Chapter XLI: Central Asia (2)

It is probably to this Gandharan Buddhism that the Chinese pilgrims refer when they speak of the Sarvâstivâdin school of the Hînayâna as prevalent. It is known that this school was closely connected with the Council of Kanishka. Its metaphysics were decidedly not Mahâyânist but there is no reason why it should have objected to the veneration of such Bodhisattvas as are portrayed in the Gandhara sculptures. An interesting passage in the life of Hsüan Chuang relates that he had a dispute in Kucha with a Mahâyânist doctor who maintained that the books called Tsa-hsin, Chü-shê, and P'i-sha were sufficient for salvation, and denounced the Yogaśâstra as heretical, to the great indignation of the pilgrim[523] whose practical definition of Mahâyânism seems to have been the acceptance of this work, reputed to have been revealed by Maitreya to Asanga. Such a definition and division might leave in the Hînayâna much that we should not expect to find there.

The Mahâyânist Buddhism of Khotan was a separate stream and Hsüan Chuang says that it came from Kashmir. Though Kashmir is not known as a centre of Mahâyânism, yet it would be a natural route for men and ideas passing from any part of India to Khotan.

5

The Tarim basin and the lands of the Oxus[524] were a region where different religions and cultures mingled and there is no difficulty in supposing that Buddhism might have amalgamated there with Zoroastrianism or Christianity. The question is whether there is any evidence for such amalgamation. It is above all in its relations with China that Central Asia appears as an exchange of religions. It passed on to China the art and thought of India, perhaps adding something of its own on the way and then received them back from China with further additions[525]. It certainly received a great deal from Persia: the number of manuscripts in different Iranian languages puts this beyond doubt. Equally undoubted is its debt to India, but it would be of even greater interest to determine whether Indian Buddhism owes a debt to Central Asia and to define that debt. For Tibet the relation was mutual. The Tibetans occupied the Tarim basin during a century and according to their traditions monks went from Khotan to instruct Tibet.

The Buddhist literature discovered in Central Asia represents, like its architecture, several periods. We have first of all the fragments of the Sanskrit Agamas, found at Turfan, Tun-huang, and in the Khotan district: fragments of the dramas and poems of Aśvaghosha from Turfan: the Prâtimoksha of the Sarvastivâdins from Kucha and numerous versions of the anthology called Dharmapada or Udâna. The most interesting of these is the Prakrit version found in the neighbourhood of Khotan, but fragments in Tokharian and Sanskrit have also been discovered. All this literature probably represents the canon as it existed in the epoch of Kanishka and of the Gandharan sculptures, or at least the older stratum in that canon.

The newer stratum is composed of Mahâyânist sutras of which there is a great abundance, though no complete list has been published[526]. The popularity of the Prajñâ-pâramitâ, the Lotus and the Suvarṇa-prabhâsa is attested. The last was translated into both Uigur (from the Chinese) and into "Iranien Oriental." To a still later epoch[527] belong the Dhâraṇîs or magical formulæ which have been discovered in considerable quantities.

Sylvain Lévi has shown that some Mahâyânist sutras were either written or re-edited in Central Asia[528]. Not only do they contain lists of Central Asian place-names but these receive an importance which can be explained only by the local patriotism of the writer or the public which he addressed. Thus the Sûryagarbha sutra praises the mountain of Gośringa near Khotan much as the Puranas celebrate in special chapters called Mâhâtmyas the merits of some holy place. Even more remarkable is a list in the Chandragarbha sutra. The Buddha in one of the great transformation scenes common in these works sends forth rays of light which produce innumerable manifestations of Buddhas. India (together with what is called the western region) has a total of 813 manifestations, whereas Central Asia and China have 971. Of these the whole Chinese Empire has 255, the kingdoms of Khotan and Kucha have 180 and 99 respectively, but only 60 are given to Benares and 30 to Magadha. Clearly Central Asia was a very important place for the author of this list[529].

One of the Turkish sutras discovered at Turfan contains a discourse of the Buddha to the merchants Trapusha and Bhallika who are described as Turks and Indra is called Kormusta, that is Hormuzd. In another Brahmâ is called Aṣrua, identified as the Iranian deity Zervan[530]. In these instances no innovation of doctrine is implied but when the world of spirits and men becomes Central Asian instead of Indian, it is only natural that the doctrine too should take on some local colour[531].

