilization; in\nhistorical times they comprise the propitiation of spirits, mostly\nmalignant and hence often called devils, but also a strong tendency to\nmonotheism and ethical poetry of a high moral standard. These latter\ncharacteristics are noticeable in most, if not all, Dravidian races,\neven those which are in the lower stages of civilization[1082]. This\ntemperament, educated by Buddhism and finally selecting Sivaism, might\nspontaneously produce such poems as the Tiruv\u00e2\u00e7agam. Such ideas as\nGod's love for human souls and the soul's struggle to be worthy of\nthat love are found in other Indian religions besides Tamil Sivaism\nand in their earlier forms cannot be ascribed to Christian influence,\nbut it must be admitted that the poems of the Sittars show an\nextraordinary approximation to the language of devotional literature\nin Europe. If, as Caldwell thinks, these compositions are as recent as\nthe sixteenth or seventeenth century, there is no chronological\ndifficulty in supposing their contents to be inspired by Christian\nideas. But the question rather is, would Portuguese Catholicism or\ncorrupt Nestorianism have inspired poems denouncing idolatry and\ninculcating the purest theism? Scepticism on this point is\npermissible. I am inclined to think that the influence of\nChristianity as well as the much greater influence of Mohammedanism\nwas mostly indirect. They imported little in the way of custom and\ndogma but they strengthened the idea which naturally accompanies\nsectarianism, namely, that it is reasonable and proper for a religion\nto inculcate the worship of one all-sufficient power. But that this\nidea can flourish in surroundings repugnant to both Christianity and\nIslam is shown by the sect of Ling\u00e2yats.\n\nThe resemblances to Christianity in Vishnuism are on a larger scale\nthan the corresponding phenomena in Sivaism. In most parts of India,\nfrom Assam to Madras, the worship of Vishnu and his incarnations has\nassumed the form of a monotheism which, if frequently turning into\npantheism, still persistently inculcates loving devotion to a deity\nwho is himself moved by love for mankind. The corresponding phase of\nSivaism is restricted to certain periods and districts of southern\nIndia. The doctrine of _bhakti_, or devotional faith, is common to\nVishnuites and Sivaites, but is more prominent among the former.\nIt has often been conjectured to be due to Christian influence but the\nconjecture is, I think, wrong, for the doctrine is probably\npre-Christian. P\u00e2\u1e47ini[1083] appears to allude to it, and the idea\nof loving devotion to God is fully developed in the \u015avet\u00e2\u015bvatara\nUpanishad and the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, works of doubtful date it is true,\nbut in my opinion anterior to the Christian era and on any hypothesis\nnot much posterior to it. Some time must have elapsed after the death\nof Christ before Christianity could present itself in India as an\ninfluential doctrine. Also _bhakti_ does not make its first appearance\nas something new and full grown. The seed, the young plant and the\nflower can all be found on Indian soil. So, too, the idea that God\nbecame man for the sake of mankind is a gradual Indian growth. In the\nVeda Vishnu takes three steps for the good of men. It is probable that\nhis avat\u00e2ras were recognized some centuries before Christ and, if this\nis regarded as not demonstrable, it cannot be denied that the\nanalogous conception of Buddhas who visit the world to save and\ninstruct mankind is pre-Christian[1084]. Similarly though passages may\nbe found in the writings of Kabir and others in which the doctrine of\n\u015aabda or the Word is stated in language recalling the fourth\nGospel, and though in this case the hypothesis of imitation offers no\nchronological difficulties, yet it is unnecessary. For \u015aabda, in\nthe sense of the Veda conceived as an eternal self-existent sound, is\nan old Indian notion and when stated in these terms does not appear\nvery Christian. It is found in Zoroastrianism, where Manthra Spenta\nthe holy word is said to be the very soul of God[1085], and it is\nperhaps connected with the still more primitive notion that words and\nnames have a mysterious potency and are in themselves spells. But even\nif the idea of \u015aabda were derived from the idea of Logos it need\nnot be an instance of specifically Christian influence, for this Logos\nidea was only utilized by Christianity and was part of the common\nstock of religious thought prevalent about the time of Christ in\nEgypt, Syria and Asia Minor, and it is even possible that its earlier\nforms may owe something to India. And were it proved that the\nteaching of Kabir, which clearly owes much to Islam, also owes much to\nChristianity, the fact would not be very important, for the followers\nof Kabir form a small and eccentric though interesting sect, in no way\ntypical of Hinduism as a whole.\n\nThe form of Vishnuism known as Pancar\u00e2tra appears to have had its\norigin, or at least to have flourished very early, in Kashmir and the\nextreme north-west, and perhaps a direct connection may be traced\nbetween central Asia and some aspects of the worship of Krishna at\nMuttra. The passage of Greek and Persian influence through the\nfrontier districts is attested by statuary and coins, but no such\nmemorials of Christianity have been discovered. But the leaders of the\nVishnuite movement in the twelfth and subsequent centuries were mostly\nBrahmans of southern extraction who migrated to Hindustan. Stress is\nsometimes laid on the fact that they lived in the neighbourhood of\nancient Nestorian churches and even Garbe thinks that R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, who\nstudied for some time at Conjevaram, was in touch with the Christians\nof Mailapur near Madras. I find it hard to believe that such contact\ncan have had much result. For R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja was a Brahman of the straitest\nsect who probably thought it contamination to be within speaking\ndistance of a Christian[1086]. He was undoubtedly a remarkable scholar\nand knew by heart all the principal Hindu scriptures, including those\nthat teach _bhakti_. Why then suppose that he took his ideas not from\nworks like the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 on which he wrote a commentary or from\nthe Pancar\u00e2tra which he eulogizes, but from persons whom he must have\nregarded as obscure heretics? And lastly is there any proof that such\nideas as the love of God and salvation by faith flourished among the\nChristians of Mailapur? In remote branches of the oriental Church\nChristianity is generally reduced to legends and superstitions, and\nthis Church was so corrupt that it had even lost the rite of\nbaptism and is said to have held that the third person of the\nTrinity was the Madonna[1087] and not the Holy Ghost. Surely this\ndoctrine is an extraordinary heresy in Christianity and far from\nhaving inspired Hindu theories as to the position of Vishnu's spouse\nis borrowed from those theories or from some of the innumerable Indian\ndoctrines about the \u015aakti.\n\nIt is clear that the Advaita philosophy of \u015aankara was influential\nin India from the ninth century to the twelfth and then lost some of\nits prestige owing to the rise of a more personal theism. It does not\nseem to me that any introduction or reinforcement of Christianity, to\nwhich this theistic movement might be attributed, can be proved to\nhave taken place about 1100, and it is not always safe to seek for a\npolitical or social explanation of such movements. But if we must have\nan external explanation, the obvious one is the progress of\nMohammedanism. One may even suggest a parallel between the epochs of\n\u015aankara and of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja. The former, though the avowed enemy of\nBuddhism, introduced into Hinduism the doctrine of M\u00e2y\u00e2 described by\nIndian critics as crypto-Buddhism. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja probably did not come into\ndirect contact with Islam[1088], which was the chief enemy of Hinduism\nin his time, but his theism (which, however, was semi-pantheistic) may\nhave been similarly due to the impression produced by that enemy on\nIndian thought[1089].\n\nIt is easy to see superficial parallels between Hindu and Christian\nceremonies, but on examination they are generally not found to prove\nthat there has been direct borrowing from Christianity. For instance,\nthe superior castes are commonly styled twice born in virtue of\ncertain initiatory ceremonies performed on them in youth, and it is\nnatural to compare this second birth with baptismal regeneration. But,\nthough there is here a real similarity of ideas, it would be hard to\ndeny that these ideas as well as the practices which express them have\narisen independently[1090]. And though a practice of sprinkling\nthe forehead with water similar to baptism is in use among Hindus, it\nis only a variety of the world-wide ceremony of purification with\nsacred water. Several authors have seen a resemblance between the\ncommunion and a sacred meal often eaten in Hindu temples and called\n_pras\u00e2d_ (favour) or mah\u00e2pras\u00e2d. The usual forms of this observance do\nnot resemble the Mass in externals (as do certain ceremonies in\nLamaism) and the analogy, if any, resides in the eating of a common\nreligious meal. Such a meal in Indian temples has its origin in the\nnecessity and advantage of disposing of sacrificial food. It cannot be\nmaintained that the deities eat the substance of it and, if it is not\nconsumed by fire, the obvious method of disposal is for mankind to eat\nit. The practice is probably world-wide and the consumers may be\neither the priests or the worshippers. Both varieties of the rite are\nfound in India. In the ancient Soma sacrifices the officiants drank\nthe residue of the sacred drink: in modern temples, where ample meals\nare set before the god more than once a day, it is the custom, perhaps\nbecause it is more advantageous, to sell them to the devout. From this\npoint of view the _pras\u00e2d_ is by no means the equivalent of the Lord's\nSupper, but rather of the things offered to idols which many early\nChristians scrupled to eat. It has, however, another and special\nsignificance due to the regulations imposed by caste. As a rule a\nHindu of respectable social status cannot eat with his inferiors\nwithout incurring defilement. But in many temples members of all\ncastes can eat the _pras\u00e2d_ together as a sign that before the deity\nall his worshippers are equal. From this point of view the _pras\u00e2d_ is\nreally analogous to the communion inasmuch as it is the sign of\nreligious community, but it is clearly distinct in origin and though\nthe sacred food may be eaten with great reverence, we are not told\nthat it is associated with the ideas of commemoration, sacrifice or\ntransubstantiation which cling to the Christian sacrament[1091].\n\nThe most curious coincidences between Indian and Christian legend\nare afforded by the stories and representations of the birth and\ninfancy of Krishna. These have been elaborately discussed by Weber in\na well-known monograph[1092]. Krishna is represented with his mother,\nmuch as the infant Christ with the Madonna; he is born in a\nstable[1093], and other well-known incidents such as the appearance of\na star are reproduced. Two things strike us in these resemblances.\nFirstly, they are not found in the usual literary version of the\nIndian legend[1094], and it is therefore probable that they represent\nan independent and borrowed story: secondly, they are almost entirely\nconcerned with the mythological aspects of Christianity. Many\nChristians would admit that the adoration of the Virgin and Child is\nunscriptural and borrowed from the worship of pagan goddesses who were\nrepresented as holding their divine offspring in their arms. If this\nis admitted, it is possible that Devak\u00ee and her son may be a replica\nnot of the Madonna but of a pagan prototype. But there is no\ndifficulty in admitting that Christian legends and Christian art may\nhave entered northern India from Bactria and Persia, and have found a\nhome in Muttra. Only it does not follow from this that any penetrating\ninfluence transformed Hindu thought and is responsible for Krishna's\ndivinity, for the idea of _bhakti_, or for the theology of the\nBhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2. The borrowed features in the Krishna story are\nsuperficial and also late. They do not occur in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and\nthe earliest authority cited by Weber is Hem\u00e2dri, a writer of the\nthirteenth century. Allowing that what he describes may have existed\nseveral centuries before his own date, we have still no ground for\ntracing the main ideas of Vaishnavism to Christianity and the later\nvagaries of Krishnaism are precisely the aspects of Indian religion\nwhich most outrage Christian sentiment.\n\nOne edition of the Bhavishya Purana contains a summary of the book\nof Genesis from Adam to Abraham[1095]. Though it is a late\ninterpolation, it shows conclusively that the editors of Puranas had\nno objection to borrowing from Christian sources and it maybe that\nsome incidents in the life of Krishna as related by the Vishnu,\nBh\u00e2gavata and other Puranas are borrowed from the Gospels, such as\nKamsa's orders to massacre all male infants when Krishna is born, the\njourney of Nanda, Krishna's foster-father, to Mathur\u00e2 in order to pay\ntaxes and the presentation of a pot of ointment to Krishna by a\nhunchback woman whom he miraculously makes straight. In estimating the\nimportance of such coincidences we must remember that they are merely\ncasual details in a long story of adventures which, in their general\noutline, bear no relation to the life of Christ. The most striking of\nthese is the \"massacre of the Innocents.\" The Hariva\u1e43sa, which is\nnot later than the fifth century A.D., relates that Kamsa killed all\nthe other children of Devak\u00ee, though it does not mention a general\nmassacre, and P\u00e2tanjali (_c._ 150 B.C.) knew the legend of the\nhostility between Krishna and Kamsa and the latter's death[1096]. So\nif anything has been borrowed from the Gospel account it is only the\ngeneral slaughter of children. The mention of a pot of ointment\nstrikes Europeans because such an object is not familiar to us, but it\nwas an ordinary form of luxury in India and Jud\u00e6a alike, and the fact\nthat a woman honoured both Krishna and Christ in the same way but in\ntotally different circumstances is hardly more than a chance\ncoincidence. The fact that both Nanda and Joseph leave their homes in\norder to pay their taxes is certainly curious and I will leave the\nreader to form his own opinion about it. The instance of the Bhavishya\nPurana shows that Hindus had no scruples about borrowing from the\nBible and in some Indian dialects the name Krishna appears as Krishto\nor Kushto. On the other hand, whatever borrowing there may have been\nis concerned exclusively with trivial details: the principal episodes\nof the Krishna legend were known before the Christian era.\n\nThis is perhaps the place to examine a curious episode of the\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata which narrates the visit of certain sages to a region\ncalled \u015avetadv\u00eepa, the white island or continent, identified by\nsome with Alexandria or a Christian settlement in central Asia. The\nepisode occurs in the \u015aantiparvan[1097] of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and is\nintroduced by the story of a royal sacrifice, at which most of the\ngods appeared in visible shape but Hari (Vishnu or Krishna) took his\nofferings unseen. The king and his priests were angry, but three sages\ncalled Ekata, Dvita and Trita, who are described as the miraculous\noffspring of Brahm\u00e2, interposed explaining that none of those present\nwere worthy to see Hari. They related how they had once desired to\nbehold him in his own form and after protracted austerities repaired\nunder divine guidance to an island called \u015avetadv\u00eepa on the\nnorthern shores of the Sea of Milk[1098]. It was inhabited by beings\nwhite and shining like the moon who followed the rules of the\nPancar\u00e2tra, took no food and were continually engaged in silent\nprayer. So great was the effulgence that at first the visitors were\nblinded. It was only after another century of penance that they began\nto have hopes of beholding the deity. Then there suddenly arose a\ngreat light. The inhabitants of the island ran towards it with joined\nhands and, as if they were making an offering, cried, \"Victory to\nthee, O thou of the lotus eyes, reverence to thee, producer of all\nthings: reverence to thee, H\u1e5bishike\u015ba, great Purusha, the\nfirst-born.\" The three sages saw nothing but were conscious that a\nwind laden with perfumes blew past them. They were convinced, however,\nthat the deity had appeared to his worshippers. A voice from heaven\ntold them that this was so and that no one without faith (abhakta)\ncould see N\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47a.\n\nA subsequent section of the same book tells us that N\u00e2rada visited\n\u015avetadv\u00eepa and received from N\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47a the Pancar\u00e2tra, which is\nthus definitely associated with the locality.\n\nSome writers have seen in this legend a poetical account of contact\nwith Christianity, but wrongly, as I think. We have here no mythicized\nversion of a real journey but a voyage of the imagination. The sea of\nmilk, the white land and its white shining inhabitants are an attempt\nto express the pure radiance proper to the courts of God, much as the\nBook of Revelation tells of a sea of glass, elders in white raiment\nand a deity whose head and hair were white like wool and snow. Nor\nneed we suppose, as some have done, that the worship of the white\nsages is an attempt to describe the Mass. The story does not say that\nwhenever the White Islanders held a religious service the deity\nappeared, but that on a particular occasion when the deity appeared\nthey ran to meet him and saluted him with a hymn. The idea that prayer\nand meditation are the sacrifice to be offered by perfected saints is\nthoroughly Indian and ancient. The account testifies to the\nnon-Brahmanic character of this worship of Vishnu, which was\npatronized by the Brahmans though not originated by them, but there is\nnothing exotic in the hymn to N\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47a and the epithet first-born\n(p\u00fbrvaja), in which some have detected a Christian flavour, is as old\nas the Rig Veda. The reason for laying the scene of the story in the\nnorth (if indeed the points of the compass have any place in this\nmythical geography) is no doubt the early connection of the Pancar\u00e2tra\nwith Kashmir and north-western India[1099]. The facts that some\nPuranas people the regions near \u015avetadv\u00eepa with Iranian\nsun-worshippers[1100] and that some details of the Pancar\u00e2tra (though\nnot the system as a whole) show a resemblance to Zoroastrianism\nsuggest interesting hypotheses as to origin of this form of Vishnuism,\nbut more facts are needed to confirm them. Chronology gives us little\nhelp, for though the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata was substantially complete in the\nfourth century, it cannot be denied that additions may have been made\nto it later and that the story of \u015avetadv\u00eepa may be one of them.\nThere were Nestorian Bishops at Merv and Herat in the fifth century,\nbut there appears to be no evidence that Christianity reached\nTransoxiana before the fall of the Sassanids in the first half of the\nseventh century.\n\nThus there is little reason to regard Christianity as an important\nfactor in the evolution of Hinduism, because (_a_) there is no\nevidence that it appeared in an influential form before the sixteenth\ncentury and (_b_) there is strong evidence that most of the doctrines\nand practices resembling Christianity have an Indian origin. On the\nother hand abundant instances show that the Hindus had no objection to\nborrowing from a foreign religion anything great or small which took\ntheir fancy. But the interesting point is that the principal Christian\ndoctrines were either indigenous in India--such as _bhakti_ and\n_avat\u00e2ras_--or repugnant to the vast majority of Hindus, such as the\ncrucifixion and atonement. I do not think that Nestorianism had any\nappreciable effect on the history of religious thought in southern\nIndia. Hellenic and Zoroastrian ideas undoubtedly entered\nnorth-western India, but, though Christian ideas may have come with\nthem, few of the instances cited seem even probable except some\ndetails in the life of Krishna which affect neither the legend as a\nwhole nor the doctrines associated with it. Some later sects, such as\nthe Kabirpanthis, show remarkable resemblances to Christianity, but\nthen the teaching of Kabir was admittedly a blend of Hinduism and\nIslam, and since Islam accepted many Christian doctrines, it remains\nto be proved that any further explanation is needed. Barth observed\nthat criticism is generally on the look out for the least trace of\nChristian influence on Hinduism but does not pay sufficient attention\nto the extent of Moslim influence. Every student of Indian religion\nshould bear in mind this dictum of the great French savant. After the\nsixteenth century there is no difficulty in supposing direct contact\nwith Roman Catholicism. Tukaram, the Maratha poet who lived\ncomparatively near to Goa, may have imitated the diction of the\nGospels.\n\nSome authors[1101] are disposed to see Christian influence in Chinese\nand Japanese Buddhism, particularly in the Amidist sects. I have\ntouched on this subject in several places but it may be well to\nsummarize my conclusions here.\n\nThe chief Amidist doctrines are clearly defined in the Sukh\u00e2\nvat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha which was translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in the\nlatter half of the second century A.D. It must therefore have existed\nin Sanskrit at least in the first century of our era, at which period\ndogmatic Christianity could hardly have penetrated to India or any\npart of Central Asia where a Sanskrit treatise was likely to be\nwritten. Its doctrines must therefore be independent of Christianity\nand indeed their resemblance to Christianity is often exaggerated, for\nthough salvation by faith in Amida is remarkably like justification by\nfaith, yet Amida is not a Saviour who died for the world and faith in\nhim is coupled with the use of certain invocations. The whole theory\nhas close parallels in Zoroastrianism and is also a natural\ndevelopment of ideas already existing in India.\n\nNor can I think that the common use of rites on behalf of the dead in\nBuddhist China is traceable to Christianity. In this case too the\nparallel is superficial, for the rites are in most cases not prayers\n_for_ the dead: the officiants recite formulae by which they acquire\nmerit and they then formally transfer this merit to the dead. Seeing\nhow great was the importance assigned to the cult of the dead in\nChina, it is not necessary to seek for explanations why a religion\ntrying to win its way in those countries invented ceremonies to\nsatisfy the popular craving, and Buddhism had no need to imitate\nChristianity, for from an early period it had countenanced offerings\nintended to comfort and help the departed.\n\nUnder the T'ang dynasty Manich\u00e6ism, Nestorianism and new streams of\nBuddhism all entered China. These religions had some similarity to one\nanother, their clergy may have co-operated and Manich\u00e6ism certainly\nadopted Buddhist ideas. There is no reason why Buddhism should not\nhave adopted Nestorian ideas and, in so far as the Nestorians\nfamiliarized China with the idea of salvation by faith in a divine\npersonage, they may have helped the spread of Amidism. But the\nevidence that we possess seems to show not that the Nestorians\nintroduced the story of Christ's life and sacrifice into Buddhism but\nthat they suppressed the idea of atonement by his death, possibly\nunder Buddhist influence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1072: The most learned and lucid discussion of these\nquestions, which includes an account of earlier literature on the\nsubject, is to be found in Garbe's _Indien und das Christentum_, 1914.\nBut I am not able to accept all his conclusions. The work, to which I\nam much indebted, is cited below as Garbe. See also Carpenter, _Theism\nin Medieval India_, 1921, pp. 521-524.]\n\n[Footnote 1073: See Garbe and Harnack, _Mission und Ausbreitung des\nChristentums_, ii. Chrysostom (Hom. in Joh. 2. 2) writing at the end\nof the fourth century speaks of Syrians, Egyptians, Persians and ten\nthousand other nations learning Christianity from translations into\ntheir languages, but one cannot expect geographical accuracy in so\nrhetorical a passage.]\n\n[Footnote 1074: Eusebius (_Ecc. Hist_. v. 10), supported by notices in\nJerome and others, states that Pant\u00e6nus went from Alexandria to preach\nin India and found there Christians using the Gospel according to\nMatthew written in Hebrew characters. It had been left there by the\nApostle Bartholomew. But many scholars are of opinion that by India in\nthis passage is meant southern Arabia. In these early notices India is\nused vaguely for Eastern Parthia, Southern Arabia and even Ethiopia.\nIt requires considerable evidence to make it probable that at the time\nof Pant\u00e6nus (second century A.D.) any one in India used the Gospel in\na Semitic language.]\n\n[Footnote 1075: See, for the Thomas legend, Garbe, Vincent Smith,\n_Early History of India_, 3rd ed. pp. 231 ff., and Philipps in _I.A._.\n1903, pp. 1-15 and 145-160.]\n\n[Footnote 1076: _Nat. Hist_. xii. 18 (41).]\n\n[Footnote 1077: II. iv. 12. Strabo died soon after 21 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 1078: It is seen even in borrowed words, _e.g._ hora =\n\u1f62\u03c1\u03b1: Jyau = \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2: Heli = \u1f22\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 1079: See Kanakasabhai's book, _The Tamils 1800 years ago_.]\n\n[Footnote 1080: Harnack (_Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums_,\nII. 126) says \"Dass die Thomas-Christen welche man im 16 Jahrhundert\nin Indien wieder entdeckte bis ins 3 Jahrhundert hinaufgehen l\u00e4sst\nsich nicht erweisen.\"]\n\n[Footnote 1081: For Akbar and Christianity, see _Cathay and the Way\nThither_ (Hakluyt Society), vol. IV. 172-3.]\n\n[Footnote 1082: See Gover, _Folk Songs of Southern India_, 1871.]\n\n[Footnote 1083: iv. 3. 95, 98.]\n\n[Footnote 1084: Cf. the Pali verses in the Ther\u00eeg\u00e2th\u00e2, 157: \"Hail to\nthee, Buddha, who savest me and many others from suffering.\"]\n\n[Footnote 1085: See Yasht, 13. 81 and Vendidad, 19. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 1086: The liberal ideas as to caste held by some Vishnuites\nare due to R\u00e2m\u00e2nand (c. 1400) who was excommunicated by his\ncoreligionists. I find it hard to agree with Garbe that R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja\nadmitted the theoretical equality of all castes. He says himself\n(Sr\u00ee-Bh\u00e2shya, II. 3. 46, 47) that souls are of the same nature in so\nfar as they are all parts of Brahman (a proposition which follows from\nhis fundamental principles and is not at all due to Christian\ninfluence), but that some men are entitled to read the Veda while\nothers are debarred from the privilege. All fire, he adds, is of the\nsame nature, but fire taken from the house of a Brahman is pure,\nwhereas fire taken from a cremation ground is impure. Even so the soul\nis defiled by being associated with a low-caste body.]\n\n[Footnote 1087: See Grieson and Garbe. But I have not found a\nquotation from any original authority. Mohammed, however, had the same\nnotion of the Trinity.]\n\n[Footnote 1088: But the Mappilahs or Moplahs appear to have settled on\nthe Malabar coast about 900 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 1089: Similarly the neo-Confucianism of the Sung dynasty was\ninfluenced by Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist Buddhism. Chu-hsi and his disciples condemned\nBuddhism, but the new problems and new solutions which they brought\nforward would not have been heard of but for Buddhism.]\n\n[Footnote 1090: The idea of the second birth is found in the Majjhima\nNik\u00e2ya, where in Sutta 86 the converted brigand Angulimala speaks of\nhis regenerate life as _Yato aham ariy\u00e2ya j\u00e2tiy\u00e2 j\u00e2to_, \"Since I was\nborn by this noble (or holy) birth.\" Brahmanic parallels are numerous,\n_e.g._ Manu, 2. 146.]\n\n[Footnote 1091: It is said, however, that the celebration of the\nPras\u00e2d by the Kabirpanthis bears an extraordinary resemblance to the\nHoly Communion of Christians. This may be so, but, as already\nmentioned, this late and admittedly composite sect is not typical of\nHinduism as a whole.]\n\n[Footnote 1092: Krish\u1e47ajanm\u00e2sh\u1e6dam\u00ee, _Memoirs of Academy of\nBerlin_, 1867.]\n\n[Footnote 1093: In spite of making enquiry I have never seen or heard\nof these representations of a stable myself. As Senart points out\n(_L\u00e9gende_, p. 336) all the personages who play a part in Krishna's\nearly life are shown in these tableaux in one group, but this does not\nimply that shepherds and their flocks are supposed to be present at\nhis birth.]\n\n[Footnote 1094: Though the ordinary legend does not say that Krishna\nwas born in a stable yet it does associate him with cattle.]\n\n[Footnote 1095: Pargiter, _Dynasties of the Kali age_, p. xviii.]\n\n[Footnote 1096: Commentary on P\u00e2nini, 2. 3. 36, 3. 1. 36 and 3. 2.\n111. It seems probable that P\u00e2tanjali knew the story of Krishna and\nKamsa substantially as it is recounted in the Hariva\u1e43sa.]\n\n[Footnote 1097: Section 337. A journey to \u015avetadv\u00eepa is also\nrelated in the Kath\u00e2sarit s\u00e2gara, LIV.]\n\n[Footnote 1098: The most accessible statement of the geographical\nfancies here referred to is in Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, Book II, chap. IV. The\nSea of Milk is the sixth of the seven concentric seas which surround\nJambudv\u00eepa and Mt. Meru. It divides the sixth of the concentric\ncontinents or \u015a\u00e2kadv\u00eepa from the seventh or Pushkara-dv\u00eepa. The\ninhabitants of \u015a\u00e2kadv\u00eepa worship Vishnu as the Sun and have this\nmuch reality that at any rate, according to the Vishnu and Bhavishya\nPur\u00e2nas, they are clearly Iranian Sun-worshippers whose priests are\ncalled Magas or M\u1e5bigas. Pushkara-dv\u00eepa is a terrestrial paradise:\nthe inhabitants live a thousand years, are of the same nature as the\ngods and free from sorrow and sin. \"The three Vedas, the Pur\u00e2nas,\nEthics and Polity are unknown\" among them and \"there are no\ndistinctions of caste or order: there are no fixed institutes.\" The\nturn of fancy which located this non-Brahmanic Utopia in the north\nseems akin to that which led the Greeks to talk of Hyperboreans.\nFairly early in the history of India it must have been discovered that\nthe western, southern, and eastern coasts were washed by the sea so\nthat the earthly paradise was naturally placed in the north. Thus we\nhear of an abode of the blessed called the country of the holy Uttara\nKurus or northern Kurus. Here nothing can be perceived with human\nsenses (Mah\u00e2bh. Sabh\u00e2, 1045), and it is mentioned in the same breath\nas Heaven and the city of Indra (_ib._ Anus\u00e2s. 2841).\n\nIt is not quite clear (neither is it of much moment), whether the\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata intends by \u015avetadv\u00eepa one of these concentric world\ndivisions or a separate island. The K\u00fbrma and Padma Pur\u00e2nas also\nmention it as the shining abode of Vishnu and his saintly servants.]\n\n[Footnote 1099: Garbe thinks that the Sea of Milk is Lake Balkash. For\nthe Pancar\u00e2tra see book v. iii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 1100: See note 2 on last page.]\n\n[Footnote 1101: _E.g._ several works of Lloyd and Saeki, _The\nNestorian Monument in China_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVI\n\nINDIAN INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN WORLD\n\n\nThe influence of Indian religion on Christianity is part of the wider\nquestion of its influence on the west generally. It is clear that from\n200 B.C. until 300 A.D. oriental religion played a considerable part\nin the countries round the Mediterranean. The worship of the Magna\nMater was known in Rome by 200 B.C. and that of Isis and Serapis in\nthe time of Sulla. In the early centuries of the Christian era the\ncultus of Mithra prevailed not only in Rome but in most parts of\nEurope where there were Roman legions, even in Britain. These\nreligions may be appropriately labelled with the vague word oriental,\nfor they are not so much the special creeds of Egypt and Persia\ntransplanted into Roman soil as fragments, combinations and\nadaptations of the most various eastern beliefs. They differed from\nthe forms of worship indigenous to Greece and Italy in being personal,\nnot national: they were often emotional and professed to reveal the\nnature and destinies of the soul. If we ask whether there are any\ndefinitely Indian elements in all this orientalism, the answer must be\nthat there is no clear case of direct borrowing, nothing Indian\nanalogous to the migrations of Isis and Mithra. If Indian thought had\nany influence on the Mediterranean it was not immediate, but through\nPersia, Babylonia and Egypt. But it is possible that the doctrine of\nmetempsychosis and the ideal of the ascetic life are echoes of India.\nThough the former is found in an incomplete shape among savages in\nmany parts of the world, there is no indication that it was indigenous\nin Egypt, Syria, Babylonia, Asia Minor, Greece or Italy. It crops up\nnow and again as a tenet held by philosophers or communities of\ncosmopolitan tastes such as the Orphic Societies, but usually in\ncircumstances which suggest a foreign origin. It is said, however, to\nhave formed part of the doctrines taught by the Druids in Gaul.\nSimilarly though occasional fasts and other mortifications may have\nbeen usual in the worship of various deities and though the rigorous\nSpartan discipline was a sort of military asceticism, still the idea\nthat the religious life consists in suppressing the passions,\nwhich plays such a large part in Christian monasticism, can be traced\nnot to any Jewish or European institution but to Egypt. Although\nmonasticism spread quickly thence to Syria, it is admitted that the\nfirst Christian hermits and monasteries were Egyptian and there is\nsome evidence for the existence there of pagan hermits[1102]. Egypt\nwas a most religious country, but it does not appear that asceticism,\ncelibacy or meditation formed part of its older religious life, and\ntheir appearance in Hellenistic times may be due to a wave of Asiatic\ninfluence starting originally from India.\n\nLooking westwards from India and considering what were the\ncircumstances favouring the diffusion of Indian ideas, we must note\nfirst that Hindus have not only been in all ages preoccupied by\nreligious questions but have also had a larger portion of the\nmissionary spirit than is generally supposed. It is true that in wide\ntracts and long periods this spirit has been suppressed by Brahmanic\nexclusiveness, but phenomena like the spread of Buddhism and the\nestablishment of Hinduism in Indo-China and Java speak for themselves.\nThe spiritual tide flowed eastwards rather than westwards; still it is\nprobable that its movement was felt, though on a smaller scale, in the\naccessible parts of the west. By land, our record tells us mainly of\nwhat came into India from Persia and Bactria, but something must have\ngone out. By water we know that at least after about 700 B.C. there\nwas communication with the Persian Gulf, Arabia and probably the Red\nSea. Semitic alphabets were borrowed: in the J\u00e2takas we hear of\nmerchants going to Baveru or Babylon: Solomon's commercial ventures\nbrought him Indian products. But the strongest testimony to the\ndissemination of religious ideas is found in Asoka's celebrated edict\n(probably 256 B.C.) in which he claims to have spread the Dhamma as\nfar as the dominions of Antiochus \"and beyond that Antiochus to where\ndwell the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas and Alexander.\"\nThe kings mentioned are identified as the rulers of Syria, Egypt,\nMacedonia, Cyrene and Epirus. Asoka compares his missionary triumphs\nto the military conquests of other monarchs. It may be that the\ncomparison is only too just and that like them he claimed to have\nextended his law to regions where his name was unknown. No record of\nthe arrival of Buddhist missions in any Hellenistic kingdom has\nreached us and the language of the edict, if examined critically, is\nnot precise. On the other hand, however vague it may be, it testifies\nto two things. Firstly, Egypt, Syria and the other Hellenistic states\nwere realities to the Indians of this period, distant but not fabulous\nregions. Secondly, the king desired to spread the knowledge of the law\nin these countries and this desire was shared, or inspired, by the\nmonks whom he patronized. It is therefore probable that, though the\ndifficulties of travelling were great and the linguistic difficulties\nof preaching an Indian religion even greater, missionaries set out for\nthe west and reached if not Macedonia and Epirus, at least Babylon and\nAlexandria. We may imagine that they would frequent the temples and\nthe company of the priests and not show much talent for public\npreaching. If no record of them remains, it is not more wonderful than\nthe corresponding silence in the east about Greek visitors to India.\n\nIt is only after the Christian era that we find Apollonius and\nPlotinus looking towards India as the home of wisdom. In earlier\nperiods the definite instances of connection with India are few.