Volume 3 / Book 6 — CHAPTER XLI

CENTRAL ASIA

1

The term Central Asia is here used to denote the Tarim basin, without rigidly excluding neighbouring countries such as the Oxus region and Badakshan. This basin is a depression surrounded on three sides by high mountains: only on the east is the barrier dividing it from China relatively low. The water of the whole area discharges through the many branched Tarim river into Lake Lobnor. This so-called lake is now merely a flooded morass and the basin is a desert with occasional oases lying chiefly near its edges. The fertile portions were formerly more considerable but a quarter of a century ago this remote and lonely region interested no one but a few sportsmen and geographers. The results of recent exploration have been important and surprising. The arid sands have yielded not only ruins, statues and frescoes but whole libraries written in a dozen languages. The value of such discoveries for the general history of Asia is clear and they are of capital importance for our special subject, since during many centuries the Tarim region and its neighbouring lands were centres and highways for Buddhism and possibly the scene of many changes whose origin is now obscure. But I am unfortunate in having to discuss Central Asian Buddhism before scholars have had time to publish or even catalogue completely the store of material collected and the reader must remember that the statements in this chapter are at best tentative and incomplete. They will certainly be supplemented and probably corrected as year by year new documents and works of art are made known.

Tarim, in watery metaphor, is not so much a basin as a pool in a tidal river flowing alternately to and from the sea. We can imagine that in such a pool creatures of very different provenance might be found together. So currents both from east to west and from west to east passed through the Tarim, leaving behind whatever could live there: Chinese administration and civilization from the east: Iranians from the west, bearing with them in the stream fragments that had drifted from Asia Minor and Byzantium, while still other currents brought Hindus and Tibetans from the south.

One feature of special interest in the history of the Tarim is that it was in touch with Bactria and the regions conquered by Alexander and through them with western art and thought. Another is that its inhabitants included not only Iranian tribes but the speakers of an Aryan language hitherto unknown, whose presence so far east may oblige us to revise our views about the history of the Aryan race. A third characteristic is that from the dawn of history to the middle ages warlike nomads were continually passing through the country. All these people, whether we call them Iranians, Turks or Mongols had the same peculiarity: they had little culture of their own but they picked up and transported the ideas of others. The most remarkable example of this is the introduction of Islam into Europe and India. Nothing quite so striking happened in earlier ages, yet tribes similar to the Turks brought Manichæism and Nestorian Christianity into China and played no small part in the introduction of Buddhism.

A brief catalogue of the languages represented in the manuscripts and inscriptions discovered will give a safe if only provisional idea of the many influences at work in Central Asia and its importance as a receiving and distributing centre. The number of tongues simultaneously in use for popular or learned purposes was remarkably large. To say nothing of great polyglot libraries like Tun-huang, a small collection at Toyog is reported as containing Indian, Manichæan, Syriac, Sogdian, Uigur and Chinese books. The writing materials employed were various like the idioms and include imported palm leaves, birch bark, plates of wood or bamboo, leather and paper, which last was in use from the first century A.D. onwards. In this dry atmosphere all enjoyed singular longevity.

Numerous Sanskrit writings have been found, all dealing with religious or quasi religious subjects, as medicine and grammar were then considered to be. Relatively modern Mahayanist literature is abundant but greater interest attaches to portions of an otherwise lost Sanskrit canon which agree in substance though not verbally with the corresponding passages in the Pali Canon and are apparently the original text from which much of the Chinese Tripitaka was translated. The manuscripts hitherto published include Sûtras from the Samyukta and Ekottara Agamas, a considerable part of the Dharmapada, and the Prâtimoksha of the Sarvâstivâdin school. Fa-Hsien states that the monks of Central Asia were all students of the language of India and even in the seventh century Hsüan Chuang tells us the same of Kucha. Portions of a Sanskrit grammar have been found near Turfan and in the earlier period at any rate Sanskrit was probably understood in polite and learned society. Some palm leaves from Ming-Ŏi contain fragments of two Buddhist religious dramas, one of which is the Sâriputra-prakaraṇa of Aśvaghosha. The handwriting is believed to date from the epoch of Kanishka so that we have here the oldest known Sanskrit manuscripts, as well as the oldest specimens of Indian dramatic art[459]. They are written like the Indian classical dramas in Sanskrit and various forms of Prâkrit. The latter represent hitherto unknown stages in the development of Indian dialects and some of them are closely allied to the language of Aśoka's inscriptions. Another Prâkrit text is the version of the Dharmapada written in Kharoshṭhî characters and discovered by the Dutreuil de Rhins mission near Khotan[460], and numerous official documents in this language and alphabet have been brought home by Stein from the same region. It is probable that they are approximately coeval with the Kushan dynasty in India and the use of an Indian vernacular as well as of Sanskrit in Central Asia shows that the connection between the two countries was not due merely to the introduction of Buddhism.