Thus the dated inscription of the temple erected in Turfan A.D. 469 is a mixture of Chinese ideas, both Confucian and Taoist, with Indian. It is in honour of Maitreya, a Bodhisattva known to the Hînayâna, but here regarded not merely as the future Buddha but as an active and benevolent deity who manifests himself in many forms[532], a view which also finds expression in the tradition that the works of Asanga were revelations made by him. Akâśagarbha and the Dharmakâya are mentioned. But the inscription also speaks of heaven (t'ien) as appointing princes, and of the universal law (tao) and it contains several references to Chinese literature.

Even more remarkable is the admixture of Buddhism in Manichæism. The discoveries made in Central Asia make intelligible the Chinese edict of 739 which accuses the Manichæans of falsely taking the name of Buddhism and deceiving the people[533]. This is not surprising for Mani seems to have taught that Zoroaster, Buddha and Christ had preceded him as apostles, and in Buddhist countries his followers naturally adopted words and symbols familiar to the people. Thus Manichæan deities are represented like Bodhisattvas sitting cross-legged on a lotus; Mani receives the epithet Ju-lai or Tathâgata: as in Amida's Paradise, there are holy trees bearing flowers which enclose beings styled Buddha: the construction and phraseology of Manichæan books resemble those of a Buddhist Sutra[534]. In some ways the association of Taoism and Manichæism was even closer, for the Hu-hua-ching identifies Buddha with Lao-tzû and Mani, and two Manichæan books have passed into the Taoist Canon[535].

Nestorian Christianity also existed in the Tarim basin and became prominent in the seventh century. This agrees with the record of its introduction into China by A-lo-pen in 635 A.D., almost simultaneously with Zoroastrianism. Fragments of the New Testament have been found at Turfan belonging mostly to the ninth century but one to the fifth. The most interesting document for the history of Nestorianism is still the monument discovered at Si-ngan-fu and commonly called the Nestorian stone[536]. It bears a long inscription partly in Chinese and partly in Syriac composed by a foreign priest called Adam or in Chinese King-Tsing giving a long account of the doctrines and history of Nestorianism. Not only does this inscription contain many Buddhist phrases (such as Sêng and Ssû for Christian priests and monasteries) but it deliberately omits all mention of the crucifixion and merely says in speaking of the creation that God arranged the cardinal points in the shape of a cross. This can hardly be explained as due to incomplete statement for it reviews in some detail the life of Christ and its results. The motive of omission must be the feeling that redemption by his death was not an acceptable doctrine[537]. It is interesting to find that King-Tsing consorted with Buddhist priests and even set about translating a sutra from the Hu language. Takakusu quotes a passage from one of the catalogues of the Japanese Tripitaka[538] which states that he was a Persian and collaborated with a monk of Kapiśa called Prajña.

We have thus clear evidence not only of the co-existence of Buddhism and Christianity but of friendly relations between Buddhist and Christian priests. The Emperor's objection to such commixture of religions was unusual and probably due to zeal for pure Buddhism. It is possible that in western China and Central Asia Buddhism, Taoism, Manichæism, Nestorianism and Zoroastrianism all borrowed from one another just as the first two do in China to-day and Buddhism may have become modified by this contact. But proof of it is necessary. In most places Buddhism was in strength and numbers the most important of all these religions and older than all except Zoroastrianism. Its contact with Manichæism may possibly date from the life of Mani, but apparently the earliest Christian manuscripts found in Central Asia are to be assigned to the fifth century.

On the other hand the Chinese Tripiṭaka contains many translations which bear an earlier date than this and are ascribed to translators connected with the Yüeh-chih. I see no reason to doubt the statements that the Happy Land sutra and Prajñâ-pâramitâ (Nanjio, 25, 5) were translated before 200 A.D. and portions of the Avataṃsaka and Lotus (Nanjio, 100, 103, 138) before 300 A.D. But if so, the principal doctrines of Mahayanist Buddhism must have been known in Khotan[539] and the lands of Oxus before we have definite evidence for the presence of Christianity there.

Zoroastrianism may however have contributed to the development and transformation of Buddhism for the two were certainly in contact. Thus the coins of Kanishka bear figures of Persian deities[540] more frequently than images of the Buddha: we know from Chinese sources that the two religions co-existed at Khotan and Kashgar and possibly there are hostile references to Buddhism (Buiti and Gaotema the heretic) in the Persian scriptures[541].