\nIndian figures found at Memphis perhaps indicate the existence there\nof an Indian colony[1103], and a Ptolemaic grave-stone has been\ndiscovered bearing the signs of the wheel and trident[1104]. The\ninfant deity Horus is represented in Indian attitudes and as sitting\non a lotus. Some fragments of the Kanarese language have been found on\na papyrus, but it appears not to be earlier than the second century\nA.D.[1105] In 21 A.D. Augustus while at Athens received an embassy\nfrom India which came _vi\u00e2_ Antioch.\n\nIt was accompanied by a person described as Zarmanochegas, an Indian\nfrom Bargosa who astonished the Athenians by publicly burning himself\nalive[1106]. We also hear of the movement of an Indian tribe from the\nPanjab to Parthia and thence to Armenia (149-127 B.C.)[1107], and\nof an Indian colony at Alexandria in the time of Trajan. Doubtless\nthere were other tribal movements and other mercantile colonies which\nhave left no record, but they were all on a small scale and there was\nno general outpouring of India westwards.\n\nThe early relations of India were with Babylon rather than with Egypt,\nbut if Indian ideas reached Babylon they may easily have spread\nfurther. Communication between Egypt and Babylon existed from an early\nperiod and the tablets of Tel-el-Amarna testify to the antiquity and\nintimacy of this intercourse. At a later date Necho invaded Babylonia\nbut was repulsed. The Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity (538\nB.C.) with their religious horizon enlarged and modified. They were\nchiefly affected by Zoroastrian ideas but they may have become\nacquainted with any views and practices then known in Babylon, and not\nnecessarily with those identified with the state worship, for the\nexiles may have been led to associate with other strangers. After\nabout 535 B.C. the Persian empire extended from the valley of the\nIndus to the valley of the Nile and from Macedonia to Babylon. We hear\nthat in the army which Xerxes led against Greece there were Indian\nsoldiers, which is interesting as showing how the Persians transported\nsubject races from one end of their empire to the other. After the\ncareer of Alexander, Hellenistic kingdoms took the place of this\nempire and, apart from inroads on the north-west frontier of India,\nmaintained friendly relations with her. Seleucus Nicator sent\nMegasthenes as envoy about 300 B.C. and Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247\nB.C.) a representative named Dionysius. Bindus\u00e2ra, the father of\nAsoka, exchanged missions with Antiochus, and, according to a\nwell-known anecdote[1108], expressed a wish to buy a professor\n(\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd). But Antiochus replied that Greek professors\nwere not for sale.\n\nEgyptologists consider that metempsychosis is not part of the earlier\nstrata of Egyptian religion but appears first about 500 B.C., and\nFlinders Petrie refers to this period the originals of the earliest\nHermetic literature. But other authorities regard these works as being\nboth in substance and language considerably posterior to the\nChristian era and as presenting a jumble of Christianity, Neoplatonism\nand Egyptian ideas.\n\nI have neither space nor competence to discuss the date of the\nHermetic writings, but it is of importance for the question which we\nare considering. They contain addresses to the deity like I am Thou\nand Thou art I (_\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce_). If such words\ncould be used in Egypt several centuries before Christ, the\nprobability of Indian influence seems to me strong, for they would not\ngrow naturally out of Egyptian or Hellenistic religion. Five hundred\nyears later they would be less remarkable. Whatever may be the date of\nthe Hermetic literature, it is certain that the Book of Wisdom and the\nwritings of Philo are pre-Christian and show a mixture of ideas drawn\nfrom many sources, Jewish, Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean. If these\nhospitable systems made the acquaintance of Indian philosophy, we may\nbe sure that they gave it an unprejudiced and even friendly hearing.\nIn the centuries just before the Christian era Egypt was a centre of\ngrowth for personal and private religious ideas[1109], hardly\npossessing sufficient organization to form what we call a religion,\nyet still, inasmuch as they aspired to teach individual souls right\nconduct as well as true knowledge, implicitly containing the same\nscheme of teaching as the Buddhist and Christian Churches. But it is\ncharacteristic of all this movement that it never attempted to form a\nnational or universal religion and remained in all its manifestations\nindividual and personal, connected neither with the secular government\nnor with any national cultus. Among these religious ideas were\nmonotheism mingled with pantheism to the extent of saying that God is\nall and all is one: the idea of the Logos or Divine Wisdom, which\nultimately assumes the form that the Word is an emanation or Son of\nGod; asceticism, or at least the desire to free the soul from the\nbondage of the senses; metempsychosis and the doctrine of conversion\nor the new birth of the soul, which fits in well with metempsychosis,\nthough it frequently exists apart from it. I doubt if there is\nsufficient reason for attributing the doctrine of the Logos[1110] to\nIndia, but it is possible that asceticism and the belief in\nmetempsychosis received their first impulse thence. They appear\nlate and, like the phraseology of the Hermetic books, they do not grow\nnaturally out of antecedent ideas and practices in Egypt and\nPalestine. The life followed by such communities as the Therapeut\u00e6 and\nEssenes is just such as might have been evolved by seekers after truth\nwho were trying to put into practice in another country the religious\nideals of India. There are differences: for instance these communities\nlaboured with their hands and observed the seventh day, but their main\nideas, retirement from the world and suppression of the passions, are\nthose of Indian monks and foreign to Egyptian and Jewish thought.\n\nThe character of Pythagoras's teaching and its relation to Egypt have\nbeen much discussed and the name of the master was clearly extended by\nlater (and perhaps also by early) disciples to doctrines which he\nnever held. But it seems indisputable that there were widely spread\nboth in Greece and Italy societies called Pythagorean or Orphic which\ninculcated a common rule of life and believed in metempsychosis. The\nrule of life did not as a rule amount to asceticism in the Indian\nsense, which was most uncongenial to Hellenic ideas, but it comprised\ngreat self-restraint. The belief in metempsychosis finds remarkably\nclear expression: we hear in the Orphic fragments of the circle of\nbirth and of escape from it, language strikingly parallel to many\nIndian utterances and strikingly unlike the usual turns of Greek\nspeech and thought. Thus the soul is addressed as \"Hail thou who hast\nsuffered the suffering\" and is made to declare \"I have flown out of\nthe sorrowful weary wheel[1111].\" I see no reason for discrediting the\nstory that Pythagoras visited Egypt[1112]. He is said to have been a\nSamian and during his life (_c._ 500 B.C.) Samos had a special\nconnection with Egypt, for Polycrates was the ally of Amasis and\nassisted him with troops. The date, if somewhat early, is not far\nremoved from the time when metempsychosis became part of Egyptian\nreligion. The general opinion of antiquity connected the Orphic\ndoctrines with Thrace but so little is known of the Thracians and\ntheir origin that this connection does not carry us much further. They\nappear, however, to have had relations with Asia Minor and that region\nmust have been in touch with India[1113]. But Orphism was also\nconnected with Crete, and Cretan civilization had oriental\naffinities[1114].\n\nThe point of greatest interest naturally is to determine what were the\nreligious influences among which Christ grew up. Whatever they may\nhave been, his originality is not called in question. Mohammed was an\nenquirer: in estimating his work we have often to ask what he had\nheard about Christianity and Judaism and how far he had understood it\ncorrectly. But neither the Buddha nor Christ were enquirers in this\nsense: they accepted the best thought of their time and country: with\na genius which transcends comparison and eludes definition they gave\nit an expression which has become immortal. Neither the substance nor\nthe form of their teaching can reasonably be regarded as identical,\nfor the Buddha did not treat of God or the divine government of the\nworld, whereas Christ's chief thesis is that God loves the world and\nthat therefore man should love God and his fellow men. But though\ntheir basic principles differ, the two doctrines agree in maintaining\nthat happiness is obtainable not by pleasure or success or philosophy\nor rites but by an unselfish life, culminating in the state called\nNirvana or the kingdom of heaven. \"The kingdom of heaven is within\nyou.\"\n\nIn the Gospels Christ teaches neither asceticism nor metempsychosis.\nThe absence of the former is remarkable: he eats flesh and allows\nhimself to be anointed: he drinks wine, prescribes its use in religion\nand is credited with producing it miraculously when human cellars run\nshort. But he praises poverty and the poor: the Sermon on the Mount\nand the instructions to the Seventy can be put in practice only by\nthose who, like the members of a religious community, have severed all\nworldly ties and though the extirpation of desire is not in the\nGospels held up as an end, the detachment, the freedom from care, lust\nand enmity prescribed by the law of the Buddha find their nearest\ncounterpart in the lives of the Essenes and Therapeut\u00e6. Though we have\nno record of Christ being brought into contact with these communities\n(for John the Baptist appears to have been a solitary and erratic\npreacher) it is probable that their ideals were known to him and\ninfluenced his own. Their rule of life may have been a faint reflex of\nIndian monasticism. But the debt to India must not be exaggerated:\nmuch of the oriental element in the Essenes, such as their frequent\npurifications and their prayers uttered towards the sun, may be due to\nPersian influence. They seem to have believed in the pre-existence of\nthe soul and to have held that it was imprisoned in the body, but this\nhardly amounts to metempsychosis, and metempsychosis cannot be found\nin the New Testament[1115]. The old Jewish outlook, preserved by the\nSadducees, appears not to have included a belief in any life after\ndeath, and the supplements to this materialistic view admitted by the\nPharisees hardly amounted to the doctrine of the natural immortality\nof the soul but rather to a belief that the just would somehow acquire\nnew bodies and live again. Thus people were ready to accept John the\nBaptist as being Elias in a new form. Perhaps these rather fragmentary\nideas of the Jews are traceable to Egyptian and ultimately to Indian\nteaching about transmigration. That belief is said to crop up\noccasionally in rabbinical writings but was given no place in orthodox\nChristianity[1116].\n\nWith regard to the teaching of Christ then, the conclusion must be\nthat it owes no direct debt to Indian, Egyptian, Persian or other\noriental sources. But inasmuch as he was in sympathy with the more\nspiritual elements of Judaism, largely borrowed during the Babylonian\ncaptivity, and with the unworldly and self-denying lives of the\nEssenes, the tone of his teaching is nearer to these newer and\nimported doctrines than to the old law of Israel[1117].\n\nSome striking parallels have been pointed out between the Gospels and\nIndian texts of such undoubted antiquity that if imitation is\nadmitted, the Evangelists must have been the imitators. Before\nconsidering these instances I invite the reader's attention to two\nparallel passages from Shakespeare and the Indian poet Bhartrihari.\nThe latter is thus translated by Monier Williams[1118]:\n\n    Now for a little while a child, and now\n    An amorous youth; then for a season turned\n    Into the wealthy householder: then stripped\n    Of all his riches, with decrepit limbs\n    And wrinkled frame man creeps towards the end\n    Of life's erratic course and like an actor\n    Passes behind Death's curtain out of view.\n\nThe resemblance of this to the well-known lines in _As You Like It_,\n\"All the world's a stage,\" etc., is obvious, and it is a real\nresemblance, although the point emphasized by Bhartrihari is that man\nleaves the world like an actor who at the end of the piece slips\nbehind the curtain, which formed the background of an Indian stage.\nBut, great as is the resemblance, I imagine that no one would maintain\nthat it has any other origin than that a fairly obvious thought\noccurred to two writers in different times and countries and\nsuggested similar expressions.\n\nNow many parallels between the Buddhist and Christian scriptures--the\nmajority as it seems to me of those collected by Edmunds and\nAnesaki--belong to this class[1119]. One of the most striking is the\npassage in the Vinaya relating how the Buddha himself cared for a\nsick monk who was neglected by his colleagues and said to these\nlatter, \"Whosoever would wait upon me let him wait on the sick[1120].\"\nHere the resemblance to Matthew xxv. 40 and 45 is remarkable, but I do\nnot imagine that the writer of the Gospel had ever heard or read of\nthe Buddha's words. The sentiment which prompted them, if none too\ncommon, is at least widespread and is the same that made Confucius\nshow respect and courtesy to the blind. The setting of the saying in\nthe Vinaya and in the Gospel is quite different: the common point is\nthat one whom all are anxious to honour sees that those around him\nshow no consideration to the sick and unhappy and reproves them in the\nwords of the text, words which admit of many interpretations, the\nsimplest perhaps being \"I bid you care for the sick: you neglect me if\nyou neglect those whom I bid you to cherish.\"\n\nBut many passages in Buddhist and Christian writings have been\ncompared where there is no real parallel but only some word or detail\nwhich catches the attention and receives an importance which it does\nnot possess. An instance of this is the so-called parable of the\nprodigal son in the Lotus S\u00fbtra, Chapter iv, which has often been\ncompared with Luke xv. 11 ff. But neither in moral nor in plot are the\ntwo parables really similar. The Lotus maintains that there are many\nvarieties of doctrine of which the less profound are not necessarily\nwrong, and it attempts to illustrate this by not very convincing\nstories of how a father may withhold the whole truth from his children\nfor their good. In one story a father and son are separated for fifty\nyears and _both_ move about: the father becomes very rich, the son\npoor. The son in his wanderings comes upon his father's palace and\nrecognizes no one. The father, now a very old man, knows his son, but\ninstead of welcoming him at once as his heir puts him through a\ngradual discipline and explains the real position only on his\ndeathbed. These incidents have nothing in common with the parable\nrelated in the Gospel except that a son is lost and found, an event\nwhich occurs in a hundred oriental tales. What is much more\nremarkable, though hardly a case of borrowing, is that in both\nversions the chief personage, that is Buddha or God, is likened to a\nfather as he also is in the parable of the carriages[1121].\n\nOne of the Jain scriptures called Uttar\u00e2dyayana[1122] contains the\nfollowing remarkable passage, \"Three merchants set out on their\ntravels each with his capital; one of them gained much, the second\nreturned with his capital and the third merchant came home after\nhaving lost his capital; The parable is taken from common life; learn\nto apply it to the Law. The capital is human life, the gain is\nheaven,\" etc. It is impossible to fix the date of this passage: the\nJain Canon in which it occurs was edited in 454 A.D. but the component\nparts of it are much older. It clearly gives a rough sketch of the\nidea which is elaborated in the parable of the talents. Need we\nsuppose that there has been borrowing on either side? Only in a very\nrestricted sense, I think, if at all. The parable is taken from common\nlife, as the Indian text truly says. It occurred to some teacher,\nperhaps to many teachers independently, that the spiritual life may be\nrepresented as a matter of profit and loss and illustrated by the\nconduct of those who employ their money profitably or not. The idea is\nnatural and probably far older than the Gospels, but the parable of\nthe talents is an original and detailed treatment of a metaphor which\nmay have been known to the theological schools of both India and\nPalestine. The parable of the sower bears the same relation to the\nmuch older Buddhist comparison of instruction to agriculture[1123] in\nwhich different classes of hearers correspond to different classes of\nfields.\n\nI feel considerable hesitation about two other parallels. What\nrelation does the story of the girl who gives two copper coins to the\nSangha bear to the parable of the widow's mite? It occurs in\nA\u015bvaghosa's S\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, but though he was a learned poet, it is\nvery unlikely that he had seen the Gospels, Although his poem ends\nlike a fairy tale, for the poor girl marries the king's son as the\nreward of her piety, yet there is an extraordinary resemblance in the\nmoral and the detail of the _two_ mites. Can the origin be some\nproverb which was current in many countries and worked up differently?\n\nThe other parallel is between Christ's meeting with the woman of\nSamaria and a story in the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na[1124] telling how Ananda asked\nan outcast maiden for water. Here the Indian work, which is probably\nnot earlier than the third century A.D., might well be the\nborrower. Yet the incident is thoroughly Indian. The resemblance is\nnot in the conversation but in the fact that both in India and\nPalestine water given by the impure is held to defile and that in both\ncountries spiritual teachers rise above such rules. Perhaps Europeans,\nto whom such notions of defilement are unknown, exaggerate the\nsimilarity of the narratives, because the similarity of customs on\nwhich it depends seems remarkable.\n\nThere are, however, some incidents in the Gospels which bear so great\na likeness to earlier stories found in the Pitakas that the two\nnarratives can hardly be wholly independent. These are (_a_) the\ntestimony of Asita and Simeon to the future careers of the infant\nBuddha and Christ: (_b_) the temptation of Buddha and Christ: (_c_)\ntheir transfiguration: (_d_) the miracle of walking on the water and\nits dependence on faith: (_e_) the miracle of feeding a multitude with\na little bread. The first three parallels relate to events directly\nconcerning the life of a superhuman teacher, Buddha or Christ. In\nsaying that the two narratives can hardly be independent, I do not\nmean that one is necessarily unhistorical or that the writers of the\nGospels had read the Pitakas. That a great man should have a mental\ncrisis in his early life and feel that the powers of evil are trying\nto divert him from his high destiny is eminently likely. But in the\nEast superhuman teachers were many and there grew up a tradition,\nfluctuating indeed but still not entirely without consistency, as to\nwhat they may be expected to do. Angelic voices at their birth and\nearthquakes at their death are coincidences in embellishment on which\nno stress can be laid, but when we find that Zoroaster, the Buddha and\nChrist were all tempted by the Evil One and all at the same period of\ntheir careers, it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that some of\ntheir biographers were influenced by the idea that such an incident\nwas to be expected at that point, unless indeed we regard these\nso-called temptations as mental crises natural in the development of a\nreligious genius. Similarly it is most remarkable that all accounts of\nthe transfiguration of the Buddha and of Christ agree not only in\ndescribing the shining body but in adding a reference to impending\ndeath. The resemblance between the stories of Asita and Simeon seems\nto me less striking but I think that they owe their place in both\nbiographies to the tradition that the superman is recognized and\nsaluted by an aged Saint soon after birth.\n\nThe two stories about miracles are of less importance in substance but\nthe curious coincidences in detail suggest that they are pieces of\nfolklore which circulated in Asia and Eastern Europe. The Buddhist\nversions occur in the introductions to Jatakas 190 and 78, which are of\nuncertain date, though they may be very ancient[1125]. The idea that\nsaints can walk on the water is found in the Majjhima-nik\u00e2ya[1126], but\nthe J\u00e2taka adds the following particulars. A disciple desirous of seeing\nthe Buddha begins to walk across a river in an ecstasy of faith. In the\nmiddle, his ecstasy fails and he feels himself sinking but by an effort\nof will he regains his former confidence and meets the Buddha safely on\nthe further bank. In J\u00e2taka 90 the Buddha miraculously feeds 500\ndisciples with a single cake and it is expressly mentioned that, after\nall had been satisfied, the remnants were so numerous that they had to\nbe collected and disposed of.\n\nStill all the parallels cited amount to little more than this, that\nthere was a vague and fluid tradition about the super man's life of\nwhich fragments have received a consecration in literature. The\nCanonical Gospels show great caution in drawing on this fund of\ntradition, but a number of Buddhist legends make their appearance in\nthe Apocryphal Gospels and are so obviously Indian in character that\nit can hardly be maintained that they were invented in Palestine or\nEgypt and spread thence eastwards. Trees bend down before the young\nChrist and dragons (n\u00e2gas) adore him: when he goes to school to learn\nthe alphabet he convicts his teacher of ignorance and the good man\nfaints[1127]. When he enters a temple in Egypt the images prostrate\nthemselves before him just as they do before the young Gotama in the\ntemple of Kapilavastu[1128]. Mary is luminous before the birth of\nChrist which takes place without pain or impurity[1129]. But the\nparallel which is most curious, because the incident related is\nunusual in both Indian and European literature, is the detailed\nnarrative in the Gospel of James, and also in the Lalita-vistara\nrelating how all activity of mankind and nature was suddenly\ninterrupted at the moment of the nativity[1130]. Winds, stars and\nrivers stayed their motion and labourers stood still in the attitude\nin which each was surprised. The same Gospel of James also relates\nthat Mary when six months old took seven steps, which must surely be\nan echo of the legend which attributes the same feat to the infant\nBuddha.\n\nSeveral learned authors have discussed the debt of medieval Christian\nlegend to India. The most remarkable instance of this is the\ncanonization by both the Eastern and the Western Church of St. Joasaph\nor Josaphat. It seems to be established that this name is merely a\ncorruption of Bodhisat and that the story in its Christian form goes\nback to the religious romance called Barlaam and Joasaph which appears\nto date from the seventh century[1131]. It contains the history of an\nIndian prince who was converted by the preaching of Barlaam and became\na hermit, and it introduces some of the well-known stories of Gotama's\nearly life, such as the attempt to hide from him the existence of\nsickness and old age, and his meetings with a cripple and an old man.\nThe legends of St. Placidus (or Hubert) and St. Christopher have also\nbeen identified with the Nigrodha and Sutasoma J\u00e2takas[1132]. The\nidentification is not to my mind conclusive nor, if it is admitted, of\nmuch importance. For who doubts that Indian fables reappear in Aesop\nor Kalilah and Dimnah? Little is added to this fact if they also\nappear in legends which may have some connection with the Church but\nwhich most Christians feel no obligation to believe.\n\nBut the occurrence of Indian legends in the Apocryphal Gospels is more\nimportant for it shows that, though in the early centuries of\nChristianity the Church was shy of this oriental exuberance, yet the\nmaterials were at hand for those who chose to use them. Many wonders\nattending the superman's birth were deliberately rejected but some\nwere accepted and oriental practices, such as asceticism, appear with\na suddenness that makes the suspicion of foreign influence legitimate.\n\nNot only was monasticism adopted by Christianity but many\npractices common to Indian and to Christian worship obtained the\napproval of the Church at about the same time. Some of these, such as\nincense and the tonsure, may have been legacies from the Jewish and\nEgyptian priesthoods. Many coincidences also are due to the fact that\nboth Buddhism and Christianity, while abolishing animal sacrifices,\nwere ready to sanction old religious customs: both countenanced the\nperformance before an image or altar of a ritual including incense,\nflowers, lights and singing. This recognition of old and widespread\nrites goes far to explain the extraordinary similarity of Buddhist\nservices in Tibet and Japan (both of which derived their ritual\nultimately from India) to Roman Catholic ceremonial. Yet when all\nallowance is made for similar causes and coincidences, it is hard to\nbelieve that a collection of such practices as clerical celibacy,\nconfession, the veneration of relics, the use of the rosary and bells\ncan have originated independently in both religions. The difficulty no\ndoubt is to point out any occasion in the third and fourth centuries\nA.D. when oriental Christians other than casual travellers had an\nopportunity of becoming acquainted with Buddhist institutions. But the\nnumber of resemblances remains remarkable and some of them--such as\nclerical celibacy, relics, and confession--are old institutions in\nBuddhism but appear to have no parallels in Jewish, Syrian, or\nEgyptian antiquity. Up to a certain point, it is a sound principle\nnot to admit that resemblances prove borrowing, unless it can be shown\nthat there was contact between two nations, but it is also certain\nthat all record of such contact may disappear. For instance, it is\nindisputable that Hindu civilization was introduced into Camboja, but\nthere is hardly any evidence as to how or when Hindu colonists arrived\nthere, and none whatever as to how or when they left India.\n\nIt is in Christian or quasi-Christian heresies--that is, the sects\nwhich were rejected by the majority--that Indian influence is\nplainest. This is natural, for if there is one thing obvious in the\nhistory of religion it is that Indian speculation and the Indian view\nof life were not congenial to the people of Europe and western Asia.\nBut some spirits, from the time of Pythagoras onwards, had a greater\naffinity for oriental ways of thinking, and such sympathy was\nspecially common among the Gnostics. Gnosticism consisted in the\ncombination of Christianity with the already mixed religion which\nprevailed in Alexandria, Antioch and other centres, and which was an\nuncertain and varying compound of Judaism, Hellenistic thought and the\nideas of oriental countries such as Egypt, Persia and Babylonia. Its\nfundamental idea, the knowledge of God or Gnosis, is clearly similar\nto the J\u00f1\u00e2nak\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0da of the Hindus[1133], but the emphasis laid on\ndualism and redemption is not Indian and the resemblances suggest\nlittle more than that hints may have been taken and worked up\nindependently. Thus the idea of the Demiurgus is related to the idea\nof I\u015bvara in so far as both imply a distinction not generally\nrecognized in Europe between the creator of the world and the Highest\nDeity, but the Gnostic developments of the Demiurgus idea are\nindependent. Similarly though the Aeons or emanations of the Gnostics\nhave to some extent a parallel in the beings produced by Brahm\u00e2,\nPraj\u00e2pati or V\u00e2sudeva, yet these latter are not characteristic of\nHinduism and still less of Buddhism, for the celestial Buddhas and\nBodhisattvas of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na are justly suspected of being additions\ndue to Persian influence.\n\nBardesanes, one of the latest Gnostic teachers (155-233), wrote a book\non Indian religion, quoted by Porphyry. This is important for it shows\nthat he turned towards India for truth, but though his teaching\nincluded the pre-existence of the soul and some doctrine of Karma, it\nwas not specially impregnated with Indian ideas. This, however, may be\nsaid without exaggeration of Carpocrates and Basilides who both taught\nat Alexandria about 120-130 A.D. Unfortunately we know the views of\nthese interesting men only from the accounts of their opponents.\nCarpocrates[1134] is said to have claimed the power of coercing by\nmagic the spirits who rule the world and to have taught metempsychosis\nin the form that the soul is imprisoned in the body again and again\nuntil it has performed all possible actions, good and evil. Therefore\nthe only way to escape reincarnation (which is the object of religion)\nand to rise to a superior sphere of peace is to perform as much action\nas possible, good and evil, for the distinction between the two\ndepends on intention, not on the nature of deeds. It is only through\nfaith and love that a man can obtain blessedness. Much of the\nabove sounds like a caricature, but it may be a misrepresentation of\nsomething analogous to the Indian doctrine that the acts of a Yogi are\nneither black nor white and that a Yogi in order to get rid of his\nKarma creates and animates many bodies to work it off for him.\n\nIn Basilides we find the doctrines not only of reincarnation, which\nseems to have been common in Gnostic schools[1135], but of Karma, of\nthe suffering inherent in existence and perhaps the composite nature\nof the soul. He is said to have taught that the martyrs suffered for\ntheir sins, that is to say that souls came into the world tainted with\nthe guilt of evil deeds done in another existence. This guilt must be\nexpiated by commonplace misfortune or, for the nobler sort, by\nmartyrdom. He considered the world process to consist in sorting out\nconfused things and the gradual establishment of order. This is to\nsome extent true of the soul as well: it is not an entity but a\ncompound (compare the Buddhist doctrine of the Skandhas) and the\npassions are appendages. He called God \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f62\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 which\nseems an attempt to express the same idea as Brahman devoid of all\nqualities and attributes (nirgu\u1e47a). It is significant that the\nsystem of Basilides died out[1136].\n\nA more important sect of decidedly oriental affinities was Manich\u00e6ism,\nor rather it was a truly oriental religion which succeeded in\npenetrating to Europe and there took on considerably more Christianity\nthan it had possessed in its original form. Mani himself (215-276) is\nsaid to have been a native of Ecbatana but visited Afghanistan,\nBactria and India, and his followers carried his faith across Asia to\nChina, while in the west it was the parent inspiration of the Bogomils\nand Albigenses. The nature and sources of his creed have been the\nsubject of considerable discussion but new light is now pouring in\nfrom the Manich\u00e6an manuscripts discovered in Central Asia, some of\nwhich have already been published. These show that about the seventh\ncentury and probably considerably earlier the Manich\u00e6ism of those\nregions had much in common with Buddhism. A Manich\u00e6an treatise\ndiscovered at Tun-huang[1137] has the form of a Buddhist S\u00fbtra: it\nspeaks of Mani as the Tath\u00e2gata, it mentions Buddhas of Transformation\n(Hua-fo) and the Bodhisattva Ti-tsang. Even more important is the\nconfessional formula called Khuastuanift[1138] found in the same\nlocality. It is clearly similar to the P\u00e2timokkha and besides using\nmuch Buddhist terminology it reckons killing or injuring animals as a\nserious sin. It is true that many of these resemblances may be due to\nassociation with Buddhism and not to the original teaching of Mani,\nwhich was strongly dualistic and contained many Zoroastrian and\nBabylonian ideas. But it was eclectic and held up an ascetic ideal of\ncelibacy, poverty and fasting unknown to Persia and Babylon. To take\nlife was counted a sin and the adepts formed an order apart who lived\non the food given to them by the laity. The more western accounts of\nthe Manich\u00e6ans testify to these features as strongly as do the records\nfrom Central Asia and China. Cyril of Jerusalem in his polemic against\nthem[1139] charges them with believing in retributive metempsychosis,\nhe who kills an animal being changed into that animal after death. The\nPersian king Hormizd is said to have accused Mani of bidding people\ndestroy the world, that is, to retire from social life and not have\nchildren. Alberuni[1140] states definitely that Mani wrote a book\ncalled Sh\u00e2burk\u00e2n in which he said that God sent different messengers\nto mankind in different ages, Buddha to India, Zar\u00e2dusht to Persia\nand Jesus to the west. According to Cyril the Manich\u00e6an scriptures\nwere written by one Scythianus and revised by his disciple Terebinthus\nwho changed his name to Boddas. This may be a jumble, but it is hard\nto stifle the suspicion that it contains some allusion to the Buddha,\n\u015a\u00e2kya-muni and the Bo tree.\n\nI think therefore that primitive Manich\u00e6ism, though it contained less\nBuddhism than did its later and eastern forms, still owed to India its\nasceticism, its order of celibate adepts and its regard for animal\nlife. When it spread to Africa and Europe it became more\nChristian, just as it became more Buddhist in China, but it is\nexceedingly curious to see how this Asiatic religion, like the widely\ndifferent religion of Mohammed, was even in its latest phrases the\nsubject of bitter hatred and persistent misrepresentation.\n\nFinally, do the Neoplatonists, Neopythagoreans and other pagan\nphilosophers of the early centuries after Christ owe any debt to\nIndia? Many of them were consciously endeavouring to arrest the\nprogress of Christianity by transforming philosophy into a\nnon-Christian religion. They gladly welcomed every proof that the\nhigher life was not to be found exclusively or most perfectly in\nChristianity. Hence bias, if not accurate knowledge, led them to\nrespect all forms of eastern mysticism. Apollonius is said to have\ntravelled in India[1141]: in the hope of so doing Plotinus accompanied\nthe unfortunate expedition of Gordian but turned back when it failed.\nWe may surmise that for Plotinus the Indian origin of an idea would\nhave been a point in its favour, although his writings show no special\nhostility to Christianity[1142]. So far as I can judge, his system\npresents those features which might be expected to come from sympathy\nwith the Indian temperament, aided perhaps not by reading but by\nconversation with thoughtful orientals at Alexandria and elsewhere.\nThe direct parallels are not striking. Plato himself had entertained\nthe idea of metempsychosis and much that seems oriental in Plotinus\nmay be not a new importation but the elaboration of Plato's views in a\nform congenial to the age[1143]. Affirmations that God is \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03c5 and \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03c5\nare not so much borrowings from the Ved\u00e2nta philosophy as a\nre-statement of Hellenic ideas in a mystic and quietist spirit, which\nmay owe something to India. But Plotinus seems to me nearer to India\nthan were the Gnostics and Manich\u00e6ans, because his teaching is not\ndualistic to the same extent. He finds the world unsatisfying not\nbecause it is the creation of the Evil One, but because it is\ntransitory, imperfect and unreal.\n\nHis system has been called dynamic pantheism and this description\napplies also to much Indian theology which regards God in himself as\ndevoid of all qualities and yet the source of the forces which move\nthe universe. He held that there are four stages of being: prim\u00e6val\nbeing, the ideal world, the soul and phenomena. This, if not exactly\nparallel to anything in Indian philosophy, is similar in idea to the\nevolutionary theories of the S\u00e2nkhya and the phases of conditioned\nspirit taught by many Vishnuite sects.\n\nFor Plotinus neither moral good nor evil is ultimate: the highest\nprinciple, like Brahman, transcends both and is beyond good\n(\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd). The highest morality is a morality of inaction and\ndetachment: fasting and abstinence from pleasure are good and so is\nmeditation, but happiness comes in the form of ecstasy and union with\nGod. In human life such union cannot be permanent, though while the\necstasy lasts it affords a resting place on the weary journey, but\nafter death it can be permanent: the divine within us can then return\nto the universal divine. In these ideas there is the real spirit of\nIndia.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1102: See Scott Moncrieff, _Paganism and Christianity in\nEgypt_, p. 199. Petrie, _Personal Religion in Egypt_, p. 62. But for a\ncontrary view see Preuschen, _M\u00f6nchtum und Serapiskult_, 1903.]\n\n[Footnote 1103: Flinders Petrie, _Man_, 1908, p. 129.]\n\n[Footnote 1104: _J.R.A.S._ 1898, p. 875.]\n\n[Footnote 1105: Hultzsch, _Hermas_, xxxix. p. 307, and _J.R.A.S._\n1904, p. 399.]\n\n[Footnote 1106: Nicolaus Damascenus, quoted by Strabo, xv. 73. See\nalso Dion Caasius, ix. 58, who calls the Indian Zarmaros.\nZarmanochegas perhaps contains the two words \u015aramana and Ac\u00e2rya.]\n\n[Footnote 1107: _See J.R.A.S._ 1907, p. 968.]\n\n[Footnote 1108: See Vincent Smith, _Early History of India_, edition\nIII. p. 147. The original source of the anecdote is Hegesandros in\nAthen\u00e6us, 14. 652.]\n\n[Footnote 1109: See Flinders Petrie, _Personal Religion in Egypt\nbefore Christianity_, 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 1110: As I have pointed out elsewhere there is little real\nanalogy between the ideas of Logos and \u015aabda.]