Meditation Traditions in Fifth-Century Northern China (Buddhabhadra)

BUDDHISM ACROSS ASIA

The Nalanda-Sriwijaya Series, established under the publishing programme of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, has been created as a publications avenue for the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre. The Centre focuses on the ways in which Asian polities and societies have interacted over time. To this end, the series invites submissions which engage with Asian historical connectivities. Such works might examine political relations between states; the trading, financial and other networks which connected regions; cultural, linguistic and intellectual interactions between societies; or religious links across and between large parts of Asia.

The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) was established as an autonomous organization in 1968. It is a regional centre dedicated to the study of socio-political, security and economic trends and developments in Southeast Asia and its wider geostrategic and economic environment. The Institute’s research programmes are the Regional Economic Studies (RES, including ASEAN and APEC), Regional Strategic and Political Studies (RSPS), and Regional Social and Cultural Studies (RSCS).

ISEAS Publishing, an established academic press, has issued more than 2,000 books and journals. It is the largest scholarly publisher of research about Southeast Asia from within the region. ISEAS Publishing works with many other academic and trade publishers and distributors to disseminate important research and analyses from and about Southeast Asia to the rest of the world.

BUDDHISM ACROSS ASIA

Edited by

T A N S E N S E N

MANOHAR

V O L U M E 1

Networks of Material, Intellectual and Cultural Exchange

INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES SINGAPORE

First published in Singapore in 2014 byISEAS PublishingInstitute of Southeast Asian Studies30 Heng Mui Keng TerracePasir PanjangSingapore 119614E-mail: [email protected]: http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sgfor distribution in all countries except South Asia

Co-published by Manohar Publishers & Distributors4753/23 Ansari Road, DaryaganjNew Delhi 110 002India Manohar ISBN 978-93-5098-045-3for distribution in South Asia

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

© 2014 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

The responsibility for facts and opinions in this publication rests exclusively with the authors and their interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of the publishers or their supporters.

ISEAS Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Buddhism across Asia : networks of materials, intellectual and cultural exchange, volume 1 / edited by Tansen Sen.

Papers originally presented to a Conference on Buddhism Across Asia : Networks of Material, Intellectual and Cultural Exchange, organized by Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre at ISEAS and held in Singapore from 2 to 5 February 2009.

1. Buddhism—Asia—History—Congresses. I. Sen, Tansen. II. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre. III. Conference on Buddhism Across Asia : Networks of Material, Intellectual and

Cultural Exchange (2009 : Singapore)BQ266 B922 2014

ISBN 978-981-4519-32-8 (soft cover)ISBN 978-981-4519-33-5 (e-book, PDF)

Cover illustration: C. 9th century terracotta votive tablet from Bodhgayā. © Trustees of the British MuseumTypeset by Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi 110 002Printed in India by Salasar Imaging Systems, Delhi 110 035

ForJohn R. McRae

Contents

Introduction: Buddhism in Asian History Tansen Sen xi

PART I: TRANSMISSIONS OF BUDDHISM BEFORE THE SEVENTH CENTURY

1. Networks for Long-distance Transmission of Buddhism in South Asian Transit Zones

Jason Neelis 3

2. Truth and Scripture in Early Buddhism: Categorial Reduction as Exegetical Method in Ancient Gandhāra and Beyond

Stefan Baums 19

3. Now You Hear it, Now You Don’t: The Phrase “Thus Have I Heard” in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations

Jan Nattier 39

4. The First Agama Transmission to China Elsa Legittimo 65

5. What is a “Hīnayāna Zealot” Doing in Fifth-Century China? Daniel Boucher 85

6. Meditation Traditions in Fifth-Century Northern China: With a Special Note on a Forgotten “Kaśmīri” Meditation Tradition Brought to China by Buddhabhadra (359-429)

Chen Jinhua 101

7. Transmission of the Dharma and Reception of the Text: Oral and Aural Features in the Fifth Chapter of the Book of Zambasta

Giuliana Martini 131

viii Contents

PART II: BUDDHISM ACROSS ASIA BETWEEN THE SEVENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES

8. On Kuiji’s Sanskrit Compound Analyses: Transmission of Sanskrit Grammar in the Early Tang Dynasty

Teng Weijen 173

9. Abridged Teaching (Lüe Jiao): Monastic Rules between India and China

Ann Heirman 193

10. From Nalanda to Chang’an: A Survey of Buddhist Libraries in Medieval China (618-907)

Wang Xiang 207

11. Multiple Traditions in One Ritual: A Reading of the Lantern-Lighting Prayers in Dunhuang Manuscripts

Chen Huaiyu 233

12. The Idea of India (Tenjiku) in Pre-Modern Japan: Issues of Signification and Representation in the Buddhist Translation of Cultures

Fabio Rambelli 259

13. The Buddhist Image Inside-Out: On the Placing of Objects Inside Statues in East Asia

James Robson 291

14. Indian Abhidharma Literature in Tibet: A Study of the Vijñana Section of Sthiramati’s Pañcaskandhakavibhasa

Jowita Kramer 309

15. From Asoka to Jayavarman VII: Some Reflections on the Relationship between Buddhism and the State in India and Southeast Asia

Hermann Kulke 327

16. The Theravada Buddhist Ecumene in the Fifteenth Century: Intellectual Foundations and Material Representations

Tilman Frasch 347

PART III: BUDDHIST CONNECTIONS AFTER THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

17. The Sphere of the Sasana in the Context of Colonialism

Anne M. Blackburn 371

Contents ix

18. Patronage and Place: The Shwedagon in Times of Change

Elizabeth Howard-Moore 383

19. Wang Hongyuan and the Import of Japanese Esoteric Buddhism to China during the Republican Period

Erik Schicketanz 403

20. Buddhist Practices and Institutions of the Chinese Community in Kolkata, India

Zhang Xing 429

List of Contributors 459

Index 465

6

Meditation Traditions in Fifth-Century Northern China: With a Special Note on a Forgotten “Kaśmıri” Meditation

Tradition Brought to China by Buddhabhadra (359-429)

Chen Jinhua

In the long history of medieval China, the fifth century was, by diverse standards, one of the most turbulent periods. The whole region was divided into two culturally distinct parts: while the south remained under the control of the ethnic Chinese, the north was dominated by the “Barbarians.” Looking at fifth-century northern China, we find that it can be roughly divided into two periods with the year 439 as the watershed. This is when northern China was reunified under the rule of Northern Wei 北魏 (386-534), originally a regional regime established by a non-Chinese tribe, the Tuoba 拓拔.

During the later six decades of the fifth century northern China enjoyed relative peace and prosperity due to this unification, but the first four decades witnessed almost countless wars between a number of rival states: the Northern Wei and the Northern Yan 燕 (409-36) in the east, and the Later Qin 後秦 (384-417), Western Qin 西秦 (385-431), Xia 夏 (407-32), Southern Liang 南涼 (397-414), Northern Liang 北涼 (397-439) and the Western Liang 西涼 (400-21) on the west.

The events leading to the reunification of north China may be briefly described as follows. The Later Qin was first destroyed by the Eastern Jin troops led by Liu Yu 劉裕 (363-422) in 417. One year later, the Xia drove the Eastern Jin forces out of Chang’an and took over the territory formerly

102 Chen Jinhua

occupied by the Later Qin, including Chang’an. The Liangzhou 涼州 area, originally divided into three parts (Southern, Northern, and Western Liang) was unified by the Northern Liang ruler Juqu Mengxun 沮渠蒙遜 (368-433; r. 401-33), who annexed Southern and Western Liang in 414 and 421 respectively. Ten years later, the Northern Liang’s neighbour, the Western Qin, was annexed by the Northern Wei, which, one year later (in 432), conquered another state in the west, the Xia. Seven years later, in 439, the Northern Wei occupied the Northern Liang capital, Guzang 姑臧 (in present-day Wuwei 武威, Gansu), and annexed the whole of Liangzhou. This eventually led to the reunification of northern China.

It is against this historical background that I narrate the meditation practice in fifth-century northern China. My narrative will focus on three key cities: Chang’an, Guzang and Pingcheng 平城. The choices of Chang’an and Pingcheng require little justification. Chang’an had long been the cultural, if not always the political, centre for the most periods in China from the Western Zhou Dynasty (1046 BCE-771 BCE) onwards. Chang’an was the capital of the Later Qin, which was perhaps the most militarily powerful and culturally advanced state in northern China in the early fifth century. As for Pingcheng, it was the capital of the Northern Wei, the reunifier of northern China. The choice of Guzang is based on the following considerations: first, from 412, Guzang had become the capital of the Northern Liang, the unifier of the Liangzhou area, which had been one of the few areas most conducive to a dynamic interfusion of Chinese and non-Chinese (including Buddhist) cultures; second, Juqu Mengxun, the most capable and longest reigning Northern Liang ruler, was one of the few serious patrons of Buddhism in northern China in the first half of the fifth century. Under his patronage, Liangzhou emerged as the most significant source of Buddhist doctrines and practices in the north.

Therefore, this article consists of three sections devoted to the meditation practices in the three areas mentioned above. Let me begin with Chang’an.

CHANG’AN: KUMARAJIVA AND BUDDHABHADRA

The first systematic transmitter of Indian and Central Asian meditative traditions to Chang’an was Kumārajīva (343-413), whose fame as the chief proponent of the Prajñā-Madhyamaka doctrines in China has obscured his role as a meditation promoter. Kumārajīva’s involvement in meditation was actually rather significant in view of the number of meditation texts he translated and the impact these texts had on the development of later meditation traditions in China.1 Of the five meditation texts attributed to him, the earliest and perhaps the most important was a text now known as Zuochan sanmei jing 坐禪三昧經 (A Manual on the Samādhi of Sitting Meditation).2 This

Meditation Traditions in Fifth-Century Northern China 103

text begins with 43 verses composed by Kumāralāta (Jiumoluotuo 鳩摩羅陀, d.u.) and ends with 20 verses by Aśvaghosa. Its main body consists of “Five Gates” (wumen 五門; that is, five approaches) of meditation based on the meditation manuals (chanyao 禪要) by Vasumitra (Shiyou 世友; b. end of the first century), Samgharaksa, Upagupta (Youpojuduo 優婆毱多), Samghasena (Sengqiesina 僧伽斯那), Pārśva (Boshe 波奢 [Xiezun 脅尊]), Aśvaghosa, and Kumāralāta.3

Of Kumārajīva’s many disciples, Sengrui 僧叡 (352-436) and Huishi 惠始 (or Tanshi 曇始, d. c. 435) were known to have a serious interest in meditation.4 Although trained as an exegete, Sengrui had been an enthusiast of meditation since the early stage of his career. If we can trust his Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 biography, it was his distress at the absence of a coherent meditation system in China at the time that drove him to study with Kumārajīva a mere five days after the latter’s arrival in Chang’an. Solicited by Sengrui, Kumārajīva produced a meditation text in Chinese, the famous Zuochan sanmei jing 坐禪三昧經.5 Under the guidance of Kumārajīva, Sengrui began to practice meditation diligently, to a swift mastery of the “Five Gates” and “Six Meditations” (liujing 六靜). In addition to his proficiency in meditation, Sengrui was also an Amitābha devotee.6

Better known by his sobriquet “Baizu Chanshi” 白足禪師 (Meditation Master White-feet), or “Baizu Anian” 白足阿練 (Hermit White-feet), Huishi was celebrated as one of the earliest Chinese Buddhist missionaries in the Korean peninsula, where he had spent almost a decade before returning to Chang’an around 405 to study with Kumārajīva.7 Although he studied Mahāyāna with Kumārajīva, Huishi practised meditation independently in a place to the north of Baiqu 白渠.8 He was widely respected by the local scholars and later by Liu Yizhen 劉義真 (407-24), who acted as the governor of Chang’an as requested by his father, Liu Yu, the future founding emperor of the Liu Song Dynasty (420-79) (posthumously known as Emperor Wu of Song 宋武帝 [r. 420-22]) who occupied Chang’an in 417 after destroying the Later Qin regime (384-417). One year later, when Chang’an was re-occupied by the Xia 夏 (407-31) ruler Helian Bobo 赫連勃勃 (or Helian Qugai 赫連屈丐, r. 407-25), who defeated Liu Yizhen and drove him back to the south, Huishi escaped into the mountains and forests, where he practised dhūta until 424 when Emperor Taiwu 太武 of the Northern Wei (r. 423-52, Touba Tao 拓跋燾 [408-52]), during his expedition against Helian Bobo’s successor Helian Chang 赫連昌 (r. 425-28), discovered him and brought him to the Northern Wei capital, Pingcheng.9

Due to its heterogeneous nature, Kumārajīva’s meditation system was marred by its lack of a strict lineage, which made it vulnerable in the face of another meditation system with a clearer and more consistent line of transmission.10 This situation eventually occurred when Buddhabhadra (Ch. Fotuobatuo

104 Chen Jinhua

佛陀跋陀, 359-429) brought from “Kamīr”11 a new meditative tradition several years after Kumārajīva.

Allegedly a descendant of the Śākya clan in Kapilavastu, Buddhabhadra studied meditation in “Kamīr” under Buddhasena (Fodaxian 佛大先/Fotuosina 佛陀斯那).12 Later, at the invitation of the Chinese monk Zhiyan 智嚴 (305-427), who was also then studying under Buddhasena, Buddhabhadra came to China and arrived in Chang’an in 406 or 408. Buddhabhadra’s biographical sources suggest that of more than 3,000 Buddhist monks (both Chinese and foreign) under the patronage of the Later Qin ruler Yao Xing 姚興 (r. 394-416), he was the most dedicated practitioner of meditation, presenting a stark contrast to other monks who were said to have been implicated in secular affairs to different extents.13 Due to some religious and/or personal reasons, his group and Kumārajīva’s did not see eye to eye with each other. The rivalry eventually increased to the extent that Buddhabhadra was expelled from Chang’an sometime around 410, two or four years after his arrival there.

The “Kaśmīri” meditative tradition that Buddhabhadra transmitted to Chang’an is generally believed to be preserved in a meditation manual currently known as Damoduoluo chanjing 達磨多羅禪經 (A Meditation Sutra by Dharmatrāta), which he prepared at Mount Lu 廬山, where he stayed for about a year after he left Chang’an.14

In Chang’an, Buddhabhadra probably met another “Kaśmīri” missionary Dharmayaśas (Tanmoyeshe 曇摩耶舍 or Damoyeshe 達摩耶舍; or Faming 法明, 315?-424+), who, after spending several years in Guangzhou, arrived in Chang’an sometime around Hongshi 9 (407).15 Dharmayaśas was very likely from the same line of meditation tradition as Buddhabhadra, as suggested by a note in his Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 biography that, when he was only fourteen years old, he began to attract the attention of Punyatāra (Ch. Furuoduoluo 弗若多羅 or Buruoduoluo 不若多羅), who was listed as a Sarvāstivādin patriarch preceding Buddhasena and Dharmatrāta.16 By the time he grew up, Dharmayaśas was extensively versed in all the Buddhist scriptures and Vinaya texts. He also engaged in various forms of meditation, prompting his contemporaries to compare him with Futoupotuo 浮頭婆馱, which was probably another Chinese transliteration for Buddhabhadra.17 He was an intensive practitioner of austerities who spent days and nights on mountains, defying ferocious animals.18 During his stay of several years in Chang’an, he and the Indian monk Dharmagupta (Tanmojueduo 曇摩掘多) completed, in 414, a translation entitled Shelifo Apitan lun 舍利佛阿毘曇論 (A Treatise of Abhidharma [Preached] by Śāriputra; Skt. *Śāriputrābhidharma[śāstra]).19 Then, probably around 417 when the Later Qin rule was overthrown, he left Chang’an for Jiankang. Although Dharmayaśas’ Gaoseng zhuan biographer Huijiao 慧皎 (497-554) only reports his role as a translator in Chang’an,


given his strong background in meditation and the efforts he made in southern China to promote meditation, it is very likely that he also taught meditation there.

Despite the relative brevity of his stay in Chang’an, Buddhabhadra’s influence as a meditation promoter in the Guanzhong 關中 area was far-reaching and long-lasting. He was said to have succeeded in attracting 500 followers from various areas of the then-divided China into studying meditation with him.20 Five of his most important disciples in Chang’an were Zhiyan, his former fellow-disciple in “Kamīr,” Huiguan, Baoyun 寶雲 (376?-449), Xuangao 玄高 (?-444) and Sengrui, who was also, as noted above, closely related to Kumārajīva.21 Given that their activities as meditation promoters were mainly confined to the south, Huiguan, Zhiyan and Baoyun will not be discussed here. Instead, let me concentrate on Xuangao, who was, by all accounts, the most important transmitter of Buddhabhadra’s meditative tradition in the north.22

Xuangao was from the Wei 魏 family in Wannian 萬年, Pingyi 憑翊. Interestingly, his family had originally been Taoist believers for generations until his birth. Judging by the fact that Xuangao and the famous Taoist leader Kou Qianzhi 寇謙之 (365?-448), Xuangao’s predestined arch-enemy in the court of Northern Wei, were from the same place and that Xuangao’s mother was also from the same Kou family, it is likely that the two were linked by kinship.23 Even allowing for the rhetorical exaggerations characteristic of medieval monastic biographical literature, Xuangao still appears to have been an extremely precocious person, allegedly able to preach to the “mountain monks” at fifteen, only three years after assuming his status as a śramanera. He is said to have concentrated on meditation and Vinaya since his ordination.

A transition seems to have occurred in Xuangao’s life when he began to study with Buddhabhadra. Given its controversial nature, some words are in order here on Xuangao’s discipleship under Buddhabhadra.

Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography reports that he studied under a Shiyangsi 石羊寺 monk, Futuobatuo 浮馱跋陀, who was obviously Buddhabhadra, a fact which establishes Xuangao’s discipleship under him.24 However, according to his dates as given in Gaoseng zhuan, i.e., 402-44, Xuangao was merely eleven years old when Buddhabhadra left Chang’an for the south and he did not return to the north where Xuangao spent all of his life. Further, Buddhabhadra was not known to have ever stayed at the Shiyangsi.25 For these reasons, some scholars have doubted the veracity of Xuangao’s discipleship under Buddhabhadra, while others suspect that the date of Xuangao’s birth given in the Gaoseng zhuan might be wrong.26

It is important to note here that, on another occasion, Huijiao unambiguously confirms Xuangao’s discipleship under Buddhabhadra:

106 Chen Jinhua

Śramana Zhiyan personally travelled to the Western Regions, entreating the “Kaśmīri” śramana Buddhabhadra to further transmit the meditation practice [to China]. Xuangao, Xuanshao 玄紹 (?-444+)27 and other monks in the Eastern Land (i.e., China) also received procedures and regulations [from him]. 沙門智嚴, 恭履西域, 請罽賓沙門佛馱跋陀, 更傳禪業. 東土玄高, 玄紹等, 亦親受儀則.28

With this reconfirmation from Huijiao, it seems difficult to question that Xuangao was a disciple of Buddhabhadra. This leaves us no other alternative but to accept it, unless there is evidence that the Buddhabhadra he studied with at the Shiyangsi was a homonymous monk distinct from the “Kaśmīri” monk, Buddhabhadra. In other words, Xuangao’s date of birth as given by Huijiao might not be accurate and must be subjected to further scrutiny.29

Huijiao reports that Xuangao was able to master Buddhabhadra’s teachings so rapidly and completely that Buddhabhadra insisted that Xuangao treat him as a peer, rather than a teacher. Although he was trained by Buddhabhadra in Chang’an, it was outside Chang’an (particularly in Liangzhou) that Xuangao distinguished himself as a meditation master. After an unspecified period of discipleship under Buddhabhadra, he left Chang’an for Mount Maiji 麥積山 (Tianshui 天水, Gansu) and Baohan 枹罕 (Linxia 臨夏 county, Gansu), then under the control of another “barbarian” regime in northwestern China (i.e., Xianbei 鮮卑), the Western Qin 西秦 (385-431), which had Baohan as its capital. It remains unclear as to when Xuangao parted with Buddhabhadra and went to Mount Maiji, although it seems likely that this happened sometime between 412 and 414.30

Before following Xuangao to his destinations outside Chang’an, let us have a brief glance at the meditation practice in Chang’an during the rest of the fifth century following Xuangao’s departure in the early 410s. Chang’an was occupied by the Eastern Jin troops led by Liu Yu (in 417) around three years after Xuangao left. One year later, it fell into the grip of the Xia rulers and their control was brought to an end in 428 by the Northern Wei. Peace was restored in Chang’an and in the whole of northern China as the northern Wei accomplished the historic unification of northern China in 439. However, quite unfortunately for Buddhism, a mere seven years later, Emperor Taiwu of the Northern Wei implemented a wide-scale proscription, which dealt a devastating blow to Buddhism in the north.

On the eve of this national proscription, Chang’an witnessed the advent of a group of monks from Mount Song 嵩山, who were to prove instrumental in reviving the meditation practice there several years later. These monks led by Sengzhou 僧周 (d.u.), a follower of Buddhabhadra’s meditative tradition, were based on Mount Han 寒山, 400 li to the southwest of Chang’an.31 Before fleeing to Mount Han, they had practised dhūta and meditation on Mount Song. Six years later, anti-Buddhist policies were lifted and the prince of Yongchang 永昌王 (probably Touba Ren 拓跋仁 [?-453]), the governor


of Chang’an at the time, tried to enrol the assistance of Sengzhou’s group at Mount Han in reviving Buddhism in the Chang’an area. Still fearing the nightmare of persecution, most of Sengzhou’s disciples were cautious in their response to this olive branch extended by the prince. Only one disciple, Sengliang 僧亮 (d.u.), encouraged by Sengzhou, took up the task with little hesitation. Under his direction, the damaged temples in Chang’an were repaired and eminent monks called back from reclusion; accomplished meditation masters were also brought in from outside Chang’an. Huijiao had a very high opinion of Sengzhou and Sengliang’s efforts in reinstating the meditation practice in Chang’an.32

We do not know how long Xuangao stayed in Chang’an, nor how influential his tradition was there. Probably most of his disciples followed him to Mount Maiji in Tianshui when he left Chang’an. After Xuangao was executed in 444, they escaped from Pingcheng, some to the south, others to their former bases in the Liangzhou area, like Xuanshao who retired to Mount Tangshu 唐述山and died there (see below). However, Huitong 慧通 (d.u.), a resident of the Chang’an temple Taihousi 太后寺, was probably a disciple of Xuanshao and, therefore, a second generation disciple of Xuangao.33 In addition to meditation, Huitong also memorised the dhāranī and recited the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經 (Skt. Ekōttarāgama). An aspirant to the cult of Amitābha, he was believed to have been reborn in the Pure-land.34

GUZANG: XUANGAO, DHARMAKSEMA, JUQU JINGSHENG, DHARMAMITRA AND TANYAO

Not unlike his master Buddhabhadra’s position in the Chang’an meditation practice, Xuangao was perhaps the heart and soul of the meditation practice in Guzang, the Northern Liang capital. Guzang was then emerging as the new Buddhist centre following the capture of Chang’an in 418 by the Xia rulers who had far less interest in Buddhism than did the Former and Later Qin rulers. After leaving Chang’an, sometime between 412 and 414, and before reaching Liangzhou, Xuangao had spent two periods of time, both of unspecified length, at Mount Maiji and some areas within the Western Qin territory. At Maiji, Xuangao gathered over one hundred monks who studied meditation with him.35 On the same mountain also lived an eminent recluse Tanhong 曇弘 (d.u.). Common enthusiasm for meditation brought the two monks together. Hearing that a foreign meditation master Tanwupi 曇無毘 (Skt. Dharmapriya?) was then training Chinese monks in the Western Qin, Xuangao left Mount Maiji to seek tutelage under him.36 Like his previous experiences with Buddhabhadra, Xuangao mastered Dharmapriya’s teachings at a stunning pace – within ten days; even more remarkably, he was said to have been able to teach Dharmapriya from time to time.37

108 Chen Jinhua

No textual source, including Xuangao’s biography, specifies where he studied with Dharmapriya. Fortunately, archaeological evidence indicates Dharmapriya’s presence at a grotto temple-complex which, built on Mount Tangshu, was later to be known as Binglingsi 炳靈寺, located on Lesser Mount Jishi小積石山 on the northern bank of the Yellow River, around 40 km to the southwest of the current Yongjing 永靖 county in the Gansu province.38 This suggests that Xuangao and his group were associated with Dharmapriya at this place and, due to this connection, he and his group might have contributed to the development of this complex of grotto temples.39

After Dharmapriya’s departure, the rulers of Western Qin, feeling threatened by Xuangao’s increasing popularity, exiled him to a so-called Mount Linyangtang 林陽堂山, an unidentifiable mountain located to the “north of the river” (hebei 河北), which probably refers to the Yellow River.40 The exile was not rescinded until Xuangao’s friend Tanhong intervened, which resulted in the rehabilitation of Xuangao’s name and his eventual promotion as a national master of the Western Qin. After spending some time in the Western Qin, Xuangao moved to the northern part of Liangzhou, which was then controlled by the second Northern Liang ruler Juqu Mengxun, a supporter of Buddhism.