It is true that we should be cautious in fancying that we detect a foreign origin for the Mahâyâna. Different as it may be from the Buddhism of the Pali Canon, it is an Indian not an exotic growth. Deification, pantheism, the creation of radiant or terrible deities, extreme forms of idealism or nihilism in metaphysics are tendencies manifested in Hinduism as clearly as in Buddhism. Even the doctrine of the Buddha's three bodies, which sounds like an imitation of the Christian Trinity, has roots in the centuries before the Christian era. But late Buddhism indubitably borrowed many personages from the Hindu pantheon, and when we find Buddhas and Bodhisattvas such as Amitâbha, Avalokita, Manjuśrî and Kshitigarbha without clear antecedents in India we may suspect that they are borrowed from some other mythology, and if similar figures were known to Zoroastrianism, that may be their source.

The most important of them is Amitâbha. He is strangely obscure in the earlier art and literature of Indian Buddhism. Some of the nameless Buddha figures in the Gandharan sculptures may represent him, but this is not proved and the works of Grünwedel and Foucher suggest that compared with Avalokita and Târâ his images are late and not numerous. In the earlier part of the Lotus[542] he is only just mentioned as if he were of no special importance. He is also mentioned towards the end of the Awakening of Faith ascribed to Aśvaghosha, but the authorship of the work cannot be regarded as certain and, if it were, the passage stands apart from the main argument and might well be an addition. Again in the Mahâyâna-sûtrâlaṇkâra[543] of Asanga, his paradise is just mentioned.

Against these meagre and cursory notices in Indian literature may be set the fact that two translations of the principal Amidist scripture into Chinese were made in the second century A.D. and four in the third, all by natives of Central Asia. The inference that the worship of Amitâbha flourished in Central Asia some time before the earliest of these translations is irresistible.

According to Târanâtha, the Tibetan historian of Buddhism[544], this worship goes back to Saraha or Rahulabhadra. He was reputed to have been the teacher of Nâgârjuna and a great magician. He saw Amitâbha in the land of Dhingkoṭa and died with his face turned towards Sukhâvatî. I have found no explanation of the name Dhingkoṭa but the name Saraha does not sound Indian. He is said to have been a sudra and he is represented in Tibetan pictures with a beard and topknot and holding an arrow[545] in his hand. In all this there is little that can be called history, but still it appears that the first person whom tradition connects with the worship of Amitâbha was of low caste, bore a foreign name, saw the deity in an unknown country, and like many tantric teachers was represented as totally unlike a Buddhist monk. It cannot be proved that he came from the lands of the Oxus or Turkestan, but such an origin would explain much in the tradition. On the other hand, there would be no difficulty in accounting for Zoroastrian influence at Peshawar or Takkasila within the frontiers of India.

Somewhat later Vasubandhu is stated to have preached faith in Amitâbha but it does not appear that this doctrine ever had in India a tithe of the importance which it obtained in the Far East.

The essential features of Amidist doctrine are that there is a paradise of light belonging to a benevolent deity and that the good[546] who invoke his name will be led thither. Both features are found in Zoroastrian writings. The highest heaven (following after the paradises of good thoughts, good words and good deeds) is called Boundless Light or Endless Light[547]. Both this region and its master, Ahuramazda, are habitually spoken of in terms implying radiance and glory. Also it is a land of song, just as Amitâbha's paradise re-echoes with music and pleasant sounds[548]. Prayers can win this paradise and Ahura Mazda and the Archangels will come and show the way thither to the pious[549]. Further whoever recites the Ahuna-vairya formula, Ahura Mazda will bring his soul to "the lights of heaven[550]," and although, so far as I know, it is not expressly stated that the repetition of Ahura Mazda's name leads to paradise, yet the general efficacy of his names as invocations is clearly affirmed[551].

Thus all the chief features of Amitâbha's paradise are Persian: only his method of instituting it by making a vow is Buddhist. It is true that Indian imagination had conceived numerous paradises, and that the early Buddhist legend tells of the Tushita heaven. But Sukhâvatî is not like these abodes of bliss. It appears suddenly in the history of Buddhism as something exotic, grafted adroitly on the parent trunk but sometimes overgrowing it[552].