Besides these hitherto unknown forms of Prâkrit, Central Asia has astonished the learned world with two new languages, both written in a special variety of the Brahmi alphabet called Central Asian Gupta. One is sometimes called Nordarisch and is regarded by some authorities as the language of the Śakas whose incursions into India appear to have begun about the second century B.C. and by others as the language of the Kushans and of Kanishka's Empire. It is stated that the basis of the language is Iranian but strongly influenced by Indian idioms[461]. Many translations of Mahayanist literature (for instance the Suvarṇaprabhâsa, Vajracchedikâ and Aparimitâyus Sûtras) were made into it and it appears to have been spoken principally in the southern part of the Tarim basin[462]. The other new language was spoken principally on its northern edge and has been called Tokharian, which name implies that it was the tongue of the Tokhars or Indoscyths[463]. But there is no proof of this and it is safer to speak of it as the language of Kucha or Kuchanese. It exists in two different dialects known as A and B whose geographical distribution is uncertain but numerous official documents dated in the first half of the seventh century show that it was the ordinary speech of Kucha and Turfan. It was also a literary language and among the many translations discovered are versions in it of the Dharmapada and Vinaya. It is extremely interesting to find that this language spoken by the early and perhaps original inhabitants of Kucha not only belongs to the Aryan family but is related more nearly to the western than the eastern branch. It cannot be classed in the Indo-Iranian group but shows perplexing affinities to Latin, Greek, Keltic, Slavonic and Armenian[464]. It is possible that it influenced Chinese Buddhist literature[465].

Besides the "Nordarisch" mentioned above which was written in Brahmi, three other Iranian languages have left literary remains in Central Asia, all written in an alphabet of Aramaic origin. Two of them apparently represent the speech of south-western Persia under the Sassanids, and of north-western Persia under the Arsacids. The texts preserved in both are Manichæan but the third Iranian language, or Sogdian, has a more varied literary content and offers Buddhist, Manichæan and Christian texts, apparently in that chronological order. It was originally the language of the region round Samarkand but acquired an international character for it was used by merchants throughout the Tarim basin and spread even to China. Some Christian texts in Syriac have also been found.

The Orkhon inscriptions exhibit an old Turkish dialect written in the characters commonly called Runes and this Runic alphabet is used in manuscripts found at Tun-huang and Miran but those hitherto published are not Buddhist. But another Turkish dialect written in the Uigur alphabet, which is derived from the Syriac, was (like Sogdian) extensively used for Buddhist, Manichæan and Christian literature. The name Uigur is perhaps more correctly applied to the alphabet than the language[466] which appears to have been the literary form of the various Turkish idioms spoken north and south of the Tien-shan. The use of this dialect for Buddhist literature spread considerably when the Uigurs broke the power of Tibet in the Tarim basin about 860 and founded a kingdom themselves: it extended into China and lasted long, for Sûtras in Uigur were printed at Peking in 1330 and Uigur manuscripts copied in the reign of K'ang Hsi (1662-1723) are reported from a monastery near Suchow[467]. I am informed that a variety of this alphabet written in vertical columns is still used in some parts of Kansu where a Turkish dialect is spoken. Though Turkish was used by Buddhists in both the east and west of the Tarim basin, it appears to have been introduced into Khotan only after the Moslim conquest. Another Semitic script, hitherto unknown and found only in a fragmentary form, is believed to be the writing of the White Huns or Hephthalites.

As the Tibetans were the predominant power in the Tarim basin from at least the middle of the eighth until the middle of the ninth century, it is not surprising that great stores of Tibetan manuscripts have been found in the regions of Khotan, Miran and Tun-huang. In Turfan, as lying more to the north, traces of Tibetan influence, though not absent, are fewer. The documents discovered must be anterior to the ninth century and comprise numerous official and business papers as well as Buddhist translations[468]. They are of great importance for the history of the Tibetan language and also indicate that at the period when they were written Buddhism at most shared with the Bön religion the allegiance of the Tibetans. No Manichæan or Christian translations in Tibetan have yet been discovered.

Vast numbers of Chinese texts both religious and secular are preserved in all the principal centres and offer many points of interest among which two may be noticed. Firstly the posts on the old military frontier near Tun-huang have furnished a series of dated documents ranging from 98 B.C. to 153 A.D.[469] There is therefore no difficulty in admitting that there was intercourse between China and Central Asia at this period. Secondly, some documents of the T'ang dynasty are Manichæan, with an admixture of Buddhist and Taoist ideas[470].

The religious monuments of Central Asia comprise stupas, caves and covered buildings used as temples or vihâras. Buddhist, Manichæan and Christian edifices have been discovered but apparently no shrines of the Zoroastrian religion, though it had many adherents in these regions, and though representations of Hindu deities have been found, Hinduism is not known to have existed apart from Buddhism[471]. Caves decorated for Buddhist worship are found not only in the Tarim basin but at Tun-huang on the frontier of China proper, near Ta-t'ung-fu in northern Shensi, and in the defile of Lung-mên in the province of Ho-nan. The general scheme and style of these caves are similar, but while in the last two, as in most Indian caves, the figures and ornaments are true sculpture, in the caves of Tun-huang and the Tarim not only is the wall prepared for frescoes, but even the figures are executed in stucco. This form of decoration was congenial to Central Asia for the images which embellished the temple walls were moulded in the same fashion. Temples and caves were sometimes combined, for instance at Bäzäklik where many edifices were erected on a terrace in front of a series of caves excavated in a mountain corner. Few roofed buildings are well preserved but it seems certain that some were high quadrilateral structures, crowned by a dome of a shape found in Persia, and that others had barrel-shaped roofs, apparently resembling the chaityas of Ter and Chezarla[472]. Le Coq states that this type of architecture is also found in Persia[473]. The commonest type of temple was a hall having at its further end a cella, with a passage behind to allow of circumambulation. Such halls were frequently enlarged by the addition of side rooms and sometimes a shrine was enclosed by several rectangular courts[474].

Many stupas have been found either by themselves or in combination with other buildings. The one which is best preserved (or at any rate reproduced in greatest detail)[475] is the Stupa of Rawak. It is set in a quadrangle bounded by a wall which was ornamented on both its inner and outer face by a series of gigantic statues in coloured stucco. The dome is set upon a rectangular base disposed in three stories and this arrangement is said to characterize all the stupas of Turkestan as well as those of the Kabul valley and adjacent regions.