In Guzang, Xuangao was warmly greeted by Juqu Mengxun, who gathered eminent monks to attend his lectures.41 Apart from securing his chief disciple Fan Sengyin 樊僧印 (d.u.) of Xihai 西海,42 Xuangao’s activities during his stay in Guzang, which lasted for at least seven years, remain obscure. The description in Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography about his instructing Sengyin in meditation provides a glimpse of the meditation form that he promoted there:Therefore, [Xuan]gao secretly exhibited his divine prowess to make [Seng]yin exhaustively behold through meditation the boundless world in the ten directions, in which the dharma-gates preached by all the buddhas were different. Throughout the whole summer, [Seng]yin, who tried to scrutinize what he saw, just ended up finding that he was never able to exhaust them. Only then did he realize that [Xuangao’s] meditation water was unfathomable, which enormously embarrassed and frightened him. 高乃密以神力, 令印於定中備見十方無極世界, 諸佛所說, 法門不同. 定於一夏, 尋其所見, 永不能盡. 方知定水無底, 大生愧懼.43

Xuangao seems to have taught a kind of visualisation method leading to a visionary contact between the practitioner and the buddhas, which is strongly reminiscent of some aspects of a peculiar meditation – Vinaya observance advocated by one of Xuangao’s chief colleagues in Guzang, Dharmaksema (Ch. Tanwuchen 曇無讖 [var. Tanmochen 曇摩讖], 385-433), who was mainly known as a productive Buddhist translator and a proficient manipulator of dhāranī.44

A native of central India, Dharmaksema became a disciple of Dharmayaśas


(probably the homonymous monk discussed above) when he was only six years old.45 Later, after a very fiery debate with a meditation master referred to as Baitou 白頭 (white-headed), Dharmaksema recognised his superior expertise and started to study with him. Given that Dharmaksema studied under at least these two competent meditation masters, he probably also engaged in promoting meditation in Guzang, where he was known to have been primarily preoccupied with translation activities. Evidence supports this assumption. Dharmaksema was, or at least was recognised to be, the first transmitter of a very peculiar repentance-meditation observance in combination with repentance, visualisation, meditation and the conferment of bodhisattva-precepts. It is now hard to ascertain the details of this observance. However, Huijiao’s narrative underscores the following characteristics. First, the con-ferment of these bodhisattva-precepts presupposed one’s spiritual purity, which was, in turn, to be gained through a kind of repentance (huiguo 悔過). Second, the practitioner was asked not only to repent his sins but also to undergo very intensive meditation. Third, this observance should result in the visionary encounter between the practitioner and the Buddha. Finally, the observance which was fundamental for Dharmaksema’s theory about the practice of bodhisattva-precepts seems to have been based on a chapter (exclusively on repentance) in the Suvarnaprabhāsa-uttama-sūtra, the first Chinese version of which was prepared by Dharmaksema himself under the title Jinguangming jing 金光明經.46

In Liangzhou, Dharmaksema probably gained an imperial disciple, Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 (d. ca. 464), Juqu Mengxun’s younger cousin (chongdi 從弟). Better known as the “Marquis of Anyang” 安陽侯,47 Juqu Jingsheng was a significant promoter of meditation in the Northern Liang too. He travelled to Yutian 于闐 (Khotan) to study meditation with Buddhasena, Buddhabhadra’s teacher, at the renowned Great Monastery of Gomati (Qumodi Dasi 衢摩帝大寺).48 From Buddhasena, he received the oral transmission of a text which he later rendered into Chinese under the title Chanyao mimi zhibing jing 禪要祕密治病經. En route to Liangzhou 涼州 from Khotan, he secured in Gaochang 高昌 (Turfan) two visualisation scriptures (guanjing 觀經) centered on Avalokiteśvara and Maitreya, each in two fascicles. After returning to Hexi 河西 (i.e. Liangzhou), he made a Chinese version of Chanyao 禪要 (apparently the aforementioned meditative text that he received from Buddhasena in Khotan). Juqu Jingsheng stayed in the Northern Liang capital until the downfall of the latter at the hands of the Northern Wei in 439.

Another remarkable meditation master active in the Northern Liang sometime before 420 was Dharmamitra (Damomituo 達摩蜜多, or Faxiu 法秀, 356-442), who, though adept in a variety of sūtras, had a particularly pen-etrating understanding of meditation.49 A native of “Kamīr,” Dharmamitra had enjoyed travelling since his youth and left “Kamīr” for Kucha when he

110 Chen Jinhua

was still rather young. He spent several years in Kucha before moving to Dunhuang and building a magnificent temple there.50 Then he went to Liangzhou where he renovated the Gongfusi 公府寺 and turned it into a prosperous training centre for meditation that attracted many meditation practitioners, among whom may have been the Vinaya master Faxiang 法香 (d.u.).51

A survey on the Liangzhou meditation practice would be incomplete without mention of a monk who, though probably bearing lesser significance compared with the aforementioned monks, was to distinguish himself in the Northern Wei capital, Pingcheng, for his role in promoting Buddhism (especially the meditation practice) there. This was Tanyao 曇曜 (d. c. 479), a junior colleague, if not a direct disciple, of Xuangao.52

While Xuangao had already been noted by Juqu Mengxun, Tanyao did not start to gain his reputation as a competent meditation master until during the reign of Juqu Maoqian 沮渠茂虔 (or Juqu Mujian 沮渠牧健), the third son of Juqu Mengxun and his successor whose reign lasted for six years (433-39). In particular, one of the most eminent dignitaries in the court of Juqu Maoqian, Zhang Tan 張潭 (d.u.), who was grand mentor to the crowned prince (taifu 太傅), held Tanyao in high esteem and treated him as a teacher.53

The Liangzhou meditation tradition experienced an abrupt turn when the Northern Wei annexed the Northern Liang in 439 and brought a number of Buddhist priests, including Xuangao, Tanyao and Shixian 師賢 (d. c. 463, also a “Kaśmīri” missionary), from their lately-conquered territory to Pingcheng, the newly-chosen capital, which was soon to emerge as another Buddhist centre in fifth-century China.54

PINGCHENG: TANYAO, BUDDHABHADRA AND THE BUDDHA-IMAGE-CAVE

Either simultaneously with or slightly before the advent of Xuangao and his Liangzhou colleagues in Pingcheng, Huishi, who was brought there from Chang’an around 424 by Tuoba Tao, died at Bajiaosi 八角寺 after spending about one decade in Pingcheng where he gathered and trained a number of meditation practitioners.55 That the prestigious Northern Wei statesman Gao Yun 高允 (389-487) wrote a biography of Huishi attests to the latter’s influence in the Northern Wei capital.56

In Guzang, Xuangao was highly respected by Tuoba Tao, who made him a tutor of his Crown Prince Huang 晃. Unfortunately, in 444, five years after he arrived in Pingcheng, Xuangao was executed as a victim of court infighting.57 It is not clear what Xuangao’s activities in Pingcheng were as a meditation master, except for his promotion of a Suvarnaprabhāsa-based repentance observance and his gatherings of followers in meditation grottoes (chanku 禪


窟), which might have been constructed by him and his patrons/followers.58 No source precisely locates these grottoes although they were probably on Mount Wuzhou 武州山 (var. 武周山) given that, around two decades later, a number of grottoes were dug on that mountain under the supervision of a monk closely associated with Xuangao (see below).

Xuangao’s execution in 444 turned out to be a foretaste of a large-scale persecution to be fully effected two years later. This persecution was not halted until the twelfth month of Xing’an 興安 1 (at the cross of 452 and 453) by the newly-enthroned Emperor Wencheng 文成 (r. 452-65), who introduced a number of measures to restore Buddhism. Several months later, the Northern Wei emperor enlisted Tanyao’s help by summoning him to Pingcheng from Zhongshan 中山, to which the persecution had previously driven him. The consensus among scholars is that this Tanyao was a monk by the same name who is briefly mentioned at the end of Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography as an accomplished meditation master.59 After the Northern Wei government began to suppress Buddhism in 446, Tanyao, who staunchly adhered to his religious life, provided a stark contrast to many monks who tried to serve secular needs with their talents unrelated to Buddhism. Early in the Heping 和平 era (460-65), shortly after he was called back to the court, Tanyao succeeded the recently deceased “Kaśmīri” monk Shixian by becoming the paramount monastic leader (shamentong 沙門統, comptroller of śramana). He was the architect of the unique monastic institution, which, generally known as sengqihu 僧袛戶/sengqisu 僧袛粟, provided the basis for the speedy recovery of the Northern Wei Buddhism from the devastating suppression.60 Tanyao died sometime after 479.

In many ways, Tanyao must be recognised as the most dynamic and influential monk in the north from the period after the proscription and before the Northern Wei relocated its capital in 495. In particular, two aspects of Tanyao’s legacy as a meditation promoter proved to have far-reaching repercussions. First is the translation, or compilation, of a Buddhist history called Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 (An Account of the Causes and Conditions by which the Dharma-storehouse was Transmitted).61 Largely a brainchild of Tanyao and the Indian monk Kikkāya (Jijiaye 吉迦夜; ?-472+), Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan was to become an important source of inspiration (and also controversy) for later Tiantai and Chan monks when they engaged in constructing and reconstructing their sectarian lineages.

However, the most important heritage of Tanyao turned out to be his famous proposal submitted to the Northern Wei court around 461,62 which resulted in the construction of five grottoes in the cliffs on the northern side of Mount Wuzhou, located 30 li to the northwest of Pingcheng; that is, around 16 km west of present-day Datong 大同 in Shanxi. Later known as “Tanyao wuku” 曇曜五窟 (Five Grottoes of Tanyao), these five

112 Chen Jinhua

grottoes marked the beginning of the renowned Yungang grotto-complex 雲崗石窟群.63 They are impressive in size. According to Daoxuan 道宣 (596-667), the larger ones were over twenty zhang 丈 high, spacious enough to accommodate three thousand monks. Within each grotto, one Buddha image was carved on the stone wall. Wei Shou reports that these colossal images, ranging from 60 to 70 chi 尺 in height, were embellished with magnificent carvings and decorations.64

Scholars have highlighted the close connections between caves (grottoes) and meditative practices.65 They also point to the story of the Buddha-image-cave ( foying ku 佛影窟) in Nagarahāra, near present-day Jelālābād, Afghanistan, as a major force driving the development of grotto temples in China. Due to its fame as the place where the Buddha left his resplendent image, the Nagarahāra image-cave became a famous pilgrimage spot attracting a large number of Buddhist believers. The locus classicus of the image-cave is a chapter in a voluminous text, the translation of which has been attributed to Buddhabhadra, Guanfo sanmeihai jing 觀佛三昧海經 (Sūtra of Visualising the Buddha-like Samādhi-sea).66 Although the formation of this text, both in the original and its translation, is too thorny an issue to be addressed here, no compelling evidence has ever, to the best of my knowledge, emerged to abnegate Buddhabhadra’s role in the translation/compilation. Further, what warrants particular attention is that he played a crucial role in assisting Huiyuan to cast the first-known Chinese version of this image-cave.67 Some scholars believe that the passage concerning the “Buddha-image-cave” in Guanfo sanmeihai jing might have provided a possible prototype for the layouts of the colossal caves with seated Buddhas at Yungang.68

SOME FURTHER REMARKS

This survey of the meditation practice in fifth-century north China begins with the successive arrival of two great Buddhist missionaries Kumārajīva and Buddhabhadra in Chang’an (in 402 and 406 or 408 respectively), and concludes with the transfer of the capital of the Northern Wei, the reunifier of northern China in 439, from Pingcheng to Luoyang towards the end of the fifth century (495). It first reveals the close correspondence between the shift of the Buddhist (meditation, in particular) strongholds and that of political powerbases in northern China during this century. From the end of the fourth century till the end of the 410s, consistent with the status of the Later Qin as the most powerful state among a number of rival regional regimes in the north at the time, Chang’an, the Later Qin capital, stood out as the most important cultural and religious centre in the north. However, following the downfall of the Later Qin in 417 and especially its occupation by the Xia “barbarians,”


the centre of northwestern Buddhism began to shift from Chang’an to Guzang, the Northern Liang capital, which, two years after Chang’an was captured by the Xia, greeted another great missionary from India, Dharmaksema. The status of Guzang as the new Buddhist centre of northern China remained unchallenged for over two decades from 418 to 439, when the Northern Liang was annexed by the Northern Wei, leading to the reunification of northern China under this dynasty. As this unified empire took shape, the Northern Wei capital, Pingcheng, following Chang’an and Guzang, emerged as the third and most enduring Buddhist centre in fifth-century north China. This considerably contributed to the decline of Buddhism, in general, and the meditation practice, in particular, in the northwestern area (with Chang’an and Guzang as its erstwhile centres) from the 440s.

In examining meditation practices in fifth-century north China as a whole, what might first strike one is the importance of the “Kaśmīri” meditation tradition (belonging to the Sarvāstivādin tradition) that the “Kaśmīri” monk Buddhabhadra brought to China at the beginning of the century. In Chang’an, despite Kumārajīva’s reputation and his advantage of being the first transmitter of meditation in the area, Buddhabhadra seems to have been more popular and dominant as a meditation master. Although his sojourn in Chang’an was transitory (lasting for no more than a few years), his impact in the area long survived his stay and was even expanded beyond Chang’an through some of his gifted disciples who stayed in the north, with Xuangao as their most talented representative. As the chief transmitter of Buddhabhadra’s meditative tradition, Xuangao also assimilated the meditative teachings taught by two of his contemporary Indian monks, Dharmapriya and Dharmaksema. While no details are known about his connection with Dharmaksema, Xuangao probably received a peculiar repentance from him based on Jinguangming jing (the so-called “Jinguangming chanfa” 金光明懺法).69 Tanyao, Xuangao’s close colleague or direct disciple, was perhaps the most important promoter of Buddhism (and particularly, the meditation practice) in Pingcheng (and also in north China, given Pingcheng’s status as the capital of the greater part of north China after 439) at the time. During the half century between 439 and 494, except for the six-year period of persecution, the Pingcheng meditative practice was led first by Xuangao and then by Tanyao. In this sense, the Pingcheng meditative tradition was, by and large, a continuation of the Liangzhou one, a large part of which was derived from the Buddhabhadra meditation tradition. Furthermore, it was mainly through Sengliang, a disciple of Sengzhou who was recognised as a follower of Buddhabhadra too, that the Chang’an meditative practice was revived after the Northern Wei persecution of Buddhism (446-552). Thus, through his efforts and those of his followers, Buddhabhadra’s meditation teachings were disseminated all over the three

114 Chen Jinhua

Buddhist centres in fifth-century northern China: Chang’an, Guzang and Pingcheng.

We also find that most of the chief meditation promoters in fifth-century northern China were closely related to Buddhabhadra. Dharmayaśas, another meditation master active in Chang’an simultaneously with Buddhabhadra, belonged to the same Sarvāstivādin tradition as him. If the earliest teacher of Dharmaksema’s can be identified as Dharmayaśas, which seems likely as far as my preliminary research goes, Dharmaksema’s teaching can be considered to have derived from the same “Kaśmīri” Sarvāstivādin tradition, too (at least with regard to his meditation techniques), although he was later drawn to Mahāyāna under the influence of another of his teachers, Baitou, also a meditation master. Likewise, Juqu Jingsheng (whose role in Liangzhou as a meditation advocator must have been considerable given his blood ties to the royal Juqu family), studied in Khotan with a meditation master called Buddhasena. If this Buddhasena was Buddhabhadra’s chief teacher by the same name (no decisive evidence exists against such an identification), then Juqu Jingsheng can be recognised as a fellow-disciple of (although significantly junior to) Buddhabhadra. At any rate, it was very likely that Juqu Jingsheng studied with Dharmaksema before he pursued further training in meditation in Khotan. All these factors attest to the close connections that Juqu Jingsheng had with the same “Kaśmīri” meditation tradition that Buddhabhadra inherited and tried to extol in China. As a final note on the deep mark that Buddhabhadra’s “Kaśmīri” meditation left on fifth-century northern China, we can refer to Dharmamitra, who, also a “Kaśmīri,” might have maintained a link with the Buddhasena-Buddhabhadra tradition.

One more aspect of the Buddhabhadra meditation tradition’s immense and abiding contribution to the fifth-century northern meditation practice lies in its impetus to the development of grotto-meditation or (in some areas) even grotto-temples. The basic purpose of these grottoes or grotto-temples was for meditation. Although the construction of grotto-temples dated long before Buddhabhadra’s arrival in Chang’an, it remains true that following his appearance in Chang’an in the 410s, grotto-temples developed at a rate unparalleled. Xuangao might have played a key role in the development of two massive grotto-temples in the northwestern area (Mounts Maiji and Tangshu). Tanyao, another monk directly linked to Xuangao and, thus, indirectly to Buddhabhadra, figured prominently in the tremendous project of the Wuzhou grotto-complex, which was to evolve into the famous Yungang grotto complex (Xuangao also built meditation grottoes in Pingcheng, either at or near Mount Wuzhou). Most importantly, the description of the Buddha-image-cave contained in a visualisation text attributed to Buddhabhadra, who was most likely the compiler, if not the author, of this account, determined to a great extent the Chinese understanding of Buddhist grottoes, especially


meditation grottoes. All this emphatically points to the possibility that Buddhabhadra and his tradition constituted a driving force behind the development of Buddhist grotto-complexes in north China in the fifth century. Scholars have noticed the Gandhāran style of the earliest Buddha statues in Yungang, but very few, if any, ties have been established between Yungang and Gandhāra. I suspect that Buddhabhadra and his group might have been the missing piece of this puzzle.

Buddhabhadra’s role in the spread of this Buddha-image-cave in East Asia forces us to be more circumspect in understanding the patterns of interaction between image and text. Scholars seem to be more ready to read the image as an expression of a set of motifs or tropes that heavily figure in some popular texts like the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra. Buddhabhadra’s case suggests, however, an opposite direction to the interaction. If his collaboration with Huiyuan in transplanting the image-cave to China, on the one hand, and his ties with Chinese meditation masters like Tanyao and Xuangao on the other, can be solidly established, we need to seriously explore the possibility that a major force contributing to the composition or compilation of the Guanfo sanmeihai jing might have been the concern for the scriptural source for the image-cave in Central Asia and its imitation in China.

Thus, though already forgotten in this respect, the “Kaśmīri” meditation tradition brought to China by Buddhabhadra, when viewed in a broader context, played a surprisingly significant role in the evolution of the meditation tradition in early medieval China. Almost all Chinese (or even East Asian) Buddhist traditions unanimously claimed to be “Mahāyānist” (the only known exception is perhaps some Buddhist traditions in Yunnan 雲南 which based themselves on some scriptures that have been generally categorised as “Hīnayānist”). Taking these claims at face values, modern scholars have failed to recognise and properly appraise the significant influence which some “Hīnayānist” traditions had exercised on Chinese (East Asian) Buddhism. Chan/Seon/Zen Buddhism, mostly thanks to its ideology for “separate transmission from outside the [Buddha’s regular] teachings” (jiaowai biechuan 教外別傳) or “mind-to-mind transmission” ( yixin chuanxin 以心傳心), has been, in particular, taken to be the most “subitist” and radical form of Mahayana in East Asia. It is thus quite ironical that if the reconstruction of a meditation tradition, as attempted in this essay, is plausible, Chan/Seon/Zen Buddhism actually owes a great deal to a Sarvāstivādin tradition of meditation that could be traced to Gandhāra (“Kamīr”). By calling into question the general claim for the “Mahāyānist” nature of most Chinese (or even East Asian) Buddhist traditions, this essay has underscored the necessity of broadening the intellectual perspectives for evaluating the provenance, nature and functions of quite a number of Buddhist traditions in East Asia that have been so far uncritically subjugated to the general rubric of “Mahāyāna.”

116 Chen Jinhua

NOTES

* This essay originates from a rough draft that I wrote in Kyoto in 2000, when James Benn read it and provided valuable suggestions. A revised version was presented in May 2008 to a seminar organised by Funayama Tōru 船山徹 in the Institute for Research in Humanities at the University of Kyoto. I express my gratitude to Professor Funayama, who invited me for this lecture and subsequently made very detailed and perceptive comments on the essay, and several of his colleagues in Kyoto who attended my lecture and made useful comments as well.

1. The fifteenth volume of the Taishō canon contains the following five meditative texts with Kumārajīva as their alleged translator:

(1) Chanmi yaofa jing 禪秘要法經 [A Manual of the Secret Essentials of Meditation], as printed in Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經, edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭 (hereafter T ), 613, 3 fascs.

(2) Zuochan sanmei jing 坐禪三昧經 [A Manual on the Samādhi of Sitting Meditation], T 614, 2 fascs.

(3) Pusa he seyu fa jing 菩薩呵色欲法經 [The Sūtra of the Bodhisattva’s Denunciation Physical Desires], T 615, 1 fasc.

(4) Chanfa yaojie 禪法要解 [The Essential Explanation of the Methods of Meditation], T 616, 2 fascs.

(5) Siwei lüeyao fa 思惟略要法 [The Abridged Essence of Meditation], T 617, 1 fasc.

In addition, Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) reports that Kumārajīva also translated a meditation text, no longer extant, called Shier yinyuan guanjing 十二因緣觀經 [A Sūtra on Contemplating the Twelve Links of Causes and Conditions]. See Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集, T 55: 2.11a11. Among these five texts, three (Zuochan sanmei jing, Chanfa yaojie and Pusa he seyu fa jing) are almost unanimously accepted as Kumārajīva’s translations, as is affirmed by Sengyou (Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 2.11a11-14). As for the other two, scholars are divided as to their ascription to Kumārajīva.

2. This text was originally entitled “Zhongjia chanyao” 眾家禪要, or, in consistence with Kumārajīva’s Mahāyāna perspective, “Pusa chanfa jing” 菩薩禪法經 [A Sūtra of the Meditation Methods for Bodhisattvas]. See “Guanzhong chu chanjing xu” 關中出禪經序, Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.65a19-b21.

3. For this reason, the meditative system included in this text was also called “wumen chan” 五門禪 [Five gateways of meditation], an important category believed to have been first introduced by An Shigao 安世高 (fl. 147-70), perhaps the first systematic promoter of meditation in China, for the explanation of meditation. See Sengrui’s description in his preface to this text, “Guanzhong chu chanjing xu,” Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.65a27-b3.

4. In addition to Sengrui and Sengshi, Kumārajīva had another leading disciple (i.e., Huiguan 慧觀 [375?-445?]) who had an intense interest in meditation. However, Huiguan had gradually associated himself so closely with Buddhabhadra, whom Kumārajīva’s group, if not Kumārajīva himself, came to view as a rival, that his expertise in meditation must have been mainly derived from Buddhabhadra rather than Kumārajīva. For this reason, I will treat Huiguan as a meditator in connection with Buddhabhadra. As for the delicate triangular relationship between Huiguan and his two foreign teachers, the following facts are suggestive. First, in his Gaoseng zhuan 高


僧傳biography of Buddhabhadra, Huijiao names Huiguan as the head of the 40-odd disciples of Buddhabhadra who followed the master when he was forced to leave Chang’an in 410 (於是與弟子慧觀等四十餘人俱發; T 50: 2.334b5-6). Second, in the preface he wrote (probably during his stay at Mount Lu 廬山 with Buddhabhadra and Huiyuan 慧遠 [334-416]) for Buddhabhadra’s translation of the Damoduoluo chanjing, Huiguan implicitly criticizes the meditation system introduced by Kumārajīva for its lack of a strict, coherent lineage of transmission (see below, n. 10).

5. In his above mentioned preface to Chanjing (“Guanzhong chu chanjing xu”), Sengrui relates the circumstances under which he went to seek Kumārajīva’s instructions in meditation. A mere six days after Kumārajīva’s arrival in Chang’an on Hongshi 弘始 3.12.20 (28 January 403), Sengrui went to visit him, asking for a Chinese rendition of Indian meditative teachings. This resulted in the translation (or a loose compilation) of a three-fascicle text to which Sengrui refers in his preface as “Chanyao” 禪要, which is generally understood to be the meditation manual currently known as Zuochan sanmei jing.

6. In addition to a biography of Sengrui (T 50: 6.364a14-b22), Gaoseng zhuan has a separate biography for a monk called Huirui 慧叡, who was also a disciple of Kumārajīva. Much later, Zhipan 志磐 (?-1269+) identified Huirui as Sengrui and fused the two monks in the Gaoseng zhuan biographies into one (Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀, T 49: 26.266b-c). Since Ōchō Enichi’s exhaustive study (“Soei to Eiei”, Sengrui and Huirui have been generally accepted as one and the same monk. See, for examples, Wright, “Sengrui Alias Hui-rui; Chou Po-kan, “The Problem of the Authorship. Although there remains a different voice (see, in particular, Xu Wenming 徐文明, “Sengrui Huirui”; see also his “Sengrui de shengzui niandai yu sixiang.”). This identification has resulted in the following reconstruction of Sengrui’s life. A native of Changle 長樂 Weijun 魏郡, Sengrui became a monk at eighteen (in 369). He was a common disciple of both Sengxian 僧賢 and Senglang 僧朗 (Gaoseng zhuan biography at 354b), the latter was being the highly respected by the rulers of Later Qin, Yan 燕 and Wei, partly because of his role in transmitting Buddhism to what is now Shandong. After turning twenty-four (in 375), Sengrui became an independent dharma-expounder, travelling to many “renowned places” (mingbang 名邦), including Ye 鄴, where he met Daoan 道安 (312-85) and became his disciple, and Mount Lu where he studied with Daoan’s most famous disciple, Huiyuan, to whom he might have owed his strong devotion for the Pure-land. After studying with these two great monks, he went to Chang’an to study with Kumārajīva and became his most trusted collaborator when the latter organised and supervised a translation centre in Chang’an under the aegis of the Later Qin rulers. In the wake of the upheavals due to Liu Yu’s occupation of Chang’an in 417 and the Xia re-occupation of the same city one year later, Sengrui fled to the south where he settled down in Jiankang 建康 and distinguished himself with a new dharma-name Huirui. After spending almost two decades in the south (418-36), he died at the capital monastery Wuyisi 烏衣寺 at an advanced age (eighty-five). In Jiankang, he associated with the powerful prince Liu Yikang 劉義康 (409-51) and the accomplished poet and layman Xie Lingyun 謝靈運 (385-433).

7. Originally from the Qinghe Zhang 清河張 family, Huishi was a native of Guanzhong 關中. He gained the two sobriquets thanks to an unusual feat of his feet which, allegedly brighter than his face, never got muddled even walking through mud. Wei Shou 魏收 (507-72) accords a short biography for Huishi in his Shilao zhi 釋老志; see Wei shu 114.3032. On the other hand, Gaoseng zhuan has a biography for a monk called Tanshi

118 Chen Jinhua

曇始 (10.392b). Due to his connection with Korean Buddhism, Tanshi is also accorded a biography in Haedong kosung chon 海東高僧傳 (Biographies of Monks in the East Side of the Sea [i.e. the Korean Peninsula], T 50: 1.1016c-1017b), which is, by and

large, copied from his Gaoseng zhuan biography. Comparing Huishi’s Shilao zhi biography and Tanshi’s biography in Gaoseng zhuan or Haedong kosung chon, we find that, despite some discrepancies, they are actually about the same monk.

8. Wei Shou (Wei Shu 114.3032) tells us that in the daytime Huishi entered the city to attend Kumārajīva’s lectures, while in evening he went back to his dwelling place near Baiqu 白渠, practicing meditation. The Baiqu was a huge canal extending over a large area in the five present-day counties of Shaanxi, Jingyang 涇陽, Sanyuan 三原, Liling 醴陵, Gaoling 高陵 and Nintong 臨潼.

9. A bloodthirsty warrior, Helian Bobo committed a massacre in Chang’an. It was not until he realised Huishi’s imperviousness to any harm imposed through human means that Helian Bobo was scared and let him and the other monks go (see Wei Shu 114.3032). Huishi’s experience in Pingcheng will be discussed below.

10. An unguided meditation practitioner might become so distracted that his physical and psychological health would be seriously jeopardised. This might partly account for the unusual importance given to the lineage through which the meditation system was handed down. In his preface to a meditation manual translated by Buddhabhadra, Huiguan warns:

The essence of meditation texts consists in their lineage which [practitioners] can face [with confidence]. If the root and source are lost, it would not be complete when people try to trace them back through the branches. Lost to the principles, all those who are blind may become arrogant and be blocked in darkness. Shouldn’t one be alerted [to this]?! 禪典要秘, 宜對之有宗. 若漏失根原, 則枝尋不全. 群盲失旨, 則上慢幽昏. 可不懼乎?! (“Xiuxingdi bujing guan xu” 修行地不淨觀序, Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.66b23-25).

The “root and source” on which Huiguan places such weight refers to the coherent lineage of a meditation system from which its credibility was derived. It appears that this criticism was targeted at the way Kumārajīva transmitted meditations.

11. Jibin 罽賓. In Chinese Buddhist texts, Jibin was a highly problematic word whose meaning scholars have debated. Some (e.g. Enomoto Fumio 榎本文雄, “A Note on Kamīr as Referred to in Chinese Literature”, p. 265) have tried to distinguish the different ways in which the word was used in Buddhist texts, including those translated from Indic languages and those written by Chinese authors. In the former case, Jibin is clearly used as a transcription of Kaśmīr or its derivative form, while in the latter, especially in Chu sanzang ji ji and Gaoseng zhuan, Jibin seems to have included Gandhāra and perhaps other adjoining areas as well. Due to the uncertain nature of the usage of this word in Chinese Buddhist texts, I will follow the practice introduced by Yamabe Nobuyoshi 山部能宜, of translating Jibin as Kamīr with a quotation mark; see Yamabe, “The Sūtra,” p. 33, n. 13.

12. In addition to a postscript to a translation of a meditation text by one of Buddhasena’s disciples from China, which provides several general notes about Buddhasena (see below, n. 48), Huiguan says something more about Buddhasena’s background in his preface to Xiuxing di bujing guan jing. Over twenty or fifty years after Furuomiluo 富若蜜羅 or his disciple, Furuoluo 富若羅 died, Dharmatrāta (Tanmoduoluo 曇磨多羅) and Buddhasena began to disseminate the meditation teachings in the text that


Buddhabhadra was later to translate in China. Someone coming from “Kaśmīr” reported the following dying instruction by Buddhasena, “The number of the people I have taught is large. Those who entered enlightenment are, all together, seven hundreds. Furuoluo had left fifteen to sixteen disciples who became meditation masters and who are now promulgating their teachings in the Western Regions. Those who received instruction from him are many.” (我所化人眾數甚多. 入道之徒, 具有七百. 富若羅所訓為教師者, 十五六人. 如今於西域中熾盛教化, 受學者眾.) Huiguan continues by telling us that Dharmatrāta was from India and transmitted this teaching to Potuoluo, who transmitted it to Buddhasena. Buddhasena transmitted this teaching to China (apparently through his disciple Buddhabhadra). See “Xiuxing di bujing guan jing xu,” Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.66c21-67a5).

13. Gaoseng zhuan, T 55: 2.334a19-21: 秦主姚興, 專注佛法, 供養三千餘僧. 並往來宮闕, 盛修人事, 唯賢守靜, 不與眾同; cf. Huayan jing zhuanji 華嚴經傳記, T 51: 1.154b16-18. Buddhabhadra had gradually come to occupy such a prominent position in the Chang’an meditation practice that he came to be known among his contemporaries by the title “Chanshi” 禪師 (meditation master). For example, when he wrote from Chang’an to one of his admirers in the south, Sengzhao 僧肇 (384-414), another chief disciple of Kumārajīva, refers to Buddhabhadra simply as “chanshi” (this reference will be discussed below, n. 20). The same practice was repeated by Sengrui, a joint disciple of Kumārajīva and Buddhabhadra, when he recalls Buddhabhadra in a treatise he wrote (“Yuyi” 喻疑, Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 5.41b17-18: 禪師徒眾, 尋亦並集).

14. Buddhabhadra’s sojourn at Mount Lu was arranged by Huiyuan 慧遠 (334-416), who was then a resident of the scenic mountain and who later tried in vain to persuade the Later Qin rulers to rescind their decision of ousting Buddhabhadra. After staying at Mount Lu for about a year, Buddhabhadra went to Jingzhou 荊州 and finally settled down in Jiankang 建康 (i.e., Jinling 金陵). Damoduoluo chanjing (T 618) was the text that Buddhabhadra’s Chu sanzang ji ji biography mentions as “Chanjing” 禪經 (T 55: 14.104a28) and that his Gaoseng zhuan biography mentions as “Xiuxing fangbian lun” 修行方便論 (2.335c12). Although better known by its current name, the original title of this text seems to have been Xiuxingdi bujing guan[jing] 修行地不靜觀[經], as suggested by the preface Huiguan wrote for it: “Xiuxingdi bujing guan xu” 修行地不淨觀序 (Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.66b-67a) or “Xiuxing fangbian chanjing” 修行方便禪經, as is corroborated by Huiyuan’s preface, the “Lushan chu Xiuxing fangbian chanjing tongxu” 廬山出修行方便禪經統序 (A General Preface to Xiuxing Fangbian Chanjing Translated on Mount Lu; Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.65b-c). Further, although currently named after Dharmatrāta, one of Buddhabhadra’s teachers in “Kaśmīr,” Buddhasena was perhaps most directly responsible for the meditation theories included therein (Yamabe, “The Sūtra,” p. 37).

15. According to his Gaoseng zhuan biography (1.329b-c), by the time Dharmayaśas arrived in Guangzhou 廣州 during the Long’an 隆安 era of the Eastern Jin (397-401), he was already eighty-five years old. If we assume that he arrived there in the middle of the era (399), then he was born in 315. The same biography tells us that he left China for India in the Yuanjia 元嘉 era (424-53), which means that he lived beyond 424; in other words, when he left China he was at least 110 and could have been as old as 137 (if he left at the very end of that era).