Avalokita is also connected with Amitâbha's paradise. His figure, though its origin is not clear, assumes distinct and conspicuous proportions in India at a fairly early date. There appears to be no reason for associating him specially with Central Asia. On the other hand later works describe him as the spiritual son or reflex of Amitâbha. This certainly recalls the Iranian idea of the Fravashi defined as "a spiritual being conceived as a part of a man's personality but existing before he is born and in independence of him: it can also belong to divine beings[553]." Although India offers in abundance both divine incarnations and explanations thereof yet none of these describe the relationship between a Dhyânî Buddha and his Boddhisattva so well as the Zoroastrian doctrine of the Fravashi.

S. Lévi has suggested that the Bodhisattva Manjuśrî is of Tokharian origin[554]. His worship at Wu-tai-shan in Shan-si is ancient and later Indian tradition connected him with China. Local traditions also connect him with Nepal, Tibet, and Khotan, and he is sometimes represented as the first teacher of civilization or religion. But although his Central Asian origin is eminently probable, I do not at present see any clear proof of it.

The case of the Bodhisattva Kshitigarbha[555] is similar. He appears to have been known but not prominent in India in the fourth century A.D.: by the seventh century if not earlier his cult was flourishing in China and subsequently he became in the Far East a popular deity second only to Kuan-yin. This popularity was connected with his gradual transformation into a god of the dead. It is also certain that he was known in Central Asia[556] but whether he first became important there or in China is hard to decide. The devotion of the Chinese to their dead suggests that it was among them that he acquired his great position, but his rôle as a guide to the next world has a parallel in the similar benevolent activity of the Zoroastrian angel Srosh.

One of Central Asia's clearest titles to importance in the history of the East is that it was the earliest and on the whole the principal source of Chinese Buddhism, to which I now turn. Somewhat later, teachers also came to China by sea and still later, under the Yüan dynasty, Lamaism was introduced direct from Tibet. But from at least the beginning of our era onwards, monks went eastwards from Central Asia to preach and translate the scriptures and it was across Central Asia that Chinese pilgrims went to India in search of the truth.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 459: See Lüders, _Bruchstücke Buddhistischer Dramen_, 1911, and _id., Das Sâriputra-prakarana_, 1911.]

[Footnote 460: See Senart, "Le ms Kharoshṭhî du Dhammapada," in _J.A._, 1898, II. p. 193.]

[Footnote 461: Lüders, "Die Śakas und die Nordarische Sprache," _Sitzungsber. der Kōn. Preuss. Akad_. 1913. Konow, _Gōtting. Gel. Anz_. 1912, pp. 551 ff.]

[Footnote 462: See Hoernle in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 837 ff. and 1283 ff.; 1911, pp. 202 ff., 447 ff.]

[Footnote 463: An old Turkish text about Maitreya states that it was translated from an Indian language into Tokhri and from Tokhri into Turkish. See F.K.W. Müller, _Sitzungsber. der Kön. Preuss. Akad_. 1907, p. 958. But it is not clear what is meant by Tokhri.]

[Footnote 464: The following are some words in this language: Kant, a hundred; rake, a word; por, fire; soye, son υιοσ; suwan, swese, rain υει hυετοσ; âlyek, another; okso, an ox.]

[Footnote 465: The numerous papers on this language are naturally quickly superseded. But Sieg and Siegling Tokharisch, "Die Sprache der Indoskythen" (_Sitzungsber. der Berl. Ak. Wiss_. 1908, p. 815), may be mentioned and Sylvain Lévi, "Tokharien B, Langue de Kouteha," _J.A._ 1913, II. p. 311.]

[Footnote 466: See Radloff Tisastvustik (_Bibl. Buddh._ vol. xii.), p. v. This manuscript came from Urumtsi. A translation of a portion of the Saddharma-pundarîka (_Bibl. Buddh._ xiv.) was found at Turfan.]

[Footnote 467: Laufer in _T'oung Pao_, 1907, p. 392; Radloff, _Kuan-si-im Pursar_, p. vii.]

[Footnote 468: See especially Stein's _Ancient Khotan_, app. B, and Francke in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 37.]

[Footnote 469: Chavannes, _Les documents chinois découverts par Aurel Stein_, 1913.]

[Footnote 470: See especially Chavannes and Pelliot, "Traité Manichéen" in _J.A._ 1911 and 1913.]

[Footnote 471: Hsüan Chuang notes its existence however in Kabul and Kapiśa.]