\n\n[Footnote 1111: _\u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf_ From the\ntablet found at Compagno. Cf. Proclus in Plat. _Tim._ V. 330, _\u1f27\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f33 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f4c\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f56 \u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_. See J.E. Harrison, _Proleg. to\nthe study of Greek Religion_, 1908, chap. XI. and appendix.]\n\n[Footnote 1112: Burnet, _Early Greek Philosophy_, p. 94, says that it\nfirst occurs in the Busiris of Isocrates and does not believe that the\naccount in Herodotus implies that Pythagoras visited Egypt.]\n\n[Footnote 1113: Whatever may have been the true character and history\nof the enigmatic people of Mitanni it appears certain that they adored\ndeities with Indian names about 1400 B.C. But they may have been\nIranians, and it may be doubted if the Aryan Indians of this date\nbelieved in metempsychosis.]\n\n[Footnote 1114: J.E. Harrison, _l.c._ pp. 459 and 564, seems to think\nthat Orphism migrated from Crete to Thrace.]\n\n[Footnote 1115: The question of the Disciples in John ix. 2. Who did\nsin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? must if taken\nstrictly imply some form of pre-existence. But it is a popular\nquestion, not a theological statement, and I doubt if severely logical\ndeductions from it are warranted.]\n\n[Footnote 1116: The pre-existence of the soul seems to be implied in\nthe Book of Wisdom viii. 20. The remarkable expression in the Epistle\nof James iii. 6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f23\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 suggests a comparison with the\nOrphic expressions quoted above and Sams\u00e2ra, but it is difficult to\nbelieve it can mean more than \"the course of nature.\"]\n\n[Footnote 1117: As in their legends, so in their doctrines, the\nuncanonical writings are more oriental than the canonical and contain\nmore pantheistic and ascetic sayings. _E.g._ \"Where there is one\nalone, I am with him. Raise the stone and thou shalt find me: cleave\nthe wood and I am there\" (_Oxyrhynchus Logia_). \"I am thou and thou\nart I and wheresoever thou art I am also: and in all things I am\ndistributed and wheresoever thou wilt thou gatherest me and in\ngathering me thou gatherest thyself\" (Gospel of Eve in Epiph. _Haer_.\nxxvi. 3). \"When the Lord was asked, when should his kingdom come, he\nsaid: When two shall be one and the without as the within and the male\nwith the female, neither male nor female\" (_Logia_).]\n\n[Footnote 1118: _Hinduism_, p. 549. The original is to be found in\nBhartrihari's Vairogya\u015batakam, 112.]\n\n[Footnote 1119: _The Buddhist and Christian Gospels_, 4th ed. 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 1120: Mah\u00e2vagga, VIII. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 1121: _Lotus_, chap. V.]\n\n[Footnote 1122: VII. 15-21 in _S.B.E._ XLV. p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 1123: Sam. Nik. XLII. VII.]\n\n[Footnote 1124: Ed. Cowell, p. 611.]\n\n[Footnote 1125: See Rhys Davids, _Buddhist India_, p. 206, and\nWinternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit_. II. 91.]\n\n[Footnote 1126: Maj. Nik. VI.]\n\n[Footnote 1127: Gospel of Thomas: longer version, chaps, VI. XIV. See\nalso the Arabic and Syriac Gospels of the Infancy, cf. Lalita-vistara,\nchap. X.]\n\n[Footnote 1128: Pseudo-Matthew, chap, XXII.-XXIV. and Lal. Vist. chap.\nVIII.]\n\n[Footnote 1129: Pseudo-Matthew, XIII. Cf. Dig. Nik. 14 and Maj. Nik.\n123. Neumann's notes on the latter give many curious medieval\nparallels.]\n\n[Footnote 1130: See Gospel of James, XVIII. and Lal. Vist. VII. _ad\ninit_.]\n\n[Footnote 1131: See Rhys Davids, _Buddhist Birth stories_, 1880,\nintroduction; and Joseph Jacobs, _Barlaam and Josaphat_, 1896.]\n\n[Footnote 1132: Nos. 12 and 537.]\n\n[Footnote 1133: As is also the idea that \u03b3\u03bd\u1f63\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 implies a special\nascetic mode of life, the \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.]\n\n[Footnote 1134: Iren\u00e6us, I. XXV.]\n\n[Footnote 1135: It appears in the Pistis Sophia which perhaps\nrepresents the school of Valentinus. Basilides taught that \"unto the\nthird and fourth generation\" refers to transmigration (see Clem. Al.\nfragm. sect. 28 Op., ed. Klotz, IV. 14), and Paul's saying \"I was\nalive without the law once\" (Rom. vii. 9), to former life as an animal\n(Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. V. Op. iv. 549).]\n\n[Footnote 1136: For Gnosticism, see _Buddhist Gnosticism_, J. Kennedy\nin _J.R.A.S._ 1902, and Mead, _Fragments of a faith Forgotten_.]\n\n[Footnote 1137: Chavannes et Pelliot, \"Un trait\u00e9 Manich\u00e9en retrouv\u00e9 en\nChine,\" _J.A._ 1911, I, and 1913, II.]\n\n[Footnote 1138: Le Coq in _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 277.]\n\n[Footnote 1139: Catechetic Lectures, VI. 20 ff. The whole polemic is\ncurious and worth reading.]\n\n[Footnote 1140: Alberuni, _Chronology of ancient nations_, trans.\nSachau, p. 190.]\n\n[Footnote 1141: The account in Philostratus (books II. and III.) reads\nlike a romance and hardly proves that Apollonius went to India, but\nstill there is no reason why he should not have done so.]\n\n[Footnote 1142: He wrote, however, against certain Gnostics.]\n\n[Footnote 1143: Similarly Sallustius (_c._ 360 A.D.), whose object was\nto revive Hellenism, includes metempsychosis in his creed and thinks\nit can be proved. See translation in Murray, _Four Stages of Greek\nReligion_, p. 213.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVII\n\nPERSIAN INFLUENCE IN INDIA\n\n\nOur geographical and political phraseology about India and Persia\nobscures the fact that in many periods the frontier between the two\ncountries was uncertain or not drawn as now. North-western India and\neastern Persia must not be regarded as water-tight or even merely\nleaky compartments. Even now there are more Zoroastrians in India than\nin Persia and the Persian sect of Shiite Mohammedans is powerful and\nconspicuous there. In former times it is probable that there was often\nnot more difference between Indian and Iranian religion than between\ndifferent Indian sects.\n\nYet the religious temperaments of India and Iran are not the same.\nZoroastrianism has little sympathy for pantheism or asceticism: it\ndoes not teach metempsychosis or the sinfulness of taking life. Images\nare not used in worship[1144], God and his angels being thought of as\npure and shining spirits. The foundation of the system is an\nuncompromising dualism of good and evil, purity and impurity, light\nand darkness. Good and evil are different in origin and duality will\nbe abolished only by the ultimate and complete victory of the good. In\nthe next world the distinction between heaven and hell is equally\nsharp but hell is not eternal[1145].\n\nThe pantheon and even the ritual of the early Iranians resembled those\nof the Veda and we can only suppose that the two peoples once lived\nand worshipped together. Subsequently came the reform of Zoroaster\nwhich substituted theism and dualism for this nature worship. For\nabout two centuries, from 530 B.C. onwards, Gandhara and other parts\nof north-western India were a Persian province. Between the time of\nZoroaster (whatever that may be) and this period we cannot say what\nwere the relations of Indian and Iranian religions, but after the\nseventh century they must have flourished in the same region.\nAristobulus[1146], speaking of Taxila in the time of Alexander the\nGreat, describes a marriage market and how the dead were devoured by\nvultures. These are Babylonian and Persian customs, and doubtless were\naccompanied by many others less striking to a foreign tourist. Some\nhold that the Zoroastrian scriptures allude to disputes with\nBuddhists[1147].\n\nExperts on the whole agree that the most ancient Indian architecture\nwhich has been preserved--that of the Maurya dynasty--has no known\nantecedents in India, but both in structure (especially the pillars)\nand in decoration is reminiscent of Persepolis, just as Asoka's habit\nof lecturing his subjects in stone sermons and the very turns of his\nphrases recall the inscriptions of Darius[1148]. And though the king's\ncreed is in some respects--such as his tenderness for animal\nlife--thoroughly Indian, yet this cannot be said of his style and\nchoice of themes as a whole. His marked avoidance of theology and\nphilosophy, his insistence on ethical principles such as truth, and\nhis frank argument that men should do good in order that they may fare\nhappily in the next world, suggest that he may have become familiar\nwith the simple and practical Zoroastrian outlook[1149], perhaps when\nhe was viceroy of Taxila in his youth. But still he shows no trace of\ntheism or dualism: morality is his one concern, but it means for him\ndoing good rather than suppressing evil.\n\nAfter the death of Asoka his Empire broke up and races who were\nIranian in culture, if not always in blood, advanced at its expense.\nDependencies of the Persian or Parthian empire extended into India or\nlike the Satrapies of Mathur\u00e2 and Saur\u00e2sh\u1e6dra lay wholly within it.\nThe mixed civilization which the Kushans brought with them included\nZoroastrianism, as is shown by the coins of Kanishka, and late Kushan\ncoins indicate that Sassanian influence had become very strong in\nnorthern India when the dynasty collapsed in the third century A.D.\n\nI see no reason to suppose that Gotama himself was influenced by\nIranian thought. His fundamental ideas, his view of life and his\nscheme of salvation are truly Hindu and not Iranian. But if the\nchildhood of Buddhism was Indian, it grew to adolescence in a motley\nbazaar where Persians and their ways were familiar. Though the\nBuddhism exported to Ceylon escaped this phase, not merely Mahayanism\nbut schools like the Sarv\u00e2stivadins must have passed through it. The\nshare of Zoroastrianism must not be exaggerated. The metaphysical and\nritualistic tendencies of Indian Buddhism are purely Hindu, and if its\nfree use of images was due to any foreign stimulus, that stimulus was\nperhaps Hellenistic. But the altruistic morality of Mahayanism, though\nnot borrowed from Zoroastrianism, marks a change and this change may\nwell have occurred among races accustomed to the preaching of active\ncharity and dissatisfied with the ideals of self-training and lonely\nperfection. And Zoroastrian influence is I think indubitable in the\nfigures of the great Bodhisattvas, even Maitreya[1150], and above all\nin Amit\u00e2bha and his paradise. These personalities have been adroitly\nfitted into Indian theology but they have no Indian lineage and, in\nspite of all explanations, Amit\u00e2bha and the salvation which he offers\nremain in strange contradiction with the teaching of Gotama. I have\nshown elsewhere[1151] what close parallels may be found in the Avesta\nto these radiant and benevolent genii and to the heaven of boundless\nlight which is entered by those who repeat the name of its master.\nAlso there is good evidence to connect the early worship of Amit\u00e2bha\nwith Central Asia. Later Iranian influence may have meant\nMithraism and Manich\u00e6ism as well as Zoroastrianism and the school of\nAsanga perhaps owes something to these systems[1152]. They may have\nbrought with them fragments of Christianity or doctrines similar to\nChristianity but I think that all attempts to derive Amit\u00e2bhist\nteaching from Christianity are fanciful. The only point which the two\nhave in common is salvation by faith, and that doctrine is certainly\nolder than Christianity. Otherwise the efforts of Amit\u00e2bha to save\nhumanity have no resemblance to the Christian atonement. Nor do the\nrelations between the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas recall the\nTrinity but rather the Persian Fravashis.\n\nPersian influences worked more strongly on Buddhism than on Hinduism,\nfor Buddhism not only flourished in the frontier districts but\npenetrated into the Tarim basin and the region of the Oxus which lay\noutside the Indian and within the Iranian sphere. But they affected\nHinduism also, especially in the matter of sun-worship. This of course\nis part of the oldest Vedic religion, but a special form of it,\nintroduced about the beginning of our era, was a new importation and\nnot a descendant of the ancient Indian cult[1153].\n\nThe Brihatsa\u1e43hita[1154] says that the Magas, that is Magi, are the\npriests of the sun and the proper persons to superintend the\nconsecration of temples and images dedicated to that deity, but the\nclearest statements about this foreign cult are to be found in the\nBhavishya Purana[1155] which contains a legend as to its introduction\nobviously based upon history. S\u00e2mba, the son of Krishna, desiring to\nbe cured of leprosy from which he suffered owing to his father's\ncurse, dedicated a temple to the sun on the river Candrabh\u00e2g\u00e2, but\ncould find no Brahmans willing to officiate in it. By the advice of\nGauramukha, priest of King Ugrasena, confirmed by the sun himself, he\nimported some Magas from \u015a\u00e2kadv\u00eepa[1156], whither he flew on the\nbird Garuda[1157]. That this refers to the importation of\nZoroastrian priests from the country of the \u015a\u00e2kas (Persia or the\nOxus regions) is made clear by the account of their customs--such as\nthe wearing of a girdle called Avyanga[1158]--given by the Purana. It\nalso says that they were descended from a child of the sun called\nJara\u015babda or Jara\u015basta, which no doubt represents Zarathustra.\n\nThe river Candrabh\u00e2g\u00e2 is the modern Chenab and the town founded by\nSamba is M\u00fblasthana or Multan, called Mu-la-san-pu-lu by the Chinese\npilgrim Hs\u00fcan Chuang. The Bhavishya Purana calls the place S\u00e2mbapuri\nand the Chinese name is an attempt to represent M\u00fblas\u00e2mba-puri. Hs\u00fcan\nChuang speaks enthusiastically of the magnificent temple[1159], which\nwas also seen by Alberuni but was destroyed by Aurungzeb.\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[1160] relates how in earlier times a king called \u015ar\u00ee\nHarsha burnt alive near Multan 12,000 adherents of the Mleccha sect\nwith their books and thereby greatly weakened the religion of Persians\nand Sakas for a century. This legend offers difficulties but it shows\nthat Multan was regarded as a centre of Zoroastrianism.\n\nMultan is in the extreme west Of India, but sun temples are found in\nmany other parts, such as Gujarat, Gwalior and the district of Gaya,\nwhere an inscription has been discovered at Govindapur referring to\nthe legend of S\u00e2mba. This same legend is also related in the Kapila\nSa\u1e43hita, a religious guide-book for Orissa, in connection with the\ngreat Sun temple of Konarak[1161].\n\nIn these temples the sun was represented by images, Hindu convention\nthus getting the better of Zoroastrian prejudices, but the costume of\nthe images shows their origin, for the Brihatsa\u1e43hit\u00e2[1162] directs\nthat S\u00fbrya is to be represented in the dress of the northerners,\ncovered from the feet upwards and wearing the girdle called avya\u1e47ga\nor viya\u1e47ga. In Rajputana I have seen several statues of him in high\nboots and they are probably to be found elsewhere.\n\nFortuitously or otherwise, the cult of the sun was often associated\nwith Buddhism, as is indicated by these temples in Gaya and Orissa and\nby the fact that the Emperor Harsha styles his father, grandfather and\ngreat-grandfather _param\u00e2dityabhakta_, great devotees of the\nsun[1163]. He himself, though a devout Buddhist, also showed honour to\nthe image of S\u00fbrya, as we hear from Hs\u00fcang Chuang.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1144: They are forbidden by strict theology, but in practice\nthere are exceptions, for instance, the winged figure believed to\nrepresent Ahura Mazda, found on Ach\u00e6menian reliefs.]\n\n[Footnote 1145: Though the principles of Zoroastrianism sound\nexcellent to Europeans, I cannot discover that ancient Persia was\nsocially or politically superior to India.]\n\n[Footnote 1146: See Strabo, XV. 62. So, too, the Pitakas seem to\nregard cemeteries as places where ordinary corpses are thrown away\nrather than buried or burnt. In Dig. Nik. III, the Buddha says that\nthe ancient Sakyas married their sisters. Such marriages are said to\nhave been permitted in Persia.]\n\n[Footnote 1147: \"He who returns victorious from discussions with\nGaotama the heretic,\" Farvadin Yasht in _S.B.E._ XXIII. p. 184. The\nreference of this passage to Buddhism has been much disputed and I am\nquite incompetent to express any opinion about it. But who is Gaotama\nif not the Buddha? It is true that there were many other Gautamas of\nmoderate eminence in India, but would any of them have been known in\nPersia?]\n\n[Footnote 1148: The inscriptions near the tomb of Darius at\nNakshi-Rustam appear to be hortatory like those of Asoka. See Williams\nJackson, _Persia_, p. 298 and references. The use of the Kharoshtri\nscript and of the word _dipi_ has also been noted as indicating\nconnection with Persia.]\n\n[Footnote 1149: Perhaps the marked absence of figures representing the\nBuddha in the oldest Indian sculptures, which seems to imply that the\nholiest things must not be represented, is due to Persian sentiment.]\n\n[Footnote 1150: Strictly speaking there is nothing final about\nMaitreya who is merely the next in an infinite series of Buddhas, but\npractically his figure has many analogies to Soshyos or Saoshant, the\nParsi saviour and renovator of the world.]\n\n[Footnote 1151: See chap. XLI. p. 220.]\n\n[Footnote 1152: See chap, on Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, VI.]\n\n[Footnote 1153: A convenient statement of what is known about this\ncult will be found in Bhandarkar, _Vaishnavism and Saivism_, part II.\nchap. XVI.]\n\n[Footnote 1154: Chap. 60. 19. The work probably dates from about 650\nA.D.]\n\n[Footnote 1155: Chap. 139. See, for extracts from the text, Aufrecht.\nCat. Cod. Sansc. p. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 1156: For \u015a\u00e2kadv\u00eepa see Vishnu, p. II. IV. where it is\nsaid that Brahmans are called there M\u1e5biga or Maga and Kshattriyas\nM\u00e2gadha. The name clearly means the country of the \u015a\u00e2kas who were\nregarded as Zoroastrians, whether they were Iranian by race or not.\nBut the topography is imaginary, for in this fanciful geography India\nis the central continent and \u015aakadv\u00eepa the sixth, whereas if it\nmeans Persia or the countries of the Oxus it ought to be near India.]\n\n[Footnote 1157: The Garu\u1e0da may itself be of Persian provenance, for\nbirds play a considerable part in Persian mythology.]\n\n[Footnote 1158: The Aivy\u00e2onghen of the Avesta.]\n\n[Footnote 1159: Watters, vol. II. 254, and _Life_, chap. IV.]\n\n[Footnote 1160: T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, tr. Schiefner, p. 128, and Vincent Smith's\nremarks in _Early History_, p. 347, note 2.]\n\n[Footnote 1161: See R\u00e2jendral\u00e2la Mitra, _Antiquities of Orissa_, vol.\nn. p. 145. He also quotes the S\u00e2mba Pur\u00e2na. The temple is said to have\nbeen built between 1240 and 1280 but the beauty of its architecture\nsuggests an earlier date.]\n\n[Footnote 1162: 58. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 1163: See Epig. Ind. 72-73.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVIII\n\nMOHAMMEDANISM IN INDIA\n\n\nLet us now turn to Mohammedanism. This is different from the cases\nwhich we have been considering and we need not trouble ourselves with\nany enquiry into opportunities and possibilities. The presence and\nstrength of the Prophet's religion in India are patent facts and it is\nsurprising that the result has not been greater.\n\nThe chief and most obvious method by which Islam influenced India was\nthe series of invasions, culminating in the Mughal conquest, which\npoured through the mountain passes of the north-west frontier. But\nthere was also long established communication and to some extent\nintermigration between the west coast and Mohammedan countries such as\nArabia and Persia. Compared with the enormous political and social\nchanges wrought by the land invasions, the results of this maritime\nintercourse may seem unworthy of mention. Yet for the interchange of\nideas it was not without importance, the more so as it was\nunaccompanied by violence and hostility. Thus the Mappilas or Moplahs\nof Malabar appear to be the descendants of Arab immigrants who arrived\nby sea about 900 A.D., and the sects known as Khojas and Bohras owe\ntheir conversion to the zeal of Arab and Persian missionaries who\npreached in the eleventh century. Apart from Mohammedan conquests\nthere must have been at this time in Gujarat, Bombay, and on the west\ncoast generally some knowledge of the teaching of Islam.\n\nIn the annals of invasions and conquests several stages can be\ndistinguished. First we have the Arab conquest of Sind in 712, which\nhad little effect. In 1021 Mahmud of Ghazni annexed the Panjab. He\nconducted three campaigns against other kingdoms of India but, though\nhe sacked Muttra, Somnath and other religious centres, he did not\nattempt to conquer these regions, still less to convert them to Islam.\nThe period of conquests as distinguished from raids did not begin\nuntil the end of the twelfth century when Muhammad Ghori began his\ncampaigns and succeeded in making himself master of northern\nIndia, which from 1193 to 1526 was ruled by Mohammedan dynasties,\nmostly of Afghan or Turki descent. In the south the frontiers of\nVijayanagar marked the limits of Islam. To the north of them Rajputana\nand Orissa still remained Hindu states, but with these exceptions the\nGovernment was Mohammedan. In 1526 came the Mughal invasion, after\nwhich all northern India was united under one Mohammedan Emperor for\nabout two centuries. Aurungzeb (1659-1707) was a fanatical Mohammedan:\nhis intolerant reign marked the beginning of disintegration in the\nEmpire and aroused the opposition of the Mahrattas and Sikhs. But\nuntil this period Mohammedan rule was not marked by special bigotry or\nby any persistent attempt to proselytize. A woeful chronicle of\nselected outrages can indeed be drawn up. In the great towns of the\nnorth hardly a temple remained unsacked and most were utterly\ndestroyed. At different periods individuals, such as Sikander Lodi of\nDelhi and Jelaluddin (1414-1430) in Bengal, raged against Hinduism and\nmade converts by force. But such acts are scattered over a long period\nand a great area; they are not characteristic of Islam in India.\nNeither the earlier Mughal Emperors nor the preceding Sultans were of\nirreproachable orthodoxy. Two of them at least, Ala-ud-Din and Akbar,\ncontemplated founding new religions of their own. Many of them were\nconnected with Hindu sovereigns by marriage or political alliances.\n\nThe works of Alberuni and Mohsin Fani show that educated Mohammedans\nfelt an interest not only in Indian science but in Indian religion. In\nthe Panjab and Hindustan Islam was strengthened by immigrations of\nMohammedan tribes from the north-west extending over many centuries.\nMohammedan sultans and governors held their court in the chief cities,\nwhich thus tended to become Mohammedan not only by natural attraction\nbut because high caste Hindus preferred to live in the country and\nwould not frequent the company of those whom they considered as\noutcasts. Still, Hindus were often employed as accountants and revenue\nofficers. All non-Moslims had to pay the jiziya or poll tax, and the\nremission of this impost accorded to converts was naturally a powerful\nincentive to change of faith. Yet Mohammedanism cannot record any\nwholesale triumph in India such as it has won in Persia, Egypt and\nJava. At the present day about one-fifth of the population are Moslim.\nThe strength of Islam in the Panjab is due to immigration as well as\nconversion[1164], but it was embraced by large numbers in Kashmir and\nmade rapid progress in Oudh and Eastern Bengal. The number of\nMohammedans in Bengal (twenty-five millions out of a total of\nsixty-two in all India) is striking, seeing that the province is out\nof touch with the chief Mohammedan centres, but is explicable by the\nfact that Islam had to deal here not with an educated and organized\nHindu community but with imperfectly hinduized aboriginal races, who\nwelcomed a creed with no caste distinctions. Yet, apart from the\ndistricts named, which lie on the natural line of march from the\nPanjab down the Ganges to the sea, it made little progress. It has not\neven conquered the slopes of the Himalayas or the country south of the\nJumna. If we deduct from the Mohammedan population the descendants of\nMohammedan immigrants and of those who, like the inhabitants of\nEastern Bengal, were not Hindus when they embraced the faith, the\nimpression produced by Islam on the religious thought of India is not\ngreat, considering that for at least five centuries its temporal\nsupremacy was hardly contested.\n\nIt is not until the time of Kabir that we meet with a sect in which\nHindu and Mohammedan ideas are clearly blended, but it may be that the\ntheology of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and Madhva, of the Lingayats and Sivaite sects of\nthe south, owes something to Islam. Its insistence on the unity and\npersonality of God may have vivified similar ideas existing within\nHinduism, but the expression which they found for themselves is not\nMoslim in tone, just as nowadays the Arya Samaj is not European in\ntone. Yet I think that the Arya Samaj would never have come into being\nhad not Hindus become conscious of certain strong points in European\nreligion. In the north it is natural that Moslim influence should not\nhave made itself felt at once. Islam came first as an enemy and a\nraider and was no more sympathetic to the Brahmans than it was to the\nGreek Church in Europe. Though Indian theism may sometimes seem\npractically equivalent to Islam, yet it has a different and gentler\ntone, and it often rests on the idea that God, the soul and matter are\nall separate and eternal, an idea foreign to Mohammed's doctrine of\ncreation. But from the fifteenth century onwards we find a series\nof sects which are obviously compromises and blends. Advances are made\nfrom both sides. Thoughtful Mohammedans see the profundity of Hindu\ntheology: liberal Hindus declare that no caste or condition, including\nbirth in a Moslim family, disqualifies man for access to God.\n\nThe fusion of Islam with Hinduism exhibited in these sects has for its\nbasis the unity and omnipresence of God in the light of which minor\ndifferences have no existence. But fusion also arises from an opposite\ntendency, namely the toleration by Indian Moslims of Hindu ideas and\npractices, especially respect for religious teachers and their\ndeification after death. While known by some such title as saint,\nwhich does not shock unitarian susceptibility, they are in practice\nhonoured as godlings. The bare simplicity of the Arabian faith has not\nproved satisfying to other nations, and Turks, Persians and Indians,\neven when professing orthodoxy, have allowed embellishments and\naccretions. Such supplementary beliefs thrive with special luxuriance\nin India, where a considerable portion of the Moslim population are\ndescended from persons who accepted the new faith unwillingly or from\ninterested motives. They brought with them a plentiful baggage of\nsuperstitions and did not attempt to sever the ties which bound them\nto their Hindu neighbours. In the last century the efforts of the\nWahabis and other reformers are said to have been partly successful in\npurifying Islam from Hindu observances, but even now the mixture is\nnoticeable, especially in the lower classes. Brahmans are employed to\ncast horoscopes, Hindu ceremonies are observed in connection with\nmarriages and funerals, and the idea of pollution by eating with\nunbelievers is derived from caste rules, for Mohammedans in other\ncountries have no objection to eating with Christians. Numerous sacred\nsites, such as the shrine of Sheikh Chisti at Ajmere and of Bhairav\nNath at Muttra[1165], are frequented by both Moslims and Hindus, and\nit is an interesting parallel to find that the chief Moslim shrines of\nTurkestan are erected on spots which were once Buddhist sanctuaries.\nSometimes the opposite happens: even Brahmans are known to adopt the\nobservances of Shiahs[1166]. But on the whole it is chiefly the\nMohammedans who borrow, not the main doctrines of Hinduism, but\npopular magic and demonology. Ignorant Mohammedans in Bengal worship\nSital\u00e2, K\u00e2l\u00ee, Dharmar\u00e2j, Baidyanath and other Hindu deities and also\nrespect certain mythical beings who seem to have a Moslim origin, but\nto have acquired strange characters in the course of time. Such are\nKhwaja Khizr who lives in rivers, Zindah Ghazi who rides on a tiger in\nthe Sandarbans, and Sultan Shahid who is said to be the bodyguard and\nlover of Dev\u00ee. But it is in the adoration of Pirs that this fusion of\nthe two religions is most apparent. A Pir is the Moslim equivalent of\na Guru and distinct from the Mollahs or official hierarchy. Just as\nHindus receive initiation from their Guru so most Moslims, except the\nWahabis and other purists, make a profession of faith before their\nPir, accept his guidance and promise him obedience. When an eminent\nPir dies his tomb becomes a place of prayer and pilgrimage. Even\neducated Mohammedans admit that Pirs can intercede with the Almighty\nand the uneducated offer to them not only direct supplications but\neven sacrifices. The Shrine of an important Pir, such as Hazrat\nMoin-ud-Din Chisti at Ajmere, is an edifice dedicated to a superhuman\nbeing as much as any Hindu temple.\n\nThis veneration of saints attains its strangest development in the\nsect of the Panchpiriyas or worshippers of the five Pirs. They are\ntreated by the last census of India as \"Hindus whose religion has a\nstrong Mohammedan flavour[1167].\" There is no agreement as to who the\nfive saints or deities are, but though the names vary from place to\nplace they usually comprise five of the best known semi-mythical\nPirs[1168]. Whoever they may be, they are worshipped under the form of\na small tomb with five domes or of a simple mound of clay set in the\ncorner of a room. Every Wednesday the mound is washed and offerings of\nflowers and incense are made. A somewhat similar sect are the M\u00e2lk\u00e2nas\nof the Panjab. These appear to be Hindus formerly converted to Islam\nand now in process of reverting to Hinduism.\n\nThe influence of Hinduism on Indian Mohammedanism is thus obvious.\nIt is responsible for the addition to the Prophet's creed of much\nsuperstition but also for rendering it less arid and more human. It is\nharder to say how far Moslim mysticism and Sufiism are due to the same\ninfluence. History and geography raise no difficulties to such an\norigin. Arabia was in touch with the western coast of India for\ncenturies before the time of Mohammed: the same is true of the Persian\nGulf and Bagdad, and of Balkh and other districts near the frontiers\nof India. But recent writers on Sufiism[1169] have shown a disposition\nto seek its origin in Neoplatonism rather than in the east. This\nhypothesis, like the other, presents no geographical difficulties.\nMany Arab authors, such as Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn\nRushd) were influenced by Greek Philosophy: Neoplatonists are said to\nhave taken refuge in Persia at the Court of Nushirwan (_c._ A.D. 532):\nthe Fihrist (_c._ 988) mentions Porphyry and Plotinus. If, therefore,\nSufiism, early or late, presents distinct resemblances to\nNeoplatonism, we need not hesitate to ascribe them to direct\nborrowing, remembering that Neoplatonism itself contains echoes of\nIndia. But, admitting that much in the doctrine of the Sufis can be\nfound to the west as well as to the east of the countries where they\nflourished, can it be said that their general tone is Neoplatonic?\nAmongst their characteristics are pantheism; the institution of\nreligious orders and monasteries; the conception of the religious\nlife as a path or journey; a bold use of language in which metaphors\ndrawn from love, wine and music are freely used in speaking of divine\nthings and, although the doctrine of metempsychosis may be repudiated\nas too obviously repugnant to Islam, a tendency to believe in\nsuccessive existences or states of the soul. Some of these features,\nsuch as the use of erotic language, may be paralleled in other ancient\nreligions as well as Hinduism but the pantheism which, not content\nwith speaking of the soul's union with God, boldly identifies the soul\nwith the divinity and says I am God, does not seem traceable in\nNeoplatonism. And though a distinction may justly be drawn between\nearly and later Sufiism and Indian influence be admitted as stronger\nin the later developments, still an early Sufi, Al-Hallaj, was\nexecuted in 922 A.D. for saying Ana 'l-Haqq, I am the Truth or\nGod, and we are expressly told that he visited India to study magic.\nMany important Sufis made the same journey or at least came within the\ngeographical sphere of Indian influence. Faridu-'d-Din Attar travelled\nin India and Turkestan; Jalalu-'d-Din er-Rumi was born at Balkh, once\na centre of Buddhism: Sa'di visited Balkh, Ghazna, the Panjab, and\nGujarat, and investigated Hindu temples[1170]. Hafiz was invited to\nthe Deccan by Sultan Muhammad Bahmani and, though shipwreck prevented\nthe completion of the visit, he was probably in touch with Indian\nideas. These journeys indicate that there was a prevalent notion that\nwisdom was to be found in India and those who could not go there must\nhave had open ears for such Indian doctrines as might reach them by\noral teaching or in books. After the establishment of the Caliphate at\nBagdad in the eighth century translations of Indian authors became\naccessible. Arabic versions were made of many works on astronomy,\nmathematics and medicine and the example of Alberuni shows how easily\nsuch treatises might be flavoured with a relish of theology. His book\nand still more the Fihrist testify to the existence among Moslims,\nespecially in Bagdad and Persia, of an interest in all forms of\nthought very different from the self-satisfied bigotry which too often\ncharacterizes them. The Caliph Ma'mun was so fond of religious\nspeculation and discussion that he was suspected of being a Manichee\nand nicknamed Amiru-'l-Kafirin, Commander of the Unbelievers.\nEverything warrants the supposition that in the centuries preceding\nMohammed, Indian ideas were widely disseminated in western Asia,\npartly as a direct overflow from India, for instance in Turkestan and\nAfghanistan, and partly as entering, together with much other matter,\ninto the doctrines of Neoplatonists and Manich\u00e6ans. Amid the\nintolerant victories of early Islam such ideas would naturally\nretreat, but they soon recovered and effected an entrance into the\nlater phases of the faith and were strengthened by the visits of Sufi\npilgrims to Turkestan and India.\n\nThe form of Jewish mysticism known as Kabbala, which in Indian\nterminology might be described as Jewish Tantrism, has a historical\nconnection with Sufiism and a real analogy to it, for both arise\nfrom the desire to temper an austere and regal deism with concessions\nto the common human craving for the interesting and picturesque, such\nas mysticism and magic. If the accent of India can sometimes be heard\nin the poems of the Sufis we may also admit that the Kabbala is its\nlast echo.\n\nExperts do not assign any one region as the origin of the Kabbala but\nit grew on parallel lines in both Egypt and Babylonia, in both of\nwhich it was naturally in touch with the various oriental influences\nwhich we have been discussing. It is said to have been introduced to\nEurope about 900 A.D. but received important additions and\nmodifications at the hands of Isaac Luria (1534-72) who lived in\nPalestine, although his disciples soon spread his doctrines among the\nEuropean Jews.\n\nMany features of the Kabbala, such as the marvellous powers assigned\nto letters, the use of charms and amulets, the emanations or phases of\nthe deity and the theory of the correspondence between macrocosm and\nmicrocosm, are amazingly like Indian Tantrism but no doubt are more\njustly regarded as belonging to the religious ideas common to most of\nAsia[1171]. But in two points we seem able to discern definite Hindu\ninfluence. These are metempsychosis and pantheism, which we have so\noften found to have some connection with India when they exist in an\nextreme form. Their presence here is specially remarkable because they\nare alien to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. Yet the pre-existence and\nrepeated embodiment of the soul is taught in the Zohar and even more\nsystematically by Luria, in whose school were composed works called\nGilg\u00fblim, or lists of transmigrations. The ultimate Godhead is called\nEn soph or the infinite and is declared to be unknowable, not to be\ndescribed by positive epithets, and therefore in a sense non-existent,\nsince nothing which is predicated of existing beings can be truly\npredicated of it. These are crumbs from the table of Plotinus and the\nUpanishads.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1164: But see on this point _Census of India_, 1911, vol. I.\npart I. p. 128.]\n\n[Footnote 1165: Another instance is the shrine of Saiyad Salar Masud\nat Bahraich. He was a nephew of Mahmud of Ghazni and was slain by\nHindus, but is now worshipped by them. See Grierson, _J.R.A.S._ 1911,\np. 195.]\n\n[Footnote 1166: See for examples, _Census of India_, 1901, Panjab, p.\n151, _e.g._ the Brahmans of a village near Rawal Pindi are said to be\nMurids of Abdul-Kadir-Jilani.]\n\n[Footnote 1167: _Census of India_, 1911, vol. I. part I. p. 195. The\nM\u00e2lk\u00e2nas are described on the same page.]\n\n[Footnote 1168: Such as Ghazi Miyan, Pir Badar, Zindha Ghazi, Sheikh\nFarid, Sheikh Sadu and Khwaja Khizr.]\n\n[Footnote 1169: E.G. Browne, _Literary History of Persia_: R.A.\nNicholson, _Selected Poems from the Divan of Shems-i-Tabriz_.]\n\n[Footnote 1170: He describes how he discovered the mechanism by which\nthe priests made miraculous images move. See Browne, _Lit. Hist.\nPersia_, II. 529.]