This architecture appears to owe nothing to China but to include both Indian (especially Gandharan) and Persian elements. Many of its remarkable features, if not common elsewhere, are at least widely scattered. Thus some of the caves at Ming-Ŏi have dome-like roofs ornamented with a pattern composed of squares within squares, set at an angle with each other. A similar ornamentation is reported from Pandrenthan in Kashmir and from Bamian[476].

The antiquities of Central Asia include frescoes executed on the walls of caves and buildings, and paintings on silk paper[477]. The origin and affinities of this art are still the subject of investigation and any discussion of them would lead me too far from my immediate subject. But a few statements can be made with some confidence. The influence of Gandhara is plain in architecture, sculpture, and painting. The oldest works may be described as simply Gandharan but this early style is followed by another which shows a development both in technique and in mythology. It doubtless represents Indian Buddhist art as modified by local painters and sculptors. Thus in the Turfan frescoes the drapery and composition are Indian but the faces are eastern asiatic. Sometimes however they represent a race with red hair and blue eyes.

On the whole the paintings testify to the invasion of Far Eastern art by the ideas and designs of Indian Buddhism rather than to an equal combination of Indian and Chinese influence but in some forms of decoration, particularly that employed in the Khan's palace at Idiqutshähri[478], Chinese style is predominant. It may be too that the early pre-buddhist styles of painting in China and Central Asia were similar. In the seventh century a Khotan artist called Wei-ch'ih Po-chih-na migrated to China, where both he and his son Wei-ch'ih I-sêng acquired considerable fame.

Persian influence also is manifest in many paintings. A striking instance may be seen in two plates published by Stein[479] apparently representing the same Boddhisattva. In one he is of the familiar Indian type: the other seems at first sight a miniature of some Persian prince, black-bearded and high-booted, but the figure has four arms. As might be expected, it is the Manichæan paintings which are least Indian in character. They represent a "lost late antique school[480]" which often recalls Byzantine art and was perhaps the parent of mediæval Persian miniature painting.

The paintings of Central Asia resemble its manuscripts. It is impossible to look through any collection of them without feeling that currents of art and civilization flowing from neighbouring and even from distant lands have met and mingled in this basin. As the reader turns over the albums of Stein, Grünwedel or Le Coq he is haunted by strange reminiscences and resemblances, and wonders if they are merely coincidences or whether the pedigrees of these pictured gods and men really stretch across time and space to far off origins. Here are coins and seals of Hellenic design, nude athletes that might adorn a Greek vase, figures that recall Egypt, Byzantium or the Bayeux tapestry, with others that might pass for Christian ecclesiastics; Chinese sages, Kṛishṇa dancing to the sound of his flute, frescoes that might be copied from Ajanta, winged youths to be styled cupids or cherubs according to our mood[481].

Stein mentions[482] that he discovered a Buddhist monastery in the terminal marshes of the Helmund in the Persian province of Seistan, containing paintings of a Hellenistic type which show "for the first time in situ the Iranian link of the chain which connects the Græco-Buddhist art of extreme north-west India with the Buddhist art of Central Asia and the Far East."

Central Asian art is somewhat wanting in spontaneity. Except when painting portraits (which are many) the artists do not seem to go to nature or even their own imagination and visions. They seem concerned to reproduce some religious scene not as they saw it but as it was represented by Indian or other artists.

2

Only one side of Central Asian history can be written with any completeness, namely its relations with China. Of these some account with dates can be given, thanks to the Chinese annals which incidentally supply valuable information about earlier periods. But unfortunately these relations were often interrupted and also the political record does not always furnish the data which are of most importance for the history of Buddhism. Still there is no better framework available for arranging our data. But even were our information much fuller, we should probably find the history of Central Asia scrappy and disconnected. Its cities were united by no bond of common blood or language, nor can any one of them have had a continuous development in institutions, letters or art. These were imported in a mature form and more or less assimilated in a precocious Augustan age, only to be overwhelmed in some catastrophe which, if not merely destructive, at least brought the ideas and baggage of another race.

It was under the Emperor Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) of the Han dynasty that the Chinese first penetrated into the Tarim basin. They had heard that the Hsiung-nu, of whose growing power they were afraid, had driven the Yüeh-chih westwards and they therefore despatched an envoy named Chang Ch'ien in the hope of inducing the Yüeh-chih to co-operate with them against the common enemy. Chang Ch'ien made two adventurous expeditions, and visited the Yüeh-chih in their new home somewhere on the Oxus. His mission failed to attain its immediate political object but indirectly had important results, for it revealed to China that the nations on the Oxus were in touch with India on one hand and with the more mysterious west on the other. Henceforth it was her aim to keep open the trade route leading westwards from the extremity of the modern Kansu province to Kashgar, Khotan and the countries with which those cities communicated. Far from wishing to isolate herself or exclude foreigners, her chief desire was to keep the road to the west open, and although there were times when the flood of Buddhism which swept along this road alarmed the more conservative classes, yet for many centuries everything that came in the way of merchandize, art, literature, and religion was eagerly received. The chief hindrance to this intercourse was the hostility of the wild tribes who pillaged caravans and blocked the route, and throughout the whole stretch of recorded history the Chinese used the same method to weaken them and keep the door open, namely to create or utilize a quarrel between two tribes. The Empire allied itself with one in order to crush the second and that being done, proceeded to deal with its former ally.