[Footnote 472: See for these Fergusson-Burgess, _History of Indian Architecture_, I. pp. 125-8.]

[Footnote 473: _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 313.]

[Footnote 474: _E.g._ Grünwedel, _Altbuddhistische Kultstätten_, fig. 624.]

[Footnote 475: Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, plates xiii-xvii and xl, pp. 83 and 482 ff.]

[Footnote 476: See Grünwedel, _Buddh. Kultstätten_, pp. 129-130 and plate. Foucher, "L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique," p. 145, _J.R.A.S._ 1886, 333 and plate i.]

[Footnote 477: See Wachsberger's "Stil-kritische Studien zur Kunst Chinesisch-Turkestan's" in _Ostasiatische Ztsft._ 1914 and 1915.]

[Footnote 478: See Grünwedel, _Buddh. Kultstätten_, pp. 332 ff.]

[Footnote 479: _Ancient Khotan_, vol. II. plates lx and lxi.]

[Footnote 480: Le Coq in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299 ff. See the whole article.]

[Footnote 481: For some of the more striking drawings referred to see Grünwedel, _Buddh. Kultstätten_, figs. 51, 53, 239, 242, 317, 337, 345-349.]

[Footnote 482: In _Geog. Journal_, May 1916, p. 362.]

[Footnote 483: Chavannes, _Documents chinois découverts par Aurel Stein_, 1913.]

[Footnote 484: These of course are not the Osmanlis or Turks of Constantinople. The Osmanlis are the latest of the many branches of the Turks, who warred and ruled in Central Asia with varying success from the fifth to the eighth centuries.]

[Footnote 485: That is Kashgar, Khotan, Kucha and Tokmak for which last Karashahr was subsequently substituted. The territory was also called An Hsi.]

[Footnote 486: See for lists and details Chavannes, _Documents sur les Tou-kiue Occidentaux_, pp. 67 ff. and 270 ff.]

[Footnote 487: The conquest and organization of the present Chinese Turkestan dates only from the reign of Ch'ien Lung.]

[Footnote 488: Thus the pilgrim Wu-K'ung mentions Chinese officials in the Four Garrisons.]

[Footnote 489: See for this part of their history, Grenard's article in _J.A._ 1900, I. pp. 1-79.]

[Footnote 490: Pelliot also attributes importance to a Sogdian Colony to the south of Lob Nor, which may have had much to do with the transmission of Buddhism and Nestorianism to China. See _J.A._ Jan. 1916, pp. 111-123.]

[Footnote 491: These words have been connected with the tribe called Sacae, Sakas, or Sök.]

[Footnote 492: See Klaproth, _Tabl. Historique_, p. 166, apparently quoting from Chinese sources. Specht, _J.A._ 1897, II. p. 187. Franke, _Beitr.-zur Kenntniss Zentral-Asiens_, p. 83. The passage quoted by Specht from the Later Han Annals clearly states that the Yüeh-chih made a man of their own choosing prince of Kashgar, although, as Franke points out, it makes no reference to Kanishka or the story of the hostages related by Hsüan Chuang.]

[Footnote 493: Fa-Hsien's Chieh-ch'a has been interpreted as Skardo, but Chavannes seems to have proved that it is Kashgar.]

[Footnote 494: About 643 A.D. He mentions that the inhabitants tattooed their bodies, flattened their children's heads and had green eyes. Also that they spoke a peculiar language.]

[Footnote 495: At Bamian the monks belonged to the Lokottaravâdin School.]

[Footnote 496: Beal, _Records_, II. p. 278. The pilgrim is speaking from hearsay and it is not clear to what part of Persia he refers.]

[Footnote 497: See Chavannes, _Documents sur les Tou-kiue Occidentaux_, pp. 121, 125. The inhabitants of K'ang (Samarkand or Sogdiana) are said to honour both religions. _Ib_. p. 135.]

[Footnote 498: Known to the Chinese by several slightly different names such as Ku-chih, Kiu-tse which are all attempts to represent the same sound. For Kucha see S. Lévi's most interesting article "Le 'Tokharien B' langue de Koutcha" in _J.A._ 1913, II. pp. 311 ff.]

[Footnote 499: _J.A._ 1913, ii. p. 326.]

[Footnote 500: See Chavannes in Stein's _Ancient Khotan_, p. 544. The Western Tsin reigned 265-317.]