During his stay in Guangzhou, Dharmayaśas resided at Baishasi 白沙寺. For his extraordinary capacity to recite the Samantapāsādikā (Piposha lü 毘婆沙律), he won

120 Chen Jinhua

the sobriquet of Great Vibhāsā (Da Piposha 大毘婆沙). Requested by a female Buddhist devotee (qingxingnu 清信女) Zhang Puming 張普明 (d.u.), a daughter of the Jiaozhou 交州 prefect Zhang Mu 張牧, he translated a Sanskrit text into Chinese, bearing the title “Chamo jing” 差摩經. See Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 1.329b27-c2; Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記, T 49: 8.77b10.

In Guangzhou, Dharmayaśas obtained a Sinified Indian as his disciple under the dharma-name Zhu Fadu 竺法度, whose Gaoseng zhuan biography is attached to Dharmayaśas’ (1.329c16-27). With a father who was a merchant, trading between China and India, Fadu was born in Nankang 南康 and was raised in Guangzhou. His bilingual capacity enabled him to act as Dharmayaśas’ interpreter during the latter’s stay in Guangzhou. His brief biography reports that Fadu was a strict Hīnayānist, hostile to Mahāyāna. He imposed strict Hīnayāna discipline on his disciples in Guangzhou, including two nuns – the aforementioned Puming and Fahong 法弘, a daughter of the Danyang prefect Yan Jun 顏竣 (?-459). For Fadu, see Zürcher, “Tidings from the South,” Dharmayaśas’ expertise in the Vibhāsā-vinaya, his status as a teacher of such a Hīnayānist disciple and his role in translating Chamo jing and Shelifo Apitan lun (see below) demonstrate that he was an upholder of the Hīnayānist tradition, probably the Sarvāstivādin, as was Buddhabhadra.

16. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 1.329b16-17: 年十四, 為弗若多羅所知. An account of Sarvāstivādin lineages compiled by Sengyou contains the names of Punyatāra, Buddhasena and Dharmatrāta. The account itself is not extant now. Only a table of contents is recorded in Sengyou’s Chu sanzang ji ji (“Sapoduo bu ji mulu xu” 薩婆多部記目錄序, Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 12.88c26-90b3). According to this document, the account contained two such lineages. In one of them, Punyatāra, Buddhasena and Dharmatrāta were counted as the fifty-first, fifty-second and fifty-third patriarch (89b28-30), while the other, attributed to Buddhabhadra himself who was then affiliated with Qigongsi 齊公寺 in Chang’an, had Punyatāra, Buddhasena, Dharmatrāta as the forty-fourth, forty-ninth and fiftieth patriarch, respectively (90a3-8). It is not clear whether Punyatāra was the monk with the same dharma-name (d. ca. 404), who was also a “Kaśmīri” missionary arriving in Chang’an sometime either in 403 or 404 (this date is suggested by the consideration that Punyatāra began to translate Shisong lü 十誦律 [Skt. *Daśabhānavāra-vinaya] on Hongshi 6.10.17 [4 December 404] and that he was respected by Kumārajīva, who arrived in Chang’an at the beginning of 402). Punyatāra was mainly celebrated as a Daśabhānavāra-vinaya expert and a translator of the massive Vinaya text. His connection with the meditation practice in Chang’an is not reported. See his Gaoseng zhuan biography at T 55: 2.333a.

17. Gaoseng zhuan, T 55: 1.329b18-19: 陶思八禪, 遊心七覺. 時人方之浮頭婆馱. That Futoupotuo is another Chinese transliteration of Buddhabhadra’s Sanskrit name is confirmed by Mingseng zhuan 名僧傳; see à Meisō den shō. 名僧傳抄, as printed in Wanzi xuzang jing 卍續藏經 [Taipei: Xin wenfeng chuban gongsi, 1968-70; hereafter X], 77: 1.355a17: [佛駄跋陀佛,] 或云浮頭婆駄, 梁言覺賢.

18. Gaoseng zhuan, T 55: 1.329b19-20: 孤行山澤, 不避豺虎. 獨處思念, 動移霄日. 19. This text is currently preserved as T 1548, vol. 28. 20. Gaoseng zhuan, T 55: 2.335a23-24: 賢在長安大弘禪業, 四方樂靖者, 並聞風而

至. It is said that over 1,000 lay and monastic admirers came out to bid farewell to Buddhabhadra on the occasion of his leaving Chang’an. Huayan jing zhuanji notes that 600 monks, including Daocai 道才(otherwise unknown), Tanchang 曇暢 (otherwise unknown), Sengrui and Huiguan, learned meditation from him. The


popularity of Buddhabhadra as a meditation transmitter is also corroborated by Sengzhao, who reported in his letter to Liu Yimin 劉遺民 (a.k.a. Liu Chengzhi 劉程之, 352-410), a lay believer of Buddhism who admired Sengzhao’s expertise in the prajñā teachings, that Buddhabhadra gathered several hundred disciples in Chang’an. See Zhaolun 肇論, T 45: 1.155c14-16: 禪師於宮寺教習禪道, 門徒數百, 夙夜匪懈, 邕邕肅肅, 致自欣樂; quoted and discussed in Tang Yongtong, Han Wei Liangjin, p. 217.

21. Huayan jing zhuanji (T 51: 1.154b10-11) lists Daocai, Tanchang, Sengrui and Huiguan as the chief meditation practitioners in Chang’an under the guidance of Buddhabhadra.

22. The following discussion of Xuangao is mainly based on his Gaoseng zhuan biography at T 50: 11.397a-398b.

23. See Tang, Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao shi, p. 352. 24. Gaoseng zhuan, T 55: 1.397a21-22: 聞關中有浮馱跋陀禪師, 在石羊寺弘法, 高

往師之. Given that futuo 浮馱 was a Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit buddha, Futuobatuo, like Fotuobatuo, was another transliteration for Buddhabhadra.

25. The only two Indian monks who are known to have been related to this temple are Sanghabhuti (Ch. Sengjiabacheng 僧伽跋澄, d. after 384; Chu sanzang ji ji and Gaoseng zhuan biographies at T 55: 13.99a-b, T 50: 1.328a-b; for his Shiyansi connection, see Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 10.71b25-26) and Dharmayaśas, who, according to Sengzhao’s letter to Liu Yimin, translated the Shelifo pitan lun at Shiyangsi (Zhaolun, T 45: 1.155c17-18: 毘婆沙法師於石羊寺出舍利弗阿毘曇胡本; cf. Sengzhao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography at 6.365b19-20); as his vibhāsā expertise earned him the sobriquet of “Great Vibhāsā” (see above), the Dharma master Vibhāsā (Piposha fashi 毘婆沙法師) mentioned here was obviously Dharmayaśas. Sengyou (Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 2.11b8-10) erred in identifying the translator of this text as Vibhāsā.

26. The latest contender against the veracity of Xuangao’s discipleship is Xuan Fang, “Nanbeichao.” A typical view on the suspiciousness of Xuangao’s date given in Gaoseng zhuan is expressed by Tang, Han Wei Liangjin, p. 353. Aramaki Noritoshi (“Hokugi no chūjin”) recently proposed that Buddhabhadra later returned from the south to teach Xuangao meditation and the Avatamsaka philosophy, and then went back to Jiankang where he died in 429. This possibility, though intriguing and with some sense, is supported by no historical source as far as I know. Xu Wenming, on the other hand, tries to solve this puzzle by the theory that Buddhabhadra didn’t leave Chang’an for the south until the beginning of 414, when Xuangao reached twelve years old (or 13 sui according to the Chinese traditional way of counting one’s age). This makes Xuangao’s association (though extremely brief ) with Buddhabhadra not completely impossible if one were to assume Xuangao’s extraordinary precociousness. See Xu Wenming, “Xuangao.”

27. Xuanshao was Xuangao’s disciple (see below). 28. This is from Huijiao’s “Treatise” (lun 論) on the Chinese meditation practice in the

period covered by his Gaoseng zhuan. The treatise is attached to the end of the Gaoseng zhuan’s section on meditation (xichan 習禪) (T 50: 11.400b28-c1).

29. This suspicion is confirmed by the following considerations. According to Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography, sometime before 414 he arrived at Mount Maiji 麥積山, where he gathered several hundreds of disciples (see the next note). If we accept the date of Xuangao’s birth provided by his Gaoseng zhuan biography (402), he was merely thirteen years old or so when he became a meditation master prominent enough to

122 Chen Jinhua

gather a huge number of disciples. This appears far from likely even taking into account Xuangao’s unusual precociousness. This further squarely contradicts the statement in the same passage that Xuangao was already fifteen years old when he began to preach to his fellow monks, which happened before he went to study with Buddhabhadra and also before going to Mount Maiji. For this reason, I find it difficult to accept the year 402 as the date of Xuangao’s birth. The internal evidence in his Gaoseng zhuan biography shows that Xuangao must have been born at least several years earlier.

30. This assumption is based on certain factors. First, Xuangao’s study under Buddhabhadra was probably brought to an end when the latter was forced to leave Chang’an in 412. Second, Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography provides the following general time frame for his arrival at Mount Maiji: at the time Qifo Chipan 乞佛熾槃 (or Qifu Chipan 乞伏熾槃, r. 412-28), the third ruler of the Western Qin, occupied the Longxi 隴西 area; to the west, his kingdom was adjacent to the land of Liang[zhou] (397a27-28: 時乞佛熾槃跨有隴西, 西接涼土). This means that Xuangao’s arrival at Mount Maiji occurred before Qifo Chipan’s annexation of the Southern Liang in 414 (see Jin shu 晉書 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975] 125.3124) (as this annexation turned the Southern Liangzhou into a part of the Western Qin, after 414 Liangzhou could not be said to have been only a northern neighbour of Liangzhou).

31. Sengzhou’s biography at Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.398b13-25. In his general discussion of the meditative tradition, Huijiao says that some Chinese monks, including Sengzhou, Jingdu 淨度 (Gaoseng zhuan biography at T 50: 11.398c16-23), Faqi 法期 (Gaoseng zhuan biography at 11.399a24-b4) and Huiming 慧明 (Gaoseng zhuan biography at 11.400b4-15), followed Buddhabhadra, as closely as geese fly behind the guiding goose (T 50: 11.400c2-3: 其後僧周, 淨度, 法期, 慧明等亦雁行其次). Although no evidence shows that these monks directly studied under Buddhabhadra, as did Xuangao and Xuanshao, they had nonetheless access (though perhaps indirect) to Buddhabhadra’s meditative tradition and became its adherents (Buddhabhadra’s biographical sources tell us that he had disciples from all directions [of the then divided country]).

32. See the Gaoseng zhuan biography for Sengzhou and Sengliang (T 50: 11.398b). 33. The monk who taught Huitong meditation is referred to as Huizhao 慧詔 (var.

Huishao 慧紹) of Liangzhou (涼州禪師慧詔[紹]咨受禪業; T 50: 11.398c8-9). Tang Yongtong (Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao shi, 356) believes that Huizhao (Huishao) was actually Xuangao’s disciple Xuanshao 玄紹. Jan Yun-hua tends to agree; see Jan, “Zhongguo zaoqi chanfa,” p. 18.

34. See Huitong’s Gaoseng zhuan biography in T 50: 11.398c. 35. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.397a24-26: 高乃策杖西秦, 隱居麥積山. 山學百餘人, 崇

其義訓, 秉其禪道. 36. Nothing more is known about this monk. Judging from Huijiao’s observation that

he later went back to Sheyi 舍夷 (397b4-5), he was probably from this place. As Sheyi is unidentifiable, Tang Yongtung suggests that it was a mistake for Jiayi 迦夷, a Chinese transliteration for Kapilavastu. The other possibility is that Sheyi was a mistake for Shewei 舍衛 (Śrāvastī) (wei 衛 and yi 夷 had the same pronunciation in ancient Chinese; there was a Sui temple named after this Indian city, the Sheweisi 舍衛寺. See Lidai sanbao ji, T 49: 12.106c1). Wen Yucheng (Zhongguo shiku, p. 127) takes Tanwubi as another Chinese transliteration for Dharmaksema (Tanwuchen 曇無讖). On the basis of this assumption and Tang Yongtong’s dating of Tanwuchen’s arrival in Guzang as 421, Wen suggests that Tanwuchen (i.e. Tanwupi) stayed in


Baohan until he went to Guzang shortly before 421. I find it difficult to identify Tanwupi with Tanwuchen. According to Dharmaksema’s Gaoseng zhuan biography, he came to China by this route: Central India → “Kaśmīr” → Kucha → Shanshan → Dunhuang → Guzang (Funayama, “Rikuchō jidai,” p. 7; see also Chen, “The Indian Buddhist Missionary,” p. 256). As Baohan was situated to the east of these places, going to Guzang by Baohan would seem odd.

Mei Lin 梅林, on the other hand, has recently suggested the intriguing possibility of identifying Tanmopi 曇摩毗 with Tanmopi 曇摩蜱, who is mainly known as a translator in the history of Chinese Buddhism, and further with Faliang 法良, a meditation master who played a key role in opening grottoes in the Dunhuang area. See Mei, “Tanwupi yu Tanwupi.”

37. Here, Huijiao uses the expression fanqi qi zhi 反啟其志 (Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.397b2-3), which was used for the unusual occasion when a disciple came to teach a teacher. For the same usage in Gaoseng zhuan, see Kumārajīva’s biography which claims that Kumārajīva taught Mahāyāna to his former teacher, who taught him Hīnayāna (331b8).

38. Gansusheng wenwu gongzuodui and Binglingsi wenwu baoguansuo, Yongjing Binglingsi, 1989.

39. Aramaki, “Hokogi no Chūjin.” 40. Leon Hurvitz has understood the expression hebei 河北 as indicating the area “Hobei,”

which partly corresponded to the present-day Hebei province. See Hurvitz, Chih-i, p. 115. This understanding is problematic. Qifu Chipan was only controlling an area mainly within the present-day Gansu province, far from Hebei and, more importantly, hebei 河北 here is obviously used in contrast to henan 河南, the name Qifu Chipan used for his regional regime. I am inclined to understand hebei as he zhi bei 河之北, which here denotes a place which was within Qifu’s Henan kingdom and situated to the north of the Yellow River.

Due to the connection between Xuangao and Dharmapriya, who was known to have been active in the Tangshushan 唐述山/堂術山 area, and especially due to the close connection between one of Xuangao’s chief disciples Xuanshao and Mount Tangshu (discussed above), some scholars are of the opinion that Mount Linyangtang was perhaps Mount Tangshu (e.g. Aramaki, “Kō In”). This identification seems implausible to me. First, in Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography, the name of Mount Tangshu appears several lines after Mount Linyangtang. It is unlikely that an author will use two different names in two neighbouring passages to indicate one and the same place and without pointing out that they are identical. More importantly, Mount Tangshu was close to the capital city of the Western Qin, Baohan. It seems unlikely that the Western Qin rulers, when they felt Xuangao’s threat, would have satisfied themselves with exiling him to a mountain almost at their elbow.

41. Gaoseng zhuan, T 55: 11.397b27-28: 沮渠蒙遜深相敬事, 集會英賓, 發高勝解. 42. This Fan Sengyin was probably not the monk who, bearing Sengyin as his dharma-

name, made his career in southern China (see his biography at Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 8.380b1-14).

43. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.397c1-4. 44. Dharmaksema’s biographical sources, two major ones in Chu sanzang ji ji and Gaoseng

zhuan, attest to his broad knowledge of both religious and secular fields. He was alleged to have been able to recite over two million words of text by the age of twenty. In particular, his esoteric expertise earned him the sobriquet of “Great Master of

124 Chen Jinhua

Divine Spells” (da shenzhou shi 大神咒師) and the patronage of an Indian king, who invited him to serve at his court permanently. Afterwards, feeling the dwindling of imperial favour towards him, Dharmaksema tried to regain it by his shamanic tricks. As his intrigues came to light, he fled India to Kucha, or “Kamīr,” according to his Gaoseng zhuan biography. After probably spending some time in Shanshan 鄯善, he arrived in Dunhuang 敦煌 sometime around 418 and then, in 420, he was captured by Juqu Mengxun whose military expedition brought him to Dunhuang, and then to Guzang, where he, with the assistance of some Chinese monks, most prominent of whom were Daolang 道朗 (?-439+) and Huisong 慧嵩 (?-439+), organised a massive translation centre, for the production of almost twenty translations including the Daban niepan jing 大般涅槃經 (Great Nirvāna Sūtra; Skt. Mahā parinirvāna sūtra), Jinguangming jing, Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持經 (or Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經; Skt. *Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra), Dayun jing 大雲經 (Sūtra of Great Cloud; Skt. *Mahāmegha-sūtra) and probably also the Lengqie jing 楞伽經 (Skt. Lankāvatāra-sūtra). Finally, in fear that Dharmaksema was to be employed by his rival, the Northern Wei ruler Tuoba Tao, who appreciated his esoteric expertise, Juqu Mengxun had Dharmaksema assassinated on his way back to India in search of more portions of the Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra. For a critical reconstruction of Dharmaksema’s life (especially the date of his arrival in Guzang) on the basis of his several biographical sources, see my article, “Dharmaksema.”

45. The strongest evidence to support the identity of these two homonymous monks consists in the fact that they were both “Hīnayānist.” In discussing the first Dharmayaśas, we already noticed his “Hīnayānist” background. As for the Dharmayaśas who was Dharmaksema’s teacher, Dharmaksema’s biography tells us that the Meditation master Baitou, who turned out to be another of his teachers after Dharmayaśas, transmitted to him a copy of the Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra written on bark which triggered his decision to turn from Hīnayāna to Mahāyāna. This story strongly suggests that he had studied Hīnayāna with Dharmayaśas, who was, accordingly, a “Hīnayānist.” According to Dharmaksema’s Gaoseng zhuan biographical source (Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 14.102c21-24; Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 2.335c337a), he became a disciple of Dharmayaśas when he was six (that is, in 390). The place where he began to study with Dharmayaśas is not specified. Judging by the fact that he was a native of central India, the place was presumably somewhere in central India too, although it could not have been “Kamīr,” for which he, according to his Gaoseng zhuan biography, left his native place some time after he turned twenty (336a11). Dharmayaśas, despite his “Kaśmīri” origin, was known to have travelled extensively both inside and outside India before arriving in Guangzhou sometime between 397 and 401. Thus, if he was indeed Dharmaksema’s teacher by 390, Dharmayaśas had already been in a central Indian city where he had accepted Dharmaksema as his disciple. We do not know how long he taught Dharmaksema, although it seems that it was not over many years, given that Dharmayaśas was already in China by 401.

46. For a more detailed discussion of this meditation-repentance observance and its influence on Chinese Buddhism, particularly in connection with Tiantai, see Chen, Monks and Monarchs, pp. 70-74.

47. Juqu Jingsheng has a biography in both Chu sanzang ji ji (T 55: 14.106b-c) and Gaoseng zhuan (T 50: 2.337a), the latter (compiled ca. 530) being based on the former (first compiled in 515), although containing less details. My account of Juqu Jingsheng’s life here is limited to the period of his time in the Northern Liang. Although not


expressly suggesting Juqu Jingsheng’s discipleship under Dharmaksema, Juqu Jingsheng’s Gaoseng zhuan biography strongly implies this by putting his biography at the end of Dharmaksema’s and by observing that it was under the influence of the latter that Juqu Jingsheng made up his mind to study Buddhist texts and uphold the “five kinds of precept” (T 50: 2.337a5-6: 因懺入河西, 弘闡佛法, 安陽乃銳意內典, 奉持五禁). His Chu sanzang ji ji biography, however, says, or suggests, nothing about his relationship with Dharmaksema.

48. The postscript to a meditation text that Juqu Jingsheng translated in Jiankang in 455 contains the following information about his teacher Buddhasena, which was pre-sumably told by Juqu Jingsheng himself:

With exceptional abilities, the person (Buddhasena) was matched by none throughout many countries (lit. “walked alone in many countries”). Capable of reciting a half yi 億 (koti; one hundred millions) of verses, he was also versed in meditation. He was possessed of comprehensive knowledge of external (non-Buddhist) and internal (Buddhist) teachings. There was no text with which he was not familiar: Therefore, people in the world all called him a “lion among human beings.” 其人天才特拔, 諸國獨步. 誦半億偈, 兼明禪法, 內外綜博, 無籍不練. 故世人咸曰, 人中師子 (“Chanyao mimi zhibing jing ji” 禪要祕密治病經記, Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 9.66a26-29; cf. Zhi chanbing miyao fa, T 15: 2.342b9-11).

Huijiao quotes this remark partly in his Gaoseng zhuan biography for Juqu Jingsheng (T 50: 2.337a9-11). He does not tell us whether or not Juqu Jingsheng’s teacher in Khotan was Buddhabhadra’s teacher in “Kamīr,” both being named Buddhasena. Scholars generally believe that they were the same person (see, for example, Lin Liguang [Lin Li-kouang], L’aide-mémoire de la Vraie Loi [Saddharma-smrtyupasthāna-sūtra, p. 350). If this identification stands, which has not yet been contradicted by any counter-argument (Yamabe’s recent challenge to this identification [The Sūtra on the Ocean-like Samādhi, p. 43, n. 7] does not sound convincing to me), Buddhasena later travelled to Khotan, in contrast to his fellow-disciple Dharmatrāta who seemed to have remained in “Kamīr” judging by the fact that he was reported to have died there (see above, n. 12).

49. Dharmamitra’s Chu sanzang ji ji and Gaoseng zhuan biographies are found in T 55: 14.104c-105b and T 50: 3.342c-343a. As his eyebrows were linked, he was given the sobriquet of “Lianmei chanshi” 連眉禪師. We do not know when he arrived in Dunhuang and Northern Liang, but as he arrived in Shu 蜀 from Liangzhou in Yuanjia 元嘉 1 (424) (T 55: 14.105a17 and T 50: 3.342c25), he must have arrived in Dunhuang and Liangzhou before that year.

50. Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 14.105a13-15 (cf. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 3.342c21-23): 於閑曠之地建立精舍, 植柰千株, 開園百畝, 房閣池林, 極為嚴淨.

51. Chu sanzang ji ji, T 55: 14.105a15-16: 頃之復適涼州, 仍於公府舊寺, 更葺堂宇, 學徒濟濟, 禪業甚盛 (cf. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 3.342c23-24, in which 寺 is miscopied as 事). It is noteworthy that it was precisely at Gongfusi that the Vinaya master Faying 法穎 (415-81) became a novice at the tender age of thirteen (in 427) under the guidance of Faxiang. As Dharmamitra left Liangzhou before 424 when Faying was only ten years old, Faying apparently did not get an opportunity to study with him. However, Faxiang, who was affiliated with the Gongfusi renovated by Dharmamitra, was very likely among those who studied meditation with Dharmamitra at that temple.

126 Chen Jinhua

Faying was important mainly because of a disciple he secured in Jiankang, Zhicheng 智稱 (500-71, or 501-72; see his biography in Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.402b3-c2, particularly 402b16-17), who was probably the teacher of Facong 法聰 (d.u.), and allegedly an initiator of the Sifen lü tradition.

52. That Tanyao is mentioned, albeit briefly, at the end of Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography suggests his close connection to Xuangao, although it might not have been as close as a master-disciple relationship, as is suggested by Hurvitz (Chih-i, p. 115).

53. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.398b9-11: 時河西國沮渠茂虔時, 有沙門曇曜, 亦以禪業見稱, 偽太傅張潭, 伏膺師禮. Juqu Maoqian 沮渠茂虔 was Juqu Mujian. Of the three dynastic histories mentioning Juqu Maoqian/Mujian, one uses Juqu Maoqian (Song shu 宋書 98.2415ff.), while the other two use Juqu Mujian (Wei shu 99.2206ff.; Bei shi 北史93.3083ff.). Zhang Tan was known for his “benevolent administration” (dezheng 德政).