Dated records beginning with the year 98 B.C. testify to the presence of a Chinese garrison near the modern Tun-huang[483]. But at the beginning of the Christian era the Empire was convulsed by internal rebellion and ceased to have influence or interest in Central Asia. With the restoration of order things took another turn. The reign of the Emperor Ming-ti is the traditional date for the introduction of Buddhism and it also witnessed the victorious campaigns of the famous general and adventurer Pan Ch'ao. He conquered Khotan and Kashgar and victoriously repulsed the attacks of the Kushans or Yüeh-chih who were interested in these regions and endeavoured to stop his progress. The Chinese annals do not give the name of their king but it must have been Kanishka if he came to the throne in 78. I confess however that this silence makes it difficult for me to accept 78-123 A.D. as the period of Kanishka's reign, for he must have been a monarch of some celebrity and if the Chinese had come into victorious contact with him, would not their historians have mentioned it? It seems to me more probable that he reigned before or after Pan Ch'ao's career in Central Asia which lasted from A.D. 73-102. With the end of that career Chinese activity ceased for some time and perhaps the Kushans conquered Kashgar and Khotan early in the second century. Neither the degenerate Han dynasty nor the stormy Three Kingdoms could grapple with distant political problems and during the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries northern China was divided among Tartar states, short-lived and mutually hostile. The Empire ceased to be a political power in the Tarim basin but intercourse with Central Asia and in particular the influx of Buddhism increased, and there was also a return wave of Chinese influence westwards. Meanwhile two tribes, the Hephthalites (or White Huns) and the Turks[484], successively became masters of Central Asia and founded states sometimes called Empires—that is to say they overran vast tracts within which they took tribute without establishing any definite constitution or frontiers.

When the T'ang dynasty (618-907) re-united the Empire, the Chinese Government with characteristic tenacity reverted to its old policy of keeping the western road open and to its old methods. The Turks were then divided into two branches, the northern and western, at war with one another. The Chinese allied themselves with the latter, defeated the northern Turks and occupied Turfan (640). Then in a series of campaigns, in which they were supported by the Uigurs, they conquered their former allies the western Turks and proceeded to organize the Tarim basin under the name of the Four Garrisons[485]. This was the most glorious period of China's foreign policy and at no other time had she so great a position as a western power. The list of her possessions included Bokhara in the west and starting from Semirechinsk and Tashkent in the north extended southwards so as to embrace Afghanistan with the frontier districts of India and Persia[486]. It is true that the Imperial authority in many of these regions was merely nominal: when the Chinese conquered a tribe which claimed sovereignty over them they claimed sovereignty themselves. But for the history of civilization, for the migration of art and ideas, even this nominal claim is important, for China was undoubtedly in touch with India, Bokhara and Persia.

But no sooner did these great vistas open, than new enemies appeared to bar the road. The Tibetans descended into the Tarim basin and after defeating the Chinese in 670 held the Four Garrisons till 692, when the fortunes of war were reversed. But the field was not left clear for China: the power of the northern Turks revived, and Mohammedanism, then a new force but destined to ultimate triumph in politics and religion alike, appeared in the west. The conquests of the Mohammedan general Qutayba (705-715) extended to Ferghana and he attacked Kashgar. In the long reign of Hsüan Tsung China waged a double warfare against the Arabs and Tibetans. For about thirty years (719-751) the struggle was successful. Even Tabaristan is said to have acknowledged China's suzerainty. Her troops crossed the Hindu Kush and reached Gilgit. But in 751 they sustained a crushing defeat near Tashkent. The disaster was aggravated by the internal troubles of the Empire and it was long before Chinese authority recovered from the blow[487]. The Tibetans reaped the advantage. Except in Turfan, they were the dominant power of the Tarim basin for a century, they took tribute from China and when it was refused sacked the capital, Chang-an (763). It would appear however that for a time Chinese garrisons held out in Central Asia and Chinese officials exercised some authority, though they obtained no support from the Empire[488]. But although even late in the tenth century Khotan sent embassies to the Imperial Court, China gradually ceased to be a Central Asian power. She made a treaty with the Tibetans (783) and an alliance with the Uigurs, who now came to the front and occupied Turfan, where there was a flourishing Uigur kingdom with Manichæism as the state religion from about 750 to 843. In that year the Kirghiz sacked Turfan and it is interesting to note that the Chinese who had hitherto tolerated Manichæism as the religion of their allies, at once began to issue restrictive edicts against it. But except in Turfan it does not appear that the power of the Uigurs was weakened[489]. In 860-817 they broke up Tibetan rule in the Tarim basin and formed a new kingdom of their own which apparently included Kashgar, Urumtsi and Kucha but not Khotan. The prince of Kashgar embraced Islam about 945, but the conversion of Khotan and Turfan was later. With this conversion the connection of the Tarim basin with the history of Buddhism naturally ceases, for it does not appear that the triumphal progress of Lamaism under Khubilai Khan affected these regions.

3

The Tarim basin, though sometimes united under foreign rule, had no indigenous national unity. Cities, or groups of towns, divided by deserts lived their own civic life and enjoyed considerable independence under native sovereigns, although the Chinese, Turks or Tibetans quartered troops in them and appointed residents to supervise the collection of tribute. The chief of these cities or oases were Kashgar in the west: Kucha, Karashahr, Turfan (Idiqutshähri, Chotscho) and Hami lying successively to the north-east: Yarkand, Khotan and Miran to the south-east[490]. It may be well to review briefly the special history of some of them.