[Footnote 501: The circumstances which provoked the expedition are not very clear. It was escorted by the king of Turfan and other small potentates who were the vassals of the Tsin and also on bad terms with Kucha. They probably asked Fu-chien for assistance in subduing their rival which he was delighted to give. Some authorities (_e.g._ Nanjio Cat. p. 406) give Karashahr as the name of Kumârajîva's town, but this seems to be a mistake.]

[Footnote 502: S. Lévi, _J.A._ 1913, ii. p. 348, quoting Hsü Kao Sêng Chuan.]

[Footnote 503: Quoted by S. Lévi from the _Sung Kao Sêng Chuan_. See _J.A._ 1913, II. p. 344 and _B.E.F.E.O._ 1904, p. 562.]

[Footnote 504: As a proof of foreign influence in Chinese culture, it is interesting to note that there were seven orchestras for the imperial banquets, including those of Kucha, Bokhara and India and a mixed one in which were musicians from Samarkand, Kashgar, Camboja and Japan.]

[Footnote 505: Quoted by Bretschneider, _Mediaeval Researches_, ii. 189.]

[Footnote 506: Pelliot, _J.A._ 1912, i. p. 579, suggests that Chotscho or Qoco is the Turkish equivalent of Kao Ch'ang in T'ang pronunciation, the nasal being omitted.]

[Footnote 507: Chavannes, _Tou-kiue Occidentaux_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 508: For the history of Khotan see Rémusat, _Ville de Khotan_, 1820, and Stein's great work _Ancient Khotan_, especially chapter vii. For the Tibetan traditions see Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, pp. 230 ff.]

[Footnote 509: Ku-stana seems to have been a learned perversion of the name, to make it mean breast of the earth.]

[Footnote 510: The combination is illustrated by the Sino-Kharoshthî coins with a legend in Chinese on the obverse and in Prakrit on the reverse. See Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, p. 204. But the coins are later than 73 A.D.]

[Footnote 511: The Tibetan text gives the date of conversion as the reign of King Vijayasambhava, 170 years after the foundation of Khotan.]

[Footnote 512: See Sten Konow in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 345.]

[Footnote 513: See Stein, _Ancient Khotan_, pp. 170, 456.]

[Footnote 514: Chavannes, _Tou-kiue_, p. 125, cf. pp. 121 and 170. For Hsien shên see Giles's _Chinese Dict._ No. 4477.]

[Footnote 515: Beal, _Life_, p. 205.]

[Footnote 516: Identified by Stein with Kohmari Hill which is still revered by Mohammedans as a sacred spot.]

[Footnote 517: _Desert Cathay_, II. p. 114.]

[Footnote 518: See Watters, _Yüan Chwang_, II. p. 296. Beal, _Life_. p. 205. Chavannes, "Voyage de Sung Yun." _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, 395, and for the Tibetan sources, Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, chap. VIII. One of the four Tibetan works is expressly stated to be translated from Khotanese.]

[Footnote 519: The Tibetan Chronicles of Li-Yul say that they worshipped Vaiśravana and Śrîmahâdevî.]

[Footnote 520: A monk from Kashmir called Vairocana was also active in Tibet about 750 A.D.]

[Footnote 521: It is also possible that Buddhism had a bad time in the fifth and sixth centuries at the hands of the Tanguts, Juan-Juan and White Huns.]

[Footnote 522: The Later Han Annals say that the Hindus are weaker than the Yüeh-chih and are not accustomed to fight because they are Buddhists. (See _T'oung Pao_, 1910, p. 192.) This seems to imply that the Yüeh-chih were not Buddhists. But even this was the real view of the compiler of the Annals we do not know from what work he took this statement nor to what date it refers.]

[Footnote 523: See Beal, _Life_, p. 39, Julien, p. 50. The books mentioned are apparently the Samyuktâbhidharmahṛidaya (Nanjio, 1287), Abhidharma Kosha (Nanjio, 1267), Abhidharma-Vibhâsha (Nanjio, 1264) and Yogâcâryabhûmi (Nanjio, 1170).]

[Footnote 524: The importance of the Tarim basin is due to the excellent preservation of its records and its close connection with China. The Oxus regions suffered more from Mohammedan iconoclasm, but they may have been at least equally important for the history of Buddhism.]

[Footnote 525: _E.g._ see the Maitreya inscription of Turfan.]