\n\n[Footnote 1171: But there is something very Indian in the reluctance\nof the Kabbalists to accept creation _ex nihilo_ and to explain it\naway by emanations, or by the doctrine of limitation, that is God's\nself-withdrawal in order that the world might be created, or even by\nthe eternity of matter.]\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbbot. _See_ Monasteries, and Organisation--ecclesiastical\n\nAbdul Kadir Jilani, III. 459\n\nAbhakta, III. 426\n\nAbhayagiri, I. 292, 293; III. 16, 19, 33, 297\n\nAbhayakara, II. 112; III. 360, 387\n\nAbhaya R\u00e2j\u00e2, II. 113\n\nAbhidhamma, I. 208, 256, 258, 276 _sq._, 280, 289, 291, 299, 300; II.\n47 _sq._, 80, 82, 102; III. 30, 39, 61, 71, 372, 374\n\nAbhidhammattha-sangaha, III. 71 sangraha, III. 39, 45\n\nAbhidharma, III. 292, 299\n  Ko\u015b\u00e2, II. 89; III. 213, 286, 314\n  Pitaka, II. 59, 81; III. 285, 373\n  vibh\u00e2sha\u015b\u00e2stra, II. 78, 81; III. 213\n  vy\u00e2khy\u00e2, II. 89\n\nAbhimukhi, II. 11\n\nAbhinava Gupta, II. 223, 224\n\nAbhi\u00f1\u00f1a, I. 317\n\nAbhir\u00e2j\u00e2, III. 50\n\nAbh\u00eeras, II. 156\n\nAbhisheka, II. 122, 275; III. 355\n\nAblur inscription, II. 225\n\nAboriginal deities, I. xxxvi, 6; II. 126, 127, 138, 285; III. 68, 97,\n112, 182, 185, 224, 343, 382\n\nAbsolute Godhead. _See_ Brahman\n\nAbu (Mount), I. 115, 120; II. 203\n\nAbul Fazl, III. 417\n\nAcala, II. 11; III. 392\n\nA\u00e7aranga, I. 116\n\nAc\u00e2riyaparampar\u00e2, III. 306\n\nAc\u00e2rya, II. 114, 221, 257; III. 121\n  bhim\u00e2na, II. 237\n  P\u00e2\u015bupata, III. 114\n  \u015aaiva, III. 114\n  vada, I. 262\n\nAch\u00e6menian reliefs, III. 449\n\nAciravati, I. 150\n\nAcit, II. 316\n\nActs of the Apostles, I. 255\n\nAcyuta, III. 114\n\nAcyut\u00e2nanda D\u00e2sa, II. 115\n\nAdam, III. 217\n\nAdam's Bridge, II. 150\n  Peak, I. 7; III. 13, 43\n\nAdh\u00e2ra K\u00e2rik\u00e2s, II. 224\n\nAdharma, I. 106\n\nAdhicitta, I. 313, 315; III. 310\n\nAdhipa\u00f1\u00f1a, I. 313; III. 310\n\nAdhy\u00e2tma R\u00e2m\u00e2ya\u1e47a, II. 152, 187, 194\n\nAdi-Buddha, II. 13, 26, 31, 57, 117, 118, 119, 129; III. 173, 387\n\nAdi-granth, II. 263, 268\n\nAdityas, I. 61; II. 146\n\nAdityavarman, III. 163\n\n_Adonis, Attis and Osiris_, II. 285\n\nAdvaita (philosophy), I. cii, 74, 82, 235; II. 40, 74, 204, 225, 238,\n258, 289, 307, 312 _sq_.; III. 305,421\n\n  (P. N.), II. 254\n\nAdvaya, III. 173-181\n\nAdyar Library, II. 195, 210, 270, 322\n\n_Aeltere vedanta_, II. 315\n\nAeons, III. 444\n\nAfghanistan, I. 19, 24, 28, 29, 31, 264; II. 272; III. 199, 456\n\n\u00e2gamana, II. 43, 92\n\nAgama pr\u00e2m\u00e2nya, II. 232\n\nAgamas, II. 128, 188, 189, 190, 204, 216, 222, 282; III. 214, 282,\n292, 296, 297, 299\n\n\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7, I. 184, 216, 253\n\nAgarwals, II. 177\n\nAgastya, II. 213\n\nAggabodhi, king, III. 33\n\nAgga\u00f1\u00f1a S\u00fbtra, I. 336\n\nAghora, II. 198, 234\n\nAghoris, II. 203, 289\n\nAgi\u015bala, II. 77\n\nAgni, I. 56, 62\n\nAgnihotri, I. 90\n\nAgni Pur\u00e2na, II. 130, 281\n\nAgnishtoma, I. 66; II. 170\n\nAgnostic teachers, I. 98\n\nAgra, I. 87\n\nAgray\u00e2na, II. 3\n\nAgriculture forbidden, I. 113\n\nAhamk\u00e2ra, I. lxxvii; II. 299\n\nAhan, III. 282, 296\n\nAhar, III. 116\n\nAhims\u00e2, I. lvi; II. 114, 170 _sq_., 200; III. 248\n\nAhinas, I. 69\n\nAhirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2, II. 147, 194, 195\n  of the Pa\u00f1car\u00e2tra Agama, II. 188\n\nAhirs, II. 158\n\nAhmadabad, I. 115, 119; II. 175, 252, 266\n\nAhmadnagar, I. 29\n\nAhoms (kingdom, etc.), II. 259, 280, 288; III. 79\n\nAhriman, I. 336\n\nAhuna-vairya, III. 220\n  Mazda, I. 60, 64; II. 198; III. 220, 449\n\nAi (emperor), III. 245\n\nAihole, II. 172; III. 106\n\nAisvarya, II. 196\n\nAitareya Brahm\u00e2na, I. 67\n\nAivy\u00e2onghen, III. 453\n\nAiyar Sesha, II. 219\n\nAiyengar, Krishna Sw\u00e2mi, II. 233, 238\n\nAjanta, I. 26, 212; II. 108; III. 102\n\nAj\u00e2ta \u015aatru, king (Aj\u00e2ta Sattu), I. 36, 74, 77, 87, 111, 131, 132,\n153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 169, 172, 221, 298; III. 23, 24\n\nAjayadeva, I. 114\n\nAjita, I. 99; II. 21\n\nAj\u00eeva, I. 107\n\nAj\u00eevikas, I. 49, 99, 123, 241, 268; III. 13\n\nAjmer, I. 29; III. 458, 459\n\nAk\u00e2lis, II. 272, 273\n\nAk\u00e2\u015bagarbha, II. 24; III. 216, 283\n\nAkbar, I. 30, 31, 115; II. 242, 266, 269; III. 417, 456\n\nAki\u00f1ca\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2yatanam, I. 135\n\nAkriyav\u00e2dins, I. 99\n\nAkshobhya (Buddha), II. 26, 27; III. 122, 166, 169, 173\n\nAlabaster, III. 98\n\nAl\u00e2ra K\u00e2l\u00e2ma, I. 135, 136, 303, 316\n\nAlasanda, III. 18\n\nAla-ud-din, I. 29, 30; III. 456\n\nAlavand\u00e2r, II. 232\n  stotram, II. 232\n\nAlayavij\u00f1\u00e2na, I. xxxix; II. 43, 44, 84, 87\n\nAlberuni, II. 187, 189, 228; III. 446, 453, 456, 461\n\nAlbigenses, III. 445\n\nAlexander, king, I. 268\n\nAlexander of Macedon, I. xxx, xxxi, 21, 50, 177; III. 189, 413, 430,\n450\n\nAlexandria, III. 414\n\nAl Hallaj, III. 460\n\nAlkondavilli Govindac\u00e2rya, I. 40; II. 233\n\nAllah, I. 8; II. 216, 270. _See also_ God and Islam\n\nAllahabad, II. 99\n\nAllakappa, I. 169\n\nAllopanishad, II. 270\n\nAll Souls' Day, III. 264, 332\n\nAlompra, III. 47 _sq._, 169\n\nA-lo-pen, III. 217\n\nAlphabets, I. 61; III. 4, 51, 80, 82, 104, 106, 154, 157, 183, 190,\n191, 192, 201, 300 _sq._, 348, 355, 450\n\nAltan, III. 361\n\n\u00c4lterer vedanta, II. 74\n\nAlvar. _See_ Arvar\n\nAmarakosha, II. 280; III. 181\n\nAmarapura, III. 36, 37, 49\n\nAm\u00e2ravati stupa, II. 85, 108, 143\n  (Qu\u00e3ngnam), III. 137\n\nAmardas Guru, II. 268\n\nAmar Mul, II. 266\n  Singh, II. 147\n\nAmasis, III. 434\n\nAmbaherana Salamevan, III. 40\n\nAmbalatthika, I. 288\n\nAmban, III. 367 _sq._\n\nAmbap\u00e2l\u00e2, I. 163\n\nAmbatthasutta, I. 87, 131; II. 175\n\nAmbhojanetra, III. 122\n\nAmbik\u00e2, II. 277\n\nAmdo, III. 358, 400\n\nAmeretat, III. 220\n\nAmerican Lectures, I. 151, 212\n\nAmesha Spenta, II. 12, 120, 198\n\nAmida, I. 182, 215; III. 312, 321, 404, 418\n\nAmidism, I. xlix; III. 220 _sq._\n\nAmiru-'l-Kafirin, III. 461\n\nAmit\u00e2bha (Buddha), I. xxix, xxxii; II. 6, 13, 23, 26, 28, 33, 60, 66,\n72, 86, 88, 181, 182; III. 124, 166, 173, 176, 218, 219 _sq._, 292,\n313, 327, 365, 385, 390, 451\n\nAmit\u00e2yurdhy\u00e2nas\u00fbtra, II. 23, 29, 30; III. 313\n\nAmit\u00e2yus, II. 28, 30, 33, 103; III. 391\n\nAmittaranpap\u00e2tikad, I. 116\n\nAmogha, III. 39, 264, 293, 327, 349\n\nAmoghap\u00e2sa, III. 163, 390\n\nAmoghasiddhi, II. 26; III. 166, 173, 176, 181\n\nAmoghavajra, III. 317\n\nAmoghavarsha, I. 314\n\nAmoy, III. 333\n\nAmpel, III. 161\n\nAmritsar, II. 268, 272\n\namsa, II. 239\n\nAmulets, I. 109. _See also_ Magic\n\nAnachronistic practices, II. 168\n\nAn\u00e2g\u00e2min, I. 227\n\nAn\u00e2gata-vamsa, II. 22\n\nAnahit, II. 276\n\nAnalecta, I. 177; III. 227\n\nAnanda, I. 133, 151, 153, 155, 156, 160, 162, 163 _sq._, 170, 174,\n207, 209, 247, 256, 261, 288, 343, 344; II. 9, 29, 56; III. 20, 307,\n342, 439\n\n  Garbha, II. 128\n  Giri, II. 110\n  K\u00e2ya, II. 32\n\nAnandam, I. 84\n\nAnanda Pagoda, III. 74\n\nAnandasrama Press, II. 195\n\nAnanda Temple, II. 55, 56\n  Tirtha, II. 237\n\nAnantavarman Colaganga, I. 30\n\nananuvejjo, I. 235\n\nanariyam, I. 241\n\nAnatta, I. 191, 194, 219\n\nanatthapindeka, I. 151, 180\n\nAnawrata (king), I. xxv; III. 7, 11, 47 _sq._\n\nAncestor-worship, I. 3, 9, 10, 12, 33; III. 68, 116, 236, 344\n\nAn-Chou, III. 206, 216\n\n_Ancient Ceylon_, III. 18, 19\n  _India_, II. 153, 159\n\nAnda, III. 361\n\nAndal, II. 231\n\nAndhakas, I. 261\n\nAndhra (kingdom, etc.), I. 22; II. 85, 100, 108; III. 102\n\nAndras, I. 268\n\n_Anecdota Oxoniensia_, II. 52\n\nAnekantav\u00e2da, I. 108\n\nAnesaki, I. 293; III. 294, 296, 297, 299, 317\n\nAngada Guru, II. 268\n\nAngas, I. 116, 149, 281; II. 279\n\nAng Chan (king), III. 111\n\nAng Duong (king), III. 112\n\nAngela (St.) of Foligno, I. 160\n\nAngir\u00e2sas, I. 54; II. 152\n\nAngkor Wat (Thom), III. 106, 109 _sq._, 132 _sq._\n\nAngulim\u00e2la Pitaka, I. 180, 293, 317; III. 422\n\nAngulim\u00e2lija Sutra, II. 103\n\nAnguttara Nik\u00e2ya, I. lxxiii, 134, 212, 223, 278, 288, 289, 295; II.\n48, 49; III. 65, 296, 297\n\nan-had, II. 262\n\nAn-hsi (Parthia), III. 248\n\naniccam, I. 219\n\nAniko Lama, III. 356\n\nAnimals, I. lvi, xcix, 68, 115, 267; II. 131, 167; III. 248, 254, 344,\n445, 446.\n\n  _See also_ Ahims\u00e2\n\nAnimism, I. 104, 332; II. 167; III. 42, 98.\n  _See also_ Aboriginal deities, Nats, Nature worship, Phis\n\nAniruddha, II. 196, 235\n\n_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, II. 122, 275\n\nAnnals (various), III. 104, 105, 108, 110, 111, 153, 344\n\nAnnam (Champa), I. xxiv, xxvi; II. 25; III. 6, 8, 111, 129, 135, 140,\n141, 340 _sq._\n\nAnom\u00e2, I. 175\n\nAn-shih Kao, II. 64; III. 248, 292, 313\n\nAntagadasao, I. 116\n\nAntakritad, I. 116\n\nantar\u00e2tman, III. 175\n\nantar\u00e2ya, I. 107\n\nAntary\u00e2min, II. 46, 235, 317\n\nAntigonus, I. 268; III. 430\n\nAntioch, I. 255\n\nAntiochus, king, I. 268; III. 430\n\nAnu, II. 223, 292\n\nAnug\u00eet\u00e2, II. 187\n\nAnugraha, II. 180\n\nAnukramani, II. 152\n\nAnula (Princess), III. 17\n\nAnum\u00e2na, II. 293\n\nan-upadi-se\u015ba-nibbanam, I. 223\n\nAnur\u00e2dhapura, I. 143, 276; III. 16, 23\n\nAnuruddha, I. 134, 155, 168; III. 39, 45\n\nAnus\u00e2sana pur\u00e2na, II. 194\n\nAnuttara Yoga, II. 128, 189\n\nAnuttarovav\u00e2idas\u00e2o, I. 116\n\n_Any Saint_, II. 162, 183\n\nApabhramsa, I. 299\n\nApah, I. 63\n\nAp\u00e2ntaratamas, II. 202\n\nAparantaka, III. 50, 51\n\nAparar\u00e2jagirika, I. 259\n\nAparaselikas, I. 259\n\nAparimit\u00e2yus S\u00fbtras, III. 191\n\nApocryphal Gospels, III. 441\n\nApollo, II. 139\n\nApollonius, III. 431, 447\n\nAppar, II. 215\n\nApratish\u1e6dhita, I. 323\n\nApsus (Ephesus) (Chotscho), III. 205\n\nap\u00fbrva, II. 311\n\nApv\u00e2, I. 102\n\nArabia (Arabs, etc.), I. 28; II. 109; III. 152, 154, 160, 263, 455\n\nAracosia, I. 23\n\nArahanta School, III. 59\n  Thera, III. 55 _sq_.\n\nArahattam, I. xxi\n\nArakan, II. 105; III. 14, 36, 47\n\nAramaic Alphabet, III. 191\n\nAra\u1e47yakas, I. 53; III. 53\n\nAr\u00e2ti, I. 102\n\nArc\u00e2 (image), I. lxx; III. 185\n\n_Arch\u00e6ological Survey of Mayurabhanj_, II. 114, 126\n\nArchbishop (R.C.), III. 417\n\nArchitecture, I. lxvi, 92, 119; II. 109, 211; III. 3, 51, 73, 89, 132\n_sq_., 143 _sq_., 165 _sq_., 184 _sq_., 194, 239, 345, 450\n\narcismati, II. 11\n\nArcot, II. 113\n\nArdhanare\u015bvara, II. 145\n\nardhanar\u00ee image, III. 144\n\nArhat, I. 110, 145, 146, 166, 214, 223, 227, 232, 260; II. 6, 8; III.\n57, 326 _sq._\n\nAriobalo, II. 14\n\nAris, III. 53\n\nAristobulus, III. 450\n\nAristocratic republics. _See_ Mallas, Sakyas, Vajjians\n\nAriyapariyesana sutta, I. 135, 152\n\nAriya sacc\u00e2ni, I. 200\n  va\u1e43sa, III. 61\n\nArjun (Guru), II. 268, 269\n\nArjuna, II. 156, 200, 253\n\nArjunavijaya, III. 172\n\nArmenians, I. 122; III. 191\n\nArnold, Matthew, I. xcvi, 328\n\narogya, I. 201\n\nArrows in rite, I. 100; III. 219\n\nArsacidae, I. 22; III. 191\n\nArsha (Ardha) Magadha, I. 116\n\nArt, I. xiii, xxix, xxxi, xxxiv, lxvi, xc, 22, 92, 137, 173, 212; II.\n169, 211; III. 4, 96, 186, 194 _sq_., 240, 241, 242, 252, 269, 356,\n382, 405\n\n_l'Art Gr\u00e9co-Bouddhique du Gandhara_, II. 76\n\nArtaxerxes Longimanus, I. 341\n\nArtha pancaka, II. 237\n  pur\u00e2na \u015b\u00e2stra, III. 142\n  \u015b\u00e2stra, I. 18\n\nArtjeh, III. 185\n\nArul, II. 217\n\nArunandi, II. 221\n\nAr\u00fbpar\u00e2go, I. 227\n\nArvars, II. 231, 233, 236\n\nArya (religion, people), I. xv, 3, 7, 15, 19, 20, 54, 55, 59, 200; II.\n177; III. 273\n\nAryabha\u1e6da, III. 152\n\nAryadeva, I. xxxiii; II. 85, 86; III. 219\n\nAryamah\u00e2sanghika, II. 59\n  nik\u00e2ya, II. 101\n\nArya-ma\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee-m\u00fbla-tantra, III. 375\n\nArya-m\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-nik\u00e2ya, II. 91, 102\n\nArya Samaj, I. xlvii; III. 457\n\nArya-sammiti, III. 148\n\nArya-sammitika-nik\u00e2ya, II. 102\n\nArya sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din, III. 148\n\nAryasthavira nik\u00e2ya, II. 102; III. 20\n\nAs\u00e2lha, I. 245\n\nAsanam, I. 305\n\nAsanga, I. xxxviii, 193, 293, 305; II. 11, 22, 31, 48, 57, 59, 82\n_sq._, 102, 125, 306; III. 166, 214, 216, 219, 284, 285, 294, 315,\n376, 452\n\nAsankhadh\u00e2tu, I. 225\n\nasankhato, I. 225, 260\n\nasankhyakalpa, II. 103\n\nA\u015b\u00e2pati, I, 102\n\nAsava, I. 139\n\nAsceticism (also Celibacy), I. xvi, lxi, lxv, 42, 49, 71, 84, 96, 105,\n107, 110, 119, 123, 138, 240; II. 207, 320; III. 183, 235, 248, 316,\n345, 429, 433, 438, 446\n\nAsclepiadae, I. 69\n\nAsgiri, III. 37\n\nAshikaga period, III. 405\n\nAsi, II. 245\n\nAsita, I. 133, 174; III. 440\n\nAsoka, I. xxii, c, 16, 18, 21, 50, 99, 103, 113, 127, 132, 248, 254,\n274; II. 65, 80, 93, 108, 116, 214; III. 5, 6, 13, 22, 44, 190, 207,\n235, 300, 329, 430, 450\n\nAsramas, I. 89, 90; II. 203; III. 113\n\nAsrava, I. 107\n\nA\u1e63rua, III. 215\n\nAssam, I. xxxvi, lxxv, lxxxvii, 14, 25, 104; II. 126, 127, 143, 175,\n185, 191, 244, 259 _sq._; III. 44, 79\n\nAstarte, I. 63; II. 275\n\nAstarte Syriaca, I. lxxxvii\n\nAstral body, I. 317\n\nAstrology, I. xxv; III. 67, 96, 129, 157, 232\n\nAstronomy, I. 335; III. 372, 415\n\nAsuras, I. 61, 335\n\nAsuri, II. 296\n\nA\u015bvaghosha, I. xxx, 300; II. 5, 49, 59, 65, 68, 79, 82 _sq._, 104,\n169, 176; III. 190, 219, 285, 286, 292, 294, 295, 300, 307, 376, 439\n\nAsvamedha, I. 68\n\nAsvapati Kaikeya, I. 74\n\nAsvavarman, III. 164\n\nAsvins, I. 63\n\nA\u1e6d\u00e2n\u00e2\u1e6diya sutta, I. 278; III. 42\n\nAtharvans, I. 54, 63\n\nAtharva Veda, I. 54, 55, 98, 101; II. 50, 142, 270, 275; III. 67\n\nAthenaeus, II. 432\n\nAt\u00ee\u015ba, I. xxvii; II. 19, 112; III. 52, 60, 352 _sq._, 375, 380, 386,\n398\n\nAtiths, II. 177\n\nAtman, I. lii, lxiii, lxiv, 45, 62, 79, 81, 84, 98, 188, 191, 218,\n220; II. 75, 124, 180, 266, 296, 308, 309; III. 175, 305\n\nAtm\u00e2 R\u00e2m, II. 266\n\nAtnan, III. 342\n\nAtomic theory, I. 109\n\nAtonement, I. xiv, 69; III. 427\n\nAtta, I. 188, 191, 218, 220; II. 101\n\natthakam, I. 150\n\nAtthakath\u00e2, III. 14\n\nAtthas\u00e2lini, III. 28\n\nAtula, III. 63 _sq._\n\nAufrecht, II. 148; III. 387, 452\n\nAuguries, II. 105\n\nAugustus, I. 26; III. 431\n\nAulieata, III. 202\n\nAung, S.Z., I. 189, 259; III. 39, 71\n\nAurora, I. 63\n\nAurungzeb, I. xlv, 30, 31; II. 252, 261, 270, 271; III. 453, 456\n\n_Ausgew\u00e4hlte Erz\u00e4hlungen_, I. 116\n\nAva, III. 48, 58, 61\n\nAvad\u00e2nas, II. 58 _sq._\n\nAvadh\u00fbtas, II. 243\n\nAvalokita, I. xxix; II. 12, 13, 23, 30, 57, 60, 73, 86, 103, 105, 122,\n125, 128; III. 39, 53, 123, 144, 149, 165, 218, 219, 221, 239, 295,\n343, 348, 360, 365, 390, 393\n\nAvalokite\u015bvara, III. 120\n\nAvalon, I. 67, 311; II. 121, 188, 190, 274, 281, 282, 320; III. 40\n\nAvanti, I. 282\n\nAvasarpini, I. 107\n\nAvata\u1e43sakas\u00fbtra, II. 10, 54, 60; III. 218, 282, 283, 292, 313, 315,\n374, 378\n\nAvat\u00e2ras, I. lxx, 48; II. 73, 130, 197; III. 307, 419\n\nAverroes, III. 460\n\nAvesta, I. 19, 60, 63; II. 28; III. 220, 451\n\navibh\u00e2ga, II. 312\n\nAvicenna, III. 460\n\nAv\u00eeci, I. 338\n\navijja, I. 227\n\navy\u00e2kat\u00e2ni, I. 228, 233\n\navyanga, III. 453, 454\n\nAwakening of Faith, xxxii; II. 34, 42, 44, 83, 84, 87; III. 219, 286\n\nAy\u00e2r\u00e2ngasutta, I. 116\n\n\u00e2yatanam, I. 226\n\nAyenar, II, 164\n\nAymonier, III. 80, 85, 111, 113, 117, 120, 123\n\nAyodhya, I. 20, 25; II. 87, 100, 149\n\nAyushka, I. 107\n\nAyuthia, III. 30, 79 _sq._\n\nAzhvar, _see_ Arvar\n\n\nBa, I. 218\n\nBaber, I. 28, 30\n\nBabylon, I. 61, 204; III. 103, 430, 432\n\nBacchic groups, II. 159\n\nBactria, I. 22, 24; II. 139, 276; III. 189, 200, 414\n\nBadakshan, I. xxvi; III. 202\n\nBadami, I. 26; II. 164, 172; III. 7, 107, 114, 116, 146\n\nB\u00e2dar\u00e2yana, II. 211, 311, 316\n\nBadar\u00ee, II. 238\n\nBadrinath, I. 17; II. 207, 208\n\nBadulla, III. 43\n\nBagdad, III. 461\n\nBagyidaw, III. 65\n\nBahmani dynasty, I. 29, 30\n\nBahraich, III. 458\n\nb\u00e2hyay\u00e2ga, II. 152\n\nBaidyanath, III. 459\n\nBaishnabs, II. 177\n\nBajra, III. 172\n\nBajrap\u00e2ni, III. 173\n\nBako, III. 115\n\nBakus, III. 129\n\nbala, II. 196\n\nBalabhi, II. 105\n\nBaladeva, II. 153, 255\n\nB\u00e2la Gop\u00e2la, II. 249\n\nBalambangan, III. 160\n\nBalar\u00e2ma, II. 154\n\nBale Agoeng, III. 183\n\nBali, II. 148; III. 135, 151, 157, 171, 179, 183 _sq._\n\nBali-Agas, III. 185\n\nBalkh, I. 25; III. 25, 202, 213, 461\n\nBallantyne, II. 296\n\nBambino, II. 160\n\nBamian, II. 102, 177; III. 3, 194, 202, 213\n\nBamunias, II. 260\n\nBamyin, I. 25\n\nB\u00e2\u1e47a, I. xxxix, 15; II. 97, 187, 206, 280\n\nbana, III. 36, 42\n\nBanda, II. 271\n\nban-de, III. 351\n\nBandha, I. 107\n\nBandyas, II. 119\n\nBangkok, III. 79, 86, 93\n\nBaniyas, I. 115\n\nBanon, III. 167\n\nBanyan grove, I, 148\n  Tree, I. 82\n\nB\u00e2p, II. 206\n\nBa-phuong, III. 132\n\nBaptism, III. 422; cf. abhi\u015bekha\n\nBarabar, III. 53\n\nBaramba, II. 114\n\nBardesanes, III. 444\n\nBargosa, III. 431\n\nBarlaam and Joasaph, III. 442\n\nBarna Brahmans, II. 173\n\nBarnett, II. 222, 224\n\nBaroda, I. 31, 116; II. 202, 252\n\nBarom Recha, II. 259\n\nBarpeta, II. 259\n\nBarth, II. 143, 169, 238; III. 23, 427\n\nBartholomew (Apostle), III. 414\n\nBasaih, III. 127\n\nB\u00e5s\u00e5 Kawi, III. 170\n\nBasava, II. 176, 225\n\nBashpa, III. 273, 354 _sq._\n\nBasiasita, III. 307\n\nBasidides, III. 444, 445\n\nBass\u00eat Sim\u00e2damataka, III. 113\n\nBasti, I. 120\n\nBasuli, II. 277\n\nBatavia, III. 158\n\nBat Cum, III. 122\n\nBathuris, II. 115\n\nBattambang, III. 112\n\nBauddham, III. 44\n\nBaudh\u00e2yana, II. 279\n  dharma s\u00fbtra, III. 102\n\nBauras, II. 119\n\nBauris, II. 115\n\nBaveru, III. 103, 430\n\nBayin Naung, III. 26, 47 _sq._\n\nBayon, III. 106, 109, 115, 134\n\nB\u00e4z\u00e4klik, III. 193\n\nBeal, I. 173, 275; II. 3, 56; III. 213, 276, 284, 312, 331\n\nBeames, II. 244\n\n_Beatae Angelae de Fulginio Visionum et Instructionum Liber_, I. 160\n\nBeatitudes, I. 184, 213\n\nBeckh, III. 195, 373\n\nBednur, II. 226\n\nBelattha, I. 98\n\nBelgami, II. 108\n\nBeluva, I. 163\n\nBenares, I. xlvi, 20, 87, 89, 132, 140; II. 112, 171, 189, 194, 208,\n227, 243, 254, 263; III. 25\n\nBendall, II. 56, 116, 121, 123, 220\n\nBendall and Haraprasad, II. 18\n\nBengal, I. xxxvi, lxxxvii, 19, 25, 29, 31, 87, 114, 121; II. 32, 92,\n100, 102, 108, 109, 111, 113, 173, 190, 230, 242, 253, 277, 278, 279,\n349 _sq._, 356\n\nBengali literature, I. xlv, 299; II. 187, 244, 255\n  Vaishnavas, II. 245\n\nBeng Mealea, III. 109\n\nBerar, I. 31; II. 85\n\nBergaigne, III. 137\n\nBergson, I. cii\n\nBerlin Museum, II. 20\n\nBernheim, I. 318\n\nBernier, II. 320\n\nBertholet, I. iv\n\nBesant, Mrs., I. xlvii\n\nBesnagar column, II. 153, 197\n\nBettu, I. 120\n\nBeveridge, I. 90\n\nde Beyli\u00e9 III. 74, 89\n\nBhabajanas, II. 261\n\nBhabru Edict, I. 264, 270, 290, 295\n\nBhaddiya, I. 131, 224\n\nBhadrab\u00e2hu, I. 114, 116; II. 214\n\nBhadratittha, III. 45\n\nBhadravarman, III. 115, 139, 143, 146\n\nBhadresvara, III. 115, 146\n\nBhaga, I. 57, 63\n\nBhagava, I. 152\n\nBhagavad G\u00eet\u00e2, I. xxx, xliv, xlv, lxxiv, lxxx, 218, 333; II. 31, 72,\n162, 180, 186, 195, 200, 201, 208, 219, 225, 228, 229, 231, 233, 234,\n238, 239, 257, 293, 296, 306, 317; III. 174, 420, 423\n\nBhagav\u00e2n, II. 255; III. 21\n\nBhagavat, II. 156, 195\n\nBhagavata Pur\u00e2na, I. lxxiv; II. 130, 147, 148, 157, 187, 188, 193,\n195, 198, 219, 231, 251, 281\n\nBhagavatas, II. 97, 153, 156, 194, 195, 197, 209, 211, 234, 280\n\nBhagav\u00e2ta Tika subodhini, II. 249\n\nBhaga vat\u00ee, I. 116; III. 144, 145, 147\n\nBhagavat\u00ee\u015bvara, III. 144\n\nBhagawanis, II. 261\n\nbhairabi, II. 286\n\nBhairava, II. 145\n\nBhairavi, II. 277, 288\n\nBhairav Nath, III. 458\n\nBhaisajja, I. 201\n\nBhaishajya guru, III. 390\n\nBhakats (Bhaktas), II. 260\n\nBhakta-m\u00e2la, II. 147, 191, 199, 245\n\nBhakti, I. 49; II. 153, 174, 180-183, 228, 255; III. 417 _sq. See\nalso_ Salvation\n\nBhallika, III. 50, 215\n\nBhandag\u00e2ma, I. 162, 164\n\nBhandarkar, II. 152, 153, 157, 202, 230, 231, 233, 238, 242, 248, 256,\n257, 262, 320, 452\n\nBhante, I. 152\n\nBh\u00e2rat\u00e2, II. 169\n  Samhit\u00e2, II. 189\n  yuddha, III. 158, 171\n\nBharat Dharma Mahamandala, I. xlvii\n\nBharati, III. 114\n\nBh\u00e2rgav\u00eeya, III. 142\n\nBhartrihari, II. 97; III. 437\n\nBharukaccha (Broach), III. 13\n\nBh\u00e2shya, II. 89; III. 120\n\nBhaskara Varma, II. 127\n\nBhat\u00e2ra, III. 184\n  Guru, III. 179\n  Vi\u015besha, III. 173\n\nBhattacarya (Jogendranath), II. 163, 173, 177, 209, 210, 244, 261\n\nBhava, I. 208; II. 146\n\nBh\u00e2v\u00e2dvaita, II. 322\n\nbh\u00e2van\u00e2s, III. 173\n\nBhavavarman, III. 102, 108, 109, 114\n\nBhavaviveka, II. 74, 94\n\nBh\u00e2vishya Pur\u00e2na, I. lxxiv; III. 423, 452, 453\n\nbhedabheda prak\u00e2\u015ba II. 255\n\nBhikkhu (Bhikshu, Bhikku), I. 96, 157, 182, 237-253; II. 104, 119,\n210; III. 39, 41, 65, 123, 130, 256\n\nBhils, II. 155\n\nBhima, II. 239; III. 146\n  Bhoi, II. 115, 116\n\nBhoja, I. 27, 268; III. 162\n\nBhrikut\u00ee, III. 389, 394\n\nBhringi, II. 278\n\nBh\u00fb, II. 145\n\nBhubanesvar, I. xlvi; II. 114, 173, 174, 206\n\nbhukti, I. lxxvi\n\nbh\u00fbmi, II. 9, 11\n\nBhutan, III. 370\n\nBhutas, I. 6; III. 182 (boetas)\n\nBh\u00fbtatathat\u00e2, I. 220; II. 34, 43, 67, 84\n\nbh\u00fbti\u015bakti (matter), II. 196, 197\n\nBible, The, I. 255\n\n_Bibliotheca Buddhica_, II. 57, 85\n  _Indica_, II. 9, 51, 195, 202\n\nBidar, I. 29\n\nBigandet, I. 173; III. 49\n\nBihar, I. xix, 20, 95, 113; II. 111, 112, 127\n\nb\u00eeja, II. 122\n\nBijah, II. 263\n\nBijapur, I. 26, 29, 114, 225; II. 251; III. 106\n\nBijjala, I. 28, 114; II. 225\n\nBimbis\u00e2ra (king), I. 111, 132, 135, 147, 157, 174, 242, 244; II. 30\n\nBindu, II. 319\n\nBindus\u00e2ra, III. 432\n\nBing Dinh, III. 138\n\nBinh Thuan, III. 137, 138\n\nBinstead, III. 401\n\n_Biographies of Eminent Monks_, III. 156\n\nBiot, III. 259, 270\n\nBir-va-pa, II. 126\n\nBishnupad, II. 130\n\nBishwa Singh, II. 280\n\nBlagden, III. 47\n\nBlake, II. 286\n\nBland and Backhouse, III. 232\n\nBloch, III. 330\n\nde Blonay, II. 16, 18\n\nBlue Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la, The, III. 363\n\nBoar (incarnation), II. 147\n\nBodawpaya, III. 49\n\nBoddas, III. 446\n\nBoddh\u00e2yana, II. 233\n\nBode, Mrs., I. 248; II. 49, 56, 66, 67\n\nBodh\u00e2yana, II. 234, 316\n\nBodh Gaya, I. 120, 136, 143, 272; II. 94, 112, 113, 129, 130; III. 56,\n349\n\nBodhi, I. xxxviii; II. 32, 44; III. 56\n  Prince, I. 152\n\nBodhibhadra, II. 128\n\nBodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, II. 9; III. 240, 323, 331\n\nBodhicitta, II. 45; III. 174\n\nBodhidharma, I. xxvi; II. 46, 95, 316; III. 238, 253, 255, 256, 269,\n272, 278, 304, 305, 307, 317, 323, 405\n\nBodhi-raj\u00e2kum\u00e2ra sutta, I. 135\n\nBodhisattva, I. xxix, xxxi, xxxii, xl, 11, 174, 261, 343, 344; II. 6,\n25, 66, 68, 87, 105, 118, 122, 123, 170; III. 31, 33, 63, 84, 120,\n124, 169, 213, 216, 234, 265, 285, 318, 325 _sq._, 329, 389, 390, 451\n\nBodhi-sattva-bh\u00fbmi, II. 87\n  Pitaka, II. 61\n\nBodhi tree, I. 142, 143, 175; II. 22\n\nBodopaya (king), III, 63\n\nBoehme (Jacob), I. 315\n\nBoehtlingk and Rien, II. 153\n  Roth, III. 118\n\nBoeleling, III. 184\n\nBog, I. 63\n\nBogomils, III. 445\n\nBohras, III. 455\n\nBokhara, III. 199\n\nBombay, I. 115, 116; III. 455\n\nBongard (Mgr), II. 161\n\nBonpo, III. 351, 380, 384\n\nB\u00f6n religion, III. 193\n  scriptures, III. 381\n\nBonzes, III. 240 _sq._\n\nBook of Wisdom, III. 433\n\nBorel, H., II. 42\n\nBorneo, I. xii, 16; III. 6, 107, 151, 163\n\nBoroboedoer, III. 102, 133, 155, 162, 165 _sq._, 177, 182, 385\n\nBosanquet, I. lxvii, ciii; II. 317\n\nBo Tree, I. 206; II. 96, 130; III. 14, 16, 17, 84, 98, 446\n\nB\u00f4t, III. 89\n\n_Bouddhisme (le)_, II. 9\n\n_Bouddhisme, Etudes et Mat\u00e9riaux_, II. 121, 122\n\nBowden, III. 41\n\nBowl (Buddha's), III. 16, 24\n\nBradley, I. liv, lxiv, xcv, cii, ciii, 85; III. 80, 82\n\nBrahma, I. xviii, 46, 62, 72, 227, 331, 333; II. 122, 137, 199, 228,\n266, 284; III. 69, 146, 167, 169, 173, 215, 284, 388\n\nBrahmac\u00e2rin, I. 88\n\nBrahmadutta, I. 289\n\nBrahmaj\u00e2la sutta, I. 97, 103; II. 28; III. 322\n\nBrahman (Absolute Godhead, Pantheos), I. xviii, lxxx, 9, 47, 78, 80,\n83, 84, 85; II. 40, 75, 234, 238, 289, 292, 308, 309 _sq._; III. 228,\n246, 445, 448\n  (Brahmin, caste and system), I. xvii, xviii, xxii, xxv, xxviii, xli,\n  lxxxii, 34, 35, 37, 41, 74, 87, 88, 89, 91, 95, 104, 131, 133, 146,\n  158, 169, 184, 252, 268, 306; II. 99, 115, 116, 117, 118, 169, 171,\n  173, 176, 191, 192, 193, 210, 235; III. 13, 34, 51, 67, 93 _sq._, 112\n  _sq._, 176 _sq._, 183, 458\n\nBr\u00e2hma\u1e47as, I. xxxiii, lxxiii, 20, 48, 51, 53, 62, 66, 69, 77, 87\n\nBr\u00e2hma\u1e47\u00e2srama, III. 121\n\nBr\u00e2hmandapur\u00e2na, III. 172\n\nBrahma Paripriccha, II. 62\n\nBrahmapur\u00e2na, III. 186\n\nBrahmaputra (river), II. 288\n\nBrahmarakshas, III. 113\n\nBrahma Sahampati, I. 102, 140, 142, 334\n\nBrahma-sambandha-kara\u1e47\u00e2t, II. 249, 250\n\nBrahma Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, II. 195\n\nBrahma-samprad\u00e2ya, II. 239, 255\n\nBrahma S\u00fbtras, I. xliii; II. 293, 314, 318\n\nBrahmatantra-svatantra-sw\u00e2mi, II. 232\n\nBrahm\u00e2vaivarta Pur\u00e2na, II. 158, 164\n\nBrahm\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, I. 315; II. 122\n\nBrahmayoni (yoen), I. 147\n\nBrahmi (inscriptions), II. 214; III. 190\n\nBrahminism and Hinduism, II. 207 _sq._\n\nBrahmo Somaj, I. xlvii\n\nBrah Sugandha, III. 131\n\nBrahui (affinities), I. 20\n\nBraj, II. 158, 161, 244, 245, 255\n\nBrandes, III. 172\n\nBranding, III. 324, 328\n\nBrantas River, III. 159\n\nBreath (as self), I. 77, 306\n\nBrihad Ara\u1e47yaka Upanishad, I. lxxiii, 76, 79, 82, 83, 84, 94, 298;\nII. 124, 235, 238, 239, 240, 308\n\nBrihadbrahma Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, II. 195\n\nBrihaspati, II. 320\n\nBrihatsamhita, III. 452\n\nBrihatsanny\u00e2sa Upanishad, II. 198\n\nBrindaban, II. 249, 254\n\nBroach, III. 106, 155\n\nBrom-ston, III. 380\n\nBrowne, E.G., III. 460\n\nBruno (Giordano), I. lv\n\nBruzha, III. 212, 350, 377\n\nBuddha (Jain term), I. 110\n\nBuddha, the, I. xix _sq._, xxix, xlix, lii, lviii, lxxiii, lxxviii,\n20, 27, 48, 49, 64, 72, 97, 103, 111, 129 _sq._, 133 _sq._, 143,\n146-176, 180, 297; II. 97, 99, 105, 113, 115, 130, 148, 224, 305; III.\n89, 446\n\nBuddha-bhadra, II. 85\n\nBuddha C\u00e2rita, I. 173, 176; II. 53, 68, 83, 113; III. 286, 294\n\nBuddha-d\u00e2sa, king, III. 31\n\nBuddha-deva, II. 114\n\nBuddh\u00e2gama, III. 180\n\nBuddhaghosa, I. 151, 190, 205, 209, 212, 255, 270, 281, 293, 312, 321;\nIII. 13, 14, 15, 23, 28 _sq._, 52, 298\n\nBuddhaghosuppatti, III. 28, 31\n\nBuddhagupta, II. 115\n\nBuddhakap\u00e2la, III. 391\n\nBuddhakshetra, II. 12\n\nBuddhamitra, III. 307\n\nBuddhanandi, III. 307\n\nBuddhanirv\u00e2na, III. 149\n\nBuddhapamutus, III. 172\n\nBuddhas, I. xix, xxix, 46, 129, 342; II. 6, 123; III. 169, 218, 317,\n318, 342\n\nBuddhasammayoga, II. 128\n\nBuddhasanti, II. 126\n\n_Buddha und M\u00e2ra_, I. 143\n\nBuddha-va\u1e43sa, I. 280, 343, 344\n\nBuddhavata\u1e43saka-s\u00fbtra, II. 61\n\nBuddh\u00e2vat\u00e2ri, II. 114\n\nbuddhi, II. 299\n\n_Buddhism in Tibet_, I. 336\n  _in translations_, I. 190, 252, 320\n  _of Tibet_, II. 128\n\n_Buddhist Art in India_, II. 20, 143; III. 14\n  _Birth Stories_, I. 171\n  _China_, II. 18; III. 325\n  _India_, III. 14\n  _legends of Asoka and his time_, III. 23\n  Literature, I. lxxiii, 95, 275-301 (Pali Canon); II. 47-62\n  (Mahayanist), 71 (Burma); III. 281-302 (Chinese Canon), 372-381\n  (Tibetan). _See_ Nik\u00e2ya, Pitakas, S\u00fbtras (Suttas), Vinaya\n  _psychology_, I. 190, 193, 213\n  _Records of the Western World_, I. 258\n\nBudge, II. 122\n\nB\u00fchler, I. 105, 113; II. 109, 126, 127; III. 74, 297\n\nBuitenzorg, III. 153\n\nBuiti, III. 218\n\nBukka, I. 30\n\nBulis, I. 169\n\nBundehish, III. 220\n\nBundelkhand, I. 27; II. 261\n\nBunmei period, III. 291\n\nBunrak, III. 84\n\nBurma, I. xii, xix, xxiv, xxv, lxxxii, xciv, 120, 241, 248, 276; II.\n80; III. 7, 34, 46-77, 81, 262, 353\n\nBurnet, III. 434\n\nBurnouf, II. 53\n\nBurnt offerings, II. 128\n\nBushell, III. 351\n\nBushido, III. 405\n\nBusiris, III. 434\n\nBu-ston, III. 357, 380, 381, 395\n\nByamma Nat, III. 69\n\nByams-chen-chos-nje, III. 359\n\nByamspa (Jampa), II. 21\n\nByzantine Empire, I. 39\n\n\nC\u00e6sar, I. 177\n\nCaitanya, II. 113, 147, 176, 230, 234, 244, 245, 248, 253 _sq._, 268\n\nCaitanya-carit-amrita, II. 113\n\nCaitanya D\u00e2sa, II. 115\n\nCakkav\u00e2las, I. 336\n\nCakra, II. 198, 284; III. 387\n\nCakravartin, I. 36; II. 89; III. 116, 117, 394\n\nCaland and Henri, I. 66\n\nCalcutta, II. 116, 286\n\nCaldwell, II. 219, 220; III. 418\n\nCalicut, I. 31\n\nCaliphate, III. 461\n\nCaliph Ma'mum, III. 461\n\nC\u00e2lukya, I. 25, 27, 114\n\nCalvary, I. 66\n\nCamboja, I. 241, 276; II. 143, 159, 164, 169, 203; III. 6, 9, 46, 79,\n81, 82, 100 _sq._, 179\n\nCamboja school, III. 59\n\nCampa, I. 150\n\nlCam-sran, III. 392\n\nCamunda, II. 278\n\nC\u00e2\u1e47akya, I. 18\n\nCanda, II. 125, 278\n\nCandels, I. 27\n\nCandi, II. 277\n\nCandrabh\u00e2ga River, III. 452, 453\n\nCandragarbha S\u00fbtra, II. 58; III. 283\n\nCandragomin, II. 95\n\nCandraguhyatilaka, II. 128\n\nCandragupta (I), II. 87, 88\n\nCandragupta, Maurya, I. 18, 21, 24, 114, 127; II. 214\n\nCandrakirti, II. 85\n\nCandraprabha, II. 55\n\nCandraprad\u00eepa-s\u00fbtra, II. 55\n\nCandravajji, I. 286\n\nCangalar\u00e2j\u00e2, II. 113\n\nCanton, I. xxvi; II. 95; III. 235, 304\n\nCao Tien, III. 343\n\nCapua, II. 287\n\nCaracalla, III. 416\n\nCaran Das, II. 253, 262\n\nCar festival, I. lxx; III. 208\n\nCariya Pitaka, I. 280, 344\n\nCarpenter, III. 30\n\nCarpocrates, III. 444\n\nC\u00e2rvakas, II. 320\n\nCarya, II. 128, 189\n\nCaste, I. xxii, xliv, xlvi, xlvii, 34;\nII. 120, 175-178, 243, 254, 257, 260, 285; III. 145, 183, 420\n\n_Castes and Tribes of S. India_, I. 20; II. 171, 225\n\nCataleptic trance, I. 306\n\n_Catalogue of Adyar Library_, II. 270\n\n_Catalogue of the Buddhist Tripitaka_, I. 258\n\nCatalogues (Chinese) of Buddhist Literature, III. 287, 290, 293, 316\n\n_Catechism of Saiva religion_, II. 140, 215, 218, 289\n\n_Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_, II. 56\n\nCattle-worship, II. 159\n\nCaturbhuja, III. 114\n\nCaturtha, I. lxiii, 83\n\nCausation, I. xxi, 194, 198, 212\n\nCave of the Seven Sleepers, III. 205\n\nCave temples, III. 193, 252. _See also_ Ajanta, Ellora\n\nCedi, I. 27\n\nCelebes, III. 151\n\nCelibacy, I. 237-248; II. 256; III. 235, 430. Cf. Asceticism,\nMonasteries\n\nCensors, III. 266\n\n_Census of Assam_, I. xxxviii\n  _of Bengal_, II. 276\n  _of India_, I. xxxviii, xl, xlvii, xci; II. 114, 147, 259, 261, 273\n\nCentral Asia, I. xxiv, xxvi, 262; II. 4, 81, 129; III. 188 _sq._, 215\n_sq._, 345, 451\n  Asian Gupta, III. 190\n  India, I. 115, 116; II. 100, 108\n  Provinces, I. 27\n\nCera, I. 26\n\nCetan\u00e2, I. 209\n\nCetan\u00e2tman, III. 175\n\nCetiyas, II. 171\n\nCeylon, I. xii, xxiii, xxiv, xlviii, l, lxxxii, xcv, 113, 248, 292,\n293; II. 53, 61, 80, 87, 116, 214; III. 4 _sq._, 82, 83\n  Antiquary, III. 35\n\nChabbaggiyas, I. 156\n\nChain of causation, I. 49, 139, 144, 186, 206, 207, 212, 213, 230, 267\n\nChaitanya, I. xlv; II. 157\n\n_Chaitanya's Pilgrimage and teachings from the Caitanya Carit \u00e2mrita\nof Krishna Das_, II. 253\n\nChaityas, III. 194, 212\n\nChakhar Mongols, III. 380\n\nChalukyas, II. 225; III. 170\n\nChambal river, I. 25\n\nChampa (Annam), I. xii, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, 16; II. 143, 159; III. 6,\n9, 79, 102, 103, 123, 137-150, 340 _sq._\n\nChams, the, III. 124, 127, 138, 150\n\nCh'an, I. 322; III. 269, 271, 309, 405\n\nChand\u00eed\u00e2s, II. 253\n\nCh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad, I. liv, lxxviii, 66, 76, 81; II. 27, 152, 156,\n182, 195, 238, 239\n\nChandragarbha s\u00fbtra, III. 215\n\nChang An, III. 199, 251, 261, 263\n  Ch'ien, III. 197, 201, 208, 245\n\nChang-Ling, III. 227\n\nCh'ang (long), III. 296\n\nChang Lu, III. 227\n\nChanna, I. 167, 175\n\nChannabasava, II. 225\n\nChantaboun, III. 111\n\nCh'an-tsung, III. 306, 309\n\nChao (later), III. 249\n\nChao Ph\u0103ya Chakkri, III. 86\n  Phi, III. 97\n\nChapata, III. 11, 57, 59, 60\n\nChariar, T. R\u00e2j\u00e2g\u00f4pala, II. 232, 237\n\nCh'a-ti-li, II. 95\n\nChatterji, II. 204, 224\n  Babu Rasik Mohan, II. 281\n  Bunkim Chandra, II. 287\n\nChatterji, J.C., II. 291\n\nCh\u00e2v\u00e2, III. 80, 109\n\nChavannes, III. 193, 199, 202, 203, 206, 211, 254, 260, 273, 314, 326\n\nChavannes et Pelliot, II. 199; III. 216, 245, 334, 395, 446\n\nChe-i-lun, III. 288\n\nCh\u00ea-kiang, III. 310\n\nChenab, III. 453\n\nCh'en dynasty, III. 252, 257\n\nCh\u00eang-Chi, III. 206\n\nCh'\u00eang Hua (Emperor), III. 360\n\nCh\u00eang-shih-tsung, III. 304\n\nCh'\u00eang-tsu (Emperor), III. 276, 288\n\nCh'\u00eang Tsung (Emperor), III. 274\n\nCheng-wei-shih-lun, III. 315\n\nCh\u00ean-la, III. 101, 105\n\nChen Tsung (Emperor), III. 228\n\nChen-yen, II. 58, 87, 275; III. 316 _sq._, 349, 385\n\nChet R\u00e2mis, I. xlvi\n\nCh\u00ea Tsung, III. 271\n\nChezarla, III. 194\n\nChi, III. 312\n  (dynasty), III. 252, 253, 257\n\nChia Ch'ing, III. 368\n\nChiao-ch'\u00ean-ju, III. 185\n\nChiao-m\u00ean, III, 310\n\nCh'ia-sha (Chieh-ch'a-Kashgar), III. 200\n\nChidambaram, II. 171, 183, 207, 222\n\nChief of the World, I. 340\n\nChieh-ch'a, III. 201\n\nCh'ien Lung, III. 199, 280, 289, 368, 380\n\nChih-ch\u00ea-ta-shih, III. 310\n\nChih-Chien, III. 292\n\nChih-I, III. 310\n\nChih-K'ai, III. 310\n\nChih-Kuan, III. 310, 312\n\nChih Li, III. 309\n  Pan, III. 287\n  Y\u00fcan-lu, III. 290\n\nChild marriages, I. lxxxix\n\nChilders, II. 10\n\nCh'in dynasty, III. 246\n\nChina, I. xiii, xix, xxiv, xxvi, lxxv, lxxxiii, 101, 248, 249, 252,\n259, 265, 267; II. 4, 5, 19, 20; III. 3, 25, 39, 223-335\n\nChinese Annals, II. 64; III. 6, 82, 103, 110, 148, 179, 196, 245\n  Canon, I. 275; II. 47, 48, 57, 59; III. 234, 282 _sq._\n  deities, III. 225\n  and Sanskrit, III. 301\n  translations, I. 130, 133, 173, 258; II. 51, 71, 74, 89, 125\n  (Tantras), 259, 296; III. 218, 251-270, 274, 292 _sq._, 373\n  Tripitaka, I. 299; II. 54, 61, 71, 81, 84, 304; III. 31, 189, 218,\n  239, 240, 248, 253, 254, 258, 259, 261, 265, 270, 274, 276, 280, 288\n  _sq._, 306, 323, 336, 356, 372, 374\n\nCh'ing (dynasty), III. 8, 289\n\nChing (s\u00fbtras), III. 281 _sq._, 374\n\nChinggiz, III. 353\n\nChing-t\u00ea-ch'uan-t\u00eang-lu, III. 287, 307\n\nChing-ti, III. 277\n\nChing-tu, II. 28\n\nCh'ing Y\u00fcan, III. 309\n\nChinnamastaka, II. 277\n\nCh'i Sung, III. 288\n\nChitore, I. 120; II. 244\n\nChiu dynasty, III. 206\n  Hua, II. 25\n\nChlas, I. 268\n\nChohan dynasty, I. 29\n\nChola, II. 233\n\nCho-mukhi, I. 120\n\nChos-kyi-Gyal-tsan, III. 364\n\nChos-kyi-hod-zer, III. 356\n\nChos-skyon, III. 391\n\nChotscho, III. 200, 205, 215\n\nChou dynasty, III. 268, 343\n\nChou Ta-kuan, III. 101, 110, 114, 125 _sq._, 135, 179\n\n_Chowkhamba Sanskrit series_, II. 249\n\nChrist, I. 66, 143, 165, 171, 177, 178-184, 213, 214, 215, 224, 226,\n228, 330; III. 216, 423, 435\n\nChristianity, I. xiv, xlix, l, xcviii, ci, 14, 65, 204, 238; II. 107,\n140, 158, 161, 180, 218, 219, 266, 275, 285; III. 193, 214 _sq._, 409\n_sq._\n\nChristian mystics, I. 306 _sq._\n\nChronology, I. 46, 50; II. 63 _sq._; III. 353\n\nChu, III. 245\n\nChua, III. 342\n\nChuang (Emperor), III. 343\n\nChuang Tsu, III. 246, 247, 248, 305\n\nCh\u00fc-ch'\u00fc, III. 206\n\nChu Fa Tan, III. 244\n\nChu Hsi, III. 272 _sq._, 275, 288, 337, 338, 421\n\nCh'u Ku, III. 125\n\nChulalongkorn (king), III. 88\n\nChung (medium), III. 296\n\nChurels, II. 276\n\nCh\u00fc Sh\u00e9, III. 213\n\nCh\u00fc-sh\u00e9-tsung, III. 314\n\nChutiyas, II. 279\n\nCh'u-yao-ching, III. 296\n\nChu-ying, III. 248\n\ncit, II. 316\n\ncitralakshana, III. 373, 375\n\nCitrasena, III. 101, 105, 109\n\ncitta, I. 210, 303; II. 43; III. 181\n\nCivappa, II. 141\n\nClemens of Alexandria, II. 159\n\nClementi, III. 240\n\nCloud of Unknowing, I. 307\n\n_Cochin Tribes and Castes_, II. 171, 191\n\nCoed\u00e8s, I. xii; III. 83, 109, 115, 121, 122, 134\n\nColas, I. 26, 27, 114; II. 100, 214; III. 34, 44\n\nCommentaries, II. 310 _sq._ (Indian); III. 29 _sq._ (Buddhaghosa), 45\n(Dharmap\u00e2la), 272 (Chu Hsi)\n\n_Commentary on Dhammapada_, II. 73\n  on Tattva-sangraha, III. 23\n\nCommunion, III. 422. _See also_ pras\u00e2d\n\nCompagno, III. 434\n\n_Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian languages_, II. 219\n\n_Compendium of Philosophy_, I. 189\n\nConfession, II. 443. Cf. p\u00e2timokkha\n\nConfraternities, I. 95, 237. _See_ Sangha and Monasteries\n\nConfucius, I. xix, xxii, lxxxiii, 12, 13, 177, 217, 341; III. 4, 9,\n216, 224, 226 _sq._, 241, 248, 252 _sq._, 258, 270, 275 _sq._, 337\n_sq._\n\nConjevaram, I. xxv, 26, 114; II. 95, 101, 233, 237; III. 6, 45, 51\n\nConquests of the Dhamma, I. 16\n\nConsciousness, I. lxiii, lxxviii, 209, 210, 230\n\nConstantine, I. 273; II. 77\n  Phaulcon, III. 86\n\nContemplative school, III. 258, 287, 305 _sq._\n\n_(De) Contemptu Mundi_, I. 202\n\nConventions (art), I. 120\n\nConvents. _See_ Monasteries, Nuns\n\nCoomaraswamy, II. 244; III. 39\n\nCooper-Irving, S., I. lviii\n\nCopleston, III. 265\n\nCopper-plate inscriptions, III. 157\n\nCordier, III. 373, 376\n\nCosmas Indicopleustes, III. 414, 416\n\nCosmogonies, I. lxviii, 43, 46, 332, 335; III. 171, 272\n\nCotta, III. 26\n\nCouncils (Buddhist), I. 254 _sq._, 290; II. 78 _sq._, 224; III. 15,\n19, 32, 65, 86 (Siam), 213 (Kanishka)\n\nCourant, III. 290, 336\n\nCowell and Neil, II. 59; III. 395\n\nCranganore, I. 26; III. 415\n\nCrashaw, II. 162\n\nCreation, I. lxxxi, 67; II. 298 _sq._, 313\n\nCrete, III. 435\n\nCrooke, I. 103, 104, 145, 147; II. 277\n\nCrucifixion, the, III. 427\n\nCrypto Buddhists, II. 73, 115, 211, 315; III. 421\n\nCtesiphon, III. 416\n\nC\u00fblaganthipada, III. 64\n\nC\u00fblava\u1e43sa, III. 21\n\nCullavagga, I. 131, 156, 255, 257, 258, 277, 288, 290; II. 49\n\nCunda, I. 164\n\nCunningham, Sir. A., I. 143\n\nCurzon, Lord, III. 66\n\nCutch, II. 251\n\nCuttack, II. 114\n\nCybele, I. 62; II. 275\n\nCyrene, I. 268; III. 430\n\nCyril of Jerusalem, III. 446\n\n\nDabistan, II. 321\n\nDa Cunha, III. 25\n\nD\u00e2du, II. 263, 266\n\nD\u00e2dupanthis, II. 266\n\nDagoba, II. 172; III. 72, 74 _sq._, 150, 166\n\nDaha, III. 159\n\nDai-c\u00f4-vi\u00eat, III. 140, 340\n\nDai-jo, II. 3\n\nDai-Nippon Zoku Z\u014dky\u014d, III. 291\n\nDaityas, II. 321\n\n\u1e0a\u00e2k\u00een\u00ees, II. 286\n\nDaksha, II. 142, 193, 203, 286; III. 391\n\nDakshin\u00e2c\u00e2rins, II. 283\n\nDaladapujavali, III. 25\n\nDalai L\u0101ma, III. 279, 280, 362\n\nD\u00e2maras, II. 282\n\nDambal, II. 109\n\nDamdama, II. 271\n\nd\u00e2nam, II. 10; III. 173, 304\n\nDances of the Red Tiger Devil, III. 393\n\nDanta, III. 26\n\nD\u00e2ntepura, III. 25\n\nDarawati, III. 141\n\nDarbhanga, Maharaja of, I. xlvii\n\nDarius (king), III. 450\n\nDarjiling, III. 399\n\ndar\u015bana, II. 291; III. 120\n\ndar\u015bana-varan\u00eeya. I. 107\n\nDas, Sarat Chandra, II. 129; III. 347, 352, 353, 358, 374, 387\n\nDa\u015babh\u00fbmika, II. 59\n\nDa\u015babh\u00fbm\u00ee\u015bvara, II. 55\n\nDasaka, I. 256, 257\n\nDasakutas, II. 241\n\nDasama, I. 150\n\nDa\u015bama P\u00e2dsh\u00e2h ka Granth, II. 271\n\nDa\u015ban\u00e2m\u00eds, II. 209\n\nDa\u015baratha (king), II. 149\n\nDa\u015ba\u015bloki, II. 230\n\nDasa Sr\u00eemalis, II. 177\n\nDas (Cha\u1e47\u1e0d\u00ee), II. 244\n\nDas (Sur), II. 245\n\nd\u00e2sya, II. 255\n\nDasyus, I. 59\n\nDathava\u1e43sa, III. 25\n\nDatia, I. 121\n\nDaulatabad, I. 29, 30\n\nDavis, III. 371\n\nDead, spirits of, I. 339; III. 116. _See also_ Ancestor-worship\n\nDeath's messengers, I. 338\n\nDebr\u00e2ja, III. 371\n\nDeb (Sankar), II. 244\n\nDecalogue, I. 213, 215, 250\n\nDeccan, I. 19, 25, 27, 115; II. 92, 98, 100, 108, 113, 164; III. 107.