The relics found near Kashgar, the most western of these cities, are comparatively few, probably because its position exposed it to the destructive influence of Islam at an early date. Chinese writers reproduce the name as Ch'ia-sha, Chieh-ch'a, etc., but also call the region Su-lê, Shu-lê, or Sha-lê[491]. It is mentioned first in the Han annals. After the missions of Chang-Ch'ien trade with Bactria and Sogdiana grew rapidly and Kashgar which was a convenient emporium became a Chinese protected state in the first century B.C. But when the hold of China relaxed about the time of the Christian era it was subdued by the neighbouring kingdom of Khotan. The conquests of Pan-Ch'ao restored Chinese supremacy but early in the second century the Yüeh-chih interfered in the politics of Kashgar and placed on the throne a prince who was their tool. The introduction of Buddhism is ascribed to this epoch[492]. If Kanishka was then reigning the statement that he conquered Kashgar and Khotan is probably correct. It is supported by Hsüan Chuang's story of the hostages and by his assertion that Kanishka's rule extended to the east of the Ts'ung-ling mountains: also by the discovery of Kanishka's coins in the Khotan district. Little is heard of Kashgar until Fa-Hsien visited it in 400[493]. He speaks of the quinquennial religious conferences held by the king, at one of which he was present, of relics of the Buddha and of a monastery containing a thousand monks all students of the Hinayana. About 460 the king sent as a present to the Chinese Court an incombustible robe once worn by the Buddha. Shortly afterwards Kashgar was incorporated in the dominions of the Hephthalites, and when these succumbed to the western Turks about 465, it merely changed masters.

Hsüan Chuang has left an interesting account of Kashgar as he found it on his return journey[494]. The inhabitants were sincere Buddhists and there were more than a thousand monks of the Sarvâstivâdin school. But their knowledge was not in proportion to their zeal for they read the scriptures diligently without understanding them. They used an Indian alphabet into which they had introduced alterations.

According to Hsüan Chuang's religious conspectus of these regions, Kashgar, Osh and Kucha belonged to the Small Vehicle, Yarkand and Khotan mainly to the Great. The Small Vehicle also flourished at Balkh and at Bamian[495]. In Kapiśa the Great Vehicle was predominant but there were also many Hindu sects: in the Kabul valley too Hinduism and Buddhism seem to have been mixed: in Persia[496] there were several hundred Sarvâstivâdin monks. In Tokhara (roughly equivalent to Badakshan) there was some Buddhism but apparently it did not flourish further north in the regions of Tashkent and Samarkand. In the latter town there were two disused monasteries but when Hsüan Chuang's companions entered them they were mobbed by the populace. He says that these rioters were fire worshippers and that the Turks whom he visited somewhere near Aulieata were of the same religion. This last statement is perhaps inaccurate but the T'ang annals expressly state that the population of Kashgar and Khotan was in part Zoroastrian[497]. No mention of Nestorianism in Kashgar at this date has yet been discovered, although in the thirteenth century it was a Nestorian see. But since Nestorianism had penetrated even to China in the seventh century, it probably also existed in Samarkand and Kashgar.

The pilgrim Wu-K'ung spent five months in Kashgar about 786, but there appear to be no later data of interest for the study of Buddhism.

The town of Kucha[498] lies between Kashgar and Turfan, somewhat to the west of Karashahr. In the second century B.C. it was already a flourishing city. Numerous dated documents show that about 630 A.D. the language of ordinary life was the interesting idiom sometimes called Tokharian B, and, since the Chinese annals record no alien invasion, we may conclude that Kucha existed as an Aryan colony peopled by the speakers of this language some centuries before the Christian era. It is mentioned in the Han annals and when brought into contact with China in the reign of Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) it became a place of considerable importance, as it lay at the junction[499] of the western trade routes leading to Kashgar and Aulieata respectively. Kucha absorbed some Chinese civilization but its doubtful loyalty to the Imperial throne often involved it in trouble. It is not until the Western Tsin dynasty that we find it described as a seat of Buddhism. The Tsin annals say that it was enclosed by a triple wall and contained a thousand stupas and Buddhist temples as well as a magnificent palace for the king[500]. This implies that Buddhism had been established for some time but no evidence has been found to date its introduction.

In 383 Fu-chien, Emperor of the Tsin dynasty, sent his general Lü-Kuang to subdue Kucha[501]. The expedition was successful and among the captives taken was the celebrated Kumârajîva. Lü-Kuang was so pleased with the magnificent and comfortable life of Kucha that he thought of settling there but Kumârajîva prophesied that he was destined to higher things. So they left to try their fortune in China. Lü-Kuang rose to be ruler of the state known as Southern Liang and his captive and adviser became one of the greatest names in Chinese Buddhism.

Kumârajîva is a noticeable figure and his career illustrates several points of importance. First, his father came from India and he himself went as a youth to study in Kipin (Kashmir) and then returned to Kucha. Living in this remote corner of Central Asia he was recognized as an encyclopædia of Indian learning including a knowledge of the Vedas and "heretical śâstras." Secondly after his return to Kucha he was converted to Mahayanism. Thirdly he went from Kucha to China where he had a distinguished career as a translator. Thus we see how China was brought into intellectual touch with India and how the Mahayana was gaining in Central Asia territory previously occupied by the Hinayana. The monk Dharmagupta who passed through Kucha about 584 says that the king favoured Mahayanism[502]. That Kucha should have been the home of distinguished translators is not strange for a statement[503] has been preserved to the effect that Sanskrit texts were used in the cities lying to the west of it, but that in Kucha itself Indian languages were not understood and translations were made, although such Sanskrit words as were easily intelligible were retained.