[Footnote 526: Or at least is not accessible to me here in Hongkong, 1914.]

[Footnote 527: I do not mean to say that all Dhâraṇîs are late.]

[Footnote 528: It is even probable that apocryphal Sûtras were composed in Central Asia. See Pelliot in _Mélanges d'Indianisme_, Sylvain Lévi, p. 329.]

[Footnote 529: The list of manifestations in Jambudvipa enumerates 56 kingdoms. All cannot be identified with certainty, but apparently less than half are within India proper.]

[Footnote 530: See _Bibl. Budd._ XII. pp. 44, 46, XIV. p. 45.]

[Footnote 531: The Turkish sutras repeatedly style the Buddha God (t'angri) or God of Gods. The expression devâtideva is applied to him in Sanskrit, but the Turkish phrases are more decided and frequent. The Sanskrit phrase may even be due to Iranian influence.]

[Footnote 532: An Chou, the Prince to whose memory the temple was dedicated, seems to be regarded as a manifestation of Maitreya.]

[Footnote 533: _J.A._ 1913, I. p. 154. The series of three articles by Chavannes and Pelliot entitled "Un traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine" (_J.A._ 1911, 1913) is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of Manichæism in Central Asia and China.]

[Footnote 534: _E.g._ see _J.A._ 1911, pp. 509 and 589. See also Le Coq, _Sitzb. preuss. Akad. der Wiss._ 48, 1909, 1202-1218.]

[Footnote 535: _J.A._ 1913, I. pp. 116 and 132.]

[Footnote 536: See especially Havret, "La stèle chrétienne de Si-ngan-fu" in _Variétés Sinologues_, pp. 7, 12 and 20.]

[Footnote 537: See Havret, _l.c_. III. p. 54, for some interesting remarks respecting the unwillingness of the Nestorians and also of the Jesuits to give publicity to the crucifixion.]

[Footnote 538: See Takakusu, _I-tsing_, pp. 169, 223, and _T'oung Pao_, 1896, p. 589.]

[Footnote 539: Turfan and Kucha are spoken of as being mainly Hînayânist.]

[Footnote 540: See Stein, _Zoroastrian deities on Indo-Scythian coins_, 1887.]

[Footnote 541: See _S.B.E._ IV. (Vendîdad) pp. 145, 209; XXIII. p. 184, V. p. III.]

[Footnote 542: Chap. VII. The notices in Chaps. XXII. and XXIV. are rather more detailed but also later.]

[Footnote 543: XII. p. 23.]

[Footnote 544: Transl. Schiefner, pp. 93, 105 and 303, and Pander's _Pantheon_, No. 11. But Târanâtha also says that he was Aryadeva's pupil.]

[Footnote 545: Śara in Sanskrit.]

[Footnote 546: The doctrine of salvation by faith alone seems to be later. The longer and apparently older version of the Sukhâvatî Vyûha insists on good works as a condition of entry into Paradise.]

[Footnote 547: _S.B.E._ IV. p. 293; _ib._ XXXIII. pp. 317 and 344.]

[Footnote 548: It may also be noticed that Ameretât, the Archangel of immortality, presides over vegetation and that Amida's paradise is full of flowers.]

[Footnote 549: _S.B.E._ XXIII. pp. 335-7.]

[Footnote 550: _S.B.E._ XXXI. p. 261.]

[Footnote 551: _S.B.E._ XXIII. pp. 21-31 (the Ormasd Yasht).]

[Footnote 552: Is it possible that there is any connection between Sukhâvatî and the land of Saukavastan, governed by an immortal ruler and located by the Bundehish between Turkistan and Chinistan? I imagine there is no etymological relationship, but if Saukavastan was well known as a land of the blessed it may have influenced the choice of a significant Sanskrit word with a similar sound.]

[Footnote 553: _E.R.E. sub voce_.]

[Footnote 554: _J.A._ 1912, I. p. 622. Unfortunately only a brief notice of his communication is given with no details. See also S. Lévi, _Le Népâl_, pp. 330 ff.]

[Footnote 555: Ti-tsang in Chinese, Jizo in Japanese. See for his history Visser's elaborate articles in _Ostasiatische Ztsft._ 1913-1915.]

[Footnote 556: He was accepted by the Manichæans as one of the Envoys of Light. _J.A._ 1911, II. p. 549.]