\n_See also_ Southern India\n\nDeceiver, the, II. 184. _See also_ M\u00e2ra\n\nDeer Park, I. 140, 141, 143\n\nDe Groot, III. 279, 314, 319, 322, 329, 333, 350\n\nDe Groot and Parker, III. 233\n\nbDe-hbyun, III. 386\n\nDeification of man, I. 48; II. 147, 150, 157, 170, 184, 196, 251, 255;\nIII. 115, 119, 168, 218, 224\n\nDeism, I. xlvi\n\nDeities, invention of, III. 228\n\nDelhi, I. 20, 28, 29, 89; II. 272\n\nDemetrius, I. 22\n\nDemiurgus, III. 444\n\nDemonophobia, III. 382\n\n_De profundis_, II. 236\n\nDepung, III. 364, 399\n\nDerje (Bers), III. 381\n\nDervishes (howling), II. 284\n\nDesi, the, III. 366\n\nDeus, I. 63\n\nDeussen, I. lv, 86; II. 187, 306, 309\n\nDeva, I. 47, 48, 63, 103, 330, 340; II. 73, 86; III. 81, 304\n\nDevabhaga, I. 88\n\nDevadatta, I. 133, 156, 157, 158, 181, 240, 320, 342; II. 93\n\nDevadutavagga, I. 134\n\nDevak\u00ee, II. 152 _sq._; III. 423\n\nDevakula, III. 149\n\nDevan\u00e2gari, II. 269; III. 301\n\nDevan\u00e2mpiya Tissa, III. 13, 16, 17\n\nDevap\u00e2la, III. 111\n\nDevar\u00e2j\u00e2, III. 117\n\nDevaram, II. 191, 215, 219, 220, 244\n\nDev\u00e2tideva, I. 340\n\nDeva-worship, II. 100; III. 104, 182\n\nDevay\u00e2ma, I. 88\n\nDevi, II. 274; III. 172, 173, 392, 459\n\nDevil, I. lxxix, 143, 337\n\nDevil dancers, I. xli; III. 42, 393\n\nDevi M\u00e2h\u00e2tmya, II. 279\n\nDevotion, I. xvii, xxix; II. 72. _See_ Amidism, bhakti, Salvation\n\nDewa, III. 185\n\nDhalla, II. 275\n\nDh\u00e2mis, II. 266\n\nDhamma, I. xxiii, 16, 135, 192, 211, 256, 258, 266, 267; II. 34\n\nDhamma-cakhu, I. 320\n\nDhammacakka, III. 26\n\nDhammaceti, III. 58\n\nDhammachando, I. 216\n\nDhammaguttikas, I. 298\n\nDhammakathi, III. 29, 31\n\nDhammakitti, III. 21, 25\n\nDhamma-mah\u00e2m\u00e2t\u00e2, I. 268\n\nDhammapada, I. 117, 139, 205, 279, 296; II. 181; III. 246, 295, 296,\n299, 372\n\nDhammaruci, III. 19, 21, 40\n\nDhammasanga\u1e47i, I. 188, 192, 209, 225, 314; III. 30\n\nDhammasenapati, III. 56\n\nDhammathat, III. 58, 66\n\nDhammavil\u00e2sa, III. 66\n\nDhammavitasa, III. 58\n\nDhammayut, III. 91, 131\n\nDhammika (king), III. 36\n\nDhaniya, I. 288\n\nDh\u00e2nyaka\u1e6daka, III. 386\n\nDh\u00e2ra\u1e47\u00e2, I. 307\n\ndh\u00e2ra\u1e47is, I. 258, 332; II. 50, 51, 125; III. 215, 293, 385, 395\n\nDharma, I. 49, 106, 192; II. 59, 115, 119, 200; III. 114, 149\n\nDharma-cakra-mudra, II. 20\n\nDharmadh\u00e2tu, II. 34, 43; III. 262, 317\n\nDharmag\u00eet\u00e2, II. 115\n\nDharmagupta, I. 291; III. 204, 249, 285, 295\n\nDharma-gupta vinaya, III. 316\n\nDharmaka, III. 379\n\nDharmak\u00e2la, III. 249\n\nDharm\u00e2kara, II. 29\n\nDharmak\u00e2ya, II. 30, 32, 33-42, 55, 73; III. 216, 305, 388\n\nDharmakirti, II. 95\n\nDharmalakshana, III. 315\n\nDharmamegha, I. 307; II. 11\n\nDharmapada, III. 190, 191, 214, 286, 299\n\nDharmap\u00e2la, I. 27; II. 111, 129; III. 45, 157, 352, 391\n\nDharmapary\u00e2ya, II. 56\n\nDharma R\u00e2j\u00e2, II. 116; III. 6, 371, 459\n\nDharmaraksha, II. 32; III. 292, 294, 295\n\nDharma-sangraha, II. 17, 23, 86\n\nDharma\u015b\u00e2stras, III. 66, 96, 120, 142\n\nDharm\u00e2sokar\u00e2ja, III. 84\n\ndharmatah, II. 193\n\nDharma Thakur, I. 116\n\nDharmatr\u00e2ta, II. 86; III. 295\n\nDharmay\u00e2na, III. 83\n\nDharm Das, II. 265\n\nDh\u00e2tu, I. 225\n\nDhatu Senu, III. 32\n\nDhatuvansaya, III. 25\n\nDh\u00e2tvisvari, III. 173\n\nDhingkota, III. 219\n\nDh\u1e5bitaka, III. 307\n\nDh\u1e5bitarashtr\u00e2 (sons of), II. 154\n\nDhundias, I. 116\n\nDh\u00fbt\u00e2ngas, I. 73, 240, 257\n\nDhy\u00e2na, I. 307; II. 79, 116; III. 131, 173, 304, 313, 405. _See_ Jh\u00e2na\nand Meditation\n\nDhy\u00e2ni Buddhas, II. 26, 115, 118; III. 165, 389, 391\n\nDialogues of the Buddha, I. 97, 104, 161; II. 320\n\nDiamond-cutter, the, I. 130; II. 5, 41, 50, 52, 60; III. 283, 305\n\ndibba-cakkhu, I. 320\n\ndibya-carita, II. 233\n\nDieng (Dihyang), III. 154, 165, 167, 179\n\nDigambara, I. 99, 112, 117, 119, 120\n\nD\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya, I. 98, 131, 142, 186, 278, 289, 295, 344; II. 137, 153;\nIII. 30, 42, 65, 102, 232, 297, 450\n\nDign\u00e2ga, III. 157, 172\n\nDiguet, III. 342\n\nDikung, III. 357\n\nDikungpa, III. 399\n\nDinh, III. 343\n\nDinh Tien Hoang D\u00ea, III. 344\n\nDin-i-ilahi, II. 270\n\nDinnaga, II. 94, 95\n\nDion Cassius, III. 431\n\nDionysius, III. 422\n\nDionysus (Krish\u1e47a), II. 137, 193\n\nDioscuri, I. 63\n\nD\u00eepa\u1e47kara (Buddha), I. 343; III. 246\n\nD\u00eepankara Srij\u00f1\u00e2na, III. 353\n\nD\u00eepava\u1e43sa, I. 255 _sq._, 262, 269; III. 13 _sq._, 50, 61, 306, 333\n\nD\u00eergha, III. 296\n\n_Discovery of living Buddhism in Bengal_, II. 113\n\nDivakara, III. 113\n\nDivakarapandita, III. 119\n\nDivar\u00fbpa, III. 173, 181\n\nDivination, I. 103\n\nDivy\u00e2vad\u00e2na, I. 299; II. 22, 58, 168; III. 166, 395, 439\n\nDjajabaja, III. 158, 171, 179\n\nDjajakatong, III. 159\n\nmDo, III. 374, 375\n\nDoko, III. 291\n\nDolgorouki, I. 341\n\nDom Constantino de Braganza, III. 26\n\nDona, I. 169\n\nDong Duong, III. 144, 149\n\nDon Juan Dharmapala, king, III. 26\n\nDor\u00e9, I. 341; II. 18; III. 307, 309, 314, 315, 317, 327\n\nDorje, III. 172\n\nDorje-dag, III. 398\n\nrDo-rJe-gCod-pa, III. 374\n\nrDor-je-legs, III. 393\n\nDoshabhogya, II. 236\n\nDouie, II. 273\n\nDpal-brTsegs, III. 379\n\nDramida, II. 233\n\nDravida, II. 100\n\nDravidians, I. xli, xv, xxxiii, 19, 118; II. 86, 141, 182, 195, 211,\n220, 279; III. 107, 132, 417 _sq._ _See also_ Tamils\n\nD\u1e5bishtiguru, II. 13\n\nDro\u1e47a Pur\u00e2na, II. 194\n\nDruids, I. iv; III. 429\n\nDualism, I. xliv, lxxx; II. 230, 237, 316, 318; III. 449\n\nDu Bose, III. 330\n\nDugpa, III. 371, 399\n\ndukkha, I. 44, 200, 203, 219\n\ndukkhakkhanda, I. 205\n\nDulva, III. 373\n\nDumoutier (_Les Cultes Annamites_), III. 342\n\nDundh\u00e2bhinossa, I. 269\n\nDundhubhissara, I. 269\n\nDuperron (Anquetil), II. 270\n\nDuration of the Law, the, II. 61\n\nDurbhanga, II. 253\n\nDurga, I. xv, 63; II. 118, 122, 126, 146, 228, 274 _sq._; III. 167,\n169, 185\n\nDurgapuja, I. lxx; II. 286\n\ndurjaya, II. 11\n\nDuroiselle, III. 49\n\nDusit, III. 94\n\nDutch (the), III. 34\n\nDutreuil du Rhins Mission, III. 190, 296\n\nDu\u1e6d\u1e6dhag\u00e2mani, III. 15, 17\n\nDv\u00e2dasanik\u00e2ya\u015b\u00e2stra, III. 304\n\nDvaita, II. 237, 318\n\ndvait\u00e2dvaitamata, II. 230, 318\n\nDv\u00e2para age, III. 144\n\nDv\u00e2rak\u00e2, II. 153 _sq._\n\nDv\u00e2ravat\u00ee, II. 153; III. 85\n\nDvita, III. 425\n\nDwarf incarnation, II. 147\n\nDyans, I. 63\n\nDynasties of the Kali Age, I. 15; II. 187\n\nDzungaria, III. 370\n\n\n_Early History of India_, I. 15; II. 76, 87, 187\n\nEarth (goddess), II. 275, 285\n\nEarthquake, I. 164, 168, 175; III. 440\n\nEast Bengal, II. 101, 102; III. 457\n\nEaster Island, III. 151\n\nEastern Ganga dynasty, I. 30\n  Han dynasty, II. 27\n  Monachism, I. 315\n  Tsin dynasty, III. 251\n\nEcbatana, III. 445\n\nEcclesiastes, I. 94, 132, 203\n\nEdessa, III. 414\n\nEdicts of Asoka, I. xxiii, 113, 264, 265, 270; III. 430\n\nEdkins, III. 54, 303, 309, 311\n\nEdmunds and Anesaki, III. 437\n\nEducation (Brahmans), I. 89; Buddhist, III. 70\n\nEgo, I. 230. _See_ Atman\n\nEgypt (Egyptians), I. lv, 218, 268; II. 174, 275; III. 430, 432, 450\n_sq._, 457\n\nEighteen Lohans, the, III, 239\n\nEight-fold path, I. 144, 200, 213, 214, 261\n\nEight Terrible ones, the, III. 392\n\nEitel, II. 88; III. 264, 330\n\nEk\u00e2kshapingal\u00e2, III. 145\n\nEka\u1e43sika, III. 62\n\nEkan\u00e2tha, II. 152\n\nEk\u00e2ntikadharma, II. 195\n\nek\u00e2rtha, II. 43\n\nEkata, III. 425\n\nek\u00e2tmapratyayas\u00e2ra, I. 83\n\nek\u00e2yma, II. 195\n\nEkottara Agama, I. 300; II. 48; III. 190, 296, 297\n\nEl\u00e2ra, III. 15, 17\n\n_Elements of Hindu Iconography_, II. 190\n\nElephanta, II. 165\n\nElias (Prophet), I. 63\n\nElichpur, I. 29\n\nEliot, II. 259\n\nElixir of Immortality, III. 263, 268\n\nEllora, I. xlii, 28; II. 206, 223; III. 178\n\nEmanations, II. 196\n\nEmotional theism, I. xxxiv, xli, c. _See also_ Bhagav\u00e2d G\u00eeta,\nChaitanya, Krishna, Rama, Vallabha\n\nEmpedocles, I. xix\n\nEmperor (Chinese, functions of), III. 234 _sq._\n\nEndere, III. 210\n\nEnlightenment, the, I. 136, 164, 165, 176\n\nEn sof, III. 462\n\n\u0395\u03c9\u03c3, I. 63\n\nEphthalites. _See_ Huns\n\nEpics (Indian), I. lxxiv, 53.  _See_ Mah\u00e2 Bh\u00e2rata and Ram\u00e2yana\n\n_Epigraphia Indica_, III. 298\n\n_Epigraphia Zeylanica_, III. 39, 41\n\nEpirus, I. 268; III. 430\n\nEpistles of St. Paul, I. lxxiv\n\n_Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art_, II. 18\n\nEran, II. 206\n\nErlangga, III. 171, 179\n\n\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3, I. 184; II. 253\n\nEroticism. _See_ Sakti worship\n\n_Essai de Bibliographie Jaina_, I. 105\n\n_Essays on the language, literature and religion of Nepal and Tibet_,\nII. 116\n\n_Essays on the Religion of the Hindus_, II. 262\n\nEssenes, III. 434, 436\n\nEttinghausen, II. 97; III. 40\n\nEuhemerism, III. 224\n\nEukratides, I. 22\n\nEuropean culture, I. xii, xlvi, lviii, lxi, lxiii, lxv _sq._, lxxvii,\n                     lxxix, xcvi _sq._; III. 428 _sq._\n\nEuthydemus, I. 22\n\nEverest (Mt.), III. 398\n\nEvil, I. lxxix.\n  _See_ M\u00e2ra\n\nEvolution of Man, I. 336\n\nExposure of dead, III. 450\n\nEye of Truth, the, I. 185, 186\n\n\nFa-chen, III. 291\n\nFa-chi-yao-sung-chung, III. 296\n\nFa-ch\u00fc-ching, III. 295\n\nFa-ch\u00fc-pi-y\u00fc-ching, III. 295\n\nFa Hsiang-tsung, III. 314\n\nFa Hsien, I. 157, 258, 259, 293, 342; II. 15, 19, 22, 56, 65, 76, 92\n_sq._, 125, 158; III. 17, 20, 24, 25, 29, 31, 44, 153, 155, 176, 191,\n201, 208, 213, 239, 253, 297, 298, 303, 307\n\nFa-hua, III. 310\n\nFa-Lin, III. 259\n\nFaljur, II. 286\n\nFall of Man, I. lxxx\n\nFa-men, III. 265, 268\n\nFan-Chan (king), III. 105\n\nFan Chieh, III. 300\n\nFan-hu-ta, III. 139\n\nFan-i-ming-i-chi, III. 287\n\nFanwang-ching, III. 284, 322, 324, 328, 332\n\nFan-yi (king), III. 139\n\nFaridu-'d-Din Attar, III. 461\n\nFarquhar, II. 242\n\nFarukhsiyar (Emperor), II. 271\n\nFarvadin Yasht, III. 450\n\nFa-Sh\u00ean, II. 33; III. 305\n\nFatalism, I. lxxvii, 99, 212\n\nFa-tsang, III. 315\n\nFa-yen, III. 319\n\nFa-y\u00fcan-chu-lin, III. 287\n\nFeer, III. 373\n\nFemale Gurus, II. 185\n\nFengshri, II. 282; III. 231 _sq._, 239, 325\n\nFenollosa, II. 18; III. 261\n\nFerghana, I. 28; III. 199, 263\n\nFergusson, III. 18, 74, 168, 194\n\nFernando, I. 293\n\nFestivals (Siam), III. 92, 332\n\nFicus Religiosa, I. 142\n\nFifth Buddhist Council, III. 65\n\nFihrist (the), III. 460, 461\n\nFilchner, III. 358, 400\n\nFilial Piety (Book of), III. 274\n\n_Fine Art in India_, II. 159\n\nFinot, J.A., I. xxv; II. 57, 100; III. 51, 53, 82, 102, 109, 124, 126,\n135, 137, 138, 139, 143\n\nFinot and H\u00fcber, III. 373\n\nFins (Finland), II. 9, 20, 67\n\nFire, I. 90, 100, 220, 231, 232; III. 202\n  sermon, I. 146\n\nFish Incarnation, II. 147\n\nFive Kings, III. 393\n\nFive Monks, I. 171\n\nFleet, I. 24; II. 202; III. 19, 21\n\nFo (Buddha), III. 240\n\nFolklore, I. liv, 101. _See_ Animism\n  element in Hindu culture, II. 32, 111, 114, 116; III. 441\n\nFoo-chow, III. 25\n\nForchhammer, III. 45, 51, 66, 67, 74\n\nFormless worlds, I. 3, 6\n\nFormosa, III. 151\n\nFormul\u00e6. _See_ Dhy\u00e2nis, Magic, Mantras, Tantras\n\nFortune, III. 27\n\nFo-shih, III. 162\n\nFo-t'o, III. 244\n\nFo-ton-t'ung-chi, III. 287, 307\n\nFo-t'u-ch'\u00eang, III. 250\n\nFoucher, I. 173; II. 15, 31, 76, 83, 122; III. 74, 219, 394\n\nFoulkes, II. 140, 215, 219\n\nFour Garrisons, the, III. 198, 205, 209\n\nFour Great Kings, the, I. 102; III. 239, 265, 326\n\nFour Truths, the, I. 49, 200, 211, 261\n\nFournereau, III. 80, 83, 85\n\nFranke, I. 24, 254, 278, 282; III. 14, 201, 238, 246, 320, 335, 348,\n380, 381, 396\n\nFrankf\u00fcrter, III. 95\n\nFravashis, II. 198; III. 221, 451\n\nFrazer, Sir. J.G., II. 285, 289\n\nFreewill, I. lxxvii\n\nFrench (the), I. 31; III. 112, 129, 236\n\nFrescoes, III. 54, 89, 130, 193, 194, 195, 213.\n  _See_ Ajanta\n\nFriar Gabriel, III. 150\n\nFu-chien, III. 203, 250\n\nFu-do, III. 392\n\nFu-fa-tsang-yin-y\u00fcan-ching, III. 306\n\nFu I, III. 259\n\nFujiwara period, III. 404\n\nFu-kien, III. 163, 269\n\nFunan, III. 7, 101, 103, 104, 139, 148\n\nFuneral rites, III. 333\n\n\nGabled Hall, the, I. 150\n\nGadadhar Singh, II. 260\n\nGadaveri River, I. 263\n\nGaggara Lake, I. 150\n\nGaharwar dynasty, I. 27\n\nGaing-Ok, III. 72\n\nGalilee, I. 181\n\nGandak River, I. 132\n\nGandan, III. 359, 399\n\nGa\u1e47\u1e0davy\u00fbha, II. 54; III. 283\n\nGandhabbas, I. 102\n\nGandhakuti, I. 150\n\nG\u00e2ndh\u00e2ra, I. xxx, xlix, 20, 87, 263, 282, 330; II. 16, 22, 53, 59, 70,\n81, 83, 90, 93, 96, 100, 159, 172; III. 7, 195, 210, 211, 213, 219,\n391, 449\n\nGandh\u00e2r\u00ee, III. 394\n\nGane\u1e63a, I. 58; II. 118, 144, 222, 253; III. 97, 148, 167, 169, 186,\n355, 383\n\nGanga, I. 121\n\nGanga R\u00e2j\u00e2, III. 139\n\nGanges, I. 135, 163; II. 145\n\nGanth\u00e2kara Vih\u00e2ra, III. 29\n\nGantho, II. 79\n\nGaotema, III. 218\n\nGarbe, II. 200, 296, 299, 303; III. 411 _sq._\n\nGarbhadh\u00e2tu, III. 317\n\nGarbha Upanishad, III. 175\n\nGargi, I. 74, 84, 94\n\nGarlog, III. 352\n\nGarnier, III. 111\n\nGaruda, II. 228; III. 147, 182, 186, 452\n\nGathas, I. 19, 51, 282\n\nGau\u1e0dap\u00e2da, I. cii; II. 74, 208, 316\n\nGaudapalin, III. 56\n\nGauramukha, III. 452\n\nGauri, II. 97\n\nGautam\u00eeya Tantra, II. 190\n\nGawilgarh, I. 121\n\nGaya, I. 24, 120; II. 101, 105, 125; III. 28, 453\n\nGazetteer of Bombay Presidency, II. 225\n  of Burma, III. 48\n  of India, II. 233\n\nGeden-dub, III. 359, 360\n\nGeiger, I. 259; III, 12, 14, 19, 21, 29, 31\n\nGelugpa, III. 358, 364, 397 _sq._\n\nGenerative forces, worship, I. lxxxvi.\n  _See_ Saktism\n\nGenesis, I. lxxiv; III. 424\n\nGeography, I. 335.\n  _See also_ Cosmogonies\n\nGeomancy (F\u00eang-shin), III. 322\n\nGerini, III. 79, 95, 96\n\nGetty, II. 26; III. 389\n\nGhanta, III. 172\n\nGhata J\u00e2taka, II. 153\n\nGhats (western), I. 31\n\nGhazi Miyan, III. 459\n\nGhazna, III. 461\n\nGhazni, I. 16\n\nGhor, I. 28\n\nGhora, II. 152\n\nGhost-worship, I. 10; III. 68, 331\n\nGhotamukha, I. 150\n\nGiao-Chi, III. 340\n\nGifford Lectures, I. lxvii, ciii\n\n_Giles's Chinese Dict._, III. 209, 223, 246, 259, 260, 266, 267\n\nG\u00eelgit, II. 93; III. 377\n\nGiribbaja, I. 147\n\nGirnar, I. 114, 121; II. 69, 203; III. 167\n\nG\u00eet\u00e2 Govinda, II. 157, 161, 219, 230, 242, 248\n\nGit\u00e2vali, II. 245\n\nGlaihomor, II. 159\n\n_Gleanings from the Bhaktamala_, II. 191, 245\n\nGnosticism, I. xii; III. 443 _sq._\n\nGoa, I. 31; III. 26, 417\n\nGobind Raut, II. 147\n\nGoburdhan, II. 159\n\nGod, I. 8, 47, 340; II. 73, 155; III. 224\n\nGod, the Invisible King, I. ciii\n\nGodan, III. 354\n\nGodavery River, I. 27\n\nGoddess-worship, I. lxxxvi; II. 127, 145, 189, 275 _sq._; III. 39,\n343, 390, 393\n\nGodhika, I. 197, 205\n\n_Gods of Northern Buddhism_, II. 26\n\nGoethe, I. lv\n\nGokul (shrine), I. lxxxvii\n\nGokul, II. 251, 290\n\nGokula, II. 154\n\nGokul Gosainji, II. 251\n\nGokulnathji, II. 251\n\n_Golden Bough_, the, II. 285\n\nGolden Temple, II. 268\n\nGolkonda, I. 29\n\nGomate\u015bvara, I. 120\n\nGondophores, I. 23; III. 415\n\nGonds, I. 27\n\nGop\u00ee, II. 154, 161, 229\n\nGopi Nath, II. 147\n\nGopurams, II. 207; III. 132\n\nGorakhpur, II. 263\n\nGor Baba, II. 145\n\nGordian, III. 447\n\nGore\u015bvara, II, 145\n\nGosain, II. 184, 255\n\nGos\u00e2la, I. 105, 112\n\nGosirsha, Mt., III. 212\n\nGospels, I. lxxiv, 180, 183; III. 440 _sq._\n\nGo\u015bringa, Mt., III. 209, 212, 215\n\nGosvami, II. 185, 251\n\nGotama (the Buddha), I. xix, xx, xxvii, xxix, 119, 120, 123, 129-252;\nII. 39, 130; III. 13, 71, 177. _See_ Buddha, the\n\nGoth\u00e2bhaya (king), III. 21, 40\n\nGotiputta, I. 269\n\nGotra, I. 107\n\nGovardhana, Mt., III. 147\n\nGoveiya, II. 147\n\nGovinda, II. 208, 232\n\nGovindacaryasv\u00e2mi, II. 188\n\nGovindapur, III. 453\n\nGovind Singh Guru, II. 268 _sq._\n\nGraeco-Bactrians, II. 20\n\nGraeco-Buddhist sculpture, II. 172\n\nGrand L\u0101ma, I. xxvii; III. 135, 358 _sq._ (list on p. 361)\n\nGranth, I. lxxii; II. 243 _sq._, 262, 268\n\nGrantha, II. 79\n\nGreat Epic of India, II. 169\n\nGreat Hero, the, III. 326\n\nGreat King of Glory, the, I. 172\n\nGreat Mother, I. 63\n\nGreat Satrapy, I. 23\n\nGreece (Greeks), I. xix, xxxi, xli, 19, 22, 65, 171; II. 70, 139; III.\n8, 191, 415\n\nGreen T\u00e2r\u00e2, the, III. 394\n\nGrenard, III. 200\n\nGrey Clergy, the, III. 277\n\nGrierson, I. xc, 282; II. 187, 191, 230, 237, 242, 244, 248, 253, 269;\nIII. 31, 298, 421, 458\n\nGrihastha, I. 89\n\nGrihya S\u00fbtras, I. 101; III. 94\n\nGroeneveldt, III. 153 _sq._\n\nGrowse, I. xc; II. 246 _sq._\n\nGr\u00fcnwedel, II. 20, 29, 84, 86, 87, 88, 126, 129, 143; III. 14, 62, 89,\n194, 195, 196, 219, 329, 349, 361, 380, 382, 385, 387, 389, 391\n\nG\u00fb\u1e0dha Vinaya, III. 40\n\nGuerinot, I. 105, 113, 114, 115\n\nGuhasiva, king, III. 26\n\nGuhyasam\u00e2ja, II. 128\n\nGujarat, I. 19, 29, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121; II. 105, 108, 109, 113,\n128, 154, 242, 248, 252, 276; III. 7, 155, 177, 453, 455, 461\n\nGujars (Gurjars), I. 25\n\ngu\u1e47a, I. 218, 304; II. 165, 196, 283, 298\n\nGu\u1e47abhadra, I. 114, 293; III. 297\n\nGu\u1e47a-k\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha, II. 57; III. 395\n\nGu\u1e47amati, II. 94\n\nGunavarman, III. 156, 176, 177\n\nGundaphar, king, III. 414\n\nGunning, III. 171\n\nGuptas (dynasty), I. xxxiii, 19, 24; II. 54, 65, 69, 87, 187, 206\n\nGurbh\u00e2rjus, II. 119\n\nGurkhas, II. 117; III. 368, 397\n\nGurmukhi, II. 269\n\nGuru, I. 226; II. 184, 267, 268; III. 91, 118, 146, 167, 169, 459\n\nGuru-parampar\u00e2-prabh\u00e2vam, II. 232\n\nGushi Khan, III. 304\n\nGuyuk, III. 354\n\nGwalior, I. 31; III. 453\n\nGy\u0101lpo, III. 365\n\nrGyud, III. 375, 376\n\n\nHachiman, II. 25\n\nHackin, I. 173\n\nHackmann, III. 303, 324, 329, 330\n\nHafiz, III. 461\n\nHaklena, III. 307\n\nHalebid, I. 30, 115\n\nHalima, III. 277, 359\n\nHami, III. 200\n\nHampi, I. 30\n\nHamsavat\u00ee, III. 52, 58, 80\n\nHan dynasty, III. 197, 203, 205, 208, 213, 244, 248\n\nHang Chou, III. 271, 280\n\nHan-mo, III. 209\n\nHanuman, II. 149, 253; III. 152\n\nHanumat, II. 239\n\nHan-Yu, III. 263, 266, 267, 288, 329\n\nHaoma. _See_ Soma\n\nHappiness, I. lxxvi, 136, 214, 225\n\nHappy Land S\u00fbtra, III. 218\n\nHara, II. 145; III. 114\n\nHardoon, Mrs., III. 291\n\nHardy, I. 173, 314; II. 170; III. 39\n\nHar Govind, II. 268\n\nHari, II. 115, 162, 200, 255, 257, 264, 268; III. 183, 425\n\nHaridas, II. 254\n\nHarihara, I. 30; II. 164; III. 106, 107, 114, 145, 181\n\nHarihar\u00e2laya, III. 119\n\nHarirayaji, II. 250\n\nHariti, II. 17\n\nHariva\u1e43sa, II. 158, 164, 230, 251, 279; III. 114, 424\n\nHarivarman, king, III. 141, 143, 304\n\nHarivarme\u015bvara, III. 146\n\nHarkisan Guru, II. 268\n\nHar-rai Guru, II. 268\n\nHarrison, Miss J.E., III. 434\n\nHarsha (Emperor), I. xxxix, 19, 25, 114; II. 77, 97 _sq._, 108, 127,\n206; III. 40, 44, 148, 260, 348, 454\n\nHarshacarita, I. 15; II. 97\n\nHartmann, I. 211\n\nHa\u1e6dhayoga, I. 304\n\nHathi Singh, I. 119\n\nHaug, I. 69\n\nHavret, III. 217\n\nHayagr\u00eeva, III. 169, 389, 392\n\nHazrat M\u00f4in-ud-Din Chisti, III. 459\n\nHeart of Jainism, I. 105\n\nHeaven and Earth Association, III. 319\n\nHeavens. _See_ Tusita and Paradise\n\nHegesandros, III. 432\n\nHei-an period, III. 403\n\nHeliodorus, II. 197\n\nHellenistic kingdoms, I. xxx, 22. _See_ Greece\n\nHells, I. 337; II. 24; III. 343\n\nvon Helmont, I. lv\n\nHelmund river, III. 3\n\nHemacandra, I. 117; III. 181\n  Abhidh\u00e2nacint\u00e2mani, II. 153\n\nHem\u00e2dri, III. 423\n\nHemavatikas, I. 259\n\nHephthalites. _See_ Huns\n\nHerakles (Siva), II. 137, 159\n\nHerat, III. 427\n\nHerder, I. lv.\n\nHermetic Literature, III. 432 _sq._\n\nHerodotus, III. 434\n\nHeruka, II. 129; III. 150\n\nhetu (cause), I. 207\n\nHevajra, II. 140; III. 391\n\nHevajrava\u015bit\u00e2, III. 355\n\nHideyoshi, III. 85, 339, 404\n\nHieizan, I. lxxxii; III. 404\n\nHimalayas, I. 25, 103. _See_ Nepal, Tibet\n\nHimis, III. 351, 397\n\nH\u00eenay\u00e2na, I. xxiv, xxx, xxxii, lxxv, 260, 333; II. 11, 80, 82, 101;\nIII. 52, 60, 82, 98, 112, 126, 150, 162, 177, 201, 202, 205, 213, 311,\n320, 323, 371, 404. _See_ Pali Canon\n  S\u00fbtras, III. 282\n  Vinaya, III. 285\n\nHindi, II. 188, 256, 269\n\n_Hindu Castes and Sects_, II. 163, 173, 177, 209, 210, 244, 261\n\n_Hindu Iconography_, I. xxxv, 58; II. 110, 165, 202; III. 382\n\nHinduism (Indian religion: social order), I. xi-civ _passim_, 5, 13,\n17, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48, 49, 64, 67, 127, 129; II.\n107-322; III. 5, 95, 103, 105, 112 _sq._, 145 _sq._, 150 _sq._, 188\n_sq._, 342, 382 _sq._, 411, 417 _sq._, 430, 447, 452, 457 _sq._\n\nHindu Kush, III. 6\n\nHindustan, II. 92\n\nHiranyad\u00e2ma, III. 117\n\nHira\u1e47yagarbha, II. 165, 202\n\nHirth, III. 235\n\n_Histoire de la Bienheureuse Margu\u00e9rite Marie_, II. 161\n\n_Histoire de la Litt\u00e9rature Hindoue_, II. 262\n\n_Histoire des Croyances Religieuses en Chine_, II. 284, 320\n\n_Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon_, III. 35\n\n_History of the Bengali Language and Literature_, II. 114, 187, 213,\n245, 279\n  _of Fine Art_, II. 172\n  _of Indian Architecture_, III. 18, 168\n  _of Indian Buddhism_, II. 63\n  _of Indian Shipping_, III. 102\n  _of Manikka-Vacagar_, II. 183\n  _of Nepal_, II. 116\n  _of Sect of the Mahar\u00e2j\u00e2s_, II. 250\n\nHodgson, B.H., II. 50, 116, 117\n  Shadworth, II. 39\n\nHoernle, I. 99, 105; II. 56; III. 191, 348\n\nHoernle and Barnett, I. 116\n\nH\u014dj\u014d Regents, the, III. 405\n\n_Holy Lives of the Azhvars_, I. 40\n\n_Home of Pali_, I. 282\n\nHo-nan, III. 193, 254\n\nHopkins, II. 157, 169\n\nHorapathaka, II. 59\n\nHor-gyi-skad-du, III. 377\n\nHoriuji palm-leaf manuscript, III. 394\n\nHormizd, III. 446\n\nHormuzd, III. 215\n\nHorse sacrifice, I. xxxviii, 68; III. 145\n\nHorus, III. 431\n\nHose and McDougall, III. 163\n\nHo-Shang (monk), II. 241, 330, 351\n\nHospitals, I. 115; III. 124\n\nHossho, III. 404\n\nHotri (priests), I. 52, 69, 100; III. 118\n\nHou-Ching, III. 254, 256, 257\n\nHou-Han-Shu, III. 248\n\nHou-Liang, III. 206\n\nHoysalas, I. 30, 114\n\nhphrul, III. 383\n\nHridaya, III. 376\n\nH\u1e5bishike\u1e63a, III. 426\n\nHsia, III. 269\n\nHsian Chou, III. 315\n\nHsiang-Chih, II. 95; III. 255\n\nHsiao-Cheng, II. 3\n\nHsiao-Chih Kuan, III. 312\n\nHsiao Tsung, III. 278\n  Wu, III. 289\n  Wu Ti, III. 251\n  Y\u00fc, III. 259\n\nHsien Sh\u00ean, III. 209\n  Tsung, III. 265, 278\n\nHsin-byu-shin, II. 7; III. 63\n\nHsing-An, III. 277\n\nHsin-yin, III. 306\n\nHsiung-nu, III. 197\n\nHsi-Yu-Chi, III. 225\n\nHsi-yu-ki, III. 225\n\nHs\u00fcan Chuang, I. xxxix, 25, 258, 275, 332; II. 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 18,\n22, 33, 51, 61, 65, 72, 74, 77 _sq._, 125, 126, 127, 158, 206, 244,\n280, 286; III. 16, 20, 24, 44, 53, 148, 190, 193, 201, 202, 204, 206,\n207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 239, 260, 293, 299, 300, 313, 453\n\nHsuan-Fo-pu, III. 314\n\nHsuan Ti, III. 153\n\nHs\u00fcan Tsung, III. 199, 261, 262, 268, 289\n\nHsu-Kuang-Ch'i, III. 279\n\nHsung-nu, III. 245\n\nhti, III. 72\n\nHu, III. 104, 217, 254\n\nHua-fo, III. 446\n\nHua-Hu Ching, III. 273\n\nHuai, III. 260, 261\n\nHuan, Emperor, III. 248\n\nHuang-wang, III. 140\n\nHua-y\u00ean, II. 54, 60; III. 282, 283, 287, 311 (s\u00fbtra), 374\n\nHua-yen-Ching, III. 315\n\nHua-yen-tsung, III. 315\n\nHuc, III. 358\n\nHu\u00e9, I. xxvii\n\nHugli, I. 25\n\nHu-hua-ching, III. 216\n\nHui-k'o, III. 308\n\nHui Kuo, III. 317\n\nHuin\u00eang, III. 287, 308\n\nHui-sh\u00eang, II. 96; III. 254\n\nHui Tsung, III. 273\n\nHui Yuan, III. 313\n\nHultzsch, II. 278; III. 431\n\nHulugu Khan, III. 349\n\nHuman sacrifice, I. xxxvi, 68; II. 168, 174, 193, 276, 288, 289\n\nHume, I. lv\n\nHumour (Buddha's), I. 172\n\nHunan, III. 253\n\nHundred Thousand N\u00e2gas, III. 381\n\nHundred Thousand Songs, III. 399\n\nHungarian affinities, I. 20\n\nHungjen, III. 308\n\nHung Wu, III. 289\n\nHun-Hui (Hun T'ien), III. 104, 107, 139\n\nHuns (Ephthalites, Hephthalites), I. xxxix, xli, 16, 19, 25; II. 54,\n65, 95, 119; III. 192, 198, 201, 209, 212\n\nHuo-chou (Kara-Khojo), III. 207\n\nHuth, II. 16, 32; III. 358, 361, 373, 380\n\nHuvishka, I. 24, 113; II. 64\n\nHuxley, T.H., I. lv, xciv, cii\n\nHwa-Shang-Zat-mo, III. 351\n\nHyderabad, I. 22, 266\n\nhymns, II. 104. _See_ Arvars, gathas\n\nhypnotization, I. 319. _See also_ Meditation, Yoga\n\n\nIbsen, I. lv\n\nI-Ching, I. 260; II. 3, 5, 18, 20, 22, 65, 82, 85, 90 _sq._, 125, 207;\nIII. 7, 20, 53, 62, 82, 85, 106, 108, 148, 162, 166, 176, 177, 239,\n285, 292, 299, 305, 322, 329, 330\n\n_Iconographie bouddhique_, II. 15, 31, 122\n\nIddhi, I. 317; III. 247\n\nidentification (union), II. 122\n\nIdiqutsh\u00e4hri, III. 195, 200\n\nIdolatry. _See_ Images\n\nIgatpuri, II. 203\n\nIgnorance, I. lxxx, 186, 207, 211\n\nI-Hs\u00fcan, III. 309\n\nIkhtiyar-ud-din Muhammad, II. 112\n\nIkken, II. 226\n\nIli river, I. 23\n\nIllusion (_see_ Maya), I. xliii, 45; II. 40, 264\n\n'Ilm, III. 182\n\nImages, I. lxx, 119, 120, 121, 139, 171; II. 6, 17, 104, 105, 260;\nIII. 39, 50, 53, 71, 74, 83, 89, 115, 130, 165, 219, 326 _sq._, 385,\n389, 450 _sq. See also_ Art\n\n_(de) Imitatione Christi_, II. 9\n\nImmortality, I. li, lv, 66\n\nIncarnations (_also_ avat\u00e2ras), I. xv, 11, 39, 343; II. 147, 170, 218,\n235, 239, 243, 251, 261; III. 359 _sq._, 365, 383\n\n_India, Old and New_, II. 157\n\nIndian Buddhism, II. 90 _sq._\n  literature, I. xiii, xiv, xvi, xix, lxxii _sq._, 15, 50, 130, 329;\n  II. 136-322 _passim_\n\n_Indische Religionsgeschichte_, II. 170\n\n_Indische Studien_, I. 116\n\nIndore, I. 31\n\nIndra, I. 59, 63, 333; II. 23, 99, 137, 158, 181, 270; III. 43, 109,\n129, 175, 186, 215, 228, 391\n\nIndrabhadre\u015bvara, III. 146\n\nIndragiri, III. 161\n\nIndrapura, III. 137, 144\n\nIndravarman, king, III. 110, 119, 141, 144, 149\n\nIndra Vishnu, I. 57\n\nIndriya, III. 175\n\nInfanticide, II. 269\n\nInquisition, I. xcii; III. 417\n\nInscriptions, I. xii, xxiii, xxviii, xxix, 16, 27, 99, 103, 113, 114,\n263 _sq._; II. 69, 113, 214, 225; III. 34, 40, 43, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55,\n57, 58, 59, 63, 67, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109,\n113, 114, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 135, 138, 450\n\n_Inscriptions Sanscrites de Camboge_, II. 169\n\n_International Congress of Religions_, II. 148\n\n_Introduction to Mysticism_, I. 136\n  _to Pancar\u00e2tra_, II. 128, 188, 189, 197\n\nIntuition, I. xcix; III. 278, 304\n\nIranians, I. 52, 54, 61, 63, 64; II. 68, 195; III. 189, 191, 208, 215,\n409 _sq._ _See also_ Persia, Zoroaster\n\n_Iranien Oriental_, III. 215\n\nIrenaeus, III. 444\n\nIrrawaddy, I. 120; III. 47, 48\n\nIsaac Luria, III. 462\n\nIs\u00e2na, II. 137, 198; III. 146\n\nI\u015b\u00e2navarman, III. 109, 114\n\nIsapur, II. 69\n\nIshta-devata, III. 391\n\nIsipatana, I. 140\n\nIsis, II. 287; III. 409, 429\n\nIslam, I. xxiii, xlii, xlvi, xlix, 17, 28, 115, 178, 238; II. 107,\n240; III. 3, 182, 409, 455 _sq._\n\nIsocrates, III. 434\n\nI\u015bvara, I. 85; II. 16, 304, 313, 316; III. 173, 444\n  Sa\u1e47hita, II. 195\n\nItivuttaka, I. 216; III. 299\n\nI-tsing, I. 258; III. 268, 329\n\nIyarpa, II. 232\n\nIyengar, Srinivas, II. 316, 320\n\n\nJackson, III. 156\n  (Williams), III. 450\n\nJacobi, I. 105, 116, 303; II. 74, 306, 311\n\nJade Emperor, the, III. 342\n\nJaffna, III. 26\n\nJagadguru, II. 210\n\nJagannath, I. 30; II. 114, 176, 238, 254, 267; III. 134\n\nJagat Gauri, II. 276\n\nJagatpati, III. 114\n\nJag-jivan-das, II. 266\n\nJag-manderlal Jaini, I. 105, 106, 117\n\nJahn, II. 238\n\nJaimini, II. 291, 310\n\nJain (Jainism), I. xix, xli, 28, 35, 49, 72, 95, 105, 106-123, 158,\n225, 241, 252, 268, 302; II. 69, 94, 97, 100, 110, 123, 128, 162, 212,\n214, 215, 230, 242; III. 19, 44, 178\n\nJain Literature, I. 95, 116, 286\n\nJaintia Parganas, II. 286\n\nJaipur, II. 266\n\nJalalu-'d-din er-Rumi, III. 461\n\nJalandhara, II. 78\n\nJambal, II. 368\n\nJambudv\u00eepa, III. 106, 425\n\nJames, Gospel of, III. 442\n\nJames, William, I. lxix, cii, 190, 309; II. 161\n\nhJam-pahi-dbyans (Jamyang), II. 19\n\nJanaka, king, I. 36, 87, 94\n\nJanapada, III. 118\n\nJangams, II. 227\n\nJan Teng, III. 246\n\nJ\u00e2nussoni, I. 223\n\nJapan, I. xiii, lxxxii, lxxxiii, 7, 202, 212, 238, 248, 259; II. 19,\n128; III. 9, 85, 290, 314 _sq._, 402 _sq._\n\nJapanese Tripitaka, III. 217, 291\n\nJapji, II. 267\n\nJaras, II. 154\n\nJaras\u00e2bda (Jara\u015bastra), III. 453\n\nJar\u00e2sandha, II. 193\n\nJ\u00e2taka, I. xxx, 157, 271, 279, 333; II. 97; III. 42, 84, 102, 103,\n166, 242, 284, 430, 441\n  Nid\u00e2na, III. 282\n\nJ\u00e2ti, I. 208; II. 178\n\nJa\u1e6dilas, I. 146\n\nJats, II. 271\n\nJaunpur, I. 29, 30\n\nJava, I. xi, xiii, xxvii, xxix; II. 4, 19, 27, 32, 118; III. 6, 102,\n103, 123, 140, 141, 151 _sq._, 457\n\nJavakum\u00e2ra, II. 153\n\nJayadeva, II. 230, 253\n\nJaya Hari Varman, III. 143, 147\n  Indravarmadeva, III. 142, 149\n\nJay\u00e2 Khya, II. 196\n\nJaya Samhit\u00e2, II. 195\n  Simhavarman, III. 141\n\nJayasthiti, II. 117\n\nJayaswal, II. 148\n\nJayata, III. 307\n\nJayavarman, III. 105, 109 _sq._, 134, 179\n\nrJe-btsun-dam-pa, III, 363\n\nJehangir, I. 30, 31, 90; II. 270\n\nJehol, II. 15\n\nJehovah, I. 8, 62, 183\n\nJej\u00e2kabhukti, I. 27\n\nJelaluddin, III. 456\n\nJenghiz Khan, III. 353\n\nJen Hsiao, III. 288\n\nJ\u00ean Tsung, III. 270, 274, 289\n\nJerome, III. 414\n\nJerusalem, I. 181; II. 107\n\nJetaka, II. 85\n\nJetavana, I. 151, 343; II. 56; III. 21, 33, 41\n\nJews, I. ci, 122, 181, 238; III. 424, 433, 434, 436, 461 _sq._ _See\nalso_ Kabbala\n\nJeyyapura, III. 58\n\nJh\u00e2na, I. 307, 311 _sq._\n\nJi, III. 404\n\nhJigs-med-nam-mk\u00e1, III. 381, 392\n\nJi-jitsu-shu, III. 304\n\nJina, I. 46, 110, 122; II. 26, 198; III. 123, 149\n\nJinagupta, III. 292\n\nJinamitra, III. 379\n\nJinaputra, III. 173\n\nJinasena, I. 114\n\nJinendra, III. 142\n\nJ\u00eeva, I. 107, 188, 197; II. 239, 312\n\nJ\u00eevaka, I. 153\n\nJ\u00eevaka Cint\u00e2mani, I. 118\n\nJiziya, III. 456\n\nJizo, II. 24; III. 221\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2na, II. 128, 189, 196; III. 149\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2na-bhramsa, I. lxxix\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2na-kanda, III. 444\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2mritas\u00e2ra, II. 195\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2pada, II. 205\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2prasth\u00e2na\u015b\u00e2stra, I. 299; II. 79, 81, 89; III. 286\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2varan\u00eeya, I. 107\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2varishtha, II. 152\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2ne\u015bvara, II. 257\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2nodaya, III. 28\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2ta, I. 111\n\nJ\u00f1\u00e2tadharma Kath\u00e2, I. 116\n\nJodo, II. 28, 60; III. 404\n\nJohnston, II. 18; III. 238, 325, 329, 333\n\nJolly, III. 41, 66\n\nJones, Rufus, II. 313\n\nJosaphat, III. 442\n\nJuan-Juan Huns, III. 208, 212\n\nJudaism. _See_ Jews\n\nJudgment, the, I. 228\n\nJu-lai, I. 133; III. 216\n\nJulian, II. 287\n\nJulien, I. 275; II. 3, 56; III. 105, 300, 330\n\nJumna, I. 25\n\nJupiter, I. 63\n\nJus prim\u00e6 noctis, III. 127\n\nJuynboll, III. 158, 171, 182\n\n\nKa, I. 218\n\nKaaba, II. 267\n\nKabbala, I. lv, ci; III. 401 _sq._\n\nKabir, I. lxxii, xc, 226; II. 162, 243, 244, _262 sq._, 274; III. 419,\n457\n\nKabir Panthis, I. xliv; II. 151, 185, 212; III. 422, 427\n\nKabul, I. 24; III. 193, 202, 297\n\nKacc\u00e2yana, III. 45\n\nKachiyappa, II. 220, 221\n\nKadamba dynasty, III. 51\n\nKadampa, III. 398\n\nK\u00e2danbar\u00ee, II. 97\n\nKadianis, I. xlvi\n\nKadphises, I. 23, 24\n\nKadur, II. 227\n\nKailasa, I. xcii, 27; II. 145, 206, 223; III. 97\n\nKaing Za, III. 67\n\nKaivalya, I. 304; II. 302\n\nKakusandha, I. 342; III. 177\n\nKakuttha, I. 164\n\nK\u00e2la, II. 204\n\nK\u00e2lacakra, II. 32, 118, 129, 198; III. 353, 357, 380, 386\n\nKalacuris, I. 27\n\nKaladi, II. 207\n\nK\u00e2lamukhas, II. 203\n\nKalan, III. 142\n\nKalanjar, II. 123\n\nK\u00e2-'lan-ta, II. 79\n\nKalasan, III. 167, 177\n\nK\u00e2lav\u00e2da, I. 98\n\nK\u00e2laya\u015bas, III. 313\n\nKalevala, I. 67\n\nKalgan, III. 390\n\nK\u00e2l\u00ee, I. lxxxix; II. 19, 115, 126, 146, 174, 274 _sq._; III. 145, 383, 459\n\nK\u00e2lid\u00e2sa, I. 56; II. 95; III. 376\n\nK\u00e2ligh\u00e2t, II. 286\n\nK\u00e2lika Pur\u00e2na, II. 276, 285, 289\n\nK\u00e2liki, III. 185\n\nKalima, III. 277\n\nKaling, queen of, III. 154\n\nKalinga, I. 25, 263, 266, 268; II. 100, 108; III. 25, 46, 155\n\nKalki (vishnu), I. 47; II. 148; III. 387, 392\n\nKallata, II. 223\n\nKalliana (bishop of), III. 416\n\nKalmuks, I. 5; III. 9, 366, 370\n\nKal\u00f6n, III. 367\n\nKalpa, I. 46, 334; II. 103\n\nKalpa S\u00fbtra, I. 116\n\nKalvar, II. 184\n\nKalyan, II. 225\n\nKalyani, I. 28; III. 34, 51, 57, 59\n\nKalzang, III. 367\n\nK\u00e2ma, II. 253; III. 146\n\nK\u00e2mac\u00e2ra, I. lxxviii\n\nK\u00e2machando, I. 216\n\nKamado, II. 24\n\nKamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan, III. 157, 166, 173, 180\n\nK\u00e2m\u00e2khy\u00e2, I. lxxxvii; II. 286, 288, 290\n\nKamalabari, II. 260\n\nKamala\u015bila, III. 379\n\nK\u00e2mar\u00e2go, I. 227\n\nK\u00e2mar\u00fbpa, II. 127\n\nK\u00e2ma \u015a\u00e2stras, III. 67\n\nKamban, II. 152\n\nKambojas, I. 268; III. 6\n\nKambuja (Kamvuja), III. 101\n\nKambu Svayambhuva, III. 101\n\nKami, I. 6\n\nK\u00e2mika Agama, II. 205\n\nKammath\u00e2na, III. 131\n\nKampang Pet, III. 89\n\nKa\u1e43sa, II. 153, 154, 157, 158; III. 424\n\nKa\u1e47\u00e2da, I. 109; II. 97, 292\n\nK\u00e2nadeva, II. 86; III. 307\n\nKanara (south), II. 222; III. 51\n\nKanarese, I. 118; II. 225, 233, 241; III. 431\n\nKanauj, I. 25, 27; II. 99, 100, 108, 109; III. 25\n\nKan-chih-pu-lo, III. 45\n\nKancipura, III. 45\n\nKancukas, II. 204\n\nKanculiyas, II. 279\n\nKandahar, I. 23; III. 25\n\nKandali, III. 161, 162\n\nKanda Pur\u00e2na, II. 220\n\nKandy, I. 268; III. 27, 41\n\nK'ang, III. 202\n\nK'ang Hsi (emperor), I. 267; III. 192, 237, 279, 300, 366, 380, 381\n\nKa\u1e47ha, II. 153\n\nKa\u1e47hay\u00e2ra, II. 153\n\nKanheri, II. 109\n\nKanh hoa, III. 138\n\nKanishka, I. xxvi, xxxi, 24, 113, 263, 273, 299, 300, 301; II. 5, 47,\n64 _sq._, 224; III. 24, 190, 198, 201, 208, 211, 213, 218, 239, 451\n\nKanjur, the, III. 280, 359, 372 _sq._, 397\n\nKansu, III. 192, 197, 206, 245, 251, 367\n\nKant, I. lv, lxxvii, 47; II. 5\n\nKanthaka, I. 175\n\nKantu, II. 79\n\nKanva dynasty, II. 79\n\nKao-ch'ang, III. 206\n\nKao-Sang-Chuan, III. 248\n\nKao-S\u00eang-Chuan, III. 156, 287, 293\n\nKao-Tsu, III. 259\n\nKapale\u015bvara, II. 203\n\nK\u00e2p\u00e2likas, II. 203\n\nKapila, II. 97, 148, 202, 296; III. 181\n  Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, III. 453\n\nKapilar, II. 219\n\nKapilavatthu (vastu), I. 131, 132, 148, 150, 161, 162, 169; II. 93\n\nKapimala, III. 307\n\nKapi\u015ba, III. 193, 217\n\nKapota, II. 15\n\nKapuralas, III. 42\n\nKaral\u00e2, II. 278\n\nK\u00e2ra\u1e47a \u015aar\u00eera, II. 32\n\nK\u00e2ra\u1e47avastha, II. 316\n\nK\u00e2ra\u1e47\u1e0davy\u00fbha, II. 13, 57, 72, 118; III. 348, 378\n\nKarashahr, III. 198, 200, 202, 204\n\nKar-gya-pa, III. 371, 398\n\nKarika, II. 74, 87, 300; III. 56\n\nKarikh, II. 147\n\nKarkal, I. 121\n\nKarma, I. xviii, xxi, xlviii, lix, lxxvii, 44, 94, 107, 123, 139, 188,\n194, 195, 208, 210, 212, 215, 230, 307; II. 10, 36, 37, 40, 221, 225,\n247, 294, 303; III. 66, 248, 253, 272, 444\n\nKarma-pa, III. 277, 371, 399\n\nKarmapundarika, II. 58\n\nKarpura Ma\u00f1jari, II. 282\n\nK\u00e2rshua, II. 187\n\nKarta, II. 261\n\nKartabhajjas, II. 261\n\nKart\u00e2 purukh, II. 268\n\nK\u00e2rtikeya, II. 142, 145; III. 43, 392\n\nkarun\u00e2, III. 173\n\nK\u00e2ry\u00e2vasth\u00e2, II. 316\n\nk\u00e2s\u00e2va, I. 241\n\nKashgar, I. xxvi, 24; II. 76; III. 197, 198, 200 _sq._, 211, 213, 361\n\nKashgarian manuscripts, I. 261; II. 48\n\nKashmir, I. xxxv, 15, 24, 262, 263, 269; II. 76, 78, 79 (Kipin), 80,\n81, 90, 91, 93, 95, 100, 109, 126, 127, 196, 204, 222-225; III. 5, 18,\n25, 176, 194, 211 _sq._, 307, 345, 420, 457\n\nKasi, I. 36, 74, 87, 88\n\nK\u00e2\u015bik\u00e2 (v\u1e5bitti), III. 142\n\nKasina, I. 314, 315\n\nKassapa (Buddha), I. 342; III. 177\n\nKasyapa (Kassapa), I. 146, 168, 196, 239, 240, 255, 256, 257, 269,\n288; II. 12; III. 374\n\nKasyapa Matanga, II. 71; II. 244, 248\n\nKasyapa parivarta, II. 60\n\nKat, III. 172\n\nKat\u00e2ha, II. 15\n\nKath\u00e2sarit S\u00e2gara, III. 425\n\nKath\u00e2 Upanishad, II. 180, 305\n\nKath\u00e2vattu, I. 259, 260, 261, 262, 271, 338, 339; II. 48, 66, 81, 101,\n124; III. 20\n\nKathiawar, I. 23\n\nKathina, I. 246; III. 81, 93\n\nKatmandu, II. 118\n\nK\u00e2ty\u00e2putra, II. 79\n\nK\u00e2ty\u00e2yan\u00ee, I. 79, 299; II. 53; III. 286\n\nKaulac\u00e2ra, II. 284\n\nKaundhiya, III. 104, 106, 107, 164\n\nKauravas, I. 55; II. 155\n\nKausambi, I. 25\n\nKaush\u00eetaka Br\u00e2hmana, II. 152\n  Upanishad, I. lxxvii, 76; II. 181\n\nKauth\u00e2ra, III. 138, 140, 147\n\nKautilya Artha\u015b\u00e2stra, II. 197; III. 102\n\nKaveri, II. 231\n\nKavi, III. 170\n\nKavindrarimathana, III. 121, 122\n\nKavitt\u00e2vali, II. 245\n\nK\u00e2vya, II. 83; III. 120\n\nKawi, III. 170, 186\n  R\u00e2m\u00e2ya\u1e47a, III. 158, 171\n\nK\u00e2ya, III. 181. See Trik\u00e2ya\n\nK\u00e2y\u00e2r\u00f4hana (K\u00e2r\u00f4v\u00e2n), II. 202\n\nKeats, II. 317\n\nKedah, III. 82, 153\n\nKedarnath, II. 227\n\nKediri, III. 158, 171\n\nKedoe, III. 155\n\nKegon, II. 54; III. 404\n\nKeith, Prof., I. 286; II. 187, 296, 311; III. 94\n\nKelani Sangha, III. 37\n\nKelts, I. 54; II. 276; III. 191\n\nKena Upanishad, II. 277\n\nKennedy, J., III. 445\n\nKerala, I. 26; III. 44\n\nKerman, I. 69\n\nKern, I. 261; II. 13, 32, 48, 53, 91; III. 19, 135, 153, 158, 164,\n169, 171, 172, 174, 328\n\nKertanagara, III. 159\n\nKesai Khati, II. 279\n\nKesar Sagar, III. 381\n\nKevaddha Sutta, I. 320, 331\n\nKevalin, I. 110, 120\n\nKevalom, I. 107, 108\n\nKhagan, III. 354, 362\n\nKhajarao Temple, I. xlii, 27; III. 178\n\nKhalsa, II. 271\n\nKhamdo, III. 364\n\nKhanda. _See_ Skandha\n\nKhandagiri, II. 114\n\nKhandakas, I. 277\n\nKhande Rao, II. 145\n\nKhandelwals, II. 177\n\nKhandesh, I. 29\n\nKhandoba, II. 145\n\nKharavela, king, I. 113\n\nKharosthi, III. 190, 207, 208, 210, 450\n\nKhasis, I. 14; III. 100\n\nmKhas-grub-rje, III. 359\n\nKhechar\u00ee, I. 306\n\nKhema (sage), III. 25\n\nKher-heb, II. 122\n\nKhilji Sultans, I. 29\n\nkh\u00een\u00e2savo, I. 229\n\nKhitan Tartars, III. 269\n\nKhmers, III. 46, 81, 82, 84, 100 _sq._, 138, 140\n\nKhojas, III. 455\n\nKhonds, II. 285, 289\n\nKhotan, I. xxv, 24; II. 19, 52, 76, 93; III. 6, 12, 190, 197 _sq._,\n207 _sq._, 348, 377\n\nKhri-gtsug-lde-btsan, king, III. 348, 378\n\nKhri-sron-lde-btsan, king, III. 348, 379\n\nKhuastanift, III. 446\n\nKhubilai (Khan), I. xxvi; II. 8, 48, 55, 141, 159, 200, 269, 273, 274,\n289, 338, 341, 354, 392\n\nKhubilghan, III. 360\n\nKhuddaka Nik\u00e2ya, I. 279, 289; III. 56, 297\n\nKhuddakapatha, I. 11, 339, 340; III. 92, 265\n\nKhusru, I. 26\n\nKhutuktu Khagan, III. 380\n\nKhwaja Khizr, III. 459\n\nKiangsi, III. 325\n\nKiangsu, III. 316\n\nKia Tan, III. 48\n\nKien Chin Fan Tsan, III. 300\n\nKingdom of Heaven, I. 224, 228\n  of Righteousness, I. 140\n\nKing Maha Vijit\u00e2's sacrifice, I. 172\n\nKings, status of, I. 36\n\nKing-Tsing, III. 217\n\nKins (Golden Tartars), III. 269\n\nKipin (Kashmir), II. 79; III. 203, 262\n\nKirghiz, III. 200, 207, 263\n\nKirtans, II. 254\n\nKirtipandita, III. 12, 123\n\nK\u00eerti varman Chandel, I. 27\n\nKisori Bhajan, II. 185\n\nKistna, I. 27\n\nKittel, II. 143\n\nKittisiri R\u00e2jasiha, III. 36\n\nKlaproth, III. 201\n\nKle\u015ba, II. 88\n\nKnebel, III. 168, 179\n\nKnowledge, I. xvi, xvii, lxxii, 74, 75, 78, 220. _See_ J\u00f1\u00e2na\n\nKnox (Robert), III. 35\n\nKoch, II. 280\n\nKobo Daishi, III. 317\n\nKofu kaji, II. 88\n\nKoguryu, III. 336\n\nKohmari hill, III. 209\n\nKoki, III. 52, 108, 156\n\nKokka, III. 242, 356\n\nKokonor lake, III. 362\n\nKoliyas, I. 149, 169\n\nKon\u00e2gamana, I. 342; III. 177\n\nKon\u00e2rak, II. 114; III. 453\n\ndKon-brtsegs, III. 374\n\nK\u00f4n Ch\u0169\u030fk, III. 95\n\nKonkan, II. 108\n\nKonow (Sten), I. xxxi; II. 52\n\nK\u00f6ppen, II. 90; III. 274, 357, 361\n\nKoran, I. lxxiv, 255; II. 263, 268, 293\n\nKorea, I. xxiv, xxvi; III. 9, 250, 290, 312, 336 _sq._, 402\n\nKorean Tripitaka, III. 296\n\nKormusta, III. 215\n\nde K\u00f6r\u00f6s (Csoma), II. 15; III. 351, 373, 375, 380, 387\n\nKosala, I. 20, 95, 131, 148, 149, 150, 157, 161, 162; II. 93\n\nKo\u1e63ha, III. 145, 146\n\nKo\u1e6dihoma, III. 120\n\nKottavai, goddess, II. 276\n  (victorious), II. 213\n\nKovat, III. 111\n\nKra (Isthmus), III. 6, 103\n\nKrat, III. 112\n\nKraton, III. 160\n\nKretanagara, III. 169\n\nK\u1e5bish\u1e47a, I. xv, xxxv, xlv, 48, 100, 169, 333; II. 33, 72, 73, 115,\n119, 137, 147, 149 _sq._, 190 _sq._, 195, 200, 229 _sq._, 243; III.\n147, 186, 417, 420, 423\n\nKrishna I, king, I. 27\n\nK\u1e5bish\u1e47a das, II. 113\n\nKrishna deva, I. 30\n\nK\u1e5bish\u1e47aite literature, II. 244 _sq._\n\nKrishts, III. 424\n\nKrittivasa, II. 245\n\nKriya, II. 128, 189\n\nKriya Sakti (force), II. 196\n\nKriyayoga, I. 304, 307\n\nKrom, III. 172\n\nKshanti, III. 173, 304\n\nKshatriya, I. 34, 35, 36, 87, 88, 92, 134, 169, 252, 272, 341; II.\n148, 227; III. 50, 106, 183\n\nKshemar\u00e2j\u00e2, II. 223\n\nKshemendra, II. 130\n\nKshetrapati, I. 102\n\nKshitigarbha, II. 13, 18, 24; III. 218,\n   221, 283\n\nKshudraka Nik\u00e2ya, III. 299. _See_ Khuddaka Nik\u00e2ya\n\nKuan Shiyin, II. 14\n\nKuan Ti, III. 326, 332\n\nKuan-Ting, III. 312\n\nKuan-tzu-tsai, II. 14, 17\n\nKuan-Yin, I. lxxxvii; II. 14, 17, 18, 24; III. 221, 226, 238, 239,\n261, 327, 343\n\nKubera, III. 392\n\nKublai Khan, III. 25, 79, 388\n\nKucha, I. xxvi; III. 190, 198, 200, 202, 203-205, 211, 213, 251, 372\n\nKuchanese, I. 276\n\nKuei-Chi, III. 315\n\nKu K'ai-Chih, III. 242\n\nKu Kang, III. 163\n\nKuku, III. 125\n\nKuku Khoto, III. 370\n\nKul\u00e2rnava Tantra, II. 281\n\nKula\u015bekhara, II. 231\n\nKulika, III. 386\n\nKull\u00fbka Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da, II. 281\n\nKulottunga, II. 233\n\nKum\u00e2ra, II. 127\n\nKum\u00e2rabh\u00fbta, II. 19\n\nKum\u00e2ragupta, II. 95\n\nKum\u00e2rajiva, II. 41, 55, 84, 85; II. 203 _sq._, 210, 247, 251, 294,\n313, 321, 373\n\nKum\u00e2ralabdha, II. 86, 92\n\nKum\u00e2rap\u00e2la, I. 114\n\nKum\u00e2rata, II. 86; III. 307\n\nKum\u00e2r\u00ee, II. 278\n\nKum\u00e2rila Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da, I. xl; II. 109, 206 _sq._, 310, 311\n\nKumbhandas, I. 102\n\nKumbhipathias, I. xl; II. 116\n\nKumbum, III. 358, 367, 381\n\nKun\u00e2la, I. 271\n\nKu\u1e47\u1e0dagga, III. 107, 164\n\nKu\u1e47\u1e0dalini Devi, I. 310; II. 283, 320\n\nKunjarakarna, III. 166, 172, 174, 180\n\nKuo-Shih, III. 234, 251, 273, 277, 278, 306, 355\n\nK\u00fcr\u00e4, III. 363\n\nKural, II. 215\n\nKuren, III. 363\n\nKurma Pur\u00e2na, II. 140, 163\n\nKurnool, II. 237\n\nKurukshetra, I. 55\n\nKurukull\u00e2, III. 389, 394\n\nKurundi commentary, III. 30\n\nKurus, the, I. 20, 87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 149\n\nKushan Empire, I. xxvi, xxxi, xli, 19, 22, 23, 24, 301; II. 64 _sq._,\n83, 88, 202, 276; III. 8, 190, 198, 451\n\nKushashu, III. 314\n\nK\u00fc-shih (Kiu-shih), III. 206\n\nKushto, III. 424\n\nKusikas (Five), III. 174\n\nKusin\u00e2r\u00e2, I. 162, 164, 165, 166, 169, 255; II. 93\n\nK\u00fb\u1e6dadanta Sutta, I. 131\n\nKutag\u00e2ra Hall, I. 159\n\nKutb-ud-din-lbak, I. 28; II. 112\n\nKuvera, III. 145\n\nKwannon, II. 17\n\nKwan-shi-yin, II. 93, 125\n\nKwan-yin, II. 275; III. 284, 321\n\nKyansith\u00e2 (king), III. 56\n\nKyocv\u00e2 (king), III. 56\n\nKyoto, III. 291\n\n\nLabberton, III. 171\n\nLachen, III. 352\n\nLadak, III. 370, 399\n\nLahore, I. 138; II. 267\n\nLaity, I. 122, 249 _sq._; II. 120; III. 330\n\nLajonqui\u00e9re, III. 82\n\nLaksha\u1e47a-vimukta-h\u1e5bidaya \u015a\u00e2stra, II. 10\n\nLakshmana, III. 43\n\nLakshm\u00ee, II. 19, 145, 233, 234, 320; III. 114, 182, 393\n\nLakshminda Bhumisvara, III. 149\n  Loke\u015bvara, III. 145, 149\n\nLakulin (Lakulisa), II. 202\n\nLala Baba, II. 255\n\nL\u00e2lit\u00e2ditya, king, II. 109\n\nLalitavajra, II. 126\n\nLalita Vistara, I. 136, 173, 176; II. 22, 26, 28, 53; III. 166, 170,\n284, 292, 374, 442\n\nLalitpur, I. 267\n\nLall\u00fb J\u00ee L\u00e2l, II. 188\n\nLamaism, I. xi, xxvi, xlix, 246; II. 125, 128, 260; III. 8, 200, 274,\n302 _sq._, 318, 321, 345 _sq._, 382 _sq._\n\nLamas, II. 122; III. 234, 274\n\nLamphun, III. 79\n\nLangdarma (king), III. 212\n\nLangha-hsin, III. 153\n\nLang-'pi-ya, III. 154\n\nLanja script, III. 301\n\nLanka, I. 72; II. 149\n\nLank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra S\u00fbtra, II. 19, 53, 60, 74, 84; III. 276, 284, 292, 374\n\nLaos, III. 46, 79, 124\n\nLaotzu, I. xix; III. 216, 245, 246\n\nLasik, II. 147\n\nL\u00e2\u1e6da, II. 102\n\nLatin, I. 63; III. 191\n\nLatsun Ch'embo, III. 371\n\nLaufer, III. 192, 348, 353, 373, 380, 381\n\nLaukikas, II. 210\n\nLavater, I. lv\n\nLavo, III. 79\n\nLaw Books, II. 187\n\nLeclerc, A., III. 112\n\nLe Coq, III. 194, 212 _sq._, 216, 446\n\nLeft-handed Tantrism, II. 125, 283\n\nLe Gall, III. 272\n\nLegge, I. 258; III. 153, 210\n\nLeh, II. 278\n\nLengyen Ching, II. 56, 60; III. 311\n\nLeper king, III. 110\n\nLessing, I. lv\n\nLetterless One, the, II. 265\n\nL\u00e9vi, S., I. 283, 292; II. 14, 42, 80, 83, 87, 88, 116, 119; III. 21,\n105, 191, 202, 204, 215, 221, 297, 298, 315, 326, 388\n\nLeviticus, I. 278\n\nLhamo, III. 392\n\nLhasa, I. xxvii; II. 15; III. 345 _sq._, 389\n\nLi, III. 207\n\nLiang Chih, III. 278\n\nLiang dynasty, II. 22; III. 153, 161, 252, 253, 287\n\nLiang (southern), III. 203, 204\n\nLiao Chai, I. 318\n\nLiccharis, I. 111, 158, 161, 163, 169; III. 24\n\nLi-Chien, III. 265\n\nLichtenberg, I. lv\n\nLidaiya, king, III. 83\n\nLi dynasty, III. 340, 341\n\n_Life and sayings of R\u00e2ma Krishna_, II. 162\n\n_Life and teachings of Sri Madhva-Charyar_, II. 240\n\n_Life of the Buddha_, I. 99, 173, 259; II. 81, 103\n\n_Life of Vasubandhu_, II. 78\n\nLight, Paradise of, III. 220\n\nLigor, III. 6, 80, 82, 96, 103\n\nLi-Hu\u00e9 Ton, Emperor, III. 344\n\nL\u00eel\u00e2, II. 145, 222\n\nL\u00eel\u00e2uja, I. 136\n\nL\u00eel\u00e2vajsa, II. 126\n\nLi Lung Mien, III. 269\n\nLin Chi, III. 309\n\nLing, III. 399\n\nLinga Pur\u00e2na, II. 140, 187, 202\n  \u015aar\u00eera, II. 32, 300\n  worship, I. xlvi, 17, 115; II. 142 _sq._, 213, 238; III. 53, 97, 106,\n  114, 115, 146, 169, 394\n\nLingavants (Lingayats), I. 28, 42; II. 176, 179, 220, 225-227, 318;\nIII. 114, 418\n\nLinguistics, I. 20, 63; III. 100, 138, 151, 189, 190, 191, 192. _See\nalso_ Alphabets, Translations, Transliterations\n\nLin-I (Champa), III. 139\n\n_Liste Indienne des Actes du Buddha_, I. 173\n\nLi-t'ang, III. 367\n\n_Literatur und Sprache der Singhalesen_,  III. 12\n\nLi Thai To (Emperor), III. 344\n\nLithuanian forms, I. 63\n\nLiturgy of Kuan-yin, III. 276\n\nLiu Hsieh, III. 255\n\nLiu Mi, III. 288\n\nLiu Sing dynasty, III. 154, 251, 253\n\nLiu-t'o-pa-mo, III. 105\n\nLiu Tsung Yuan, III. 261, 263\n\nLiu Yuan, III. 356\n\n_Livre des esprits et des immortels_,  II. 18\n\nLobnor, Lake, II. 93; III. 188, 210\n\nLocan\u00e2, III. 173\n\nLochana, III. 327\n\nLochen, III. 352\n\nLodge, Sir. O., I. 11\n\nLodi dynasty, I. 29, 30\n\nLogan, III. 101\n\nLogic, II. 91, 94, 131\n\nLogos, II. 293; III. 419, 433\n\nLohans, the, III. 326 _sq._\n\nLohapasada (Copper Palace), III. 18\n\nLoi K\u0103th\u014fng, III. 94\n\nLok\u00e2c\u00e2rya, II. 257\n\nLok\u00e2kshi, III. 292, 313\n\nLokamahadevi, III. 116\n\nLokan\u00e2th, II. 15\n\nLokapa\u00f1\u00f1atti, III. 329\n\nLok\u00e2yatikas, II. 97, 320\n\nLok\u00e2yatam, III. 44\n\nLoke\u015bvara, II. 13, 15; III. 116, 122, 123, 173\n\nLokottarav\u00e2dins, II. 59, 102; III. 202\n\nL\u00f3k pr\u00e1h s\u014fk\u014fn, III. 131\n\nLokuttara, I. 263\n\nbLo-lden-shes-rab, III. 380\n\nLolei, III. 115\n\nLombok, III. 183\n\nLongimanus, I. 341\n\nLophburi, III. 85, 97\n\nLorgeon, III. 36\n\nLo-shih-fu, III. 327\n\nLo-tsa-va, III. 379\n\nLotsu, III. 318\n\nLotus, the, I. 130; II. 4, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28, 48, 50, 51, 52, 60,\n66, 84, 103, 125, 279; III. 20, 215, 218, 219, 294, 310, 311, 312,\n328, 375, 405, 438\n\n_Le Lotus de la bonne Loi_, II. 52\n\nLotus school, III. 312\n\nLourdes, I. 327\n\nLovek, III. 111, 113\n\nLowis, C.C., III. 48\n\nLoyang, III. 244, 248, 255, 308, 313\n\nLoyola, Ignatius, I. 315\n\nLozang, III. 363\n\nLu (Vinaya) school, III. 287\n\nLuang Prabang, III. 80, 83, 109\n\nLu-Chin-Yuan, III. 272, 278\n\nLucknow, II. 252\n\nL\u00fcders, II. 197; III. 190, 191\n\nLudwig, III. 280, 368\n\nLuipa, II. 126\n\nL\u00fc Kuang, III. 203, 206\n\nLumbini Park, I. 132, 174, 269\n\nLung-hu-shan, III. 237\n\nLung-men, III. 193, 314\n\nLupercalia, I. 101\n\nL\u00fc-tsang, III. 284\n\nL\u00fc-tsung, III. 309, 316 _sq._\n\nLy, III. 141\n\nLyall, Sir. Alfred, I. lxiii, 166; III. 412\n\n\nMacauliffe, II. 256, 262 _sq._\n\nMacdonell, II. 139\n\nMacdonell and Keith, I. 134; II. 152\n\nMacedonia, I. 268; III. 430\n\nMacGowan, III. 329\n\nMacnicol, II. 251\n\nMadagascar, III. 151, 183\n\nMadhab Deb, II. 191, 259\n\nM\u00e2dhava, I. lxxii, 125; II. 110, 291; III. 457\n\nM\u00e2dhurya, II. 255\n\nM\u00e2dhva Ac\u00e2rya, I. xliv; II. 73, 163, 228, 237 _sq._\n\nM\u00e2dhvas, II. 73, 163, 239, 241, 318; III. 329\n\nM\u00e2dhva Samprad\u00e2ya, II. 251\n\nMadhvavijaya, II. 241\n\nMadhyam\u00e2gama, III. 297\n\nMadhyamak\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, III. 373\n\nM\u00e2dhyamika school, I. 260; II. 37, 73, 74, 85, 90, 102, 103, 211, 315;\nIII. 285, 296, 304, 305, 373\n\nM\u00e2dhy\u00e2ntavibh\u00e2ga \u015a\u00e2stra, III. 123\n\nMadjapahit, III. 141, 158, 159, 171 _sq._, 183\n\nMadras, I. xli, 19, 26; III. 416\n\nMadrolle, III. 339\n\nMadura (Modura), I. 26, 114; II. 214, 222; III. 44\n\nMadya, II. 284\n\nMagadha, I. xl, 18, 20, 21, 87, 95, 131 _sq._, 147, 149, 156, 161,\n163, 169, 283; II. 93, 96, 100, 102, 105, 124, 125, 129; III. 24, 256\n\nMagas, I. 268; III. 425, 451\n\nMaghar, II. 263\n\nMagic, I. lxxxvi, lxxxviii, 67; II. 66, 87, 94, 113, 121, 126, 190,\n274 _sq._, 311; III. 117, 182, 265, 316 _sq._, 333, 350, 385. _See\nalso_ Mantras, Tantras\n\n_Magic im Alten-Aegypten_, II. 122\n\nM\u1ea1gna Mater, III. 429\n\nMah\u00e2 A\u1e6d\u1e6dhakath\u00e2, III. 30\n\nMah\u00e2balip\u00fbr, III. 106 (Seven Pagodas)\n\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, I. xxxviii, lxxiv, xc, xci, 55, 59, 288, 332; II. 114,\n143, 146, 151 _sq._, 168, 182, 186, 187, 193, 200, 206, 279, 306, 317;\nIII. 102, 120, 167, 186, 424\n\nMah\u00e2-bh\u00e2shya, I. 303; II. 156, 157\n\nMah\u00e2-Bodi-Va\u1e43sa, I. 255\n\nMah\u00e2brahm\u00e2, I. 102; III. 43\n\nMah\u00e2cinakram\u00e2c\u00e2ra, II. 21\n\nMah\u00e2cinatantra. II. 126\n\nMah\u00e2deva, I. 48; II. 145; III. 146, 176, 167\n\nMah\u00e2devad\u00e2sa, II. 115\n\nMah\u00e2devi, I. 68; II. 128, 146\n\nMah\u00e2dhammakathi, III. 31\n\nMah\u00e2ga\u1e47apatitantra, III. 375\n\nMah\u00e2gandi, III. 73\n\nMah\u00e2g\u00eeta Med\u00e2nigy\u00e2n, III. 68\n\nMah\u00e2guhya, III. 173\n\nMah\u00e2guru, III. 179\n\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2la, II. 105, 140, 145; III. 169, 355, 391, 392\n\nMah\u00e2-k\u00e2la-cakra, III. 67\n\nMah\u00e2-k\u00e2la-Tantra, III. 375\n\nMah\u00e2karuna, II. 14, 15\n\nMah\u00e2-karuna-candin, II. 14\n\nMah\u00e2kassapa, I. 168; III. 23, 307\n\nMah\u00e2kut, III. 116, 147\n\nMah\u00e2mati, II. 54\n\nMah\u00e2m\u00e2tris, II. 286\n\nMah\u00e2m\u00e2yopanishad, II. 210\n\nMah\u00e2megha garden, III. 16\n  S\u00fbtra, III. 261\n\nMah\u00e2muni, III. 65\n\nMah\u00e2nadi, I. 263\n\nMah\u00e2n\u00e2ma, III. 15, 28\n\nMah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra, I. lxxxviii, 67; II. 278, 281, 282, 285, 289\n\nMah\u00e2pad\u00e2na sutta, I. 134\n\nMah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2\u1e47a sutta, I. lxxiii, 135, 161, 164; II. 21, 58; III. 23,\n284, 378\n\nMah\u00e2prajapati, I. 133, 159\n\nMah\u00e2prajn\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 \u015a\u00e2stra, II. 52, 84, 85; III. 283, 297\n\nMah\u00e2pras\u00e2d, III. 422\n\nMah\u00e2purusha, I. 341\n\nMah\u00e2purushias, II. 260\n\nMah\u00e2 R\u00e2j\u00e2, I. 131; II. 250\n\nMah\u00e2r\u00e2j\u00e2dhammathat, III. 67\n\nMah\u00e2r\u00e2shtra, I. 31; II. 108\n\nMah\u00e2r\u00e2shtri (Prakrit), I. 116; III. 12\n\nMah\u00e2saccaka S\u00fbtra, I. 135\n\nMah\u00e2 Saman, I. 7; III. 43\n\nMah\u00e2samaya sutta, I. 103, 278\n\nMah\u00e2sammatiyas, I. 299\n\nMah\u00e2sangha, I. 290\n\nMah\u00e2sanghika, I. 258, 260, 262, 263, 298, 299, 332; III. 19, 212, 285\n(Vinaya), 374\n\nMah\u00e2sang\u00eeti, I. 254, 258, 290\n\nMah\u00e2sang\u00eetika, I. 258, 262\n\nMah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta S\u00fbtra, II. 57, 58, 61; III. 282, 283\n\nMah\u00e2sena, III. 15, 18, 21, 40\n\nMah\u00e2siddhas, II. 128; III. 385\n\nMah\u00e2sth\u00e2mapr\u00e2pta, II. 13, 23, 30; III. 327\n\nMah\u00e2-sudassana, I. 166\n\nMah\u00e2sukhak\u00e2ya, II. 123\n\nMah\u00e2ta\u1e47hasan-khaya sutta, I. 197\n\nMah\u00e2thapa, III. 18\n\nMah\u00e2thera, III. 81\n\nMah\u00e2tmyas, III. 215\n\nMah\u00e2vagga, I. 137, 142, 143, 145 _sq._, 206, 257, 277, 289; III. 62\n\nMah\u00e2-vairocan\u00e2-bhi-sambhodhi, II. 58; III. 284\n\nMah\u00e2-va\u1e43sa, I. 257, 259, 269; III. 13 _sq._, 56, 86, 124, 306\n\nMah\u00e2-va\u1e43sat\u00eek\u00e2, III. 15\n\nMah\u00e2varman, III. 109\n\nMah\u00e2vastu, I. 173, 263, 282; II. 9, 22, 27, 58\n\nMah\u00e2vibh\u00e2sha-\u015b\u00e2stra, II. 169; III. 286\n\nMah\u00e2vidy\u00e2s, II. 286\n\nMah\u00e2vih\u00e2ra, I. 276, 292; III. 16, 19, 21, 29, 31, 32, 40, 59, 60, 297\n\nMah\u00e2v\u00eer, I. xix, 95, 105, 108, 110 _sq._, 119, 123, 129\n\nMah\u00e2vrata ceremony, I. 100\n\nMah\u00e2vr\u00e2tins, II. 203\n\nMah\u00e2vyutpatti, III. 379\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na, I. xxvi _sq._, 220, 260, 263, 275, 325, 332; II. 1, 131,\n181; III. 39, 40, 51, 52, 60, 84, 112, 120 _sq._, 142, 145, 149, 156,\n162, 166, 177, 202, 203, 209, 213, 215, 218 _sq._, 320, 329, 404, 451\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-dharma-dh\u00e2tvavi\u015beshata-\u015b\u00e2stra, II. 10\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-\u015b\u00e2stra, II. 84\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, II. 11, 32, 42, 48, 57, 125; III. 219, 286, 315\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na S\u00fbtras, III. 282\n\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2nist Canon, II. 47 _sq._\n\nMah\u00e2yasa, III. 58\n\nMah\u00e2yuga, I. 334\n\nMahendra (Mt.), III. 119\n\nMahendravarman, III. 102\n\nMahe\u015bamurti, II. 165\n\nMahe\u015bvara, III. 83\n\nMahima Dharma, II. 115\n\nMahinda, II. 214; III. 5, 12, 16, 29, 30, 44, 333\n\nMahintale, III. 43\n\nMahip\u00e2la, II. 111, 128\n\nMahis\u00e2sakas, I. 298; III. 285\n\nMahi\u015bvara, II. 202\n\nMahmud of Ghazni, I. 16, 28; III. 455, 458\n\nMahrattas. _See_ Marathas\n\nMai (mother) section, II. 266\n\nMaidari, II. 21\n\nMaidari Khutuktu, III. 363\n\nMailapur, III. 420\n\nMailla, III. 256, 276\n\n_Maithili Christomathy_, II. 244\n\nmaithuna, II. 87, 124, 125, 284\n\nMaitray\u00e2na Upanishad, I. 83; II. 75, 182, 310\n\nMaitreya, I. 47; II. 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, 83, 88, 102; III. 20\n(images), 120, 166, 177, 210, 213, 216, 261, 315, 318, 326, 389, 451\n\nMaitreyi, I. lxxiii, 74, 79, 80, 159, 232\n\nMaitri, III. 173\n\nMajjhima, I. 269\n\nMajjhima Nik\u00e2ya, I. 143, 197, 278, 289, 342; III. 247, 297, 422, 441\n\nMajuli Island, II. 260\n\nMakhan Chor, II. 160\n\nMakkhali Gosala, I. lxxviii, 97, 99, 111, 145\n\nMalabar, II. 148, 207, 219; III. 416, 455\n\nMalacca, III. 85, 163\n\nMalad\u00e2kuthara, III. 148\n\nMalakuta, II. 15, 100; III. 44\n\nMal\u00e2t\u00ee, I. lxxii\n\nMalaya (Archipelago, etc.), I. xiii, xxviii, 16; II. 82; III. 81, 82,\n100, 151-187\n\nMalaya (Mt.), II. 54\n\nMalay languages, III. 138\n\nM\u00e2likabuddhi, III. 307\n\nM\u00e2lik\u00e2deva, I. 269\n\nMalik Ibrahim, III. 161\n\nMalik Kafur, I. 30\n\nM\u00e2lk\u00e2nas, III. 459\n\nMalkhed, I. 27\n\nMallas, I. 166, 168 _sq._; III. 22\n\nMallian, I. 165\n\nM\u00e2lunkyaputta, I. 228\n\nMalwa, I. 25, 27, 29; II. 251, 271\n\nMalwatte, III. 37, 41\n\nM\u00e2mak\u00ee, III. 173\n\nM\u00e2mallapuram, III. 74\n\nM\u00e2\u1e43sa, II. 284\n\nMa-ning, III. 295, 300\n\nManura, III. 307\n\nMan (sect), III. 73\n\nManas, II. 44, 300\n\nManasa, II. 276, 279\n\nM\u00e2nava-dharma-\u015b\u00e2stra, III. 66\n\nManavala Mah\u00e2muni, II. 237\n\nManchu dynasty, I. xxvi, 248; III. 279, 365\n\nMan-Chu-Shih-li, II. 19\n\nMa\u1e47\u1e0dala, III. 172, 385\n\nMandalay, II. 105; III. 48, 65, 75, 165\n\nMandor, II. 159\n\nMandra, III. 105\n\nMandukya, I. 83; (Upanishad), II. 74\n\nMani, II. 88; III. 206, 216, 415, 445 _sq._\n\nManiac, the, II. 184\n\nManich\u00e6ism, I. xii, xlix, lv; II. 88, 199, 240; III. 189, 195, 200,\n206, 216, 263, 267, 334, 396, 409, 428, 445 _sq._, 461\n\nManifestations (Buddha's), III. 215. _See also_ Avat\u00e2ras, Incarnations\n\nManikambum, III. 395\n\nManikka Va\u00e7agar, II. 212, 215\n\nMa\u1e47imanjar\u00ee, II. 241\n\nManimat, II. 238, 240\n\nManim\u00eagalei, II. 108; III. 44\n\nManim\u00eakhalai, II. 214\n\nManipuris, I. xxxvii; III. 49, 50, 67\n\nManjughosha, II. 19\n\nMa\u00f1jun\u00e2tha, II. 19\n\nMa\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee, I. xxix; II. 12, 13, 19-21, 54, 93, 118; III. 39, 163, 165,\n169, 211, 218, 221, 327, 383\n\nMa\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee Kirti, III. 360, 387\n\nMa\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee Krodha, II. 128\n\nMa\u00f1ju\u015br\u00ee vikridita, II. 19\n\nMan Lion (incarnation), II. 147\n\nMan Nat, III. 69\n\nMano, I. 192, 227\n\nManohari, III. 55\n\nManthra Spenta, III. 419\n\nMantras, I. 332; II. 50, 129, 174, 184, 275, 319; III. 284, 395. _See_\nDh\u00e2ran\u00ees\n\nMantray\u00e2na, II. 4, 87; III. 172, 316, 349, 385\n\nManu, I. xxxviii, lxxxix, 18, 90, 334; II. 154, 187, 199, 281, 306;\nIII. 58, 66, 422\n\n_Manual of a Mystic_, I. 310, 312; II. 7\n\n_Manual of Buddhism_, III. 39\n\n_Manual of Buddhist Terminology_, III. 286\n\nManuraja, III. 67\n\nManuscript remains, II. 56\n\nManvantaras, I. 46, 334\n\nManyakheta, I. 27\n\nMao-lun, III. 105\n\nMappilahs (Moplahs), III. 421, 455\n\nM\u00e2ra, I. lxxix, 143, 164, 175, 179, 190, 337; II. 160; III. 69, 73,\n350\n\nMarai-\u00f1a\u00f1a-Sambandhar, II. 221\n\nM\u00e2r\u00e2nanda, III. 336\n\nMar\u00e2thas, I. 19, 31, 32; II. 178, 244, 255, 258; III. 456\n\nMarco Polo, I. 305; II. 320; III. 25, 124, 273, 327, 416\n\nMarcus Aurelius, I. 202\n\nMard\u00e2na, II. 267\n\nM\u00e2rgabh\u00fbmi S\u00fbtra, II. 64\n\nMargu\u00e9rite Marie Alacoque, II. 161\n\nMariamman, II. 276\n\nMarici, III. 389, 394\n\nMarj\u00e2ra-ny\u00e2ya, II. 236\n\nMarkandeya Pur\u00e2na, I. lxxix, 39; II. 187, 193\n\nMarka\u1e6da-ny\u00e2ya, II. 236\n\nMarpa, III. 398\n\nMarpori hill, III. 365\n\nMarriage market, III. 450\n\nMartaban, III. 58, 66\n\nMaruts, I. 57; III. 114\n\nMary\u00e2da J\u00eevas, II. 249\n\nMasp\u00e9ro, III. 107, 108, 129, 139, 148, 161, 244, 246, 248, 290, 301\n\nMass, the, I. 66; III. 400, 422\n\nMassacre of the Innocents, III. 424\n\nMasson-Oursel, III. 288, 311\n\nMasulipatam, III. 106, 155\n\nMata Adisakti ( = Dharma), II. 115\n\nMataram, III. 155, 157\n\nM\u00e2tari\u015bvan, I. 57, 62\n\nMaterialism, I. 99, 196; II. 320 _sq._\n\nMater Triumphalis, II. 287\n\nMaths, II. 175, 208, 233, 240, 244, 256, 260. _See_ Monasteries\n\nMathur\u00e2, III. 451\n\nMathura, II. 154\n\n_Mathura, a District Memoir_, II. 248\n\nMatriarchy, III. 118, 145\n\nM\u00e2tricakras, II. 127\n\nM\u00e2tricheta, II. 104\n\nM\u00e2trik\u00e2, II. 223\n\nMatsya, I. 87; II. 284\n\nMatsya Pur\u00e2na, I. 15; II. 187\n\nMatsyendran\u00e2tha, II. 117, 118\n\nMatter, theories of, I. ciii; II. 296 _sq._\n\nMatthakundali, II. 73\n\nMatvalasen, king, III. 40\n\nMaudgaly\u00e2yana, III. 342\n\nMaurya dynasty, I. 21; II. 68; III. 450\n\nM\u00e2y\u00e2, I. lxxvii, ciii, 45, 82, 193, 211, 212; II. 73, 74, 204, 211,\n221, 223, 225, 246, 247, 255, 264, 268, 278, 284, 289, 307, 309, 312\n_sq._; III. 305, 421\n\nMaya (mother of Buddha), I. 132, 174\n\nM\u00e2y\u00e2j\u00e2la, II. 128\n\nMay\u00fbra, II. 98\n\nMayurabhanja, II. 115\n\nMcCrindle, I. 15; II. 159\n\nMcTaggart, I. lv, ciii\n\nMead, III. 445\n\nMecca, II. 267\n\nMecquenem, III. 109\n\n_Medieval School of Indian Logic_, II. 94, 105\n\nMeditation, I. c, 128, 129, 150, 222, 302-324; II. 122, 304; III. 39,\n131, 146, 248, 272, 278, 332, 345, 430, 448. _See_ Intuition, Yoga\n\nMegasthenes, I. 21, 272; II. 137; III. 432\n\nMeghad\u00fbta, III. 375\n\nMeghavarman, king, II. 87\n\nMeiji era, III. 402\n\nMeister Eckhart, II. 313\n\nMekong, III. 79, 80\n\n_M\u00e9langes Harley_, II. 18, 195, 238\n\nMelas, I. 103; II. 172\n\nMelncote, II. 237, 243\n\n_Memoir on the History of the Tooth Relic of Ceylon_, III. 25\n\nMemory and rebirth, I. lvii, 320 _sq._\n\nMemphis, III. 431\n\nMenam, III. 79\n\nMenander, I. 23; II. 159; III. 23\n\nMencius, II. 275\n\nMendicants, I. 100, 134\n\nMental phenomena. _See_ Intuition, Knowledge, Meditation, Memory\n\nMera (Pera), III. 101\n\nMercurial system, I. 305\n\nMergui, III. 82\n\nMerit-transfer, I. lxxxvi; II. 10, 31; III. 84, 394\n\nMeru, III. 185\n\nMeru, Mt., I. 335; III. 97, 425\n\nMerutantra, II. 280\n\nMerv, III. 427\n\nMessiah, I. 4, 36, 179; II. 88, 149; III. 319\n\nMetamorphosis, I. 200\n\nMetaphysics, I. xxix, cii, 64, 78, 183, 187, 192, 193; II. 6, 36-46,\n72, 82, 92, 207, 225, 315; III. 213, 218, 345\n\n_Metaphysics and Ethics of the Jains_, I. 105\n\nMetempsychosis, I. xv, xviii, 194; II. 101, 268; III. 175, 183, 241,\n245, 429, 432, 435, 444, 446, 447, 462\n\n_M\u00e9thode_, II. 56\n\nMetta, I. 184, 216\n\nMetteya, I. 344; II. 21; III. 33, 74, 84\n\nMewar, I. 30\n\nMexico, III. 168\n\nMey Ka\u1e47\u1e0da Devar, II. 221\n\nMiao-Sh\u00ean, II. 18\n\nMicchaka, III. 307\n\nMi-chiao, III. 316\n\nMiddle Kingdom, II. 93\n\nMig\u00e2ra, I. 153\n\nMi-gyo-ba, III. 392\n\nMihira, I. 27\n\nMihiragula, I. 25; II. 95, 100; III. 307\n\nMilar\u00e2pa, III. 399\n\nMi-le, III. 342\n\nMili, II. 21\n\nMilinda Panha, I. 190, 227, 344; III. 23, 56, 105, 153\n\nM\u00eem\u00e2\u1e43s\u00e2, II. 292, 310\n\nM\u00eem\u00e2\u1e43sakam, III. 44\n\nMinayeff, II. 9; III. 49, 379\n\nMindolling, III. 398\n\nMindon Min, III. 49, 65\n\nMing (dynasty, etc.), I. xxvi, 153, 160, 205, 207, 274 _sq._, 289,\n290, 301, 319, 359\n\nMing-\u00d6i, III. 190, 194\n\nMing Ti, III. 8, 197, 212, 236, 244, 248, 253\n\nMingun, III. 63\n\nMinistry of Thunder, III. 225\n\nMinor Rock Edict. _See_ Edicts of Asoka\n\nMinussinsk, III. 213\n\nMira Bai, II. 244\n\nMiracles, I. 325, 329; II. 53, 58, 66, 84, 154; III. 441\n\nMiraj, II. 109\n\nMiran, II. 192, 200, 210\n\nMiriok, III. 336\n\nMiroku, II. 21\n\nMisal, II. 272\n\nMi-sha-so Wu-f\u00ean L\u00fc, III. 285\n\nMi-so'n, III. 139 _sq._\n\nMissaka, Mt., III. 16\n\nMissionizing, I. xxxvii, lxxxviii, xcii, 254, 268 _sq._; II. 70; III.\n4, 15, 410, 430\n\nMitanni, III. 435\n\nMithila, I. 89; II. 149\n\nMithra, I. 41; II. 88, 139; III. 409, 451\n\nMithradates, I. 23\n\nMitra, I. 57, 60, 88; II. 270\n\nMitra-Rajendralala, II. 51, 52, 54, 61, 116, 119, 123, 182, 190, 270,\n395, 453\n\nMi-Tsang, III. 291\n\nMixed cults, II. 70\n\nMnemonic tradition, I. 285 _sq._, 296\n\nMoamarias, II. 261\n\n_Modern Buddhism_, II. 114\n\n_Modern Vernacular Literature of Hindustan_, II. 245\n\nMoggaliputta, III. 15\n\nMoggall\u00e2na, I. 147, 155, 319; III. 64, 89\n\nMohammed, I. 177, 178, 183; III. 435, 455 _sq._\n\nMohanechedan\u00ee, III. 67\n\nMohan\u00eeya, I. 107\n\nMohsin Fani, III. 456\n\nMo-ko-S\u00eang-Chi-L\u00fc, III. 285\n\nMoksha. _See_ Salvation\n\nMolaiye, III. 317\n\nMolinos, I. 136\n\nMollahs, III. 459\n\nM\u00f6llendorf, III. 289\n\nMo-lo-po, II. 96\n\nMon, III. 46, 100\n\nMonasteries, I. xxxviii, xli, lxxxii, xciii, 137, 150; II. 94, 104,\n105, 112, 113, 119, 120, 121, 175, 208, 260, 266; III. 16, 41, 44, 45,\n54, 69, 70, 72, 90, 119, 121, 130, 156, 195, 201, 202, 205, 208, 211,\n212, 228, 235, 250, 252, 261, 277, 303, 322, 339, 353, 372, 398 _sq._,\n430, 442\n\nMongkut, III. 87, 93\n\nMongolia, I. xxvi\n\nMongolian Lamaism, III. 401 _sq._\n\nMongols, I. xxvi, 28; III. 258, 269, 272\n\nMonism, I. xliii; II. 223, 249; III. 305\n\nMonju, II. 19\n\nMon-Khmer languages, II. 279\n\nMono-physites, I. 39; III. 409\n\nMonotheism, I. xviii, xxxiv, ci, 7, 85; II. 192, 195, 197, 219, 229,\n238, 239, 243; III. 224, 354, 417, 418, 433\n\nMorality, I. lxxi, lxxvi; II. 167, 168, 209\n\nMoriyas, I. 169\n\nMormonism, I. 325; III. 228\n\nMoses, I. 216\n\nMoslems, I. 178; III. 458\n\nMothers, the, II. 276\n\nMountain spirits, II. 159\n\nMoura, III. 111\n\nMou-tzu, III. 218\n\nMpoe Sedah, III. 158, 171\n  Sindok, III. 157\n\nMriccha-ka\u1e6dik\u00e2, II. 142\n\nM\u1e5bigas, III. 425\n\nMrigendra, II. 205\n\nM\u1e5bityu, II. 145\n\nM\u1e5bityuh p\u00e2pm\u00e2, I. 337\n\nMucalinda, I. 142\n\nMuc-Lien. III. 342\n\nMudal-Ayiram, II. 231\n\nmudit\u00e2, II. 11; III. 173\n\nMudr\u00e2, I. 306; II. 284; III. 172\n\nMughals, I. 19, 30; III. 455\n\nMuhammad Adil, I. 29\n  Bakhtyar, I. 29; II. 112\n  Dara Shukoh, II. 270\n  of Ghor, I. 28; III. 455\n\nMuhammedan Conquests, I. 29; II. 95, 109, 112; III. 455 _sq._\n\nMuir, I. 36; II. 148\n\nMuka\u1e47\u1e47a Kadamba, II. 213\n\nMukhalinga, I. xxviii; III. 144 _sq._\n\nMukhyas, II. 29\n\nMukocha, III. 336\n\nMukta, III. 174\n\nMuktagiri, I. 121\n\nMukti, I. 44; II. 140, 235, 247, 250. _See_ Salvation\n\nMuktik\u00e2 Upanishad, I. 76\n\nMukunda Deva, II. 115\n\nMu-la-san-pu-la, III. 453\n\nM\u00fbla Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da, I. 260, 299, 301; II. 57, 82; III. 28, 162, 166,\n167, 285 (Vinaya), 373\n\nM\u00fbl\u00e2sth\u00e2na, III. 453\n\nm\u00fbla tantra, III. 377\n\nMulavarman (king), III. 164\n\nm\u00fbla-vigraha, II. 173\n\nM\u00fcller, F.W.K., II. 54; III. 191\n\nM\u00fcller, Max, I. 80, 86, 317, 340; II. 52, 162, 296; III. 295, 300, 301\n\nMultan, III. 453\n\nMunda, I. 19; II. 279; III. 100\n\nMu\u1e47\u1e0daka Upanishad, I. 85\n\nMungayin Sen (king), III. 40\n\nMunis (Indian), I. 224\n\nMunja, king, I. 27\n\nMurder, I. 99\n\nMurids, III. 459\n\nMurray, III. 447\n\nMuru\u1e47\u1e0da, III. 105\n\nMuruvan, II. 213\n\n_Mus\u00e9on_, II. 42, 87, 222, 321; III. 297\n\nMutsung (Emperor), III. 316\n\nMuttra, I. xlv, 113, 263; II. 19, 93, 154, 158, 159, 162, 230, 244,\n251, 255; III. 420, 455, 458\n\nMuziris, I. 26; III. 415\n\nMyang-hdas, III. 375\n\nMyingyan, III. 54\n\nMyos Hormos, III. 415\n\nMysore, I. xli, 26; II. 108, 171, 213, 233, 235; III. 44\n\n_Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions_, I. 114; II. 108, 212\n\nMysticism, I. lxi, 136, 142, 304, 310, 322, 323; III. 461. _See also_\nMeditation, Yoga\n\n_Mysticism_ (Underhill), I. 308, 316, 317; II. 275\n\n_Mythologie der Buddhismus_, II. 129\n\nMythology, I. xxxi, 3, 13, 49, 63, 64, 103, 128, 142, 325-345; II. 26\n_sq._, 52, 68, 77, 82, 137, 162, 179, 201, 213, 229; III. 76, 389\n\n\nN\u00e2bha Das, II. 191, 245\n\nN\u00e2bhaka, I. 268\n\nN\u00e2bhitis, I. 268\n\nN\u00e2da, II. 319\n\nNadia, II. 253, 255\n\nN\u00e2g\u00e2nanda, II. 97\n\nNagar, III. 25\n\nN\u00e2garakr\u0115t\u00e2gama, III. 168, 172\n\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, I. xxxii, 193; II. 8, 10, 29, 38, 43, 46, 52, 54, 55, 59,\n65, 82 _sq._, 316; III. 219, 285, 286, 292, 304, 307, 315, 376\n\nN\u00e2gas, I. 6, 102, 175; II. 85, 118; III. 393\n\nN\u00e2gasena, I. 226; III. 105\n\nNag-dban bLo-zan rGya-mThso, III. 363\n\nNahusha, I. 36\n\nNair\u00e2tmyam, II. 36\n\nNaiy\u00e2yikam, III. 44\n\nNakshi Rustam, III. 450\n\nN\u00e2ladiyar, II. 215\n\nN\u00e2landa, I. 150, 162, 258; II. 87, 95, 102, 103, 106, 111, 125, 128;\nIII. 330, 387\n\nN\u00e2l\u00e2yiram, II. 231, 235, 244\n\nN\u00e2l\u00e2yira Prabandham, II. 191\n\nN\u00e2ma, I. 107, 209\n\nn\u00e2mar\u00fbpam, III. 247\n\nNambi-Andar-Nambi, II. 215\n\nNambutiri Brahmans, I. 90; II. 171, 190, 207, 275; III. 417\n\nN\u00e2mder, II. 244, 256\n\nNamghosha, I. lxxv; II. 191, 259, 260\n\nNamm'\u00e2r\u0324var, II. 231, 233\n\n\u00d1\u00e2n\u00e2bhiva\u1e43sa, III. 64\n\nNanak, I. lxxii; II. 176, 242, 244, 248, 257, 267 _sq._\n\nNana nuru, II. 219\n\nn\u00e2n\u00e2rtha, II. 43\n\nNanda dynasty, I. 132\n\nNanda, I. 148; II. 83, 154; III. 424\n\nNandi, II. 222; III. 146, 167\n\nNandike\u015bvara, III. 146\n\nNandimitra, II. 61\n\nNand\u00eesvara, III. 169\n\n_Nanjio_ (Bunyiu) _Catalogue_ I. 258; II. 3, 14, 19, 24, 46, 51, 54\n_sq._, 61, 84, 86, 89, 126, 304; III. 42, 105, 123, 213, 218, 239,\n248, 249, 259, 265, 270, 276, 280, 282 _sq._\n\nNanking, II. 316; III. 249, 251, 254, 255, 257, 284, 290, 312\n\nNan Shan, III. 316\n\nNan Yueh, III. 309\n\nN\u00e2param itthatt\u00e2y\u00e2ti, I. 139\n\nNara, II. 27, 88, 200, 252\n  period, III. 403\n\nN\u00e2rada, II. 182, 195, 196, 200, 230; III. 66, 426\n\nN\u00e2rada pa\u00f1car\u00e2tra, II. 158, 195, 250\n\nN\u00e2rada parivr\u00e2jaka Upanishad, II. 198\n\nN\u00e2rada Pur\u00e2na, II. 187\n\nN\u00e2rad\u00eeya, II. 182; III. 142\n\nN\u00e2rah, II. 199\n\nN\u0103rai, king, III. 86\n\nNaraina, II. 266\n\nNara N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, II. 199\n\nNarapati, III. 61\n\nNarasimha, III. 182\n\nNarasimha Varman, I. 26\n\nNarasinha Gupta B\u00e2l\u00e2ditya, II. 105\n\nN\u00e2r\u00e2y\u00e2\u1e47a, I. xliii; II. 159, 193, 195, 197, 199 _sq._, 228, 233, 234,\n253, 282; III. 97, 426\n\nN\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47\u00eeya, I. lxxiv; II. 187, 200, 201, 229\n\nNarthang Press, III. 381\n\nmNaris, III. 352\n\nNarita (burnt-offerings at), II. 128\n\nNa-ro-pa, II. 126\n\nNarotapa, III. 387\n\nNaruma, III. 154\n\nNasik, I. 27; II. 203\n\nN\u00e2stika, II. 32\n\nN\u00e2t\u00e2, I. 14, 105\n\nN\u00e2taputta, I. 105, 111\n\nN\u00e2thamuni, II. 231, 232, 234, 237\n\nN\u00e2thas, II. 117\n\nNath Dwara, II. 252\n\nNats, I. 6, 102; II. 54, 68, 97\n\nNature (nature-worship, etc.), I. xvi, lxvi, 3, 6, 7, 12, 33, 56, 137,\n332; II. 217; III. 68, 112, 182, 185, 225, 240, 243, 325, 399\n\nN\u0101y\u0101, I. 111\n\nN\u00e2y\u00e2dhammakah\u00e2o, I. 116\n\nN\u00e2yakas, II. 286\n\nNayaks, II. 226\n\nNayottara, III. 117\n\nNecho, III. 432\n\n_Neerlands Indi\u00eb_, III. 3\n\nNegapatam, II. 188\n\nNegoro, III. 404\n\nNei-tien-lu, III. 290\n\nNeoplatonists, I. xii, lv; III. 433, 447, 460\n\nNeopythagoreans, III. 433, 447\n\nNepal, I. xxiv, xxvii, 132, 248, 269; II. 19, 21, 31, 32, 116, 117,\n129, 143; III. 10, 74, 356, 375, 388\n\n_Le N\u00e9pal_, II. 116\n\nNep\u00e2la m\u00e2h\u00e2tmya, II. 1, 8\n\n_Nepalese Buddhistic Literature_, II. 51, 52, 54\n\nNepalese Scriptures, I. 275\n  manuscripts, II. 18\n\nNera\u00f1jara, I. 136, 142\n\nNerbudda, I. 20, 25, 208\n\nNestorian Christianity, I. xlix, 39; III. 189, 202, 207, 217, 260,\n263, 265, 409, 416, 427, 428\n  Stone, III. 217\n\nNetti Pakarana, III. 56\n\nNevars, II. 116, 117, 178\n\nNew Testament, III. 217\n\nNew Zealand, III. 151\n\nNgelmoe, III. 182\n\nNguyen, III. 341\n\nNha-trang, III. 144, 147\n\nNib\u00e2na, III. 172\n\nNibb\u00e2yeyya, I. 231\n\nnibbuto, I. 223\n\nNichiren sect, III. 404\n\nNicholson, R.A., III. 460\n\nNicolaus Damascenus, III. 431\n\nNid\u00e2na Kath\u00e2, I. 171; III. 94\n\nNid\u00e2nas, I. 207, 212\n\nnidde\u1e63a, I. 258; II. 197\n\nNieh-pan, III. 282\n\nNigamas, II. 282\n\nNiga\u1e47\u1e6dhas, I. 105, 111; III. 13\n\nNigliva, I. 269\n\nNigrodha J\u00e2taka, III. 442\n\nNik\u00e2ya, I. lxxiii, lxxv, 278 _sq._; II. 48, 101, 205; III. 30, 282,\n298, 299, 372. _See_ Sutta Pitaka, D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya, Majjhima Nik\u00e2ya,\nSamyutta Nik\u00e2ya, Anguttara Nik\u00e2ya, Khuddaka Nik\u00e2ya\n\nNik\u00e2ya-Sangrahawa, I. 293; III. 19, 40\n\nN\u00eel\u00e2cala, II. 114\n\nN\u00eel\u00e2kantha, II. 205, 318\n\nN\u00eel\u00e2mata Pur\u00e2na, II. 126\n\nN\u00eel\u00e2netra, II. 86\n\nN\u00eelapata-dar\u015bana, III. 40\n\nNil S\u00e2dhana, III. 40\n\nNim\u00e2vats (Nimb\u00e2rkas), I. xlii; II. 230, 248, 251\n\nNimb\u00e2ditya Nimb\u00e2rak, II. 228, 230\n\nNine Dharmas, II. 59, 119\n\nNing-po, II. 14\n\nNira\u00f1jana, II. 32\n\nNir\u00e2tman, III. 175\n\nnirgama, II. 43\n\nNirganthas, I. 111\n\nNirgu\u1e47a, III. 181, 445\n\nNirgu\u1e47a M\u00e2h\u00e2tmya, II. 115\n\nNirjar\u00e2, I. 107\n\nNirm\u00e2na, III. 360\n\nNirm\u00e2na K\u00e2ya, II. 33\n\nnirodha, II. 43\n\nNiruttara (Tantra), III. 118\n\nNirv\u00e2na, I. xviii, xcv, 204, 219, 222, 236, 249, 250; II. 6, 8, 10,\n12, 32, 44, 45, 67, 75, 105, 121, 264; III. 375\n\nNirv\u00e2napada, III. 121\n\nNirv\u00e2na S\u00fbtra, II. 51\n\nNirvritti, I. lxxxi; II. 283\n\nN\u00eeti\u015b\u00e2stra, III. 172, 186\n\nNity\u00e2nanda, II. 254\n\n_Nityanusandham Series_, II. 232\n\nnityatva, II. 204\n\nNiv\u00e2sa, II. 230\n\nNivedita (sister), I. xlvii, lxxxix; II. 287\n\nNiyama, I. 305\n\nniy\u00e2ti, I. 98; II. 204\n\nNizam's dominions, I. 31; II. 225\n\nNobunaga, III. 404\n\nNordarisch, I. 276; III. 191, 208\n\n_Nord-Ouest de l'Inde dans le Vinaya des Mulasarvastivadins_, I. 263;\nII. 81\n\nNorman, II. 148; III. 14, 23, 387\n\nNorthern Chou dynasty, III. 257\n  Circars, I. 22\n  Sing dynasty, III. 258\n  Wei, III. 249, 289\n\nNorth-West India, I. 263\n\nNri Simha, III. 106\n\nN\u1e5bisinhat\u00e2-pan\u00eeya, II. 280\n\nNudity, I. 112\n\nNum, I. 9\n\nNuns, I. 159, 248; III. 17, 125, 126, 342\n\nNushirwan, III. 460\n\nNy\u00e2sa, I. 67; II. 275, 283\n\nNy\u00e2ya, II. 39, 95, 291, 294\n\nNy\u00e2yadv\u00e2ra-\u015b\u00e2stra, II. 91\n\nNy\u00e2ya-prave\u015ba, II. 95\n\nNying-ma-pa, III. 371, 385, 397 _sq._\n\n\nO, III. 141\n\n\u014c-baku, III. 291\n\nObscenity in ritual, I. 100\n\nOccupation and caste, II. 177\n\nOdontapuri, II. 111, 112; III. 350\n\nOelot, III. 365\n\nOla Bibi, II. 276\n\nOldenburg, I. 147; III. 13, 15, 285\n\nOmei, II. 23\n\nO-mi-to, III. 327\n\nOm-mani-padme hum, II. 17; III. 395\n\nOracles, I. 103\n\nOrdination, I. 141, 146, 243; III. 36, 37, 41, 57, 89, 130, 328, 389\n\nOrganisation, ecclesiastical, I. 37, 237 _sq._; II. 210; III. 64\n_sq._, 91, 131, 327 _sq._, 359, 404\n\nOrigin of Man, III. 288\n\nOrissa, I. xxxix, xlii, 19, 30, 31, 113; II. 111, 113, 114, 116, 174,\n206, 277, 386\n\nOrmasd Yasht, III. 220\n\nOrpheus, Orphism, I. lv, 237; II. 285\n\nOrphic Societies, III. 429, 434\n\nOsh, III. 202, 213\n\nOsiris, II. 122, 285\n\nOsmanlis, III. 198\n\nOudh, I. xxii, 20, 31, 95, 113, 131; II. 149, 266; III. 457\n\nOupnekhat, II. 270\n\n_Outlines of Indian Philosophy_, II. 188, 222\n  _of Jainism_, I. 105\n  _of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism_, II. 45, 56\n\n_Oxford History of India_, II. 64\n\nOxus, III. 197, 210, 212\n\n_Oxyrhynchus Logia_, III. 437\n\n\nPabbaja Sutta, I. 135\n\nPabbajja, I. 243\n\nPaccari (raft commentary), III. 30\n\nPaccaya, I. 208\n\nPacceka Buddhas, I. 344; II. 8\n\nPadakalpataru, II. 245, 256\n\nPadakart\u00e2s, II. 256\n\nP\u00e2das, III. 286\n\nPadh\u00e2nam, I. 216\n\nPadjadjaran, III. 158\n\nPadmanabha, II. 147\n  Char, II. 238, 240\n\nPadmap\u00e2ni, II. 15; III. 396\n\nPadma Pur\u00e2\u1e47a, II. 148\n\nPadmaratna, II. 307\n\nPadma Sambhava, I. xxvii; II. 125; III. 348 _sq._, 379, 381, 384, 393,\n397\n\nP\u00e2dma Samhit\u00e2, II. 188\n\nPadm\u00e2sana, III. 184\n\nPadma-tantra, II. 188\n\nPadma-than-yig, III. 349, 381\n\nPadmodbhava, III. 122\n\nPagan, I. 120; III. 47, 52, 53, 55, 56, 67, 179\n\nPagan Min, III. 65\n\nPagodas, III. 48, 56, 70, 239, 325\n\nPag Sam Jon Zang, II. 129; III. 352\n\nPagspa, III. 273, 354, 388, 392\n\nPahlavas, I. 23; II. 69\n\nPai-Chang-ts'ung-lin-ch'ung-kuei, III. 322, 324\n\nPaitao, III. 314\n\nPaj\u00e2pati, I. 103\n\nPakche, III. 336\n\nPakudha Kacc\u00e2yana, I. 99\n\nPalas, I. 27; II. 109; III. 129\n\nPalembang, III. 161\n\nPali, I. xxiv, 116, 282; III. 12, 81, 375\n\nPali and Sanskrit, I. 282\n\nPali-Buddhism, I. xxiv, 127; III. 6, 84, 179, 180. Cf. H\u00een\u00e2y\u00e2na\n\n_Pali-Buddhismus_, I. 312\n\nPali Canon, I. 128, 130, 164, 254, 275-301; II. 7, 21, 33, 34, 48, 59,\n102; III. 31, 189, 295, 297\n\n_Pali dictionary_, II. 10\n  inscriptions, III. 84\n\npalimattam, III. 29\n\nPalit\u00e2na, I. 119 _sq._\n\n_Pali Text Society_, I. 275, 304\n\nPallas worship, I. 23\n\nPallavas, I. 26, 27; III. 107\n\nPallegoix, III. 94\n\nPallivals, II. 177\n\nPalmyra, II. 14\n\npalya, I. 110\n\nPanataran, III. 158, 165 _sq._, 179\n\nPancabheda, II. 239\n\nPancakrama, II. 86\n\nPancalas, I. 20, 27, 87, 95, 96\n\npancamak\u00e2ra, II. 284\n\nP\u00e2\u00f1car\u00e2tra, I. xxxv, lxxx; II. 97, 147, 152, 182, 186, 188, 195, 196,\n197, 202, 224, 232 _sq._, 309; III. 387, 420, 425, 426\n\nP\u00e2\u00f1car\u00e2tra \u015a\u00e2stra, II. 189\n\nP\u00e2\u00f1car\u00e2tra-tantra, II. 189\n\nPanca\u015bikha, II. 20, 296\n\nPanca\u015b\u00eersha, II. 20\n\npancatattva, II. 284\n\npanc\u00e2tmaka, III. 175\n\nPancayat, II. 176\n\nPan-Chao, I. 24; II. 64, 76; III. 197, 201, 208, 244\n\nPanchen Lama, III. 368\n  Rinpoche, III. 365\n\nPan-ch'i, III. 125\n\nPanchou, III. 314\n\nPanchpiriyas, III. 459\n\nPanchpirs, III. 175\n\nPa\u1e47\u1e0dansalas, king, III. 160\n\nPa\u1e47\u1e0dar\u00e2vasin\u00ee, III. 173\n\nPandavas, I. 55; II. 154, 155, 169\n\nPander, III. 219, 380\n\nPandharpur, II. 16, 256, 257\n\nPandrenthan, III. 194\n\nPandukabhaya (king), III. 13\n\nP\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0durang, II. 275\n\nP\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0dur\u00e2nga, III. 138\n\nPa\u1e47\u1e0duv\u00e2sudeva, III. 13\n\nPandya (Pandian), I. 26, 114, 268; II. 214; III. 44\n\nPanh\u00e2v\u00e2garan\u00e2im, I. 116\n\nP\u00e2\u1e47ini, I. xxxi; II. 153, 180, 194, 197; III. 419\n\nP\u00e2\u1e47iniya Dar\u015bana, II. 291\n\nPanjab, I. xlviii, 20 _sq._, 25, 28, 29, 31, 87; II. 92, 93, 109, 270\n_sq._; III. 457, 461\n\nPanjo, II. 282, 283\n\nPa\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2, I. 220, 261; III. 30\n\nPa\u00f1\u00f1as\u00e2mi, III. 65\n\nPanran, III. 138, 141\n\npansala (monastery), III. 41\n\nPant\u00e6nus, III. 414\n\nPanthaka, I. 170\n\nPantheism, I. xviii, xxxiv, xxxvi, xliii, lxxix, ci, 8; II. 167, 179,\n197, 224, 265; III. 218, 317, 462\n\nPanya, III. 48, 58\n\nPaochi, III. 282, 283\n\nPao-Chih, III. 254\n\nPao-hua-shan, III. 316\n\nP\u00e2pa, I. 107\n\nP\u00e2pa-n\u00e2tha, III. 106\n\nPara, II. 196, 235\n\nParabr\u00e2hma, II. 32, 278\n\nParacatti, II. 216\n\nParadise, II. 23, 28, 30, 31, 35, 42, 57, 61; III. 385, 451. _See_\nKailas, Sukh\u00e2vati, Tusita, Heaven\n\n_Paradise Lost_, II. 246\n\n_Paradise Regained_, I. 129\n\nP\u00e2r\u00e2jika, I. 205; III. 323\n\nParakrama B\u00e2hu, I. 293; III. 18, 25, 33 _sq._, 179\n\nParamabodhisattva, III. 149\n\nParam\u00e2di-buddha-uddh\u1e5bita-sr\u00ee-k\u00e2la-cakra, III. 376\n\nParam\u00e2ditya-bhakta, III. 454\n\nparama-guhya, III. 173\n\nParamara dynasty, I. 27\n\nParam\u00e2rtha, I. 260; II. 78, 80, 81, 84, 88; III. 256\n\nparam\u00e2rtha-satya, II. 38\n\nParama Samhit\u00e2, II. 189\n  \u015aiva, III. 181\n  \u015a\u00fbnya, III. 181\n\nParam\u00e2tman, II. 266, 312\n\nParamats, III. 63\n\nParama-Vish\u1e47u-loka, III. 114, 134\n\nParam Brahma, II. 42\n\nParame\u015bvara, III. 96\n  king, III. 144\n\nP\u00e2ramit\u00e2s, III. 173, 304\n\nParam-vrahm\u00e2, III. 114\n\nPararaton, III. 158, 168\n\nParasnath (Mt.), I. 120, 121\n\nPara\u015bur\u00e2ma, I. 36, 88, 130; II. 147, 213\n\nparatantra, II. 38\n\nPar\u00e2tman, III. 175\n\npar\u00e2tpar\u00e2, II. 278\n\nParbatiya, II. 119\n  Gosains, II. 288\n\nPargiter, I. 15; II. 187, 188, 279; III. 424\n\nParias, III. 183\n\nParibb\u00e2jakas, I. 95; III. 13\n\npari-kalpita, II. 38\n\nPari\u1e47\u00e2man\u00e2, II. 31\n\npari\u1e47\u00e2mav\u00e2da, II. 264, 318\n\nParinibb\u00e2nam, I. 223\n\nParinirv\u00e2na, I. 223; III. 382\n\nParinishpanna, II. 38\n\nPari-p\u1e5bicch\u00e2, II. 61, 62\n\nParishads, I. 75\n\nParitta, III. 375\n\nparittam, III. 71\n\nPariv\u00e2ra, I. 258, 292; III. 19, 31\n\nParivr\u00e2jaka, I. 95\n\nParker, III. 18, 91, 54, 361\n\nParmenides, I. xix\n\nParmentier, III. 137, 143, 144, 150\n\nParna\u015bavar\u00ee, III. 394\n\nParsis, I. 69, 122; III. 414\n\nParsv\u00e2, I. xix, 110, 112\n\nP\u00e2r\u015bva, III. 307\n\nParsvan\u00e2tha, I. 95, 120\n\nParthians, I. xxx, 22, 69; III. 414\n\nP\u00e2rupana, III. 62, 63\n\nParvat\u00ee, II. 174, 222, 277; III. 114\n\nP\u00e2\u015ba, II. 204, 216, 223\n\nPasenadi, I. 148\n\nPashanda Capetika, II. 258\n\nPasoeroean, III. 158, 168\n\nPa-ssu-pa, III. 273\n\nPa-ssu-wei, III. 114, 125\n\nPa\u015bu, II. 204, 216, 223\n\nP\u00e2\u015bupata philosophy, II. 54, 189, 201-205, 211, 216, 280, 291; III.\n114, 148\n\nPa\u015bupati, II. 118, 145, 202; III. 114, 146\n\nP\u00e2\u1e6dalig\u00e2ma, I. 161\n\nPataliputra (Patna), I. 21, 24, 117, 161, 162, 272, 290; II. 92, 137;\nIII. 15\n\nPatan, II. 113\n\nPata\u00f1jali, I. 303; II. 153, 202, 306; III. 424\n\nPath, The, I. 185, 186, 213\n\nPa: th\u014f\u0301mma S\u014f\u0301mph\u00f4th\u0129yan, III. 98\n\nPa-ti, II. 204, 216, 223\n\npa\u1e6diccasamupp\u00e2da, I. 144, 206\n\npa\u1e6digho, I. 227\n\nP\u00e2timokkha, I. 129, 247, 277, 289, 290; III. 41, 130, 249. _See_\nConfession\n\nPa\u1e6disambhid\u00e2, I. 258\n\nPa\u1e6disandhivi\u00f1\u00f1a\u1e47am, I. 197\n\nPatna, I. 135; II. 111.\n  _See_ Pataliputra\n\nPatriarchs (Buddhist), I. 256; II. 85, 86, 88, 95; III. 286, 304, 306,\n307 (list)\n  (Jain), I. 113; II. 153\n  (Taoist), III. 228\n\nPa\u1e6d\u1e6dadkal, III. 106, 116\n\nPa\u1e6d\u1e6danatta Pillai, II. 219, 226\n\nPa\u1e6d\u1e6dh\u00e2nanayo, I. 208\n\nPaudgalikam Karma, I. 107\n\nPaundraka, king, II. 162\n\nPaushkara, II. 205\n  Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2s, II. 189, 195\n\nPava, I. 111, 162, 164, 169\n\nPav\u00e2r\u00e2n\u00e2, I. 245, 247\n\nPawar dynasty, I. 27\n\nP\u00e2y\u00e2si, I. 196\n\nPedanda, III. 185\n\ndPe-dkar, III. 393\n\nPegu, I. xxv, 269; III. 6, 26, 46, 52, 58, 73, 75, 80, 88\n\nPei Liang, III. 206\n\nPeking, II. 16; III. 192, 274, 276, 301, 361, 369, 381\n\nPeliyaksha, II. 59\n\nPelliot, II. 55; III. 101, 103, 124 _sq._, 157, 200, 215, 283, 296,\n353, 373, 380 _sq._\n\nPemangku, III. 185\n\nPemeyangtse, III. 371\n\nPemiongchi, III. 371, 398\n\npen, III. 311\n\nPen-shi, III. 299\n\nPentad, II. 26, 164\n\nPerahesa festival, I. 268; III. 44\n\nP\u00e9ri, I. 301; II. 22, 65, 87; III. 326\n\nPerisiriyar, II. 219\n\nPeriya Pur\u00e2\u1e47a, II. 188, 220\n\nPeriy\u00e2r\u0324var, II. 231\n\nPeriyatirumor\u0324i, II. 231\n\nPersecutions, I. 178; III. 44, 61, 103, 212, 252, 257, 267, 351, 414\n\nPersepolis, III. 450\n\nPersia, I. xv, xxx, xxxi, 21, 22, 31; II. 23, 65, 88, 139, 181, 240;\nIII. 3, 25, 180, 195, 199, 213 _sq._, 432 _sq._, 456\n\nPeshawar, I. 21; II. 76, 87; III. 24, 220, 239\n\nPeshwas, I. 31\n\nPessimism, I. lix, lxv, 44, 202 _sq._, 205\n\nPe\u1e6dakopadesa, III. 56\n\nPetas, I. 338\n\nPetava\u1e6d\u1e6dha, I. 280, 289; III. 205\n\n_Petersburg Lexicon_, II. 196\n\nPetithuguenin, III. 83\n\nPetrie (Flinders), III. 430 _sq._\n\nPeys, I. 6\n\nPhagmodu dynasty, III. 357, 364\n\nhPhagspa bLo-gros-rgyal-mthsan, III. 354\n\nPhalchen, III. 374\n\nPhalgu, I. 136\n\nPhanrang, III. 138\n\nPharisees, III. 436\n\nPhasso, I. 189, 209\n\nPhat-To, III. 344\n\nPh\u0103ya Man, III. 96 (M\u00e2ra)\n  R\u00f9ang, III. 80\n  T\u0103k Sin, III. 86\n\nPhi, III. 97\n  Am, III. 97\n\nPhilo, III. 433\n\nPhilosophy, I. 64, 73, 303 _sq._; II. 291 _sq._ _See also_ Advaita,\nMonism, Sank\u00e2ra, Vedanta\n\n_Philosophy of Reflection_, II. 39\n\n_Philosophy of the Upanishads_, II. 306\n\nPhilostratus, III. 447\n\nPhimeanakas, III. 121, 132\n\nPh\u00ed-Pr\u1ebdt, III. 97\n\nPh\u00ed Ruen, III. 98\n\nPhnom Penh, III. 109, 129\n\nPhong-nha grotto, III. 150\n\nPhotisms, I. 309\n\nPhra-bat, III. 85, 98\n\nPhra: Buddha-L\u00f6t-La, III. 86\n\nPhra: chedi, III. 89\n\nPhra: In (Indra), III. 96\n\nPhra: Isu\u00e9n (\u015aiva), III. 97\n\nPhra-Khaphung, III. 98\n\nPhra: Kodom (Gautama), III. 89\n\nPhra: M\u00f4kha: la, III. 89\n\nPhra: Nang: Klao, III. 87\n\nPhra: N\u0103rai, III. 97\n\nPhra Pathom, III. 82, 98\n\nPhra: prang, III. 89\n\nPhra: Saribut, III. 89\n\n_phyidar_, III. 352\n\nPhysicians, king of, I. 201\n\nPhysics, I. ciii, 66. _See_ Matter\n\nPi'ao, III. 47\n\nPi-eh, III. 311\n\nPilgrims, I. 143; II. 94, 130\n\nPi\u1e37\u1e37ai Lok\u00e2c\u00e2rya, II. 236\n\nPillar Edicts, I. 269 _sq_.\n\nPi-lo-fu, III. 327\n\nP'i-mo, III. 209\n\nPi\u1e47\u1e0dola, III. 326\n  Bharadv\u00e2ja, I. 320; II. 12\n\npinkama, III. 42\n\nPipal Tree, I. 142\n\nPipa Raja, II. 243\n\nPiper, Mrs., I. lvii\n\nPipphaliv\u00e2na, I. 169\n\nPiprava Vase, I. 169; III. 23, 99\n\nPir Badar, III. 459\n\npirit, III. 36, 42\n\nPirs, worship of, III. 459\n\nPi\u015b\u00e2c\u00ee, III. 394\n\nP'isha, III. 209, 213\n\nPistis Sophia, III. 445\n\nPitakas, I. xlix, lxxiii, lxxviii, 95, 102, 117, 133_sq_., 141, 143,\n149, 152, 169_sq_., 189, 193, 195, 197, 208, 211_sq_., 239, 260,\n290-301; II. 67, 122, 137, 171, 305; III. 6, 19, 23, 29, 31, 69, 97,\n240, 440, 450\n\np\u00eeths, II. 286\n\nPitinikas, I. 268\n\nPito, II. 129\n\npitriy\u00e2na, I. 88\n\nPiyadassi, I. 266\n\nPlato, I. lv, lxiii; III. 447\n\nPleyte, III. 167, 181\n\nPliny, I. 26; III. 415\n\nPlotinus, I. 310; III. 431, 447, 460, 462\n\nPlutarch, II. 23\n\nPo-lai (Prah), III. 125\n\nPolar Star, III. 342\n\nPoli, III. 107, 163\n\nPolitics and Religion, I. lxxxi; III. 236 _sq._\n\nPollanarua, III. 18\n\nPollunaruwa, III. 26\n\nPolo, III. 163\n\nPolyandry, I. 55; II. 155\n\nPolycrates, III. 434\n\nPolyd\u00e6monism, III. 225\n\nPolygamy, I. 90\n\nPolymorphism, I. 48; II. 139\n\nPolynesians, III. 100, 170, 185\n\nPolytheism, I. lxix, 61, 62, 63; III. 317\n\nPo-nagar, III. 140, 144, 147\n\nPo-nan, III. 106\n\nPongol festivities, I. 100\n\nP\u00f4ngyi, III. 72\n\nP\u00f4nn\u00e2s, III. 67\n\nPon Prajn\u00e2 Candra, III. 120\n\nPoona, I. 69; II. 171, 258\n\nPope, G.H., I. xc; II. 183, 215\n\nPope Innocent III, I. 202\n\nPopular Religion, I. lxix, 6 _sq._, 100; II. 173; III. 42, 68, 97,\n112, 145, 182, 224, 349, 350, 382 _sq._ (B\u00f6n)\n\n_Popular Religion of Northern India_, I. 103, 145, 147; II. 277\n\nPor\u00e2\u1e47a, III. 14, 30\n\nPorphyry, III. 444, 460\n\nPortuguese, I. 31; III. 26, 34, 85, 128, 417\n\nPossession by spirits, I. 11\n\nPotala (Potalaka), II. 15; III. 135, 363\n\nPo-U-Daung, III. 63\n\nPrabandham, II. 231\n\nprabhakari, II. 11\n\nPrabh\u00fb, II. 256\n\nPrabhuling-lila, II. 226\n\nPrabodha candradaya, I. 27; II. 123, 230\n\npradakshina path, II. 172; III. 166\n\npradesika, I. 268\n\nPradh\u00e2na, I. 335\n\nPradyumna, II. 196, 235\n\nPrah Kou, III. 119\n\nPraj\u00e2pati, I. 57, 62, 67\n\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2, I. 220; II. 21, 34, 79; III. 173, 217, 301 p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, I. xxxii,\nlxxiii; II. 50 _sq._, 60, 66, 71, 72, 83, 85, 93, 118, 119; III. 53,\n122, 123, 169, 173, 215, 260, 276, 282, 292, 293, 311, 374, 378\n\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2tara, III. 307\n\nPrak\u00e2\u015ba, II. 319\n\nPrakrit, I. 116; III. 8, 190, 208, 210, 214, 296\n\nPrak\u1e5biti, II. 217, 244, 255, 278, 289, 297 _sq._\n\npralaya, II. 317\n\npram\u00e2ra, II. 293\n\nPramb\u00e2nam, III. 154, 155, 165, 178 _sq_., 182\n\nPrameya Ratnav\u00e2l\u00ee, II. 255\n\nPrameyaratn\u00e2r\u1e47ava, II. 249\n\nPr\u00e2\u1e47a, II. 240\n\nPr\u00e2\u1e47ayama, I. 306\n\nPra\u1e47idh\u00e2na, I. 344; II. 29\n\nPrann\u00e2th, II. 261\n\nPrapa\u00f1cas\u00e2ra Tantra, II. 282\n\nPrapantja, III. 159\n\nPrapatti, II. 237\n\nPra Pratom, III. 90, 97\n\npras\u00e2d, II. 174, 180; III. 417, 422\n\nPrasat Prah Khse, Inscript., III. 122\n\nPrasnaviyakara\u1e47\u00e2ni, I. 116\n\nPrasth\u00e2nas, II. 238\n\nPratapa Chandra Ghosha, II. 236\n\nPrat\u00e2parudra, king, II. 115\n\nPratardana, II. 181\n\nPraten, III. 98\n\nPratibh\u00e2, I. 309\n\nPr\u00e2timoksha, I. 300; III. 190, 214, 323, 328, 332, 373, 389. _See_\nConfession\n\nPrat\u00eetya Samutp\u00e2da, I. 206\n\nPratyabhij\u00f1a, II. 223, 224\n\nPratyabhij\u00f1a-k\u00e2rik\u00e2s, II. 223\n\nPraty\u00e2h\u00e2ra, I. 306\n\npratyaksha, II. 292\n\nPratyekabuddhay\u00e2na, II. 4\n\nPrav\u00e2ha\u1e47a Jaivali, I. 74, 88, 298\n\nPravritti, I. lxxxi; II. 283\n\nPrayaga, II. 243\n\nPraying wheels, III. 394\n\nPrea Eynkosey, II. 159; III. 113\n\nprema\n\nPrem S\u00e2gar, II. 161, 191\n\nPreserver, the, II. 146\n\nPreta, I. 335; III. 97\n\nPreuschen, III. 430\n\nPriesthood, I. 36. _See also_ Bonze, Brahman, Hoshang, Hotri, Purohit\n\n_Principles of Tantra_, II. 190, 281, 282; III. 40\n\nPrinting press, III. 289 _sq._, 381\n\nPrithivi-bandhu, III. 375\n\nPriyadar\u015bik\u00e2, II. 97\n\nProclus, III. 434\n\nProdigal son parable, III. 438\n\nProme, III. 47, 51, 53\n\nProverbs, Book of, I. 94\n\n_Provincial Geographies of India_, II. 273\n\nsPrut-pa, III. 360\n\nPrzyluski, I. 161, 263; II. 81\n\n_Psalms of Maratha Saints_, II. 256\n\nPsychology, I. 186, 192, 262; III. 39\n\nPtolemy, I. 26, 268; II. 158; III. 79, 105, 153, 430\n  Philadelphus, III. 432\n  Soter, III. 244\n\nPubbaselikas, I. 259\n\nPublic worship, I. lxxxiv\n\nPug\u00e2ma, III. 47\n\nPuggalav\u00e2din, II. 101\n\nPuggalo (individual), I. 191; II. 101\n\nP'u-hsien, II. 23; III. 327\n\nPujaris, II. 173\n\nPukham, III. 52\n\nPukkusa, I. 165\n\nPu-K'ung, III. 264, 293\n\nPulakesin, I. 19\n\nPulindas, I. 268\n\nPu\u1e43s, II. 165\n\nPunakha Press, III. 381\n\nPuni, III. 163\n\nP'un-ming, II. 18\n\npu\u1e47ya, I. 107\n\nPunyamitra, III. 307\n\nPunyayasas, III. 307\n\nPur\u00e2na Kassapa, I. 99\n\nPur\u00e2\u1e47artha, III. 142\n\nPur\u00e2\u1e47as, I. xxxvi, xxxviii, lxxiv, 15, 59, 256, 333; II. 28, 48, 151,\n187, 193, 281, 306, 321; III. 105, 120, 173, 215\n\nPure Land school, III. 312\n\nPuri, I. 30; II. 114, 116, 176, 208, 238, 254; III. 25, 134\n\nP\u00fbr\u1e47\u00e2, I. 175, 299\n\nP\u00fbr\u1e47\u00e2 praj\u00f1a, II. 237\n\np\u00fbr\u1e47atva, II. 204\n\nP\u00fbr\u1e47avarman, II. 96, 307; III. 153, 165, 176\n\nPurohita, I. 88; III. 118, 145\n\nPurra-Poru\u1e37 Ve\u1e47b\u00e2-M\u00e2lai, II. 213\n\nPurusha, II. 297; III. 181, 426. _See_ Atm\u00e2n\n\nPurush\u00e2da \u015a\u00e2nta, III. 176\n\nPurushapura, II. 76\n\np\u00fbrvaja, III. 426\n\nP\u00fbrvam\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2 S\u00fbtra, II. 207, 291, 294, 310\n\nP\u00fbrvas, I. 116\n\nPusa, III. 186\n\nPu\u015ban, I. 57; II. 146\n\nPushkara-dv\u00eepa, III. 425\n\nPushpadanta, I. 117\n\nPush\u1e6di-J\u00eeva (M\u00e2rga), II. 249\n\nPushya-mitra, II. 68, 69\n\nPu-tai, II. 25\n\nP'u-ti-tu-lo, II. 95\n\nPutnomita, III. 307\n\nP'u-t'o, II. 15; III. 237, 279, 280, 309, 321\n\nPuvvas, I. 116\n\nPyitshin, III. 72\n\nPythagoras, I. lv, 237; III. 434 _sq._\n\nPyus, III. 47, 53\n\n\nQamar, II. 155\n\nQuakers, I. 122\n\nQuan-Am, III. 343\n\nQuan-Am-Thi-Kinh, III. 343\n\nQuan-Am-Toa-Son, III. 343\n\nQu\u00e3ng-nam, III. 137\n\nQuestions of Milinda, I. 23, 199, 205, 225, 226, 240, 291, 339; III.\n6, 246, 286, 296\n\nQuietism, I. 136\n\nQuilon (Bishop of), III. 417\n\nQuod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, I. xcvii\n\nQutayba, III. 199\n\n\nRabbis, I. 91\n\nRacial distinctions, II. 177\n\nRaden Radmat, III. 141\n  Rahmat, III. 161\n  Vidjaja, III. 159\n\nR\u00e2dh\u00e2, II. 157, 158, 229, 253\n\nR\u00e2dh\u00e2-sw\u00e2mis, II. 266\n\nR\u00e2dh\u00e2 Vallabhis, II. 256\n\nRadiance, world of, I. 331\n\nRadloff, III. 192\n\nRaffles, III. 155, 161\n\nr\u00e2ga, II. 204\n\nRaghuva\u1e43sa, II. 151, 189\n\nR\u00e2hasyas, II. 237\n\nR\u00e2hula, I. 134, 148, 151, 160, 298, 301, 315; _also_. III. 57\n\nR\u00e2hulabhadra, II. 85; III. 219\n\nR\u00e2hulabhadra N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, II. 128\n\nR\u00e2hulata, III. 307\n\nRai Das, II. 243\n\nR\u00e2j\u00e2, status of, I. 131\n\nRajagaha, I. 135, 147, 148, 150, 157, 158, 161, 162, 254, 255; III. 32\n(council at)\n\nR\u00e2jagirikas, I. 259, 339\n\nR\u00e2jagopala Chariar, II. 190, 316\n\nR\u00e2jagriha, I. 111; II. 94\n\nR\u00e2ja Kum\u00e2ra, II. 99\n\nRajaraja, I. 26; II. 108, 215\n\nrajas, II. 298\n\nR\u00e2j\u00e2sanagara, III. 176\n\nR\u00e2jasuya, I. 68\n\nR\u00e2jatarangin\u00ee, II. 85, 109, 127\n\nR\u00e2j\u00e2valiya, III. 26\n\nR\u00e2ja-yoga, I. 305\n\nRajendravarman, III. 110, 121\n\nRajgir, I. 121, 135\n\nRajputana, I. 19, 30, 31, 115; II. 113, 242, 244, 252; III. 454, 456\n\nRajput Clans, I. 25, 26\n\nR\u00e2j\u00fbka, I. 268\n\nRaksasas, III. 182, 393\n\nRalpachan, king, III. 351, 378, 379, 386\n\nRam, II. 263, 264, 268\n\nR\u00e2ma, I. xv, xxxv, 72, 169; II. 148 _sq._, 169, 243 _sq._; III. 147\n  Candra, II. 113, 148 _sq._\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2dhipati, king, III. 58, 85\n\nR\u00e2mag\u00e2ma, I. 169\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2i Pandit, II. 114\n\nRamaites, II. 233\n\nR\u00e2ma Komh\u00ebng, I. xxv; III. 80, 93, 109, 126\n  Krishna, I. xlvii; II. 161\n\n_Rama Krishna (life of)_, I. 317, 340\n\nR\u00e2ma-linga, II. 221\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nanda, I. xliv _sq._; II. 212, 242 _sq._, 257, 263, 268, 269; III.\n420\n\nR\u00e2ma\u00f1\u00f1adesa, III. 46, 50\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, I. xliv; II. 73, 74, 145, 151, 182, 186, 192, 197 _sq._,\n203, 212, 221, 226, 228, 229, 232 _sq._, 242, 314, 316; III. 420, 457\n\nR\u00e2manya Sangha, III. 37, 38\n\nR\u00e2map\u00e2la, II. 112, 129; III. 360\n\nR\u00e2map\u00fbrvat\u00e2-pan\u00eeya Upanishad, II. 151\n\nR\u00e2mar\u00e2ja, III. 80\n\nR\u00e2mat\u00e2pan\u00eeya, II. 280\n\nRama Thuppdey-Chan, king, III. 129\n\nR\u00e2mats, II. 243\n\nR\u00e2ma-uttarat\u00e2pan\u00eeya, II. 151\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2yana, I. xlv, lxxv, xc, c; II. 148 _sq._, 169, 187, 245; III. 6,\n103, 106, 120, 152, 167, 170, 180, 186, 342\n\nRamayya, II. 225\n\nR\u00e2md\u00e2s, II. 256\n\nR\u00e2m D\u00e2s (Guru), II. 268\n\nRamesvaram, I. 17; II. 150\n\nRammaka (Brahma), I. 153\n\nRanchor, II. 244\n\nRangachari, V., II. 236\n\nRangoon, III. 49\n\nRanjit-Singh, II. 272\n\nRanmali, III. 26\n\nRao-Gop\u00een\u00e2tha, I. xxxv, 58; II. 140, 165, 190, 202; III. 147, 382\n\nRapson, II. 153\n\nRapti (upper), I. 132\n\nRase\u015bvara Dar\u015bana, I. 305; II. 320\n\nR\u00e2sh\u1e6dra k\u00fb\u1e6da dynasty, I. 27, 114\n\nR\u00e2sh\u1e6drap\u00e2laparipricch\u00e2, II. 100\n\nRas L\u00eel\u00e2, II. 250\n\nRas Mandali, II. 250\n\nRatnakara\u1e47\u1e0da-vy\u00fbha-s\u00fbtra, II. 19\n\nRatnak\u00fb\u1e6da, III. 282, 374, 378\n\nRatnak\u00fb\u1e6da-dharma-pary\u00e2ya, II. 57, 61\n\nRatnapura, III. 43\n\nRatnasambhava, II. 26; III. 166, 173\n\nRatnavajra, II. 126\n\nRatn\u00e2val\u00ee, I. 319; II. 97, 259\n\nRatthap\u00e2la sutta, I. 134; III. 71\n\nRaudra, III. 382\n\nRaurava, II. 205\n\nRavana, I. 72, 337; II. 54, 149\n\nRaverty, II. 112\n\nRavi, I. 20\n\nRawak, III. 194\n\nRawal Pindi, I. 21\n\nRawlinson, II. 256\n\nRaymond, I. 11\n\n_Recherches sur les superstitions en Chine_, I. 341; II. 18\n\n_Recht und Sitte_, III. 41, 66\n\n_Record of Buddhist practices_, II. 3\n\n_Records of the Buddhist Empire_, I. 258\n\nRed Clergy, III. 277, 397 _sq._\n\nReincarnation, I. xviii, xix, 1 _sq._, 11, 42, 108, 109, 123, 139,\n194, 195, 196; III. 247, 444 _sq._\n\nR\u00eb\u0302k Na, III. 94\n\nRelations, relativity, theory, I. 208\n\nRelics (Buddhist), I. 169; III. 16, 20, 22-28, 56, 81, 84, 211, 256,\n262, 265, 266, 268, 270\n\nReligion, definition, I. xii, xcvii, 12. Cf. Introduction _passim_\n\n_Religions of India_, II. 143\n\nReligious Orders, I. 95, 96, 97, 237. _See_ Asceticism, Monasteries\n\nRembang, III. 153\n\nR\u00e9musat, III. 207, 250\n\nR\u00e9my, III. 371\n\nRenunciation, I. lxv _sq._, 135, 215; II. 168\n\n_R\u00e9pertoire d'Epigraphie Jaina_, I. 105, 113\n\nRevata, I. 257; III. 28\n\nRevelation (progressive), I. lxxi, 76; II. 191, 233\n\nRevelations (Maitreya), II. 83\n\nRhys Davids, I. 97, 103, 128, 129, 161, 212, 226, 259, 260, 315; II.\n100, 175, 320; III. 14, 30, 45, 303\n\nRhys Davids (Mrs.), I. xxi, 180, 188, 190, 193, 208, 209, 213, 248,\n259, 281, 314; III. 39\n\nRhys Davids and Oldenburg, I. 139\n\nRicci, II. 279\n\nRice, I. 114; II. 108, 213\n\nRichards, II. 174; III. 311\n\nRight Effort, I. 217\n\nRighteousness, kingdom of, I. 140\n  wheel of, I. 143, 170\n\nRight mindfulness, I. 217\n\n\u1e5aig Veda, I. xiv. lxxii, 19, 20, 51, 53, 55, 60, 62; II. 137, 146,\n152, 181, 244, 275; III. 102, 426\n\nRi-lac, III. 342\n\nRi-moi-mthsan-\u00f1id, III. 377\n\n\u1e5aishabha, I. 110; II. 148\n\nRishis, II. 193\n\nRisshu sect, III. 404\n\nRitual, I. xvi, xxi, lxxiv; II. 6, 166-185, 207; III. 331. Cf.\nSacrifices, Temples\n\nRochas (Colonel), I. lvii\n\nRockhill, I. 99, 173, 259; II. 81, 103; III. 207, 211, 295, 351, 358,\n373, 375, 378, 380, 396\n\nRoga, I. 201\n\nRohin\u00ee, I. 149; II. 153, 154\n\nRoja, I. 171\n\nRoman Catholicism, I. lxxxv, 37, 39, 238, 246; III. 35, 399, 417, 427,\n443\n  Colonies, III. 415\n  Empire, I. 24\n\nRomance, religious, III. 225\n\nRosetti, I. lxxxvii\n\nRoss, Sir. Denison, II. 89\n\nRoussel, II. 195\n\nRoyal deification, III. 115, 119, 168\n\nde Rubruk (Wilhelm), III. 395\n\nRu-che-tsan, king, III. 377\n\nruci, II. 255\n\nRudhir\u00e2dhy\u00e2ya, II. 289\n\nRudra, I. 59; II. 137, 140, 141, 183, 202, 228, 277; III. 146\n\nRudradaman, II. 69; III. 139\n\nRudras, I. 57\n\nRudra-samprad\u00e2ya, II. 229, 248\n\nRudra Singh, II. 260\n\nRudravarman, III. 105, 106\n\nRudra Y\u00e2mala Tantra, II. 281\n\nRufais, II. 254\n\nRukmi\u1e47\u00ee, II. 257\n\nRuling Spirits of the Four Quarters, I. 102\n\nRummin Dei, I. 132, 269, 274\n\nRunes, III. 192\n\nRunot, I. 67\n\nr\u00fbpa, I. 188, 209\n\nr\u00fbpar\u00e2go, I. 227\n\nRussell, II. 261, 266\n\nRussia, I. lxx, 54, 122; III. 370\n\nRuwanweli Dagoba, III. 18\n\nRuysbroek, I. 323\n\nRy\u014d-bu Shint\u014d, III. 402, 410\n\n\nSabannu, I. 228\n\nSabaza, III. 161\n\nSabbak\u00e2mi, I. 257\n\n\u015aabda, II. 265, 266, 292, 320; III. 419\n\nSabh\u00e2, II. 273\n\nSaccid\u00e2nanda, I. ciii, 84; II. 248\n\nSachan, III. 446\n\n_Sacred Books of the Hindus_, II. 182, 255\n\nSacred Edict, I. 267; III. 237, 323\n\nSacrifice, I. xvi, xxii, xxxvi, lvi, lxxxv, lxxxvii, 49, 62, 63, 64,\n65 _sq._, 120, 145, 230; III. 127, 362, 385, 443\n\nSada\u015biva, III. 119\n\nSaddan\u00eeti, III. 56\n\nSaddhammapura, III. 50\n\nSaddharma Pu\u1e47\u1e0darika, II. 4, 52; III. 284, 292, 374\n\nSadducees, III. 436\n\nS\u00e2dhaka, II. 122\n\n_Sadhana_, I. 46; II. 45, 282\n\nS\u00e2dhu, II. 104, 245\n\nS\u00e2dhumat\u00ee, II. 11\n\nS'adi, III. 461\n\nSadiya, II. 279\n\nSad-Vaishnavas, II. 239\n\nSadyoj\u00e2ta, II. 198\n\nSaeki, III. 265\n\nSagaing, III. 48, 53, 75\n\nS\u00e2galiyas, III. 21, 40\n\nS\u00e2gara, I. 110\n\nS\u00e2gata, I. 155, 329\n\nSahaj\u00e2nanda, II. 252\n\nSahaj Bhajanias, II. 185\n\nSahassadeva, I. 269\n\nSahin (novice), III. 72\n\nSailesh, II. 147\n\nSaindhava-\u00e7r\u00e2vakas, II. 129\n\nSaint Angela, I. 316\n  Augustine, II. 180\n  Christopher, III. 442\n  Frances, II. 217\n  Gertrude, II. 161\n  John, I. 181\n  Paul, I. lxxiv, 273\n  Placidus (Hubert), III. 442\n  Teresa, I. lxii, 310\n  Thomas, Apostle, III. 414 _sq._\n\n\u015aaisun\u00e2ga dynasty, I. 132\n\n\u015aaiva, etc. _See_ Siva, etc.\n\n\u015aaiva Siddh\u00e2nta, II. 184, 203, 204, 216, 221, 225, 291, 309, 318\n\n\u015aaivottara Kalpa, III. 142\n\nSaiyad Sular Masud (shrine), III. 458\n\nSaiyid dynasty, I. 29\n\nSakad\u00e2g\u00e2min, I. 227\n\nS\u00e2kadv\u00eepa, III. 425, 452\n\nSaka era, III. 154, 155\n\nSakal\u00e2c\u00e2ryamata-sangraha, II. 249\n\n\u015aakambhara, I. 102\n\nSakas, I. xxx, 22, 23; II. 69; III. 212\n\nS\u00e2kiya, I. 131\n\nSakka, I. 59, 102, 130, 333; III. 392\n\nSakk\u00e2ya, I. 200\n\nSakk\u00e2yadi\u1e6d\u1e6di, I. 227\n\n\u015aakra, I. 333\n\nS\u00e2ktas (S\u00e2ktism), I. xxxiv, xxxvi, lxxxvii, 104, 310; II. 17, 18, 121,\n124, 125 _sq._, 170, 176, 185, 189 _sq._, 209, 224, 255, 259, 274-290,\n319 _sq._; III. 54, 274\n\nS\u00e2kti (proper name), II. 145, 196, 216, 223, 274 _sq._, 319; III. 54,\n119, 147, 389, 391, 396\n\nS\u00e2kya (clan), I. 131, 132, 135, 149, 155, 161, 162, 166, 169; III. 13,\n450\n  (abbots), III. 353, 354, 357, 398\n\nS\u00e2kya, II. 255; III. 364\n\nSakya Muni, I. 133, 274; II. 7, 30, 33, 52, 53, 55, 58, 66, 93, 105;\nIII. 166, 173, 177, 246, 327, 342, 385, 389, 446\n\nSakyaputtiya, I. 242\n\nSakya si\u1e43ha, I. 133\n\nSal\u00e1, III. 130\n\n\u015aalistambha S\u00fbtra, III. 378\n\nSallustius, III. 447\n\nSalva, king, II. 155\n\nSalvation (by devotion or faith or prayer), I. xvi, xviii, xix, xxi,\nxxii, xxix, lviii _sq._, 31, 44, 49, 83, 106 _sq._, 144, 186, 222\n_sq._; II. 72, 84, 121 (Tantras), 140, 152, 180-183, 217, 222, 235,\n239, 255, 290, 291, 295, 310, 317; III. 39, 220, 313, 317, 404, 413,\n428, 457\n\nSam\u00e2dhi (rapture), I. 83, 221, 262, 307; II. 61; III. 80, 300\n\nSam\u00e2dhi-r\u00e2ja, II. 55\n\nSamajja, I. 103\n\nSamanas, I. 95\n\nSama\u00f1\u00f1a-phala-sutta, I. 298\n\nSamantabhadra, II. 13, 23, 32; III. 327, 388\n\nSamantamukha, II. 14\n\nSamanta P\u00e2s\u00e2dika, II. 13, 14, 30, 298\n\nSamarkand, III. 192, 202\n\nSamarpana, II. 250\n\nSamat\u00e2, II. 43; III. 310\n\nSama\u1e6data, III. 53\n\nSamatho, I. 313\n\nSamav\u00e2yangam, I. 116\n\nS\u00e2ma Veda, I. 53\n\nS\u00e2mba, III. 452\n\nSambandha, II. 215\n\n\u015a\u00e2mbapuri, III. 453\n\n\u015aambhala, II. 129; III. 360, 386 (Zhambala)\n\nSambh\u00e2ra, II. 32\n\nSambhoga K\u00e2ya, II. 32; III. 388\n\n\u015aambhuvarman, III. 140\n\n\u015aambhu Vish\u1e47u, III. 114\n\nSamding, III. 394\n\nSa\u1e43hit\u00e2s, II. 128, 188, 195\n\nSa\u1e43kara, II. 238\n\nSamm\u00e2di\u1e6d\u1e6dhi, I. 215\n\nSamm\u00e2 Sam\u00e2dhi, I. lxii, 221\n\nSamm\u00e2-sam-buddha, I. 344\n\nSammit\u00eeya, I. 260, 298; II. 98, 101, 105, 108, 129; III. 148, 162\n\nsammoha, III. 117\n\nSammohana (Tantra), III. 118\n\nSammohavinodin\u00ee (Pali), III. 118\n\nSammutiraya, III. 53\n\nSamos, III. 434\n\nSamoyede, I. 9\n\nbSam-pa rGya-mThso, III. 363\n\nSamprad\u00e2ya, II. 179, 228. Cf. Sects\n\nSamprati, I. 113\n\nSa\u1e43s\u00e2ra (migration), I. 1, 42, 43, 44 _sq_., 199, 200; II. 45. _See_\nReincarnation\n\nsa\u1e43sk\u00e2ra, I. 188, 210; II. 300; III. 95\n\nSamudra Gupta, I. 24; II. 87; III. 21\n\nSa\u1e43vara, I. 107; II. 140; III. 391\n\nSamv\u1e5biti-satya, II. 38\n\nSa\u1e43yama, I. 308\n\nSamye, III. 350\n\nSa\u1e43yukt\u00e2bhidharmah\u1e5bidaya, III. 213\n\nSa\u1e43yukt\u00e2gama, I. 293, 300; II. 48; III. 190, 296 _sq_.\n\nSa\u1e43yukta-ratna-pi\u1e6daka S\u00fbtra, II. 83\n\nSa\u1e43yukta-vastu, II. 224\n\nSa\u1e43yutta nik\u00e2ya, I. lxxiii, 189, 190, 192, 193, 201, 232, 278, 289;\nII. 48; III. 65, 246, 297\n\nSanak\u00e2di, II. 228\n\nSanak\u00e2di-samprad\u00e2ya, II. 230\n\n\u015aanakav\u00e2sa, III. 307 (\u015aanav\u00e2sa)\n\nSanang Setsen, III. 355, 357, 361\n\nSanan-kum\u00e2ra, I. 103\n\nSan\u00e2tama Dharma, I. xlviii\n\nSanatsujat\u00eeya, II. 187\n\nSan-bo-tsai, III. 161, 162\n\nSan-Chao, III. 97\n\nSanchi tope, I. 269, 272; III. 14\n\nSandberg, III. 399\n\nS\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0dilya, II. 308\n  S\u00fbtras, II. 182\n\nSang\u00e2maji, I. 160\n\nSangermano, Father, III. 63\n\nSangha (Buddhist order), I. 97, 154, 156, 182, 185, 237 _sq._, 256,\n258; II. 115; III. 11, 36, 71, 214\n\nSanghamitt\u00e2, III. 17, 21\n\nSanghams, II. 214\n\nSanghanandi, III. 307\n\nSanghap\u00e2la, III. 105\n\nSanghar\u00e2jas, III. 65, 83\n\nSangharaksha, II. 64, 80\n\nSanghavarman, III. 295\n\nSanghaya\u015bas, III. 307\n\nSang Hyang Kamah\u00e2y\u00e2nikan, III. 172, 180\n\nSang\u00eeti, I. 256; III. 65\n\nSangsit, III. 185\n\nS\u00e2\u00f1jaya, I. 98, 145, 147, 155\n  (Java), III. 154\n  Belaputta, II. 97\n\n\u015aa\u1e47kara Ac\u00e2rya, I. xxxii, xl, xlii, xliii, lxviii, lxxxi, 82, 86,\n211, 303; II. 73, 74, 109, 110, 130, 175, 183, 187, 197, 203, 206\n_sq._ (life), 220, 233, 234, 238, 258, 280, 282, 312 _sq._\n(doctrines); III. 421. _See_ Advaita, Monism\n\n\u015aa\u1e47kara-dig-vijaya, II. 110, 203\n\nSa\u1e47kara N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, II. 164; III. 114, 147, 181\n\n\u015aa\u1e47karapandita, king, III. 119\n\n\u015aa\u1e47kara-vijaya, II. 209\n\n\u015aankarsha\u1e47a, II. 196, 197, 200, 235, 319\n\nSankh\u00e2ras, I. 188 _sq._, 206 _sq._, 225, 230\n\nSankh\u00e2ruppatti-sutta, I. 210\n\n_\u015aankhya Aphorisms of Kapila_, II. 296\n\nS\u00e2\u1e47khya K\u00e2rik\u00e2bh\u00e2shya, II. 296, 304; III. 286\n  philosophy, I. lxxvi, xcii, 47, 49, 74, 98, 106, 108, 109, 128, 210,\n  211, 302; II. 40, 54, 88, 99, 182, 197, 201, 202, 216, 217, 232, 291,\n  292, 293, 296 _sq._ (details); III. 448\n\nS\u00e2nkhyam, III. 44\n\n_die Sankhya philosophie_, II. 296, 299\n\nS\u00e2\u1e47khyapravacana, II. 296\n\nS\u00e2\u1e47khya-tattva-kaumadi, II. 303\n\nS\u00e2nkhya-Yoga, II. 224, 229\n\nSan Kuan, III. 225\n\nSan-lun-tsung, III. 304\n\nSanna, I. 188\n\nSanna (king), III. 154\n\nSanny\u00e2sin, I. 89; II. 247, 254, 294\n\nSanskrit, I. xxiv, xxviii, 117, 130, 275, 300; II. 4, 6, 47 _sq._\n(Canon). (_Also_ Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nist Literature), 69, 113, 123 (Nepal); III.\n81, 82, 138 _sq._ (Champa), 154, 164, 189, 190, 294 _sq._ (Chinese\nCanon), 373\n\n_Sanskrit manuscripts of Bikaner_, II. 190\n\n_Sanskrit Texts_ (Muir), I. 36\n\n\u015a\u00e2nta, III. 382\n\nsant\u00e2na, II. 36\n\nSan-ta-pu, III. 287, 311\n\n\u015a\u00e2ntarakshita, III. 348 _sq._\n\nSanthag\u00e2ra, I. 150\n\nS\u00e2nti, II. 255\n\n\u015a\u00e2ntideva, II. 9, 45, 60, 106\n\n\u015a\u00e2ntiparvan, II. 195, 196, 202, 203; III. 425\n\nSantri Birahis, III. 182\n\nSan Tsang, III. 282\n\nSaoshyant, II. 23; III. 451\n\n\u015aarabha M\u00fbrti, II. 140\n\nS\u00e2rad\u00e2tilaka Tantra, II. 281\n\nSaraha, I. xxxii; II. 29, 85; III. 219\n\nSaraks, II. 114, 177\n\nSaraladasa, II. 114\n\nS\u00e2rasamuccaya, III. 172\n\nSarasvat\u00ee, II. 19, 145\n\nS\u00e2riputra-prakara\u1e47a, III. 190\n\nSariputta, I. 147, 148, 155, 157, 172, 180, 211, 229, 320; II. 9; III.\n58, 60, 89\n\nSarkar, B.K., II. 32, 111, 114, 116\n\nSarkar Jadunath, II. 113\n\nSarnath, I. 141, 171, 266, 270; II. 112\n\n\u015aarva, III. 146\n\nSarva-dar\u015bana-sa\u1e47graha, II. 91, 201, 202, 203, 205, 222, 291, 320, 321\n\nSarvaj\u00f1\u00e2deva, III. 379\n\nsarvajnatva, II. 204\n\nsarva-kart\u1e5bitva, II. 204\n\nSarva \u015aavar\u00e2n\u00e2m Bhagavati, III. 394\n\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din (sect), I. xxvi, xxxii, 262, 263, 291, 300; II. 48, 72,\n77 _sq._, 85, 90, 101, 224; III. 148, 176, 191, 201, 202, 209, 212,\n213, 285, 286, 292, 299 (Canon), 315, 451\n\nS\u00e2sanava\u1e43sa, III. 55 _sq._, 61, 62 _sq._\n\nSa\u015b\u00e2\u1e47ka, II. 96\n\nSa-skya-pancen, III. 354\n\nSaskya Pandita, III. 350\n\nSassanids, I. 24; III. 191, 451\n\n\u015a\u00e2st\u00e2, III. 120\n\n\u015a\u00e2stra Madhyavibh\u00e2ga, III. 123\n\n\u015a\u00e2stri, Pandit Hari Prasad, II. 113, 116\n\nsasvat\u00e2, II. 43\n\nSatagiri, I. 103\n\n\u015aatapatha Br\u00e2hmana, I. lxxx, 89, 91 _sq._; II. 195\n\nSatara Brahmans, II. 279\n\n\u015aatarudriya hymn, II. 141, 142, 183\n\n\u015aata\u015b\u00e2stra, III. 304\n\nS\u00e2tavah\u00e2na dynasty, I. 22; II. 85\n\nSathagopa, II. 231, 237\n\nS\u00e2ti, I. 197\n\nSati, I. 217\n\nSat\u00ee, II. 126, 285\n\nSati (Suttee), I. lxxxviii; II. 168; III. 183\n\nSat-mahal-pras\u00e2da, III. 18\n\nSat-n\u00e2mis, II. 286\n\nSatrapies, III. 451\n\nSatriyas, III. 183\n\nSatrunjaya, I. 121; III. 167\n\nSattras (monasteries), II. 175, 260\n\nSattva, II. 298\n\nS\u00e2ttvata-Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, II. 188, 189, 195, 196, 198\n\nS\u00e2ttvata sept, II. 154, 162, 194 _sq._\n\n\u015a\u00e2tyasiddhi\u015b\u00e2stra, III. 304\n\nSatyavarman, III. 121, 140, 144\n\nSaugat\u00e2\u015brama, III. 121 (monastery)\n\nSaukavastan, III. 220\n\nsaumya, III. 382\n\nSaundar\u00e2nandak\u00e2vya, II. 83\n\nSaura Pur\u00e2na, II. 163, 238\n\nSaur\u00e2ntrika, I. 260; II. 86, 90, 92; III. 304\n\nSauv\u00eera, I. 190\n\nS\u00e2vatthi, I. 148, 151, 152, 159, 162, 245\n\nSavitri, I. 57; II. 146\n\nSawan, III. 185\n\nSawti sect, III. 63, 73\n\nSay\u00e2, III. 72\n\nS\u00e2yan\u00e2c\u00e2rya, II. 210\n\nSay-fong inscript., III. 124\n\nScandinavian Literature, I. 45\n\n_Sc\u00e8nes de la Vie du Buddha_, I. 173\n\nSchiefner, I. 173; II. 126, 129; III. 108, 156, 219, 307, 453\n\nSchmidt, III. 354, 373\n\nSchmitt, III. 83\n\nSchomerus, I. xli; II. 188, 204, 319\n\nSchools of Philosophy (Indian), II. 291 _sq._ Cf. Sects\n\nSchopenhauer, I. lv, lxxvi, 47, 201, 208, 236, 309; II. 270\n\nSchrader, I. lxxx, 76, 97, 99, 219, 232, 236; II. 128, 188, 189, 195,\n197, 198, 204, 210, 235, 270, 322, 387\n\nScience, I. ciii; III. 376 (Tibetan literature). Cf. Cosmology,\nMetaphysics\n\nScott, Sir. J.S., III. 49, 68, 70\n\nScott Moncrieff, III. 430\n\nScythian kingdoms, I. 22; III. 212 _sq._\n\nScythianus, III. 446\n\nSdok Kak Thom inscript., III. 109, 117\n\nSea of Milk, III. 425\n\nSecret rites, II. 121, 283\n\nSects:\n  Buddhist, I. 259, 260 (list), 298 (list); III. 285\n  Burmese, III. 57 _sq._\n  Chinese Buddhists, III. 303 _sq._\n  Hindu, II. 179 _sq._\n  Japanese Buddhists, III. 403 _sq._\n  Mahay\u00e2na and Hin\u00e2yana defined, I. xxx; II. 3 _sq._\n  Sivaite, II. 216 _sq._, 222 _sq._ (Kashmir), 225 _sq._\n  Tibetan, III. 397 _sq._\n  Vishnuite, II. 194 _sq._, 228 _sq._\n\nSeidenst\u00fccker, I. 312\n\nSeistan, III. 3\n\nSekhen, I. 218\n\nSekkilar, II. 220\n\nSeleucus Nicator, I. 21; III. 432\n\nSelf-hypnotization, I. 319\n\nSemirechinsk, III. 199\n\nSemitic alphabets, I. 61; III. 430\n  deities, I. 60; II. 276\n\nSen-Dinesh Chandra, II. 114, 187, 213, 245, 253, 255, 279, 287\n\nSen, Keshub Chunder, I. 339\n\nSenart, I. 113, 267; III. 122, 190\n\nSenas, I. 27; II. 112, 253\n\nSendha-pa, II. 129\n\nS\u00eang, III. 217\n\nS\u00eang-Hin, III. 292\n\nS\u00eang-ts'an, III. 308\n\nS\u00eang-Yu, III. 307\n\nSensus Communis, I. 192\n\nSeoul, III. 339\n\nSera, III. 359\n\nSerapis, I. 41; III. 244, 429\n\nSeringapatam, II. 237\n\nSermons (Buddhas), I. 143, 146, 185, 295\n\n_Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot_, II. 42, 71\n\nSerpent Power, the, I. 311\n\nSerpent-worship, I. 103\n\nSerra, III. 359, 399\n\nSetavya, I. 162\n\nSh\u00e2burk\u00e2n, III. 446\n\nShad\u00e2yatana, III. 247\n\nShah Jehan, I. 30, 31; II. 270\n\nShaka, III. 405\n\nShakespeare, III. 437\n\nSha-le (Su-le, Shu-le) (Kashgar), III. 200\n\nShamanism, III. 383\n\nShang Ti (Tien), I. 8\n\nShan languages, II. 279\n  mountain, III. 325\n\nShans, III. 46 _sq._, 61, 79, 82\n\nShan-shan, III. 211, 213\n\nShan-si, II. 20; III. 221\n\nShan Tao, III. 314\n\nShantung, III. 319\n\nShao-Lin Temple, III. 255\n\nSha\u1e6dcakrabheda, I. 310\n\nSha\u1e6d-karma, I. 305\n\nShea and Trayer, II. 321\n\nSheikh Chisti shrine, III. 458\n  Farid, III. 459\n  Sadu, III. 459\n\nShelley, I. 46\n\nShen, I. 6\n\nShen-Chu Hung, III. 279\n\nShen-Hsiu, III. 309\n\nShen-Kua, III. 246\n\nSh\u00ean-S\u00eang-Chuan, III. 288\n\nShen-shen (Hinayanist), II. 93\n\nShen-Si, III. 250, 265\n\nSh\u00ea-p'o, III. 156, 176\n\nSher-Chin, III. 373, 374\n\nSh\u00ea-yeh-po-mo, III. 105\n\nShiahs, III. 459\n\nShiefner, II. 29\n\nShih-Chi-lung, III. 250\n\nShih-fen-l\u00fc-tsang, III. 285\n\nShih-Huang Ti (Emperor), III. 246\n\nShih-li-fo-shih, III. 162\n\nShih-li-pa-da-do-a-la-pa-mo, III. 154\n\nShih-sung-l\u00fc, III. 285\n\nShih Tsung, III. 268\n\nShin, II. 60\n\nShingon sect, II. 27, 58, 87, 275; III. 284, 316 _sq._, 382, 385, 404\n\nShin-shu, II. 51; III. 404\n\nShintoism, I. lxxxiii, lxxxviii; III. 402 _sq._\n\nSho-jo, II. 3\n\nShort cut, the, III. 312\n\nShou-leng-yen-san-mei-ching, II. 56\n\nShou-Pu-sa-Chieh, III. 328\n\nShrichakrasambhara, II. 121\n\nShrines, II. 116 (Nepalese). _See also_ Temples, Images, Caves, P\u00eeths,\nDagobas, Pagodas, Chedis, Stupas\n\nShu, III. 249\n\nShuddhi, I. xlviii\n\nShun-Chih, III. 279\n\nShun-ti, III. 274\n\nShwe Dagon Pagoda, I. 119; III. 74, 76\n\nShwe Zigon Pagoda, III. 56, 69\n\nSialkot, I. 25\n\nSiam, I. xii, xxiv, xxv, lxxxii, 241, 248, 276; II. 80; III. 49, 78\n_sq._\n\nSiam Sangha, III. 37\n\nSiamese Chronicles, III. 79 _sq._, 111\n\nSiddha, I. 110\n\nSiddh\u00e2nta, I. 116; II. 216, 222\n\nSiddh\u00e2nt\u00e2c\u00e2ra, II. 284\n\nSiddh\u00e2nta Dipika, II. 183, 204, 205, 221\n  Rahasya, II. 249\n\nSiddha Pito, III. 387\n\nSiddhartha, Siddhattha (name of Buddha), I. 133\n\nSiddhattika, I. 339\n\nSiddhi, II. 128, 282\n\nSiddhi-traya, II. 232\n\nSiddhi-vidy\u00e2, III. 117\n\nSi-Do-In-Dzon, II. 122\n\nSiem-reap, III. 112\n\nS\u00eeg\u00e2la, I. 251\n\nS\u00eeg\u00e2lov\u00e2da sutta, I. 158, 251\n\nSiggava, I. 256\n\nSiha, I. 111, 158\n\nSihala\u1e6d\u1e6dha Kath\u00e2, III. 14\n\nSikander Lodi, II. 263; III. 456\n\nSikhi, I. 342\n\nSikhim, II. 260; III. 369, 398\n\nSikh Religion, the, II. 256, 262 _sq._\n\nSikhs, I. xliv, xlvi, lxxii, 19, 31; II. 151, 176, 177, 185, 212, 267\n_sq._; III. 456\n\n\u015aikshapatri, II. 252\n\n\u015aiksh\u00e2samuccaya, II. 55 _sq._, 60\n\nS\u00eelabbataparam\u00e2so, I. 227\n\nS\u00eelabhadra, III. 315\n\nS\u00eel\u00e2ditya, II. 96\n\nS\u00eelam (S\u00eela), I. 272; III. 30, 173, 304\n\n\u015ailappadhikaram, II. 214\n\nSilappadigaram, II. 108\n\nS\u00eela-vagga, I. 103\n\nS\u00eelava\u1e43sa, III. 61, 71\n\nSilla, III. 336\n\nS\u00eem\u00e2, III. 59, 130\n\nSima (queen), III. 154\n\nSimeon, I. 133\n\nSimha Bhikshu, III. 307\n\nSimh\u00e2laputra, III. 307\n\nSimh\u00e2sana (Lingayat See), II. 227\n\nSin (Jain views), I. 107\n\nSind, I. 25, 28; II. 100, 109, 129; III. 455\n\nSindhu, II. 102\n\nSi-nganfu, III. 207\n\nSingaraja, III. 185\n\nSingasari, III. 159, 165 _sq._\n\nSing-gu-sa, III. 63\n\nSinhalese Canon, I. 289 _sq._; III. 30\n  Chronicles, I. 269; III. 25. Cf. Mah\u00e2va\u1e43sa, Culava\u1e43sa\n  Commentaries, III. 29\n  Sangha, III. 37\n\nSinhapura, III. 137\n\nSinope, III. 244\n\n\u015aira\u015bcheda, III. 118\n\nSiri, I. 103; II. 124\n\nSirimeghava\u1e47\u1e47a, III. 21, 25\n\n\u015ai\u015bira peak, III. 152\n\n\u015ais\u1e47adev\u00e2h, II. 143\n\nSisodias, II. 155\n\nSisowath, king, III. 129\n\nSister-marriage, III. 450\n\nS\u00eet\u00e2, I. 72; III. 152\n\nS\u00eetal\u00e2, II. 276; III. 459\n\nSittars, II. 218, 220; III. 418\n\n\u015aiva, I. xv, xvi, xxviii, xlii, xlvi, 48; II. 70, 95, 96, 98, 114,\n118, 119, 122, 126, 127, 136-165, 174, 179, 182, 192 _sq._, 202-227,\n228, 274, 319; III. 52, 53, 85, 97, 107, 113, 144, 146, 167, 173, 186,\n355, 391, 392, 417. _See also_ Linga-worship\n  Goddesses, II. 145 _sq._\n\n\u015aiva-bh\u00e2gavatas, II. 202\n\n\u015aiva-bhakti, III. 146\n\n\u015aiva-buddha, III. 159, 169, 181, 186\n\n\u015aiva-buddh\u00e2laya, III. 169\n\n\u015aiva-dharmottara, II. 187\n\n\u015aiva-d\u1e5bishti, II. 223\n\nSivaism, Kashmiri, II. 222 _sq._\n\nSivaism, Tamil, II. 212 _sq._\n\nSivaite Tantrism, II. 139\n\nSivaji (Maratha), I. 31; II. 157, 161, 256\n\n\u015aiva Kaivalya, III. 117 _sq._, 146\n\n\u015aiva-mukham, III. 144\n\nSiva\u00f1\u00e2nabotham, II. 205\n\nSiva\u00f1\u00e2nar, II. 221\n\n\u015aiv\u00e2-r\u00e2dha, III. 146\n\n\u015aiva-Soma, III. 119\n\n\u015aiv\u00e2\u015brama, III. 134\n\n\u015aiva S\u00fbtras, II. 205, 222, 224, 225\n\n\u015aiv\u00e2v\u00e2kyam, II. 220\n\n\u015aiva Vish\u1e47u, III. 181\n\nSkanda (K\u00e2rtekeya), II. 145, 202\n  Pur\u00e2na, II. 220\n\nSkandas, I. 123, 186, 190, 198, 209, 218 _sq._, 223, 229, 230; II. 67;\nIII. 175\n\nSkardo, III. 20\n\nSkeen, III. 13\n\nSkoptsys, I. xxxvi, lxx, 122\n\nSlave Sultans, I. 29\n\nSlavonic (Slavs), I. 54, 63; III. 191\n\nSleep, I. lxiii, 82 _sq._; II. 302\n\n\u015alokas, II. 104\n\nSmaradahana, III. 171\n\nSm\u00e2rta Ac\u00e2ryas, II. 237\n\nSm\u00e2rtas, I. xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xl; II. 189, 209, 222\n\nSmith (Vincent), I. xix, 15, 32, 267, 271; II. 64, 76, 88, 149, 159,\n172, 187; III. 260, 414, 432, 453\n\nSm\u1e5biti, I. lxxv, 54, 217; II. 189, 210\n\ns\u1e47adar, III. 352\n\nSn\u00e2nadro\u1e47i, III. 147\n\nSocrates, I. 94, 142\n\nbSod-nams, III. 361\n\nSoenda, III. 158\n\nSoerabaja, III. 158, 161, 165\n\nSogdiana, I. 276; II. 139; III. 189, 191, 192, 201, 206\n\nSohgaura copper-plate, III. 74\n\nSolar deities, II. 28\n\nSolomon, I. 94; III. 430\n\nSoma, I. 39, 58, 69, 90, 103\n\nSomaj, III. 412\n\nSom\u00e2nanda, II. 223\n\nSomanaradittyar, II. 318\n\nSomapuri, II. 111\n\nSomdec pr\u00e1h sanghr\u00e2c, III. 131\n\nSomnath, I. 28; III. 455\n\nSon of Heaven, III. 235\n\nSona, III. 50\n\nSonada\u1e47\u1e0da Sutta, I. 131, 135, 152\n\nSonagir, I. 121\n\nSonaka, I. 256, 257\n\nSonari, I. 269\n\nS\u00f4ngkran, III. 93\n\nSongs of the Monks and Nuns, I. 171, 242\n\nSoshyos, III. 451\n\nSotapanno, I. 227\n\nSoul, I. l _sq._, ci _sq._, 260; II. 204, 236, 239, 297, 300; III.