In the time of the Wei, Kucha again got into trouble with China and was brought to order by another punitive expedition in 448. After this lesson a long series of tribute-bearing missions is recorded, sent first to the court of Wei, and afterwards to the Liang, Chou and Sui. The notices respecting the country are to a large extent repetitions. They praise its climate, fertility and mineral wealth: the magnificence of the royal palace, the number and splendour of the religious establishments. Peacocks were as common as fowls and the Chinese annalists evidently had a general impression of a brilliant, pleasure-loving and not very moral city. It was specially famous for its music: the songs and dances of Kucha, performed by native artists, were long in favour at the Imperial Court, and a list of twenty airs has been preserved[504].

When the T'ang dynasty came to the throne Kucha sent an embassy to do homage but again supported Karashahr in rebellion and again brought on herself a punitive expedition (648). But the town was peaceful and prosperous when visited by Hsüan Chuang about 630.

His description agrees in substance with other notices, but he praises the honesty of the people. He mentions that the king was a native and that a much modified Indian alphabet was in use. As a churchman, he naturally dwells with pleasure on the many monasteries and great images, the quinquennial assemblies and religious processions. There were more than 100 monasteries with upwards of 5000 brethren who all followed the Sarvâstivâda and the "gradual teaching," which probably means the Hinayana as opposed to the sudden illumination caused by Mahayanist revelation. The pilgrim differed from his hosts on the matter of diet and would not join them in eating meat. But he admits that the monks were strict according to their lights and that the monasteries were centres of learning.

In 658 Kucha was made the seat of government for the territory known as the Four Garrisons. During the next century it sent several missions to the Chinese and about 788 was visited by Wu-K'ung, who indicates that music and Buddhism were still flourishing. He mentions an Abbot who spoke with equal fluency the language of the country, Chinese and Sanskrit. Nothing is known about Kucha from this date until the eleventh century when we again hear of missions to the Chinese Court. The annals mention them under the heading of Uigurs, but Buddhism seems not to have been extinct for even in 1096 the Envoy presented to the Emperor a jade Buddha. According to Hsüan Chuang's account the Buddhism of Karashahr (Yenki) was the same as that of Kucha and its monasteries enjoyed the same reputation for strictness and learning.

Turfan is an oasis containing the ruins of several cities and possibly different sites were used as the capital at different periods. But the whole area is so small that such differences can be of little importance. The name Turfan appears to be modern. The Ming Annals[505] state that this city lies in the land of ancient Ch'e-shih (or Kü-shih) called Kao Ch'ang in the time of the Sui. This name was abolished by the T'ang but restored by the Sung.

The principal city now generally known as Chotscho seems to be identical with Kao Ch'ang[506] and Idiqutshähri and is called by Mohammedans Apsus or Ephesus, a curious designation connected with an ancient sacred site renamed the Cave of the Seven Sleepers. Extensive literary remains have been found in the oasis; they include works in Sanskrit, Chinese, and various Iranian and Turkish idioms but also in two dialects of so-called Tokharian. Blue-eyed, red-haired and red-bearded people are frequently portrayed on the walls of Turfan.

But the early history of this people and of their civilization is chiefly a matter of theory. In the Han period[507] there was a kingdom called Kü-shih or Kiü-shih, with two capitals. It was destroyed in 60 B.C. by the Chinese general Chêng-Chi and eight small principalities were formed in its place. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. Turfan had some connection with two ephemeral states which arose in Kansu under the names of Hou Liang and Pei Liang. The former was founded by Lü-Kuang, the general who, as related above, took Kucha. He fell foul of a tribe in his territory called Chü-ch'ü, described as belonging to the Hsiung-nu. Under their chieftain Mêng-hsün, who devoted his later years to literature and Buddhism, this tribe took a good deal of territory from the Hou Liang, in Turkestan as well as in Kansu, and called their state Pei Liang. It was conquered by the Wei dynasty in 439 and two members of the late reigning house determined to try their fortune in Turfan and ruled there successively for about twenty years. An Chou, the second of these princes, died in 480 and his fame survives because nine years after his death a temple to Maitreya was dedicated in his honour with a long inscription in Chinese.

Another line of Chinese rulers, bearing the family name of Ch'iu, established themselves at Kao-ch'ang in 507 and under the Sui dynasty one of them married a Chinese princess. Turfan paid due homage to the T'ang dynasty on its accession but later it was found that tributary missions coming from the west to the Chinese court were stopped there and the close relations of its king with the western Turks inspired alarm. Accordingly it was destroyed by the imperial forces in 640. This is confirmed by the record of Hsüan Chuang. In his biography there is a description of his reception by the king of Kao-ch'ang on his outward journey. But in the account of his travels written after his return he speaks of the city as no longer existent.

Nevertheless the political and intellectual life of the oasis was not annihilated. It was conquered by the Uigurs at an uncertain date, but they were established there in the eighth and ninth centuries and about 750 their Khan adopted Manichæism as the state religion. The many manuscripts in Sogdian and other Persian dialects found at Turfan show that it had an old and close connection with the west. It is even possible that Mani may have preached there himself but it does not appear that his teaching became influential until about 700 A.D. The presence of Nestorianism is also attested. Tibetan influence too must have affected Turfan in the eighth and ninth centuries for many Tibetan documents have been found there although it seems to have been outside the political sphere of Tibet. About 843 this Uigur Kingdom was destroyed by the Kirghiz.

Perhaps the massacres of Buddhist priests, clearly indicated by vaults filled with skeletons still wearing fragments of the monastic robe, occurred in this period. But Buddhism was not extinguished and lingered here longer than in other parts of the Tarim basin. Even in 1420 the people of Turfan were Buddhists and the Ming Annals say that at Huo-chou (or Kara-Khojo) there were more Buddhist temples than dwelling houses.