54. Xuangao’s Gaoseng zhuan biography records that he was brought to Pingcheng from Guzang by the prince of Yangping 陽平王 (i.e., Touba Tao’s uncle Du Chao 杜超 [?-444]), following Tuoba’s conquering of the Northern Liang (T 50: 11.397c4-6). This seems to be a step to a large-scale programme that was then elaborated on by the Northern Wei rulers to seize Liangzhou’s talents, both Buddhist and Confucian scholars. Given that Guzang was far more advanced in culture compared to Pingcheng, this move proved important for the cultural development of Pingcheng.

55. Huishi’/Tanshi’s biographical sources put his death in the Taiyan 太延 era (435-39), without giving a specific date (Wei shu 114.3032).

56. Shilao zhi, Wei shu 114.3032. For Gao Yun and his relationship with Buddhism, see Aramaki, “Kō In.”

57. Tuoba Tao once became suspicious of his son, the crown prince, whom Xuangao was serving as a mentor. When the panic-stricken prince went to Xuangao for help, the latter instructed him to perform an observance based on Jinguangming jing. After he performed this for seven days, the observance allegedly brought about the appearance of his ancestors in the emperor’s dream, who scolded him for wronging the prince. Scared, Tuoba Tao changed his mind and entrusted state power to the prince. Xuangao was executed later when his role behind the scenes came to light (T 50: 11.397c6-398a7; discussed in Chen, Tanqian, pp. 71-72).

58. Gaoseng zhuan, T 50: 11.398a8-9. 59. For Tanyao, see Tsukamoto Zenryū, Gisho Shaku-Rō-Shi, in his Tsukamoto Zenryū

chosaku shū, vol. 1, pp. 69-95; Tang, Han Wei Liangjin, pp. 357-60. 60. Sengqihu were those people who could yearly convey 60 hu 斛 of grain (the so-called

sengqisu) and present them to clerical officials; fotuhu were monastic slaves who were converted from convicted criminals and public slaves, and who worked in the temples as sweepers, sprinklers, field-managers and transporters.

61. According to Lidai sanbao ji, Tanyao began to translate Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan and two more texts (Ru dasheng lun 入大乘論 [Treatise on Entering Mahāyāna] and Jingdu sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 [Sūtra of the Pure Methods of Samādhi]) in Heping 3 (462) at a grotto-temple in Beitai 北臺 (the Northern Wei capital, Pingcheng). Referring to Tanyao’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography, this grotto-temple was probably Tonglesi 通樂寺, which was built, according to some Buddhist art historians, independently and earlier than the Wuzhou grotto-project.


62. This date is suggested by Caswell, Written and Unwritten, pp. 14-15. 63. Although Xuangao had already, as observed before, constructed some meditation

grottoes in Pingcheng, it seems that a large-scale grotto construction in Pingcheng was not envisioned until the Wuzhou grotto-project was initiated. These five grottoes constructed at Tanyao’s proposal have been identified as the Yungang grottoes, nos. 16-20. The most detailed study in any western language on the five grottoes of Tanyao is provided by Caswell (quoted above).

64. Shilao zhi, Wei shu 114.3037. According to Wen Yucheng (Zhongguo shiku, pp. 138-39), the five Buddha-images in the five grottoes (nos. 16-20) are 13.5 m, 15.6 m, 15.5 m, 16.8 m and 13.7 m high, respectively.

65. See, for examples, Liu Huida, “Bei Wei”; He Shizhe, “Mogaoku Beichao”; Wen Yucheng, Zhongguo shiku; Wang Shuqing and Yang Fuxue, “Dunhuang Mogaoku”.

66. This chapter, entitled “Guan si weiyi pin” 觀四威儀品 (The Visualisation of the Four Types of Deportment [of the Buddha]), is the sixth of this sūtra. See T 15: 6.675b16-7.683a25.

67. In my recent article, “Buddhabhadra’s (359-429) Collaboration with Huiyuan (334- 416),” I discuss Buddhabhadra’s role in Huiyuan’s effort to cast the Buddha-image-cave on Mount Lu.

68. Soper, Literary Evidence, p. 191. 69. See Chen, Tanqian, pp. 70-74.

REFERENCES

Aramaki Noritoshi 荒牧典俊. “Hokugi no chūjin Kō In no bukkyō shisō ni tsuite” 北魏の忠臣高允の佛教思想について [The Northern Wei Loyal Minister Gao Yun and His Buddhist Ideas]. Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 72 (2000): 159-79.

Caswell, James. Written and Unwritten: A New History of the Buddhist Caves at Yungang. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1988.

Chen Jinhua. Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002.

———. “The Indian Buddhist Missionary Dharmaksema [385-433]: A New Dating of His Arrival in Guzang and of His Translations.” T’oung-p’ao 90, nos. 4-5 (2004): 215-63.

———. “Buddhabhadra’s (359-429) Collaboration with Huiyuan (334-416) in Transplanting the Nagarahāra Image-cave to China: A Reexamination.” In Chūgoku Indo shūkyōshi, tokuni Bukkyō shi ni okeru shomotsu no ryūtsū denpa to jinbutsu idō no chiiki tokusei 中国印度宗教史とくに仏教史における書物の流通伝播と人物移動の地域特性 [Textual Transmission and the Local Characteristics of People’s Movement, as Seen in the History of Chinese Buddhism and Other Religions in China and India], edited by Funayama Tōru, pp. 177-91. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities of Kyoto University, 2011.

Chou Po-kan 周伯勘. “The Problem of the Authorship of the Mahāprajnāpāramitopadeśa: A Reexamination.” Taida lishi xuebao 臺大歷史學報 34 (2004): 281-327.

Enomoto Fumio 榎本文雄. “A Note on Kashmir as Referred to in Chinese Literature.” In A Study of the Nīlamata: Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir, edited by Yasuke Ikari 井狩弥介, pp. 357-65. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 1994.

128 Chen Jinhua

Funayama Tōru 船山徹. “Rikuchō jidai ni okeru bosatsukai no juyō katei: Ryū Sō Nan-Seiki o chūshin ni” 六朝時代における菩薩戒の受容過程 – 劉宋南齊期を中心に [The Reception of Bodhisattva-precepts during the Period of Six Dynasties: With a Focus on the Dynasties of Liu Song and Southern Qi]. Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 67 (1995): 1-135.

Gansusheng wenwu gongzuodui 甘肅省文物工作隊 and Binglingsi wenwu baoguansuo 炳靈寺文物保管所. Yongjing Binglingsi 永靖炳靈寺 [Binglingsi in Yongjing]. Zhongguo shiku 中國石窟 [Chinese Grottoes]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1989.

He Shizhe 賀世哲. “Mogaoku Beichao shiku yu changuan” 莫高窟北朝石窟與禪觀 [The Stone Cave Mogaoku under the Northern Dynasties and Meditation]. Dunhuang xue jikan 敦煌學輯刊 1 (1980): 41-52.

Hurvitz, Leon. Chih-i [538-597]: An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of a Chinese Buddhist Monk. Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol. 12. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1962.

Jan Yun-hua 冉雲華. “Zhongguo zaoqi chanfa de liuchuan yu tedian – Huijiao, Daoxuan suozhu Xichan pian yanjiu” 中國早期禪法的流傳與特點 – 慧皎, 道宣所著習禪篇研究 [The Transformation and Characteristics of Meditation Tradition in Early China: A Study on the Treatises on Meditation Composed by Huijiao and Daoxuan]. In Jan Yun-hua, Zhongguo chanxue yanjiu lunji 中國禪學研究論集 [Collected Essays on Chinese Meditation Tradition], pp. 1-49. Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1990.

Lin Liguang [Lin Li-kouang] 林藜光. L’aide-mémoire de la Vraie Loi [Saddharma- smrtyupasthāna-sūtra]: recherches sur un sūtra développé du Petit Véhicule (Intro. de P. Demiéville). Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949.

Liu Huida 劉慧達. “Bei Wei shiku yu chan” 北魏石窟與禪 [Grotto-complexes of Northern Wei and Their Relationships with Meditation]. Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3 (1978): 337-52.

Mei Lin 梅林. “Tanwupi yu Tanwupi mingshi bian – Fushuo Dunhuang Faliang jiqi xiangguan wenti” “曇摩毗”與“曇摩蜱”名實辨 – 附說敦煌法良禪師及其相關問題 [Names of Realities about Tanmobi and Tanmopi: With References to Meditation Master Faliang of Dunhuang and Issues Related to Him?]. Dunhuang yanjiu 敦煌研究 91 (2005): 80-86.

Ōchō Enichi 橫超慧日. “Soei to Eiei wa donin nari” 僧叡と慧叡は同人なり[Were Sengrui and Huirui the Same Person?]. Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 13, no. 2 (1942): 1-29.

Soper, Alexander. Literary Evidence for Early Buddhist Art in China (Artibus Asiae Supplement 19). Ascona, Switzerland: Artibus Asiae Publishers, 1959.

Tang Yongtong 湯用彤. Han Wei Liangjin Nanbeichao fojiao shi 漢魏兩晉南北朝佛教史 [The History of Buddhism under Han, Wei, Liang Jin and the Nanbeichao Period]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983 (originally published in 1938).

Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆. Tsukamoto Zenryū chosaku shū 塚本善隆著作集 [Collected Works of Tsukamoto Zenryū], 7 vols. Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1974-76.

Wang Shuqing 王書慶 and Yang Fuxue 楊富學. “Dunhuang Mogaoku chanku de lishi bianqian” 敦煌莫高窟禪窟的歷史變遷 [The Historical Transformation of the Mogao Grotto-complex in Dunhuang]. Zhongguo chanxue 中國禪學 4 (2006): 310-18.

Wen Yucheng 温玉成. Zhongguo shiku yu wenhua yishu 中國石窟與文化藝術 [Chinese Grotto-complexes and Arts]. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin meishu chubanshe, 1993.


Wright, Arthur. “Sengrui Alias Hui-rui.” Sino-Indian Studies 5, nos. 3-4 (1957): 272-94.

Xu Wenming 徐文明. “Xuangao congxue Fotuobatuoluo de yizhuang gong’an” 玄高從學佛陀跋陀羅的一樁公案 [A Public Case about Xuangao’s Studying with Buddhabhadra]. Zhongguo zhexue shi 中國哲學史 3 (2000): 101-10.

———. “Sengrui de shengzui niandai yu sixiang” 僧叡的生卒年代與思想 [Sengrui: His Dates and Thoughts]. Juequn 覺群 1 (2001): 55-64.

———. “Sengrui Huirui fei yiren bian” 僧叡慧叡非一人辨 [On Sengrui’s not Being Huirui]. Zhengguan 正觀 25 (2003): 167-80.

Xuan Fang 宣方. “Nanbeichao chanxueshi shang de yizhuang yian – Xuangao cong Fotuobatuo xuechanshuo bianwei” 南北朝禪學史上的一樁疑案 – 玄高從浮馱跋陀學禪說辨偽 [A Puzzling Case in the History of Meditation Tradition under the Nanbeichao Period: On the Dubious Nature of the Claim that Xuangao’s Studying Meditation with Buddhabhadra]. Zhongguo wenhua 中國文化 17-18 (2001): 84-93.

Yamabe Nobuyoshi 山部能宜. “The Sūtra on the Ocean-like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sūtra.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, 1999.

Zürcher, Erik. “Tidings from the South, Chinese Court Buddhism and Overseas Relations in the Fifth Century AD.” In A Life Journey to the East: Sinological Studies in Mem ory of Giuliano Bertuccioli (1923-2001), vol. 2, edited by Antonino Forte and Federico Masini, pp. 77-116. Italian School of East Asian Studies. Kyoto: Scuola Italiana di Studi sull’Asia Orientale, 2002.

Meditation Traditions in Fifth-Century Northern China (Buddhabhadra)

Documents

Transcript of Meditation Traditions in Fifth-Century Northern China (Buddhabhadra)