\n116. Cf. Atman, Anatta, J\u00eeva, Purusha, Pa\u015bu, Reincarnation\n\nSouth Indian inscriptions, II. 278\n\nSouthern Star, the, III. 342\n\nSoyen Shaku, II. 42\n\nSpanda, II. 223, 224\n  Karikas, II. 223\n\nSpecht, III. 201\n\nSpells. _See_ Dhar\u00e2nis, Mantras\n\nSpenta Mainyu, II. 198\n\nSphu\u1e6d\u00e2rtha, II. 89\n\nSpiritualism, III. 229\n\nSpirit world, I. 330; III. 81. _See_ Nats, Phis, Preta-bhut\n\n\u015araddh\u00e2, II. 53, 180\n\n\u015arama\u1e47as, I. 95; III. 245\n\n\u015ar\u00e2vakas, II. 80, 114, 129; III. 324\n\nSr\u00e2vakay\u00e2na, II. 4\n\nSravana Belgola, I. xli, 114, 117, 120, 121; II. 214\n\nSravasti, II. 30, 93\n\nSrey Santhor inscript., III. 122, 123\n\nSr\u00ee, II. 145, 228; III. 114\n  Champe\u015bvara, III. 113\n  Dharmar\u00e2ja, III. 80, 81\n  Guhya Samaja, III. 375\n  Harsha, III. 453\n  Herukaharmya, III. 150\n  Jalange\u015bvara, III. 113\n  Jayakshetra, III. 113\n  Kantha, II. 205\n  Mahendre\u015bvar\u00ee, III. 115\n  Mandare\u015bvara, III. 113\n\nSr\u00eebh\u00e2shya, II. 182, 186, 229, 233, 234, 235, 237; II. 420\n\nSr\u00eebhoja, III. 162\n\nSr\u00eem\u00e2rar\u00e2ja, III. 139\n\nSrinagar, I. 269\n\nSringeri (Abbot and monastery), I. 208, 210, 211; II. 176; III. 147\n\nSrinjaya, I. 88\n\n\u015ar\u00eeparama-purohita, III. 146\n\n\u015ar\u00ee-perumbudur, II. 233\n\n\u015ar\u00ee R\u00e2jasan\u00e2gara, III. 159\n\n\u015ar\u00eeranga, II. 173, 190, 222, 232, 233, 234, 237\n\n\u015ar\u00eesailam, II. 227\n\n\u015ar\u00eesamprad\u00e2ya, II. 233\n\n\u015ar\u00ee\u015b\u00e2nabhadresvara, III. 147\n\n\u015ar\u00ee \u015aikhare\u015bvara, III. 113\n\n\u015ar\u00eesomasarman, III. 120\n\n\u015ar\u00ee S\u00fbryava\u1e43sa R\u00e2ma, III. 83, 84, 96\n  Vaishnavas, II. 233, 235, 241\n  Vinaya, III. 138, 148\n\nSr\u014fk K\u00e2mp\u00fbch\u00e9a (Khmer), III. 101\n\nSrong-tsan-gan-po (king), III. 347\n\nSrosh, III. 221\n\nSrut Gopal, II. 265\n\nSruti, I. lxxv, 54; II. 310\n\nSsu, III. 217\n\nSsu-Chuan, III. 349\n\nStael Holstein, II. 64\n\n_Stand der indischen Philosophie zur Zeit Mah\u00e2v\u00eeras und Buddhas_, I. 97\n\nStanton, III. 319\n\nStarr, F., III. 336\n\nState-craft, I. 18\n\nStatue portraits, III. 114 _sq._\n\nStcherbatskoi, II. 87\n\nStein, I. xxxi; II. 127; III. 3, 193, 195, 196, 207, 209, 210, 218,\n245, 301, 378\n\nSteiner, III. 395\n\nStevenson, Mrs., I. 105\n\nSth\u00e2, I. 116\n\nSth\u00e2nakav\u00e2si, I. 116\n\nSthavira, I. 260; II. 100, 101, 103; III. 45, 149\n\nSthiramati, II. 10, 46, 94\n\nsth\u00fbla-\u015bar\u00eera, II. 32\n\n_Stories of the Eighty-four Vaishnavas_, II. 251\n\nStrabo, III. 415, 431, 450\n\n_Studies in Mystical Religion_, II. 313\n\nStupa, I. 119, 169; II. 76, 85, 98, 143, 172; III. 22, 65, 132, 165,\n193, 194, 239, 270, 325\n\nSuali, II. 321\n\nSubandhu, II. 98\n\nSubb\u00e2shita Sangraha, II. 121, 123\n\nSubhadda, I. 154, 166\n\nSubh\u00e2shita, II. 104\n\nSubh\u00fbti, III. 360\n\nSubjective reality, I. 327\n\nSubrahma\u1e47ya, II. 222\n\nSucandra, king, III. 386\n\nSuchin, III. 261\n\nSuchow, III. 192\n\nSudar\u015bana, III. 298, 387\n\nSudas, I. 20, 59\n\nSuddh\u00e2dvaita, II. 248, 318\n\nSuddh\u00e2vidya, II. 319\n\nSuddhodana, I. 131, 133, 148\n\nSudhanvan, king, II. 110, 207\n\nSudharman, I. 111\n\nSudras, I. 72; II. 85, 173, 185, 260; III. 183, 219\n\nSuffering (cause of), I. 144, 206\n\nSufism, I. xii, ci; II. 239, 266; III. 460\n\nSugata, III. 168\n\n_(La) Suggestion_, I. 318\n\nSuhrillekha, II. 85; III. 286\n\nSuhtankar, II. 73\n\nSui Annals and dynasty, III. 101, 206, 257 _sq._, 289, 293\n\nSuicide, I. lxx, 205; II. 104; III. 329\n\nSuj\u00e2r\u00e2, I. 175\n\nSukham, I. 224\n\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee, II. 23, 28, 103; III. 219, 220\n\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha, II. 5, 14, 19, 27 _sq._; III. 220, 283, 284, 295,\n313, 428\n\nSukh Nidhan, II. 265\n\nSukhothai, III. 79 _sq._, 82, 85 (Sukhodaya)\n\nSukhtankar, II. 315\n\nS\u00fbksh\u1e43a-\u015bar\u00eera, I. li\n\nSuku temples, III. 168\n\nS\u00fblagandi, III. 73\n\nSultanates, I. 29, 30\n\nSultan Muhammad Bahmani, III. 461\n  Shahid, III. 459\n\nSumangalavil\u00e2sin\u00ee, III. 23, 30\n\nSumat\u00ee (queen), Play, II. 237\n\nSumatra, I. xii; III. 104, 107, 151, 161-163\n\nSumedha, I. 343\n\nSu-m\u00ean-ta-la, III. 163\n\nSumerugarbha, III. 283\n\nSumpa, III. 353, 381\n\nSun (Buddha), III. 317\n\nSundara (king), I. 114\n  (writer), II. 215\n\nSundar\u00ee, I. 157\n\nSung dynasty, III. 148, 158, 205, 242, 253, 269, 282, 289, 290, 301\n\nSunga dynasty, I. 22; II. 68\n\nSung Y\u00fcn, II. 65, 96; III. 209, 211, 254, 256\n\nSun-worship, II. 98, 109, 146, 156; III. 452, 453\n\nS\u00fbny\u00e2 (S\u00fbnyam, S\u00fbnrata, S\u00fbny\u00e2ta), II. 38, 43, 51, 52, 55, 67, 73, 75,\n115, 198; III. 173\n\nS\u00fbnyam\u00fbrti, II. 116\n\nS\u00fbny\u00e2 Pur\u00e2\u1e47a, II. 114\n\nS\u00fbnya Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, II. 115\n\nS\u00fbnya-v\u00e2da, I. 303; II. 322\n\nSupernatural, the, I. 141, 161, 174, 304. _See_ Miracles\n\nSuperstitions, I. xxxvii; II. 121; III. 230 _sq._, 240, 334, 344.\n_See_ Aboriginal deities, Animism\n\nSuppiya, I. 289\n\nSupreme Spirit, II. 46, 137, 179, 193, 194, 199, 229, 238, 243, 290,\n294\n\n\u015a\u00fbr\u00e2ngama, III. 284\n\n\u015a\u00fbrangama Sam\u00e2dhi, II. 56\n\nSurashtra, I. 23; III. 451\n\nSurdas, II. 191\n\nSurendrabodhi, III. 379\n\nSur-sagar, II. 191\n\nS\u00fbrya, I. 57; II. 146; III. 184, 186, 453, 454\n\nS\u00fbryagarbha S\u00fbtra, II. 58; III. 215\n\nS\u00fbryan\u00e2r\u00e2yana, II. 114\n\nS\u00fbryava\u1e43sa Rama (\u015ar\u00ee), II. 7; III. 11\n\nS\u00fbryavarmadeva, III. 149\n\nS\u00fbryavarman, III. 110\n\nSuso, I. 317\n\nSutasoma J\u00e2taka, III. 172, 176, 181, 442\n\nS\u00fbtra Krit\u00e2nga, I. 111, 116\n\nS\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, II. 49, 83, 169; III. 439\n\nSu-Tsung, III. 263, 274\n\nSutta, I. lxxiii, 98, 129 (meaning), 130, 150, 166, 172, 258,\n277 _sq._\n\nSuttanta, I. 129\n\nSutta Nip\u00e2ta, I. 117, 133, 135, 164, 216, 232, 279, 289; II. 160, 197;\nIII. 42, 299\n  Sangaha, III. 56\n  Vibhanga, I. 277, 289\n\nSuvar\u1e47abh\u00fbmi, III. 6, 52, 59, 103\n\nSuv\u00e2rna-dv\u00eep\u00e2, III. 353\n\nSuvar\u1e47a-prabh\u00e2sa-s\u00fbtra, II. 32, 54, 60; III. 191, 215, 284\n\nSu-Wu, III. 105, 113\n\nS\u00fbyagadangam, I. 116\n\nSuzuki (Zeitaro), II. 10, 34, 42, 44, 56, 71, 83\n\nSvabh\u00e2va, II. 39\n\nSvabh\u00e2va-k\u00e2ya, II. 32\n\nSvabh\u00e2va-v\u00e2da, I. 98\n\nSvacchanda, II. 224\n\nSvankalok, III. 79\n\nSvasamvedyopanishad, II. 322\n\nSvayambh\u00fb, II. 20, 57, 118\n  Pur\u00e2na, II. 20, 55, 118, 119; III. 383\n\nSvetadv\u00eepa, II. 196; III. 425\n\nSvetaketu, I. 8\n\n\u015avet\u00e2mbara, I. 111, 112, 116, 117, 120\n\n\u015avet\u00e2\u015bvatara Upanishad, I. 85; II. 180, 182, 187, 219, 296, 302, 305\n\nSw\u00e2min\u00e2r\u00e2ya\u1e47a, II. 175, 252\n\nSwat, II. 126\n\nSwedenborg, I. lv\n\nSwinburne, I. lxvi; II. 287\n\nSwing rites, I. 100; II. 115; III. 94\n\nSyadv\u00e2da, I. 108\n\nSy\u00e2ma, III. 79\n\nSyllabaries, use of, III. 300\n\nSymbolism, I. lxx\n\nSynod, III. 34\n\nSyria, I. 268; III. 430\n\nSyriac, III. 189\n\nSyrian Christianity, II. 226\n\n\nTa-A-lo-han-nan-t'i-mi-to-lo-so-shuo-fa-chu-chi, III. 326\n\nTabaristan, III. 199\n\nTabat-i-Nasiri, II. 112\n\nTa Chi, III. 282\n\nTa Chieng, II. 3\n\nTagara (Ter), III. 106, 155\n\nTagaung, III. 47, 50\n\nTagore Devendranath, I. 76; II. 287\n  Rabindranath, I. 46; II. 45\n\nT'aiping Rebellion, III. 232, 319\n\nTai-shih-chih, II. 23\n\nTai-Tsu, III. 270, 275, 289\n\nTai-Tsung, III. 259, 260, 264, 270, 279, 288, 327\n\nTaittiriya Aranyaka, II. 153\n\nTaittiriya school, I. lxxiii, 78 _sq._\n  Upanishad, I. 46, 72, 78, 81, 84\n\nTajih, II. 27\n\nTa-jih-ching, II. 58; III. 284, 317\n\nTa-jima, II. 88; III. 265\n\nTakakusu, I. 258; II. 3, 55, 78, 81, 82, 90, 103, 104, 125; III. 162,\n217, 256, 283, 286, 298, 315, 329\n\nTa Keo, III. 132\n\nTaksha\u015b\u00eel\u00e2, I. 282; II. 100; III. 220\n\nTalaings, III. 28, 29, 45, 46, 51, 100\n\nTalifu, III. 79\n\nTalikota, I. 30\n\ntamas, II. 298\n\n_Tamilian Antiquary_, II. 215, 219\n\nTamil Pur\u00e2\u1e47as, II. 183\n\nTamils (language, literature, etc.), I. xxiv, xli, 108, 114, 118; II.\n96, 182, 189, 191, 192, 204, 211, 212, 216; III. 5, 11 _sq._, 26, 42\n_sq._, 416\n\nTa Ming San Tsang, III. 289\n\nTamluk, II. 94\n\nTa-mo, III. 255\n\nTa-mohs\u00fce-mailun, III. 304\n\nTamralipti, II. 92\n\ntan-dhan-man, II. 250\n\nT'ang dynasty, II. 18; III. 54, 154, 155, 193, 198, 202, 204, 206,\n208, 209, 210, 242, 258-269, 289, 290, 301, 337\n\nTangri, III. 216\n\nTanguts, III. 208, 212\n\nTa\u1e47h\u00e2, I. lxxvii _sq._, 144, 198, 206, 208, 209\n\nTanjore, I. 26; II. 214; III. 5, 16, 44\n\nTanjur, the, III. 351, 372 _sq._\n\nTanm\u00e2tra, II. 299\n\nTantoc Pangg\u0115laran, III. 171\n\nTantras (Tantrism), I. xxxvi, lxxiv, lxxxi, lxxxvi, lxxxviii, 49, 67;\nII. 4, 8, 9, 21, 32, 55, 61, 62, 87, 121, 185, 188 _sq._, 274 _sq._,\n306, 342; III. 40, 173, 293, 372, 375, 462\n\nTantra \u015a\u00e2stra, II. 281\n\nTantrav\u00e2rttika, II. 207\n\nTantray\u00e2na, III. 316\n\nTantri, III. 172\n\nTantric Buddhism, II. 126, 129, 130; III. 51, 52, 349\n  school, III. 316-320\n  texts, II. 121; III. 265\n\nTantular, III. 176\n\nTanunapat (Agni), I. 57\n\nTao, II. 42; III. 216\n\nTao-an, III. 295\n\nTao Hsin, III. 308\n\nTao Hsuan, III. 316, 326\n\nTaoism, I. lxxxiii, 49, 306; II. 284; III. 125, 193, 216, 227 _sq._,\n241, 252, 258, 267, 271, 275 _sq._, 305, 319\n\nTaoist deities, III. 342\n\nTao-mi-to Ching, III. 295\n\nTao-t\u00ea-Ching, III. 246, 247\n\nT\u00e5p\u00e5, III. 183\n\nTapas, I. 71, 119. _See_ Asceticism\n\nTapasi, III. 141\n\nTa Prohm temple, III. 123\n\nTapussa, III. 50\n\nT\u00e2r\u00e2, II. 16-19, 27, 105, 122 _sq._, 277, 280; III. 156, 165, 169,\n173, 219, 348, 393\n\nT\u00e2r\u00e2, the White, III. 383\n\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, II. 56, 63, 65, 68, 78, 80, 87, 111, 112, 113, 115, 125,\n126, 128, 129; III. 52, 108, 123, 156, 177, 180, 219, 306, 307, 331,\n360, 363, 381, 398, 453\n\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha Vidy\u00e2ratha, II. 281\n\nTarigs, I. 238\n\nTarim basin, I. xxvi; II. 17; III. 188 _sq._, 349, 452\n\nTartar states, III. 8, 126, 249, 268\n\nTashiding, III. 371\n\nTashihchi, III. 327\n\nTashi Lama, II. 113; III. 370, 371\n\nTashi-lhun-po, III. 345, 360, 399\n\nTashkent, III. 199, 202\n\nde Tassy (Garcin), II. 262\n\nTath\u00e2gata, I. 110, 133, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 228, 230; II. 26, 38;\nIII. 166, 216, 446\n  Garbha, II. 34, 43, 75, 84, 87\n  Guhyaka, II. 55, 61, 123; III. 375\n\nTa-Tsi, II. 57\n\nTa\u1e6d\u1e6da\u1e47a\u1e6d\u1e6du Pi\u1e37\u1e37ai, II. 220\n\nTat tvam asi, I. 81\n\ntattvas, II. 204, 297, 319\n\ntattvatraya, II. 237\n\nTa'-t'ung-fu, III. 193\n\nTaunggwin Say\u00e2daw, III. 66\n\nTaungu, III. 53\n\nTauric Artemis, II. 276\n\nTaw Sein Ko, III. 49, 55, 59\n\nTaxila (Takshasila), I. xxxi, xxxv, 21, 23; III. 450. Now Rawal Pindi\n\nTaylor (Isaac), III. 356\n\nTa Yueh Chih, III. 244\n\nTa Yu\u1e47 Ching, III. 261\n\n_Teachings of V\u00eadanta according to R\u0101m\u0101n\u016bj\u0101_, II. 315\n\nTeg Bahadur Guru, II. 268, 270\n\nTegri, III. 354\n\ntejas, II. 196\n\nTelang, II. 207\n\nTel-el-Amarna, III. 432\n\nTelinga Brahmans, II. 249\n\nTeling\u00e2na, III. 46\n\nTelopa (Tailopa), III. 387\n\nTelugu, I. 118; II. 219\n\nTemple, Sir. R.C., III. 49, 51, 68, 69\n\nTemple ritual, I. lxxxiv; II. 174; III. 42 _sq._, 331 _sq._, 389\n_sq._, 400 (Tibetan)\n\nTemples, I. xxix, xxxiii, xlii, xlvi, lxxxiv _sq._, 114, 115, 119\n(Jains); II. 172, 174; III. 74, 165 _sq._, 184 _sq._, 325, 343, 356.\n_See also_ Chedis, Dagobas, Pagodas, Stupas\n\nTenasserim, III. 73\n\nTendai, III. 310, 404\n\nTengalais, II. 163, 231, 235\n\nTenggarese, III. 157, 182\n\nTennent's _Ceylon_, III. 26, 33\n\nTennyson, I. 329\n\nTephu, III. 371\n\nTer, III. 194\n\nTerai, I. 266\n\nTerebinthus, III. 446\n\nTerma, III. 350\n\nTerminology, ambiguities, I. 8, 189; III. 224\n\nTeshu Lama, III. 280\n\nTetsu-yen, III. 291\n\n_Textbook of Psychology_, I. 190\n\nTezpur, II. 127\n\nThadominpaya, III. 48\n\nThagy\u00e2, III. 69\n\nThai, the, I. xxv; III. 79, 81\n\nThanangam, I. 116\n\nThanesar, I. 25, 55\n\nThapinyu, III. 56\n\nTharrawadi, III. 65\n\nThathanabaing, III. 66, 72\n\nThaton, III. 6, 28, 29, 46, 48, 50, 55\n\nTheg-dman, II. 3\n\nThegpa-chen-po, II. 3\n\nTheopathic condition, II. 161\n\nThera, I. 256; III. 30\n\nTherag\u00e2th\u00e2, I. 137, 139, 170, 180, 200, 279; II. 181; III. 240, 297\n\nTherapeut\u00e6, III. 434, 436\n\nTherav\u00e2da, I. 261, 262; II. 48, 62, 162\n\nTher\u00eeg\u00e2th\u00e2, I. 171, 279; II. 181; III. 240, 299\n\nTheriya Nik\u00e2ya, III. 40\n\nThesmophoria, I. 101\n\nThibaut, II. 316\n\nThibaw, king, III. 49, 66, 71\n\nTh\u0129b-Ch\u0129ng-Cha, III. 94\n\nThohanbw\u00e2, III. 61\n\nThomas, III. 396\n\nThompson, Francis, II. 162, 183\n\nThompson, P.A., III. 89\n\nThonmi Sanbhota, III. 348, 378\n\nThor, I. 63\n\nTh\u00f2t-K\u0103th\u012d\u0306n, III. 93\n\nThought transference, III. 304, 309\n\nThrace (Thracians), III. 435\n\nThree Bodies. _See_ Trik\u00e2ya\n\nThree kingdoms, III. 249\n\nThsang-yang-Gya-thso, III. 366\n\nThugs, I. lxxxix; II. 277\n\nTh\u00fa-'N\u0103m, III. 94\n\nThunder, Ministry of, III. 225\n\nThupar\u00e2ma Dagoba, III. 16\n\nThurston, I. 90; II. 171, 225\n\nTibet, I. xiii, xxiv, xxvii, xcii, 212, 238, 248; II. 17, 19, 23, 32,\n82, 100, 111, 122, 127, 128, 129, 278; III. 8, 192, 199, 200, 207,\n210, 214, 260, 263, 276, 278, 329, 345 _sq._\n\nTibetan Canon, I. 276; II. 47, 57, 372-381\n  Chronicles, III. 211\n\nTibetan manuscripts, III. 192\n  translations, II. 74, 95, 103, 111, 280, 350, 352. _See also_ Kanjur,\n  Lamaism, Tanjur, Tantrism\n\nTibeto-Burman languages, II. 279; III. 46\n\nTien (Shang Ti), I. 7; III. 216\n\nTien-shan, III. 192\n\nTien-t'ai, II. 51; III. 238, 258, 261, 287, 303, 310, 311 _sq._, 336\n\nT'ientsin, III. 319\n\nTigaria, II. 114\n\nTi-Kuan, III. 312\n\nTiladhaka, II. 17\n\nTi-lo-shi-ka, II. 105\n\nTimur, I. 29\n\nTinnevelly, I. 26; II. 222, 237\n\nTipitaka. _See_ Tripitaka\n\nTiroku\u1e0d\u1e0dasuttam, III. 92\n\nTirhut. I. 87, 113; II. 117\n\nT\u00eerthankara, I. 110, 119, 343; II. 153; III. 307\n\nTirumalar, II. 204\n\nTirumangai, II. 231\n\nTirumurai, II. 215, 220\n\nTirupati, II. 240\n\nTiruv\u00e2\u00e7agam, I. xlv, xc; II. 215, 217, 219, 221, 232; III. 418\n\nTiru-vay-mori, II. 231\n\nTisastvustik (Turkish), III. 356\n\nTissak, III. 43\n\nTissa Moggaliputta, I. 256, 259, 261, 271\n\nTi-tsang, II. 18, 24; III. 221, 321, 327, 446\n\nTitthiya school, I. 97\n\nTjandi Arjuno, III. 167\n  Bimo, III. 167\n  Djago, III. 159, 165, 168\n  Kalasan, III. 165 _sq._\n  Mendut, III. 165\n  Plaosan, III. 165\n  Sangasani, III. 168\n  Sari, III. 165\n\nTjantakaparva, III. 172\n\nTjitjatih River, III. 158\n\nToba Hung, III. 252\n\nToba Tao, III. 252\n\nTodar Mall, I. 31\n\nToemapel, III. 158, 159, 168\n\nTokh\u00e2ra, III. 202\n\nTokharian (Tokhari), III. 191, 202, 206, 213, 221\n\nTokmak, III. 198\n\nT\u014dky\u014d, III. 290\n\nToleration, I. xcii, xciv, 158, 178\n\nTolo-Pu-sa, II. 17\n\nTomara dynasty, I. 29\n\nTone inflexion, III. 81\n\nTonkin, III. 340\n\nTooth (Buddha's), III. 22-28, 277\n\nToram\u00e2\u1e47a, I. 25\n\nTortoise (incarnation), II. 147\n\nT'oumu, II. 18\n\nToungco, III. 48\n\n_T'oung Pao_, II. 78, 88; III. 183, 213, 217, 248, 280, 292, 297, 324,\n335, 349, 350, 353, 384\n\n_Tour in search of Sanskrit manuscripts_, II. 127\n\nTowers of Fame and Victory, I. 120\n\nToyog, III. 189\n\nTrade routes, I. xii, xxvi; II. 139; III. 100, 106, 155, 188, 189,\n197, 203, 263, 415, 430\n\nTrailokyas\u00e2ra, III. 114\n\nTrailokye\u015bvara, III. 116\n\nTraiph\u00fbm, III. 99\n\nTran dynasty, III. 341\n\n_Translations of the Dhamma Sangari_, I. 281\n\nTransliteration (Chinese system), III. 300 _sq._;\n  (Tibetan system), III. 347, 377\n\nTransmigration. _See_ Metempsychosis, Reincarnation, Sa\u1e43s\u00e2ra\n\nTrapusha, III. 215\n\nTravancore, I. 26; II. 147, 222\n\nTriad, II. 23, 30, 164, 204; III. 122\n\nTriad (Chinese Scriptures), III. 317, 327\n\nTribal divisions, II. 178\n\n_Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces_, II. 261, 266\n\nTrichinopoly, I. 17, 26; II. 235\n\nTrichur, II. 207\n\nTrika (tripartite), II. 223\n\nTrik\u00e2ya, II. 32, 84; III. 181, 388\n\nTrilokas\u00e2ra, I. 117\n\nTrim\u00fbrti, I. 57; II. 164; III. 176, 180\n\nTrinh, III. 341\n\nTrinity, I, 310; III. 122, 421, 451\n\nTripitaka (Tipitaka), I. 51, 117, 128, 242, 258, 261, 271, 276; II.\n78, 81, 84; III. 14, 51, 56, 65, 81, 83, 86, 88, 98, 217, 237, 248,\n356. _See_ Chinese Tripitaka\n\nTriratna, III. 343\n\nTrita, III. 425\n\nTritresta, III. 155\n\nTritsus, I. 20\n\nTrue Law, the, I. 217\n\nTr\u016d\u0303t-Thai, III. 93\n\nTsa, III. 296\n\nTsai Hsin, III. 213\n\nTsai-Li, III. 319\n\nTsang province, III. 364\n\nT\u015bangspa-dKarpo, III. 392\n\nTsao Tung, III. 309\n\nTsarma, III. 211\n\nTseng-i, III. 296\n\nTshe-Mara, III. 350\n\nTsi-lu (Chi-lu), III. 287\n\nTsin dynasty, III. 103, 104, 249, 314\n\nTsin (former) State, III. 250\n\nTsong-kha-pa, I. xxvii; III. 276, 358, 381, 388, 398\n\nTsui Hao, III. 252\n\nTsung, III. 303\n\nTsung-m\u00ean, III. 306, 310\n\nTsung-n'en-t'ung-yoao-hsu-chi, III. 307\n\nTsu-Shih, III. 306\n\nTu-Chi, III. 290\n\nTu Fa Shun, III. 315\n\nTughlak dynasty, I. 29\n\nTukaram, I. xc; II. 161, 244, 245, 255, 258; III. 427\n\nTukhara, III. 297\n\nTulsi Das, I. xlv, lxxv, lxxxi, xc, c; II. 150, 152, 191, 245 _sq._,\n282\n\nT\u00fcmed, III. 362\n\nT'ung, III. 311\n\nTungabhadra, I. 30\n\nTun-huang, III. 189, 192, 193, 197, 210, 301, 446\n\nTuranian invasions, I. 35\n\nTurfan, II. 22; III. 190, 198, 200, 205 _sq._, 297, 356\n\nTuriya, I. lxiii, 83\n\nTurkestan, II. 24, 54, 56; III. 380, 458\n\nTurki dynasties, I. 28; III. 456\n\nTurkish, I. 20; III. 192, 215\n\nTurkomans, I. 23\n\nTurks, III. 198, 199\n\nTurnour, III. 21, 25\n\nTusita heaven, I. 174, 261, 342; II. 7, 67; III. 20, 24, 220\n\nTutelary deities, III. 391 _sq._\n\nTvash\u1e6dri, I. 57\n\n_Two visits to Tea Countries of China_, III. 27\n\nTylor, I. 304\n\nTzu-An, III. 280\n\nTz'u-\u00ean-tai-shih, III. 315\n\nTz'u-\u00ean-tsung, III. 315\n\nTzu Liang, III. 253\n\n\nUccheda, II. 43\n\nUd\u00e2na, I. 133, 157, 160, 226, 296; III. 214, 296, 372, 373\n\nUd\u00e2navarga, III. 295\n\nUdandapura, II. 111\n\nUday\u00e2dityavarman, III. 110, 119\n\nUdayana (king), II. 85\n\nUddaka R\u00e2maputta, I. 135, 136, 303, 316\n\nUdd\u00e2laka Aru\u1e47i, I. 75, 81, 92; II. 308\n\nUdeypore, III. 116\n\nUdg\u00e2t\u1e5bi, I. 69\n\nUdhaccam, I. 227\n\nUdipi, II. 240\n\nUdy\u00e2na, II. 22, 93, 96, 100, 109, 126, 127, 278; III. 213, 254, 300,\n349, 398\n\nUgra. III. 146, 382\n\nUgrasena, king, III. 452\n\nUighur, I. 276; II. 54, 89; III. 189, 192, 198, 200, 206, 210, 215,\n263, 356\n\nUjjain, I. 25; II. 108\n\nUjjeni, II. 227\n\nUjjhebhaka, II. 59\n\nUkkala, III. 50\n\nUkko, I. 9\n\nUllambana, III. 264\n\nUm\u00e2, II. 216, 218; III. 114, 146, 147\n\nUm\u00e2 Haimavati, II. 277\n\nUm\u00e2pati, II. 184, 221\n\nUnderhill, I. 136, 308; II. 275\n\nUniformity (Hinduism), II. 167, 177\n\nUnited Provinces, I. xlviii, 87, 132; II. 108, 194\n\nUniversal Mother, II. 287\n  Religions, I. 123; II. 124\n\nUp\u00e2d\u00e2na, I. 208 _sq._\n\nUpadesa \u015a\u00e2stra, II. 78\n\nUp\u00e2dhis, II. 313\n\nUp\u00e2dhy\u00e2ya, III. 330\n\nUp\u00e2gamas, II. 205\n\nUpagupta, I. 269, 271; II. 80; III. 307\n\nUpajjh\u00e2ya, I. 244\n\nUpaka, I. 110\n\nUpak\u00e2raka, I. 208\n\nUp\u00e2li, I. 155, 256, 257, 288\n  (abbot), III. 36\n\nUpanishads, I. xvi, liv _sq._, lxxiii, lxxvii, lxxix, 20, 40, 42, 44,\n46, 48, 51, 53, 62, 66, 72, 74 _sq._, 92, 104, 108, 129, 159, 192,\n209, 286, 288, 297, 305, 306, 310, 331; II. 48, 74, 151, 154, 186,\n187, 201, 208, 229, 232, 234, 238, 240, 270, 280, 281, 293, 305, 308,\n321; III. 175, 246, 305, 462\n\nUpapur\u00e2nas, II. 285\n\nUp\u00e2saka, I. 249; III. 245\n\nUp\u00e2sakadas\u00e2\u1e25, I. 116\n\nUpasampad\u00e2, I. 244; III. 328\n\nUpatissa, I. 155\n\nUpavasatha days, II. 104\n\nUpeksh\u00e2, III. 173\n\nUpendra, II. 156\n\nUposatha days, I. 243, 244, 250, 257, 270; III. 41, 42, 59, 63, 72,\n89, 124, 130, 332, 389\n\nUpper Chindwin, III. 53\n\nUral Altaic languages, I. 20\n\nUrga, III. 360, 369, 398\n\nUroja, II. 147\n\n_Ursprung der Linga Kultus_, II. 143\n\nUrumtsi, III. 192, 200\n\nUruvel\u00e2, I. 136, 146, 168, 257\n\nUshas, I. 62, 63\n\nUshn\u00eesha-vijaya, III. 394\n\nUsh\u1e47isha-vijay\u00e2-dh\u00e2ra\u1e47i, II. 125\n\nutp\u00e2da, II. 43\n\nUtpala, II. 223\n\nUtsarpin\u00ee, I. 107\n\nutsavavigraha, II. 173\n\nUt\u015b\u00fc-k\u00e4n-k\u00fclgan, II. 3\n\nuttama-y\u00e2na, II. 3\n\nUttara, III. 50\n\nUttara-dhy\u00e2na, I. 111, 112\n\nUttar\u00e2dyay\u00e2na, I. 117; III. 439\n\nUttar\u00e2j\u00eeva, III. 57\n\nUttara M\u00eem\u00e2\u1e43s\u00e2, II. 291, 310\n\nUttar\u00e2pathaka, I. 261\n\nUv\u00e2sagadasao, I. 99, 116\n\n\nVac, II. 181\n\nVacan\u00e2mritam, II. 252\n\nVacaspatimi\u015bra, II. 95\n\nVaccha, I. 230\n\nVadagalais, II. 163, 235 _sq._, 243\n\nVaeddhas, III. 13\n\nVag\u00ee\u015bvara, II. 19\n\nV\u00e2gvat\u00ee m\u00e2h\u00e2tmya, II. 119\n\nVai-bh\u00e2shika, I. 260; II. 82, 89, 90, 102; III. 379\n\nVaideh\u00ee (queen), II. 30\n\nVaidika Karmak\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0da, II. 190\n\nVaid\u00fbrya, III. 327\n\nVaikh\u00e2nas\u00e2gama, II. 190\n\nVaikuntha, II. 196\n  N\u00e2tha, II. 260\n\nVaipulya S\u00fbtras, II. 48, 54, 103\n\nVairocana, II. 19, 26, 27, 126, 198; III. 166, 172 _sq._, 211, 337,\n350, 385, 395\n\nVairocana-rasmi-pratimandita, II. 27\n\nVaisali, I. 111, 114; II. 17\n\nVai-\u015beshika (philosophy), I. 109; II. 95, 291, 292, 304\n\nVai\u015beshikam, III. 44\n\nVaishnava, Vaishnavism. _See_ Vishnuism, Vishnuites\n\n_Vaishnavism and Saivism_, II. 152, 153, 157, 202, 242, 248, 256, 262\n\n_Vaishnavite Reformers of India_, II. 232, 237\n\nVai\u015bravana, III. 209, 392\n\nVai\u015bvanara, I. 57 (Agni)\n\nVai\u015bya, I. 34; III. 183 (Visias)\n\nVaitulya sect, III. 40, 41\n\nVajapeya, II. 171\n\nVajira, I. 190; III. 40\n\nVajjians, I. 161, 162, 166, 257, 258\n\nVajjiputta school, III. 19\n\nVajra, III. 122\n\nVajrabodhi, II. 21; III. 264, 317\n\nVajr\u00e2c\u00e2rya, II. 119\n\nVajr\u00e2c\u00e2rya-arhat-bhikshu-buddha, II. 119\n\nVajracchedik\u00e2, II. 41; III. 191, 276, 283, 301, 374, 378\n(diamond-cutter)\n\nVajradhara, II. 23; III. 389, 391\n\nVajradh\u00e2tu, III. 317\n\nVajragarbha, II. 55\n\nVajrak\u00e2ya, II. 32, 123\n\nVajrap\u00e2ni, III. 122, 391, 392\n\nVajrasattva, II. 23, 26, 32; III. 389, 391\n\nVajravar\u00e2h\u00ee, III. 394\n\nVajray\u00e2na, II. 4; III. 40, 386\n\nv\u00e2k, III. 181\n\nValabh\u00ee, I. 117; II. 105\n\nValavati, II. 15\n\nValentinus, III. 445\n\nVallabha, I. xlv; II. 230, 244, 248, 253\n\nVallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya, I. 42; II. 147, 176, 185, 245, 248 _sq._, 251, 268, 290\n\n(De la) Vall\u00e9e-Poussin, II. 9, 11, 32, 48, 85, 89, 121, 122, 315; III.\n331, 373, 387\n\nV\u00e2lm\u00eeki, II. 246\n\nV\u00e2m\u00e2-c\u00e2rins, II. 283, 284 (left-handed celebrants)\n\nV\u00e2madeva, II. 198\n\nV\u00e2mana, II. 151, 193; III. 106\n\nV\u00e2ma \u015aiva, III. 119\n\nV\u00e2ms\u00e2vali, II. 119\n\nVanaprastha, I. 89\n\nVa\u1e47ga, II. 279\n\nVan-mien, III. 344\n\nV\u00e2raha-Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, II. 195\n\nV\u00e2r\u00e2hi Tantra, II. 190\n\nV\u00e2r\u00e2mudra, II. 16\n\nVar\u00e2na Pur\u00e2\u1e47a, II. 193\n\nVardham\u00e2na, I. 105, 111, 112\n\n_Varieties of Religious Experience_, I. 309; II. 161\n\nVarna, II. 178; III. 113\n\nVar\u1e47api\u1e6daka, I. 293\n\nVaru\u1e47a, I. 57, 60, 88, 103; II. 28, 270\n\nV\u00e2sana, II. 44\n\nVasantotsava, II. 270\n\nV\u00e2sa\u1e7fadatta, II. 98\n\nVasco da Gama, I. 15, 31\n\nVasilief, II. 81, 90, 92\n\nV\u00e2sishka, II. 64\n\nVasish\u1e6dha, II. 152\n\nVa\u015bit\u00e2, III. 355\n\nVassa, I. 149, 245; III. 81, 90, 131, 332\n\nVasu, Nagendranath, II. 114\n\nVasubandhu, I. xxxviii, 260; II. 48, 59, 64 _sq._, 83 _sq._, 102, 123,\n169, 306; III. 52, 108, 123, 157, 166, 176, 220, 285, 286, 294, 307,\n315, 376\n\nV\u00e2sudeva, I. xliii, 24, 113; II. 64, 153, 154, 162, 180, 194 _sq._,\n200, 228, 233, 245\n\nVasugupta, II. 225\n\nVasumitra, II. 78; III. 307\n\nVasus, I. 57\n\nVatapi, I. 26, 27, 114\n\nv\u00e2tsalya, II. 255\n\nVat-si-jum, III. 84\n\nVa\u1e6d\u1e6dag\u00e2mani, I. 285; II. 50; III. 19, 31, 33\n\nva\u1e6d\u1e6dhu-vijj\u00e2, III. 232\n\nV\u00e2yu, I. 63; II. 239, 240\n\nV\u00e2yu Pur\u00e2na, I. 15; II. 187, 202\n\nV\u00e2yustuti, II. 241\n\nvedan\u00e2, I. 188\n\nvedan\u00eeya, I. 107\n\nVed\u00e2nta (Philosophy), I. xxxii, lii, cii, 47, 235, 302; II. 202,\n208-225, 235, 268, 292 _sq._, 307-317\n  Desika, II. 195, 236, 237\n  S\u00fbtras, II. 202, 208, 229, 230, 233, 238, 255, 282, 305, 314\n\nVed\u00e2rtha Prad\u00eepa, II. 233\n  Sa\u1e47graha, II. 233\n\nVedas (Jain Canon), I. 117\n\nVedas (Vedic religion), I. xv, xxxvi, lxxiv, 3, 40, 42, 67, 77 _sq._,\n89; II. 136 _sq._, 186, 202, 236, 292 _sq._; III. 186, 419\n\nVeda\u015b\u00e2stras, II. 67\n\n_Vedic Index_, I. 134; II. 153\n\nVedic Rites, II. 171\n\nVegetation deity, II. 156\n\nV\u00eamana, II. 219\n\nVena (king), I. 36, 88\n\nVengi, I. 27; III. 51, 156\n\nVe\u1e47hu, I. 103; II. 137 (Vish\u1e47u)\n\nVenkate\u015bvara, I. 105\n\nVepulla (Mt.), I. 103\n\nVerethragna, I. 63\n\nVernacular, literature, and language, I. xxiv, xlv, 40; II. 119, 241,\n243, 244; III. 65\n\nVes\u00e2l\u00ee, I. 150, 159, 162 _sq._, 169, 254, 255, 257, 290\n\nVessabh\u00fb, I. 342\n\nVessantara, II. 10\n\nVeth, III. 182\n\nVe\u1e6dhad\u00eepa, I. 169\n\nVetulyaka sect, I. 260, 261, 293; II. 48, 67; III. 20, 40\n\nVetulyas, III. 19, 32\n\nVibbhajav\u00e2din sect, I. 261, 262, 276, 291, 298\n\nVibhangas, III. 21\n\nVibh\u00e2sha, II. 79, 82, 89\n\nvibhinn\u00e2m\u015ba, II. 255\n\nVibhu, III. 114\n\nvici-kicch\u00e2, I. 227\n\nVidarbha, II. 85\n\nviddhi, III. 117\n\nVideha, I. 36, 87, 94, 161\n\nVidhi, II. 195\n\nVi\u1e0d\u00fb\u1e0dabha, I. 161\n\nVidya, II. 204\n\nVidyabhushana, Satischandra, II. 65, 94, 105, 111; III. 376\n\nVidy\u00e2dharis, III. 182 (widadaris)\n\nVidy\u00e2-karaprabh\u00e2, III. 379\n\nVidy\u00e2m\u00e2tra, III. 315\n\nVidy\u00e2pati, II. 244, 253\n\n_Vier philosophische Texte des Mahabharatam_, II. 187\n\nVighnotsava, III. 172\n\nVih\u00e2ra, I. 119, 245; II. 257; III. 149, 193, 212. _See also_\nMonasteries\n\nVih\u00e2ro, I. 210\n\nVijaya, II. 149; III. 5, 12\n\nVijaya (Champa), III. 138\n  Bahu, III. 33\n\nVijay\u00e2ditya (king), III. 116\n\nVijayanagar, I. xli, 19, 30, 31; II. 210, 212, 249; III. 456\n\nVijayapur, III. 58\n\nVijayasambhava (king), III. 207, 211, 212\n\nVijaye\u015bvara, III. 116\n\nVij\u00f1\u00e2na Bhikshu, II. 303\n\nVij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra, III. 315\n\nVij\u00f1\u00e2nav\u00e2din sect, II. 37\n\nVikram\u00e2ditya, I. 25; II. 88\n\nVikrama\u015bila, II. 111, 112, 128\n\nVikr\u00e2ntavarman, III. 140, 143\n\nVik\u1e5biti, II. 297\n\nVillage deities, I. 100, 103\n\n_Village Gods of Southern India_, II. 213, 276\n\nVillemereuil, III. 111\n\nVimal\u00e2, II. 11\n\nVimal\u00e2 Dharma (I and II), III. 27, 36\n\nVimalak\u00eerti S\u00fbtra, II. 84\n\nVim\u00e2na vatthu, I. 280, 289\n\nVimar'sin\u00ee, II. 222\n\nVinaya, I. lxxv, 97, 129, 130, 135, 155 _sq._, 161, 224, 239, 241,\n244, 245, 256 _sq._, 263, 277 _sq._; II. 48, 57, 71, 72, 80, 82, 99,\n102, 125; III. 21, 29, 62, 191, 285, 292, 296 _sq._ (H\u00eenay\u00e2na), 322,\n373\n\nVinaya Pattrika, II. 245\n  Pi\u1e6daka, III. 13, 59, 284, 373\n\nVinaya-vibh\u00e2sha-S\u00fbtra, II. 78\n\nVindhya mountains, I. 20; II. 277\n\nVindhy\u00e2cal, II. 277\n\nVindhye\u015bvari (Mahar\u00e2n\u00ee), II. 277\n\nVi\u00f1\u00f1\u00e2\u1e47a, I. 189, 190, 197, 198\n\nVipakasrutam, I. 116\n\nVipassan\u00e2, I. 313; III. 131, 310\n\nVipass\u00ee, I. 342\n\nV\u00eerabhadra, II. 140; III. 391\n\nV\u00eerapura, III. 140\n\nV\u00eera \u015aaiva Brahmans, II. 227\n\nVirgil, I. lv\n\nVirincivatsa, II. 87\n\n\nv\u00eerya, II. 196; III. 173, 304\n\nVis\u00e2kh\u00e2, I. 153, 159, 251\n\nVish\u1e47u (Vishnuism), I. xxxiv _sq._, xl _sq._, lxxi, lxxiv, lxxx, 17,\n36, 47, 48, 57, 103, 343 (incarnations); II. 33, 113, 115, 130,\n136-165, 182, 228 _sq._; III. 43 (Ceylon), 97 (Siam), 146 (Champa),\n167, 173, 176 (Java), 186 (Bali), 392 (Tibet), 419\n\nVish\u1e47u Buddha, III. 181\n\nVish\u1e47u Dharma, II. 187, 228\n\nVishnuites (sects), I. 115; II. 115, 128, 140, 177 (Baishnabs), 179\n_sq._, 186 _sq._, 228 _sq._, 242 _sq._\n\nVish\u1e47ukarma, III. 96\n\nVish\u1e47uloka, III. 114\n\nVish\u1e47u Pur\u00e2na, I. 218; II. 28, 146, 148, 155, 157, 186, 187, 228,\n234, 306; III. 425\n\nVish\u1e47u-Siva, III. 113. Cf. Harihara\n\nVish\u1e47usv\u00e2mi, II. 248\n\nVish\u1e47u Vardh\u00e2na, III. 159, 168\n\nVisishtadvaita (philosophy), II. 229, 233, 234, 316 _sq._\n\nVisser, II. 24; III. 221\n\nVisuddhi-Magga, III. 29, 30, 45\n\nVisvaksena, II. 233\n\nVisvamitra, I. 36\n\nVithalnath, II. 251\n\nVittala Deva, II. 233\n\nVi\u1e6d\u1e6dhala, II. 161, 257\n\nVittoba, II. 161, 257\n\nViv\u00e2gasuyam, I. 116\n\nvivartav\u00e2da, II. 264, 318\n\nVivasvat, I. 57\n\nViveka (king), II. 237\n\nVivekananda (Sv\u00e2mi), I. xlvii\n\nViy\u00e2hapa\u00f1\u00f1atti, I. 116\n\nviya\u1e47ga, III. 454\n\nVocan (Vochan inscript.), I. xxviii; III. 108, 138 _sq._\n\nVoharaka Tissa (king), III. 19\n\nVoh\u00e2ratissa, III. 40\n\nVrah Kamrata, III. 121\n\nVra\u1e25 r\u00fbpa, III. 115\n\nVrah Vin\u00e1\u015bikha, III. 117\n\nVriddha Harita Samhit\u00e2, II. 163\n\nVrikats, II. 256\n\nVrind\u00e2vana, II. 154\n\nVrishabha, II. 225\n\nVrish\u1e47is (sept), II. 154, 194 _sq._\n\nVritra, I. 59\n\nVritrahan, I. 63\n\nV\u1e5bitta-sa\u00f1caya, III. 158\n\nVulcan, I. 56\n\nVulture's Peak (sermon, etc.), I. 157; II. 29, 49, 51, 55\n\nvyakara\u1e47a, II. 55\n\nVy\u00e2khy\u00e2prajn\u00e2pti, I. 116\n\nVy\u00e2khy\u00e2tantra, III. 377\n\nVyasakutas, II. 241\n\nVy\u00fbha, II. 196 _sq._\n\n\nWachsberger, III. 194\n\nWaddell, I. 212, 336; II. 16, 50, 128; III. 329, 347, 349, 361, 370,\n371, 373, 380, 383, 389, 394, 395, 398, 400\n\nWaguru (king), III. 66\n\nWahabis, III. 458\n\nW\u00e4in\u00e4m\u00f6inen, I. 67\n\nWaleri, III. 168\n\nWalleser, II. 51, 74, 85, 86, 315, 373\n\nWan, III. 278\n\nWang An Shih, III. 259\n\nWang-Chen, III. 277\n\nWang Chin, III. 264\n\nWang dynasty, III. 337\n\nWang Hs\u00fcan Ts'\u00ea, III. 260\n\nWang-Wei, III. 261\n\nWang Yang Ming, III. 272\n\nWan-li, III. 226, 279, 363\n\nw\u0103nphra:, III. 92\n\nWan Ti, III. 289\n\nWarren, I. 190, 212, 252, 320\n\nWartal, II. 175, 259\n\nWas. _See_ Vasso\n\nWassiljen, III. 283\n\nW\u0103t, III. 88\n  Chern, III. 85\n  Ph\u00f4, III. 97\n  Somarokot, III. 85\n\nWatanabe, II. 55\n\nWatters, I. 258; II. 15, 22, 23, 33, 51, 61, 76 _sq._, 80, 82 _sq._,\n92, 126; III. 5, 21, 25, 45, 148, 156, 211, 240, 285, 300, 307, 315,\n326, 453\n\nWeber, I. 116; II. 176; III. 423\n\nWei, II. 171; III. 204, 206, 249, 252 _sq._, 257\n\nWei Ch'ih, III. 209\n\nWei-ch'ih I-s\u00eang, III. 195\n\nWei-ch'ih-Po-chih-na, III. 195\n\nWei Hsieh, III. 242\n\nWei-l\u00fceh, III. 245\n\nWei-shih-hsiang-chiao, III. 315\n\nWei-to, III. 326\n\nWells, H.G., I. ciii\n\n_Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_, I. 236, 309\n\nWema Kadphises, II. 202\n\nW\u00ean Hs\u00fcan Ti, III. 251\n\nW\u00ean Shu, II. 19; III. 327\n\nW\u00ean-ti (Emperor), III. 252\n\nWestcott, G.H., II. 262 _sq._\n\nWestern Tsin dynasty, II. 52; III. 203, 249\n\nWheel of Causation, I. 49\n\nWheel of Life, I. 212\n\nWheel of Righteousness, I. 143\n\nWhite Brahma, III. 392\n\nWhitehead, II. 213, 276, 394\n\nWhite Horse Monastery, III. 244, 248, 249\n\nWhite Huns. _See_ Huns\n\nWhite Lotus school, III. 314, 319\n\nWhite T\u00e2r\u00e2, III. 383, 394\n\nWidow-burning (Sati, Suttee),  I. lxxxviii; II. 168; III. 192\n\nWidow's Mite, III. 437\n\nWiedemann, II. 122\n\nWieger, I. 173; II. 284, 320; III. 241, 259, 266, 267, 294, 304\n\nW\u0129h\u00e1n, III. 89\n\nWilde, Oscar, II. 236\n\nWilliams (Monier), II. 277\n\nWilson, H.H., II. 155, 262\n\nWilwatikta, III. 160\n\nWindisch, I. 143, 282\n\nWinternitz, I. 134, 286; II. 55, 83, 84, 87, 118, 169, 187, 283\n\nWisdom, God of, II. 145\n\nWodeyars of Mysore, II. 226\n\n(The) Woman of Samaria, III. 439\n\nWomen (status), I. 112, 158, 248, 251; II. 123, 160, 168, 232, 250,\n251, 275 _sq._, 285; III. 56, 97. _See also_ Nuns\n\nWong Madjapahit, III. 183\n\nWordsworth, I. lv\n\nWorld Religion (Buddhism as), I. 177\n\nWorship of Relics. _See_ Relics\n\nWright, II. 116\n\nWriting (art of), I. 287. _See also_ Alphabets, Inscriptions\n\nWu dynasty, III. 105, 109\n\nWu, Empress, III. 260, 289, 315\n\nWu Hou, III. 260\n\nWu-i (H\u00eenay\u00e2nist), II. 93\n\nWu-K'ung, III. 199, 202, 205, 262\n\nWu province, III. 364\n\nWu-t'ai-shan, II. 20, 21; III. 221, 321\n\nWu-Tao-tzu, III. 242, 261, 263\n\nWu-Ti, I. 265; III. 105, 161, 163, 196, 203, 208, 237, 253 _sq._,\n289, 304\n\nWu-Ti (Northern Chan), III. 257\n\nWu Tsung, III. 258, 267, 268, 273, 278\n\n_Wu-wei_, II. 42\n\nWu-wei-chiao, III. 318\n\nWu-yu, III. 300\n\n\nXerxes, III. 432\n\n\nY\u00e2davas, I. 30; II. 113, 154, 194\n\nYadricch\u00e2-v\u00e2dins, I. 98\n\nY\u00e2jakas, III. 118, 125\n\nYajna, I. 63\n\nYaj\u00f1a\u015br\u00ee, king, III. 102\n\nY\u00e2j\u00f1avalkya, I. lxxiii, 75, 79, 80, 83, 84, 93, 159, 298, 308\n\nYajurveda, I. 53, 93; II. 141, 277\n\nY\u00e4k\u00e4-k\u00fclg\u00e4n, II. 3\n\nYakkhas (Yakshas), I. 6, 102, 103; III. 13, 174, 393\n\nYama, I. 62, 103, 337; III. 174, 175, 225, 392\n\nYama (restraint), I. 305, 393\n\nYamaka, I. 229, 234\n\nY\u00e2malas, II. 282\n\nYam\u00e2ntaka, III. 389, 391, 392\n\nYamdok (lake), III. 394\n\nYamun\u00e2, II. 159; III. 113\n\nY\u00e2mun\u00e2c\u00e2rya, II. 195, 232\n\nY\u00e2na, II. 4. Cf. H\u00eenay\u00e2na, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na\n\nYang, II. 278, 289\n\nYang ( = God, in Malay), III. 183\n\nYang-Ti, III. 289\n\nYang Tikuh inscript., III. 109\n\nYangtse, III. 255, 269\n\nYang-wen Hiu, III. 303\n\nYannur, I. 126\n\nYantras, II. 280\n\nYao Ch'a, III. 255\n\nYao Ch'ung, III. 262\n\nYao Kuang Hsiao, III. 276\n\nYarkand, I. xxvi, 24; II. 76; III. 200, 202, 211\n\nYasa, I. 134, 145, 185, 257\n\nYashts, II. 28\n\nYasna, I. 63\n\nY\u00e2sod\u00e2, II. 154\n\nYa\u015bodhar\u00e2, I. 174, 301\n\nYa\u015bodharman (king), II. 148\n\nYa\u015bomitra, II. 89\n\nYa\u015bovarman, III. 115, 119\n\nYatis, I. 113, 119, 121\n\nY\u00e2tras (religious dramas), II. 230\n\nYava, III. 152\n\nYavadi, III. 153\n\nYavadv\u00eepa, III. 140, 152\n\nYavako\u1e6di, III. 152\n\nYavanas, I. 23; II. 69\n\nYazawin (Chronicle), III. 65\n\nYellow Church, III. 358, 364, 383, 393, 398 _sq._\n\nYen-lo, III. 225\n\nYenta, III. 361\n\nYeses, III. 366, 367\n\nYeses Hod, III. 352\n\nYe'ses-sde, III. 379\n\nYethas, II. 96\n\nYezd, I. 69\n\nYi-dam, II. 122, 391\n\nYin, II. 278\n\nYing Tsung, III. 277\n\nYing-yai-Sh\u00eang-len, III. 160\n\nYoe, III. 49\n\nYoga (philosophy), I. xlviii, 73, 201, 302 _sq._; II. 128, 152, 189,\n201, 202, 216, 224, 240, 291, 292, 296, 303 _sq._; III. 146, 173\n\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ra, I. 193, 260, 303; II. 37 _sq._, 42, 83, 87, 88, 90, 91, 103\n\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ry\u00e2bh\u00fbmi \u015b\u00e2stra, III. 213, 284, 285\n\nYog\u00e2ch\u00e2rya (Asanga's system), I. xxxix; II. 3, 306. _See_ Asanga\n\nYogaddhy\u00e2na, III. 146\n\nYoga\u015b\u00e2stra, III. 213\n\nYoga-va\u015bisht\u1e25a-r\u00e2m\u00e2ya\u1e47a, II. 187\n\nYogin\u00ee Tantra, II. 280, 289\n\nYogin\u00ees, II. 286\n\nYogis, I. lxv, 72, 303; II. 294\n\nY\u014fmma: r\u1ea1t (Y\u00e2ma), III. 96\n\nYonan\u00e2gar\u00e2lasanda, III. 18\n\nYonas, I. 268\n\nYo-shih-fo, III. 327\n\nYuan, III. 253, 311\n\nYuan (Annals, dynasty), III. 159, 234, 272, 273, 282, 289, 301, 310,\n318, 324, 338, 357\n\nYuan Chwang, I. 258; II. 76; III. 5\n\nYuan-Jen-lu, III. 288\n\nYuan Tao, III. 267\n\nYuan Ti, III. 257\n\nYucatan, III. 169\n\nYu-Chao-En, III. 264\n\nYueh-chih, II. 20, 64, 109; III. 197, 201, 212, 213, 218, 248. _See_\nKushan\n\nYueh-teng-san-mei-ching, II. 55\n\nYugas, I. 46\n\nY\u00fc-lau-p'en, III. 264, 332\n\nYule's _Marco Polo_, I. 305; II. 320; III. 25, 124, 277\n\nYunga-Ch\u00eang, III. 237\n\nYung-Lo, III. 276, 278, 287, 359\n\nYun Kang, III. 252\n\nY\u00fcn M\u00ean, III. 309\n\nY\u00fcnnan, III. 46, 81, 262, 349\n\ngY\u00fcn-ston-rDo-rje-dpal, III. 357\n\nY\u00fc-pien, III. 300\n\nY\u00fc Ti, III. 228\n\nY\u016bz\u016bnembutsu sect, III. 404\n\n\nZaingganaing, III. 59\n\nZaotar, I. 63\n\nZarathustra, II. 156\n\nZarmanochegas, III. 431\n\nZedi, III. 74, 89 (chedi)\n\nZen, I. 233, 322; II. 46; III. 269, 306, 405\n\nZervan, III. 215\n\nZeus, I. 63\n\nZinda Kaliana, II. 147\n  Ghazi, III. 459\n\nZohar, the, III. 462\n\n_Zo-jo-ji Library_, III. 290\n\nZoroaster (Zoroastrian religion), I. xv, 52, 63; II. 70, 275; III.\n202, 209, 213, 216, 218 _sq._, 263, 419, 449 _sq._\n\nZoroastrian Gathas, I. 51, 52\n  Theology, II. 275","title":"Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 3","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":212205}