Let us now turn to Khotan[508]. This was the ancient as well as the modern name of the principal city in the southern part of the Tarim basin but was modified in Chinese to Yü-t'ien, in Sanskrit to Kustana[509]. The Tibetan equivalent is Li-yul, the land of Li, but no explanation of this designation is forthcoming.

Traditions respecting the origin of Khotan are preserved in the travels of Hsüan Chuang and also in the Tibetan scriptures, some of which are expressly said to be translations from the language of Li. These traditions are popular legends but they agree in essentials and appear to contain a kernel of important truth namely that Khotan was founded by two streams of colonization coming from China and from India[510], the latter being somehow connected with Asoka. It is remarkable that the introduction of Buddhism is attributed not to these original colonists but to a later missionary who, according to Hsüan Chuang, came from Kashmir[511].

This traditional connection with India is confirmed by the discovery of numerous documents written in Kharoshṭhî characters and a Prakrit dialect. Their contents indicate that this Prakrit was the language of common life and they were found in one heap with Chinese documents dated 269 A.D. The presence of this alphabet and language is not adequately explained by the activity of Buddhist missionaries for in Khotan, as in other parts of Asia, the concomitants of Buddhism are Sanskrit and the Brahmi alphabet.

There was also Iranian influence in Khotan. It shows itself in art and has left indubitable traces in the language called by some Nordarisch, but when the speakers of that language reached the oasis or what part they played there, we do not yet know.

As a consequence of Chang Ch'ien's mission mentioned above, Khotan sent an Embassy to the Chinese Court in the reign of Wu-ti (140-87 B.C.) and the T'ang Annals state that its kings handed down the insignia of Imperial investiture from that time onwards. There seems however to have been a dynastic revolution about 60 A.D. and it is possible that the Vijaya line of kings, mentioned in various Tibetan works, then began to reign[512]. Khotan became a powerful state but submitted to the conquering arms of Pan-Ch'ao and perhaps was subsequently subdued by Kanishka. As the later Han dynasty declined, it again became strong but continued to send embassies to the Imperial Court. There is nothing more to mention until the visit of Fa-Hsien in 400. He describes "the pleasant and prosperous kingdom" with evident gusto. There were some tens of thousands of monks mostly followers of the Mahayana and in the country, where the homes of the people were scattered "like stars" about the oases, each house had a small stupa before the door. He stopped in a well ordered convent with 3000 monks and mentions a magnificent establishment called The King's New Monastery. He also describes a great car festival which shows the Indian colour of Khotanese religion. Perhaps Fa-Hsien and Hsüan Chuang unduly emphasize ecclesiastical features, but they also did not hesitate to say when they thought things unsatisfactory and their praise shows that Buddhism was flourishing.

In the fifth and sixth centuries Khotan passed through troublous times and was attacked by the Tanguts, Juan-Juan and White Huns. Throughout this stormy period missions were sent at intervals to China to beg for help. The pilgrim Sung Yün[513] traversed the oasis in 519. His account of the numerous banners bearing Chinese inscriptions hung up in the temple of Han-mo proves that though the political influence of China was weak, she was still in touch with the Tarim basin.

When the T'ang effectively asserted their suzerainty in Central Asia, Khotan was included in the Four Garrisons. The T'ang Annals while repeating much which is found in earlier accounts, add some points of interest, for they say that the Khotanese revere the God of Heaven (Hsien shên) and also the Law of Buddha[514]. This undoubtedly means that there were Zoroastrians as well as Buddhists, which is not mentioned in earlier periods. The annals also mention that the king's house was decorated with pictures and that his family name was Wei Ch'ih. This may possibly be a Chinese rendering of Vijaya, the Sanskrit name or title which according to Tibetan sources was borne by all the sovereigns of Khotan.

Hsüan Chuang broke his return journey at Khotan in 644. He mentions the fondness of the people for music and says that their language differed from that of other countries. The Mahâyâna was the prevalent sect but the pilgrim stopped in a monastery of the Sarvâstivâdins[515]. He describes several sites in the neighbourhood, particularly the Go'sringa or Cow-horn mountain[516], supposed to have been visited by the Buddha. Though he does not mention Zoroastrians, he notices that the people of P'i-mo near Khotan were not Buddhists.

About 674 the king of Khotan did personal homage at the Chinese Court. The Emperor constituted his territory into a government called P'i-sha after the deity P'i-sha-mên or Vai'sravana and made him responsible for its administration. Another king did homage between 742 and 755 and received an imperial princess as his consort. Chinese political influence was effective until the last decade of the eighth century but after 790 the conquests of the Tibetans put an end to it and there is no mention of Khotan in the Chinese Annals for about 150 years. Numerous Tibetan manuscripts and inscriptions found at Endere testify to these conquests. The rule of the Uigurs who replaced Tibet as the dominant power in Turfan and the northern Tarim basin does not appear to have extended to Khotan.

It is not till 938 that we hear of renewed diplomatic relations with China. The Imperial Court received an embassy from Khotan and deemed it of sufficient importance to despatch a special mission in return. Eight other embassies were sent to China in the tenth century and at least three of them were accompanied by Buddhist priests. Their object was probably to solicit help against the attacks of Mohammedans. No details are known as to the Mohammedan conquest but it apparently took place between 970 and 1009 after a long struggle.

Another cultural centre of the Tarim basin must have existed in the oases near Lob-nor where Miran and a nameless site to the north of the lake have been investigated by Stein. They have yielded numerous Tibetan documents, but also fine remains of Gandharan art and Prakrit documents written in the Kharoshthî character. Probably the use of this language and alphabet was not common further east, for though a Kharoshthî fragment was found by Stein in an old Chinese frontier post[517] the library of Tun-huang yielded no specimens of them. That library, however, dating apparently from the epoch of the T'ang, contained some Sanskrit Buddhist literature and was rich in Sogdian, Turkish, and Tibetan manuscripts.

4

Ample as are the materials for the study of Buddhism in Central Asia those hitherto published throw little light on the time and manner of its introduction. At present much is hypothetical for we have few historical data—such as the career of Kumârajîva and the inscription on the Temple of Maitreya at Turfan—but a great mass of literary and artistic evidence from which various deductions can be drawn.

It is clear that there was constant intercourse with India and the Oxus region. The use of Prakrit and of various Iranian idioms points to actual colonization from these two quarters and it is probable that there were two streams of Buddhism, for the Chinese pilgrims agree that Shan-shan (near Lob-nor), Turfan, Kucha and Kashgar were Hînayânist, whereas Yarkand and Khotan were Mahâyânist. Further, much of the architecture, sculpture and painting is simply Gandharan and the older specimens can hardly be separated from the Gandharan art of India by any considerable interval. This art was in part coeval with Kanishka, and if his reign began in 78 A.D. or later the first specimens of it cannot be much anterior to the Christian era. The earliest Chinese notices of the existence of Buddhism in Kashgar and Kucha date from 400 (Fa-Hsien) and the third century (Annals of the Tsin, 265-317) respectively, but they speak of it as the national religion and munificently endowed, so that it may well have been established for some centuries. In Turfan the first definite record is the dedication of a temple to Maitreya in 469 but probably the history of religion there was much the same as in Kucha.

It is only in Khotan that tradition, if not history, gives a more detailed narrative. This is found in the works of the Chinese pilgrims Hsüan Chuang and Sung Yün and also in four Tibetan works which are apparently translated from the language of Khotan[518]. As the story is substantially the same in all, it merits consideration and may be accepted as the account current in the literary circles of Khotan about 500 A.D. It relates that the Indians who were part-founders of that city in the reign of Asoka were not Buddhists[519] and the Tibetan version places the conversion with great apparent accuracy 170 years after the foundation of the kingdom and 404 after the death of the Buddha. At that time a monk named Vairocana, who was an incarnation of Manjuśri, came to Khotan, according to Hsüan Chuang from Kashmir[520]. He is said to have introduced a new language as well as Mahâyânism, and the king, Vijayasambhava, built for him the great monastery of Tsarma outside the capital, which was miraculously supplied with relics. We cannot be sure that the Tibetan dates were intended to have the meaning they would bear for our chronology, that is about 80 B.C., but if they had, there is nothing improbable in the story, for other traditions assert that Buddhism was preached in Kashmir in the time of Asoka. On the other hand, there was a dynastic change in Khotan about 60 A.D. and the monarch who then came to the throne may have been Vijayasambhava.

According to the Tibetan account no more monasteries were built for seven reigns. The eighth king built two, one on the celebrated Gośirsha or Gośringa mountain. In the eleventh reign after Vijayasambhava, more chaityas and viharas were built in connection with the introduction of the silkworm industry. Subsequently, but without any clear indication of date, the introduction of the Mahâsanghika and Sarvâstivâdin schools is mentioned.

The Tibetan annals also mention several persecutions of Buddhism in Khotan as a result of which the monks fled to Tibet and Bruzha. Their chronology is confused but seems to make these troubles coincide with a persecution in Tibet, presumably that of Lang-dar-ma. If so, the persecution in Khotan must have been due to the early attacks of Mohammedans which preceded the final conquest in about 1000 A.D.[521]

Neither the statements of the Chinese annalists about Central Asia nor its own traditions prove that Buddhism flourished there before the Christian era. But they do not disprove it and even if the dream of the Emperor Ming-Ti and the consequent embassy are dismissed as legends, it is admitted that Buddhism penetrated to China by land not later than the early decades of that era. It must therefore have been known in Central Asia previously and perhaps Khotan was the place where it first flourished.

It is fairly certain that about 160 B.C. the Yüeh-chih moved westwards and settled in the lands of the Oxus after ejecting the Sakas, but like many warlike nomads they may have oscillated between the east and west, recoiling if they struck against a powerful adversary in either quarter. Le Coq has put forward an interesting theory of their origin. It is that they were one of the tribes known as Scythians in Europe and at an unknown period moved eastwards from southern Russia, perhaps leaving traces of their presence in the monuments still existing in the district of Minussinsk. He also identifies them with the red-haired, blue-eyed people of the Chotscho frescoes and the speakers of the Tokharian language. But these interesting hypotheses cannot be regarded as proved. It is, however, certain that the Yüeh-chih invaded India[522], founded the Kushan Empire and were intimately connected (especially in the person of their great king Kanishka) with Gandharan art and the form of Buddhism which finds expression in it. Now the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien (c. 400) found the Hînayâna prevalent in Shan-shan, Kucha, Kashgar, Osh, Udyana and Gandhara. Hsüan Chuang also notes its presence in Balkh, Bamian, and Persia. Both notice that the Mahâyâna was predominant in Khotan though not to the exclusion of the other school. It would appear that in modern language the North-West Frontier province of India, Afghanistan, Badakshan (with small adjoining states), the Pamir regions and the Tarim basin all accepted Gandharan Buddhism and at one time formed part of the Kushan Empire.

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: