VINAYA: FROM INDIA TO CHINA ‘Ann Heirman (Ghent) 1. Lwrropuerion On his death-bed, the Buddha advised his disciples to rely on the monastic discipline he had expounded.’ Consequently, the title daski K Bil, Great Master, originally reserved for the Buddha himself, was transferred to the lst of precepts (pratimoksa) for monks (bik) and nuns (Gtiksuei). The pratimoksa became their dashi? Monastic clisciptne is thus dearly one of the essential strongholds of Buddhism, the protectors of which are in the first place the monks and nuns.’ This central posi- tion of monastic discipline does not imply that all rionasteries applied exactly the same rules. From the beginning of the spread of monastic Buddhism, different rules or different interpretations of the rules started (o emerge, and various schools (wiki) arose. These schools wore defined on the basis of their disciplinary texts (vinaya)* When Buddhism entered China in the first century AD, it was the monks of the northern Buddhist schools who formed the frst Budlise ™ Digha p14 Cay aan jing, 1.26327-28, See ako Waldschmidt 1950-51, ore 5, pp. 386-387, for Sami Tibetan, Pa, and Chinese (Milos) 3 Tater the term wat ao wed fr dtr and ecinent mons (Fort 199, pp 1p2=1023}, # See, fr instance, a recent study on he ss 2nd functions of the sone according to the early Boks tat Froberger 2000 (partetaly pp. 29-48) ie core of monastic dicipine i alin Of precept (Pita) and a et of fr ta proses Gann fhe rcp fended an nent on jn'te chapters for monis and mane hime and SikantDtges) The procedures are explained fn deta inthe so-called anda or out chapter). The ie and Iigmeiboiges and the slndht or ose ogeher consul te il ge. Besides ‘his the erm siya lo Wed for al tens ested to monastic dipline The eigen of the diferent school coincae oa lng extent, both regoting the er aed the opie ofthe prceps. This sndariy undoubtedly points to a common tai In eer te vaio scot ths cid any ieee, howe ape ne Interpretation ofthc le the misting creumanes and the excep tat were alone, When the sng fr iar, equally say tata wrong woman cannot be ordzined, the interpretation of "a wrong woman’ dle: depending on the age, itis cher 8 woman thie, an adultes, ot a bad wif (ge Heeman 2002, pat 1, Pp 13215, See also note 17 BS: 4 ie jonathan cesity Libr 2S168 ANN HEIRMAN communities referring to their respective vinaya traditions. Later, when the sea route between India and China became more popular, the monks of the southern part of the Indian subcontinent also started to exert some influence. ‘The first ingya texts were most probably introduced orally and in a foreign language, for the use of the foreign monks. When, in the third and the fourth centuries, later generations of immigrants lost contact with their original languages and more and more Chinese centered the monasteries, the need for translations of disciplinary texts became urgent. By the end of the fifth century, the most important vingya translations were finished, and were available in Buddhist mon- asteries all over the country. More than two centuries later, one more vingya was introduced to China, the Milasaredsticadavinaya, translated at the beginning of the eighth century. Curiously enough this was exactly the same time as another vingya, the Dharmaguplakavingya, was imposed ‘on the whole of China. From that time on until today, the latter singya has been followed in all Chinese monasteries. The following paper aims to trace the history of the Chinese vingya texts from their introduction to the firm establishment of che Diarmaguptokavingya. Te covers a period that goes from the fall of the Han i dynasty to the days following Empress Wu Zetian’s BAU reign (690-708). When in 220 AD the San dynasty caine to an end, the country broke up in three kingdoms, the Wei 3, the Shuhan BHU and the Wo 48. They were temporarily brought together again by the Western Jin FUE dynasty (280-316). This was a rather weak dynasty, unable to defend itself against the many attacks of foreign northern troops. Consequently, the Chinese had to withdraw to the south of China. This was the start of the so-called north-south division of China that would last until 589. In the north, many foreign king- doms arose, the most important of which was the Northern Wei IL dynasty (386-535) that occupied a large part of Northern China. The Northern Wei controlled major cities such as Chang’an $2 (modern Xi'an B®) and Luoyang YEE. In the south, several Chinese dynasties, succeeded one another: the Eastern Jin EE (316-420), the Liu Song, BAR (420-479), the Qj HF (479-502), the Liang # (502-557), and the Chen BF (557-589). The capital was Jiankang (modern Nanjing). The ‘country was re-united by the Sui dynasty in 589. The dynasty did not last long, however, and in 618 a general called Li Yuan started the Tang dynasty. This dynasty lasted until 906, but was temporarily interrupted by the Zhou FB dynasty (690-705), founded by Wa Zetian, a former concubine of two Tang emperors. It isin between the fall of the Han A ae Uninc THE SUPE BAREovr: EROM INDIA TO CHINA 169 and the re-establishment of the Tang, that the history of the Chinese ring texts was decided. 2, Tae Earnest Voces Texts Around the first century AD,® Buddhist monks and lay followers started to enter China along the merchant land routes from India to China, and small Buddhist communities arose. The first monks all were for- ceigners They most probably transmitted the disciplinary text orally? ‘This was still the case in the Central Asian countries when the monk Faxian 2444 travelled through the region in the beginning of the fifth century? 2.1, Disciplinary Redes for Monks According to the Oficial History of the Sui Bef dynasty? the first Chinese ‘monk was ordained in the Huangchu period (220-226) of the Wei king dom. Many buddhologists,'° however, consider Yan Fotiao Bitiiall ( Futiao; ## or 8 — £8), a collaborator of An Shigao Si#5 at the end of the second century, to be the first known Chinese monk. Onee the Buddhist community began to attract more and more Chinese speak- ing followers, it seems logical that the need for Chinese translations of the disciplinary texts grew. An additional reason for these translations might have been that later generations of foreign Buddhist families lost contact with their original languages and more and more needed to rely 2 See Ziicher 1972, vl L, pp. 18-23. * Zitcher 1972, vol. 1, pp. 25-24; Ch'en 1973, pp. 49-44; Zarcher 1990, p. 163. Inall probability also dhe monks in che First Known Bact community in China were foreigners. Ii the commoniry of Pengcheng, a flourishing commercial centre stuated on die main route from Luoyang to the south, in the nother Jiang province It vas mentioned for the frst time in 69 AD (Feu Honshu 42, vol 5, pp. 1428-1429). The community seems to have becn quite prosperous, and succended in atiacting @ ‘nuinber of Chinese lay flowers. See Ziwcher 1972, vol. l, pp. 26-27; Rive 1999, pp. 15-18, » Zurcher 1972, vol 1, p. 55; Salomon 1999, pp. 165-166; Boucher 20003, p60. * See note 43. 2 Suihe 85, vol. 4, p. 1097 See Zircher, 197%, vol. 1, p. $4: wa. 2, p. 381, note 86; Ch'en 1973, pp. 45-46; ‘Tsukamoto 1985, vl. 1, pp. G65, 79, 93-97. A. Fone (1995, p. GO), however, sees him 38a layman, ity Library ws OS RS170 ANN HEIRMAN fon Chinese texts. According to the Gaoseng chuan B5fS{8" (Biographies of Eminent Monks), compiled by Huijiao S88 ca, 530 AD," the first vingya text translated into Chinese is a text called Senggijiexin {@4GHOL: (The Heart of Precepts of the Mahsamghikas). The Gioseng zhuan tells us that the translation was done by Dharmakila, a native of Central India, who arrived in Luoyang around 250 AD." Still, since no text by this tile is mentioned in the earliest extant catalogue, the Chu san- ang ji H=HREL Collection of Records concerning the Tripitaka) ‘compiled by Sengyou {#4 between 510 and 518," it is not certain that Dharmakala indeed translated such a text. Only in relatively late catalogues, do we find references to it. The title of the translation, Snggijiexin, probably refers to a primoksa of the Mahasamghika school." “The text is not extant. Huijiao also claims that Dharmakala, who was able to recite all the vingas, introduced the first ordination tradition to China with the help of Indian monks.” Tn all probability, the Indian monks were needed in order to obtain a sufficient number of ordained participants necessary to hold a legally valid ordination ceremony: For various reasons, itis not possible to determine which ordination ceremony ot which school Dharmakala might have introduced. First, of all, we do not know to which school Dharmakala himself belonged. Instead, he is said to have been acquainted with all the vinayas. In addition, the school afiliation of the Indian monks is not mentioned, and, finally, we have no reference to the basic legal text used at the ordination ritual. " Huijao, 7:2059.50:39505-4, © Weight 1954, p. 400, "© Also in the chapter on Buddhism and Dacism of the Weis, a history of the [Northern Wei dynasty compiled by Wei Show in 951-35, Dharmakila i said to have translated a patinolsa (Write 116, vol 8, p. 3029) Dates of compilation of the calalogues: Mizuno 1995, pp. 187206, ° Pajing et al, T.2146.55.14068 (AD 594); Daoxuan, 112149.55.226e12-26 (AD (664); Jingmai, T:2151.35.851a21-bi (AD 627-649}; Zhisheng, 1.2154.55485e3-24, {6482225 (AD 730} the text is reported as lost; Yaarahao, T.2157.55.78%¢20-784a3, (AD 800} the text is tos. Shih 1968, p. 19 68; Hirakawa 1970, p 202. ° Huijao, 1'2059,50.825a4-5. These Indian monks might already have been pres: cent in China, asthe biographies of Dharmakala in nga, T2131.35.391a28-29, in Zhisheng, T2154.55 48602, and in Yuanzhao, 7.2157-95.784a 2, corm to suggest by Using the expression S8S4(2, the cssembled Indian monks "A minimum quorum of ten monks is needed (or references co she relevant sins passages, sce Heirman, 2001, p. 29¢ 8, 87). egy 28 ah Ete a Nation a versity Bie opehe es 183 A BRS‘pvact: FROM INDIA TO CHINA im ‘The first texts on legal procedures (karmavdcand texts) translated into ‘Chinese are, according to some catalogues,” two Dharmaguptaka texts: the Tanwoude Libu Za Fiemo BRAGS (1.1432, Karmavacand of the Dharmaguptaka School), translated in 252 AD by the Sogdian Kang Sengkai HEf38 (Samghavarman} and the Jieno #8 (T1433, Karmavicand), translated in 254 AD by the Parthian Tandi 37 (Dharmasatya)."" Also Hujjiao, in his Gaoseng zhuan,® refers to an early Dharmaguptaka darmavdcand text, translated by Tandi, Of Kang Sengkai, Huijiao™ says that he has translated four texts. Since he only gives the name of one, non-vingya, work, i is not certain that he thought a karmavdcand to be among the texts translated by Kang Sengkai. It is further remarkable that the earliest extant caralogue, the Che sanzang ji, does not mention either of these early karmavdcand translations. ‘They are only recorded in later catalogues. Moreover, A. Hirakawa™* provides extensive evidence that the two texts should be considered as a later redaction based on the Chinese Dharmaguptatauingya, T1428, ‘The similarity of the Chinese terminology indeed indicates that these karmavacana texts were probably compiled after the translation of the Dharmaguplakavinaya in the early filth century. Stil, some differences in the chapters on the sina® and the ordination reveal that the karmavacand texts are not collections of procedures merely borrowed from T.1428, bat further developments of the same Dharmaguptaka tradition ‘The above does not necessarily imply that there never were such early vingya translations. Many early Buddhist masters were convinced of their existence, and claimed that the fist legal ordinations in China E1432 Zhinheng2154.55 48629-48727, 6197-8, 06822%-24, 719b21-29(AD 130; Vinrhao, T.319738.784a17-24, 9519-16, 100719-20, 1042e13 AD #00), “CHAS: Ean tl, 2146 85.140618 (AD 594, Vanoong etal 12147 95.9518 (AD 6; gal et al T2140.5 19801718 AD Gor) Daonsan, T2149 95 2974911, Soooi5-13, $2489-16 AD 660 jing, T2191 95.38 1b6°7 (AD 627-C48) Mingquan etal, 7.2158.55.432020-29 (AD 695), Zhisheng,12154.35.48728-15, 6190-10, 719089-24 {AD 730} Yoanzhao, T2157 38.708825-1, 95251718, 1O42e16-1} (an 200), Lamoue 1958, p 595; Derive ct. 1978, p 122. 2 Lamowe 1988, p. 395: Devil tak, 1978; 123, 2% Halpin, 1205930 32540-9. ® Huijo, 1.209930:39506-8, % Hirahaa, 1970, p. 202-210, 252-288, rer to have legally vad procedure, any formal act ha to be eatied out witin'n el deed de Gn) by sharon oder sean eso nue and onanimous order, See KicBer-Pl 1992, pp. 27°00. See alo the Hotes iiscarr -¢ Heirman 20026, pp. 40207.172 [ANN HEIRMAN were based on the legal procedures of the Dharmaguptaka schoo! as described in the karmavacend texts.” As we will see further, this is prob- ably one of the reasons why the Dharmaguptaka ordination eventually was accepted as the only true one in China. But even if Chinese vinaye texts were available around the middle of the third century, they cannot have been widespread’ since about one hundred years later, monks such as Dao’an HE (312-385), pointed to the many difficulties in govern- ing the Buddhist monasteries due to the lack of such texts. In order to temporarily rectify this situation, Dao’an even made some rules of his own.” Besides this, he tried to encourage the translation of ningya texts. Dao'an himself is sometimes said to have translated a Binaiye SREB (Vingya) that was based on the Sarastvddecingya.® He further suggested inviting the famous translator Kumarajiva" (343-413) to China, The latter finally arrived in Chang'an sixteen years after Dao’an's death, 2.2, Disciphinary Rules for Nios Also for women, the lack of vinaya texts in the first period of Buddhism in China constituted a serious problem, Just like their male counterparts, ‘women could not rely on any rules to start a monastic community: In addition, since, as far as we know, nuns never crossed the mountains from India to China, no foreign community of nuns existed in China in See Herman 2002, pp. 410-416. ™ According to E- Zorcer (1500, pp, 169-102, is mainly the way how ery ‘Buddhism srend in China that cased tis defective naan of eine tts TH spresd of Budden wae ot 3 eas of "conc expansion", but the esl of a long dlnance transis” The northvess of China was initally only a transit rong, with to firm eialshments Therefore monks in more esern ait southern contra cay Jon ther feed-back, and renamision of texts ote Ted, certainly afer the Chines ine begining ofthe fourth century ls contol of the nordern part of China 2 See Huijin, 72089 50.358020-77, anda by Link 1958, pp. 99-36. Fora acustion, se Pang 1996, vl. }, pp. 212-217, Zire 1972, vot, pp 187-1095 {Gifen 193, a, 89°100; ‘utamoto 1985, ol 2, pp 699-702 (who avo points some rue eatblshed bythe monks Zi Dan 368, 2 contemporary of Daan, and Huiyuan S58, Dao'ans moe fous Gap Rio, 1994, pp 20-26 VW, 2003, p. 8-19 Gnduing the rues afDao'an's coniemporais and at Huiyuan). + See Daomuan, 2149.55 300b3-4 and 92421718: Dao'antraatd Bina togeihe with Zhu Fonian. in ll probabiy, dh refers vo a sox anne in 588 by 250 Fn, witha pei of Dan 110 aa 1970p. 79), Onsen other ange warlalons (ao lager exam) ede he ofthe Eth cen 3 Wang 194, p. 167. 3? cumsrajiva was boron Kucha (Sw) in Canal Asa At am eal age e entered ‘he monastic onder. SOL, he arse in Chang’an where be Sisingussed inset $i oustanding tanlnor of bats S=~ ro="aa at Mshayann eon ie 2 tl as 5 iF de National Pai svorsity Libra HAS SHE 1 A BASE‘cir: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 173 the first centuries AD. According to the Clu sangang ji,” the first vinaya text for nuns translated into Chinese was the Bigiuni jie HAIER (Bhiksunipratimokso, a prtimoksa text translated by Dhatmarakga in the second half of the third century AD. Sengyou adds, however, that the text is lost. Stil, since Sengyou mentions this work, A. Hlirakawa is of the opinion that it must have existed.» ‘According to the Bigiuni ziuan tt. /E(8* (Biographies of Bhiksunis), the first Chinese nun was Zhu Jingjian “7968 (ca. 292-361) When in the beginning of the fourth century, she wanted to become a nun, she ‘was told that in China the rules for nuns were not complete, but that in foreign countries these rules existed. Yet, according to the Bigiuri ctuan, in the middle of the fourth century Zhu Jingjian and four other women ‘were ordained before the blitsusamgha (‘community of monks”) on the basis of a karmavdcand andl of a pratinaksa of the Mahasarnghika school. ‘There is, however, no evidence of the spread of these Mahasamghika works, as pointed out by Z. Tsukamoto. Also after Zu Jingjian’s ordination the search for wingya rules clearly continued, This search is described in three short. comments in the Chu sonzang jj” These narrate in detail the translation into Chinese of a Bhiksueipratimokya at the end of 379 AD or in the beginning of 380 AD. The text had been obtained in Kucha (Kués} by the monk Sengchun {@6l, and has been translated by Tanmochi S884 @Dharmaj) and Zhu Fonian “2 {Bk4r. According to A. Hirakawa,” it is beyond doubt chat this no longer extant work once existed.'® The above comments also mention ® Sengyou, T2145.85.1428 ~ Hirata 1970p. 234, On the can Miurratinlis, see alo Nishimoto 1928; Heirman 2000, pp. 9-16. 2112068, 2 collecion of egraphics of Buddhist nuns compiled by Baochang BRIA between 816 and 519. I has been Undated by Tiss 1994. See ako De Rauw 2008. ® Baochang, :2063,80.954e2-93335, ‘raha 1985, vl 1, p. 426 » Sengyou, T2145 35 8031-24, 81825-c17 and Ble18-82a17. These pasnges have been trumlacdl and snnosaied in ukarnoto 1985, vo. 1, pp. 636-GH, note 17. 3 tpukamoro 1905, wl p. 420. » Hiraawa 1870, pp, 236 25. 1 See also Sengyou, T2445 55, 10326-28: an “ince” (Me Boucher 20006) ces obisined by Sengehun in Kuga athe time of ErperorJianven (371-372 AD) of the (Eastern) Jin and brought by isn to Guanzhong BP Ge the present-day Shen), where he had translated by Zins Fnian, Tanmoch and Huichang ‘This txts fur ther mendoned in the folowing atlogues: Paige ly T'2146.33,405 |; Dacnuan, “T2149.35 2500 18-16; Jingman 12151 39.386_24-25; Zhisheng, T2134 95.510e3 and 6486-7; Vanslio e aly 72197-50709 and 98467-8,174 ANN HEIRMAN that, an apocryphal tradition of five hundred precepts for dhiksunis compiled by the monk Mili FLAE, had existed, but was lost. Finally, a complete set of rules for nuns became available when in the beginning of the fifth century, four vingyas were translated into Chinese. r 2.3, Faxian Goes to India ‘As seen above, in the fourth century, there was not yet a Chinese transla tion of an entire vingya text. This deficiency prompted the monk Faxian YEIBL to undertake a trip from Chang’an to India in 399. His travel account tells us that his main purpose was to obtain an original version of the wingya."' This was not an easy task, since, according to Faxian, in the countries of “Northern Indian’, vingya texts were transmitted only orally" Consequently, Faxian had to go further south to what he calls “Central India”,!* where, in Pataliputra'® (modern Patna), he succeeded in copying the vingya of the Mahasamghika school. Ele was also able to obtain extracts of the Sarvastoddacinaya, Faxian remarks that the latter oingy was the vingya used by the Chinese at that time, bat that it was, in China, transmitted only orally? On his journey further to the south, he received a copy of the Mahitasakauingya in Sr Lanka." After a long and perilous journey at sea, he finally sailed back to China in 414, Although his ship totaly lost its directions, it eventu- ally managed to reach the present-day province of Shandong. From there, Faxian travelled south to Jiankang, where the Buddhist master Buddhabhadra translated several of the texts that he had obtained, including the Mahasdghikevinaya.!” * Gansang Raion chun, 1.2085, 51,85706-N, 854b17, B13. © Bes Tiancha gh gue AER HHH (Pasian, 12085.81.868617). 1 Faxian, 72008 §LAGab1 + hong Tiel PR (Huliao, 2089 50:540a17; Pasian, T2085.51.864b18- 19, $l 2 Mahayana monster ced the Devt nary (Rot 170, wp. ‘Extracts co #9, cf. Nakamura 1985, p 712), consisting of ca. seven thous sand sanzas (Pian, 7.2005 51,854025-24). According to Sengyol, £2145.35.1287 4nd 13-14, these extrac have not ben iarlte * Fasan, £2005.51 54025-25, © Huljao, £2059.80.39824; Fasan, T.20R6.51.865c24, or deals on this copy see de Jong 1981, pp. 169-113. © Hija, £2089 50398015-18, Abney ‘AeVINATA: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 175 3. Tae TRANSLATION oF Viniva Texts: Te NorTuean Soxoots 3.1, The Fifth Century ‘The first vinay texts entered China via the northern land routes. These texts all belong to the so-called northern tradition, in opposition to the southern, that is, the Pali Theravada tradition. At the end of the fourth century, no complete vingya had yet been translated. This situa~ tion changed rapidly when in the beginning of the filth century four complete vinayas were translated into Chinese.*" The first one was the Shisong li 3H (1.1435, Vinaya in Ten Recitations), Sarvastivadavinaya, translated between 404 and 409 by Punyatrata/Punyatara* Kumarajiva and Dharmaruci, and revised a few years later by Vimalaksa.® The translation team worked in Chang'an, at that time the capital of the Yao Qin WEE or Later Qin BIE (384-417), one of the northern 2 Since that time, and apart from the four complete vnges, many other raya texts, such a5 lists of precepts (primates) and tists of procedures (Aermandcens) have been translated. Among the later texts aso figure some texts of two other schools of which comple einyar do not survive in, Chinese, These are the Kaiyaptya school of which a Bhisnptimeke has been translated by Prajarucl in 948 (Jere Jisng BRACE, Psnmatzsiro, T1460) and the Sammadya school, known though the torandon Of a commentary on alos dlkmpratinotse by Parana in 368 (Lt tit ing en BEF —BH TY, Explanatory Commentary on Twerty-«wo Stanzas of the Ving, T1461). Tor deal, see Yaya 1979. 2"The ith century alo saw a growing populargy ofthe so~alle Dadi rules, itended to provide the Chinese Buddhist eommurty wth a guide of Mahayana moeal precepts ‘The mot influential text isthe Roeang yng EAA (T1488), the Pras ‘Ne Sie, that concains asc of fifty-eight precepts This text has been translated into French by J} Me De Groot, Leaded Mataynson Ching, So infer evi cle ‘a0 le nde liu, Amsterdam, Jobannes Niler 1898. Athough the Fomoan og s tradiionally sido have been trandated from Sanskrit imwo Chinese by Rumarava jn 06, its in facta text composed in China probably around the mile of the fith century. The Rico ing was considered to be a Mahayana supplement, and in China unet today the ordination based on the tadisonal Hitaysna eine texts always comes first. This iin accordance with the opinion expressed in texts such a5 the Bosattabin, Soe 9 th Bost, of which two transaons(pomibly based ‘on oo diferene Indian version, ef Groner, 1990), p. 226) were made in the fifth ‘cemury: One is the Pusadichi jing SAREE (1.1981), translated by Tanvruchen PIER serveen 414 and 421 (et, in partcalag 1381/90.910050), Phe osher one Is the Pwashayie jig BAPRETEHE (71882 and 7.1583 (ihe later text might in the fact be the temh'sroll of 1582, ef. Kuo 1994, p. 40), wandated by Gupavarman in 431 (er, in particular, 131585 30.1013e24-1014a2), For more dels se, among thers, Demiévle, 1930; Groner 1990a, pp. 251-257; Groner 195; Kuo 1994, pp. 37-38. # Furuoduoluo #82 SE, ® See Yuyama 1979, p. 8 Geet 1880, p. 165, BFE Za i National versity Libr vA176 ANN HEIRMAN dynasties. According to the Gaoseng zhuan,® the Kashmirian monk Punyatrata recited the Indian text, while Kumsrajiva translated it into Chinese. Kumarajiva was born in Kucha, the son of an Indian father. [is mother was related to the Kucha royal family. When the text was not, yet finished, Punyatrata died. His task was continued by another western monk, Dharmaruci, who is said to have brought with him a copy of the text In 406, the Kashmirian monk Vimalaksa came to Chang'an to meet Kumarajiva. Vimalaksa had been Kumarajiva’s teacher in Kucha. From him, Kumarajiva had learned the Saredstoadavingya. After the death of Kumarajiva, Vimalaksa left Chang'an and went to the present day province of Anhui 208 There, he revised Kurmarajva’s translation. Vimalaksa continued to propagate the Sareastoadavinaya and his teaching even reached the southern capital Jiankang BE5R. ‘A second inaya translated into Chinese, was the Sifin tu BUSH (1.1428, Vingya in Four Parts), Dharmaguptakavingya,” translated by Baddhayagas and Zhu Fonian® = 4B & between 410 and 412. Buddhayafas was born in Kashmir (Kaémtra), After his ordination, he ‘went to Kashgar, where he met his former disciple Kumarajiva, He later moved to Kucha, and then finally travelled to Chang'an where he again encountered Kumarajiva It was in Chang'an that a translation team led by Buddhayasas began to translate the Dharmaguptakavnaya. Buddhayaéas recited the text by memory, Zhu Fonian, bora in Liangzhou Bit] in the present-day Gansu #1 AR province, translated it into Chinese, and the Chinese Daohan iff wrote down the translation. ‘The next vingya that was translated, was the Mohesenggi ti HEA HEE (1.1425), Makasamghikocinays.” transiated by Buddhabhadra and Fasian® BEE between 416 and 418 in Jiankang, the capital of the * Ser the biographies of Kumarajva, Punyatrita, Dharmaruci and Vimalakga (ujiao, 1.2059.50.390a10-283e14, wanslated by Shih 1968, pp. 60-88). See aso the cariee extant catalogue, Sengyou, £2145.55.20828-b21 Hujiao, 2059-50 39500-7. & For a trarsacion into English of the rules for aun (11428.22.714n2-778b13), see Heiman 2002, Soe the biographies of Zhu Fonian and of Buddhayasss (Huijino, T.2059.50.329328, bbt5, 335¢15-334625, candated by Shih 1968, pp. 35-96, 85-90). % According o Z. Tsukamoto (1985, vel. 2,p. 738), Zhu Fonian was possibly an Indian whase lamily bad lived in China for generations, ‘For more deals, see Heieman 2002, yet ly pp 24°25, “The rules for nuns (1:1425.22.471a25~4705b1 | and 314425-547428) have been tunnslated ino English by Hirakawa, 1902. See the biographies of Buddhabhadra sn Fasian (Huijioe, T:2089.50 $34626- 385e14 and 37019-S58025, eranlated bv Sih TOR yp, 8098 and 108-119) yA Sew aiwan Univer ve SCR A fiovtri: FROM INDIA TO CHINA m7 Southern Song FA dynasty. The text had been brought back by Faxian from Pataliputra."* Buddhabhadra was born in Kapilavast. Afier his ordination, he went to Kashmir and then to China, where he visited several cities. In Jiankang, he translated the Mahisinghikavingya together with Faxian, Finally, according to the Gaoseng zhuan, the Mishasai bu hexi wufen bi BAe RABAT SH (1.1421, Vingya in Five Parts of the Mahéasakas), Mahiéésokavingya, has been translated by Buddhajiva,® Zhisheng #919, Daosheng #42 and Huiyan 484% between 423 and 424°" The transla- tion team worked in Jiankang, Buddhajva held the text, the Khotanese monk Zhisheng translated it into Chinese, while Daosheng and Huiyan wrote down the translation and revised it. The task of Buddhafiva thus seems to have been to read the basic text aloud. This is in all probability the text that Faxian had obtained in Sri Lanka. 3.2. The Eighth Century ‘Much lates, in the beginning of the eighth century® the monk Yi jing #£7% translated large parts of the Miilasarodstivédavinaya (Genben 2 For more deals, see Roth 1970, yp ii Hirakawa 1982, pp. 4, 9-10. & Thujino, £2059.50.335e9~10, 40501618, Huijiao, 1.2059,50,839a9-10. See also the following catalogues: Sengyou, 7.2145.55.21825-bl (Buddhajwva, Zhisheng, Daosheng and Huliyan), 11 |a28-03 (Guddhajora and Zhisheng) Fag et a, 2146 5.140314 Buddhajva and Zisheng) Yancong cal T2147 59.185012°15 (Besa Zheng jing al, 218835. 1882-3 (Budglajva and Zhisheng). “ See the biography of Buddhajva (Huan, 7:2059,50,39989-18, transtated by ‘Shib 1968, pp. 118-119). © Yuyama 1979, pp. 37-38, places the ranslation bowveen 422 and 423 and does not mention the monk Zhisheng. © CL Huijiao, 7:2050.50.33945-6, 403b16-18; Sengyou, T2148,55.2al4-15. See also de Jong 1981, p. 109. © Around the same time, the Chinese Chan clerics begun 10 develop their own ‘monsatic codes mainly aimed at che practical organisation of the monasteries. While cottinuing to rely on the Indian eine (or ordination and moral guidelines, the Chan ‘mons in the course of time, developed seseral sof rules to gover the monastic com ‘uni These codes are commonly called ginggu 78%, “pure rules” Although teaiion lam thatthe “pure rules” ll merely develop guidelines made by the monk Baizhang (749-814), they contain many elements that en be traced back to earlier Buddhist oles, even non-Chan rules ‘The earliest exlant code isthe Chanywan ginggt FAHD {he Pure Rules forthe Chan Monastery) compiled in 105. The most influendal et 's the GliixBaichaggingut WEIS C4 (The Pure Rules of Baizhang Correcied by Imperial Order), compiled ea. 1335. The Chan codes gradually became the standard uleines fo dc orgntain of ll Chinese pubic manasteries, See oul 1987, pa 2-99; Fitz 1994, pp. 1-111, followed by a parsal translation of the Chiu Bohong inggi; Yi 2002, pp. 1-98, foloweel by a randaton of the Changwon ginger. bo ceoity Library HABE178 ANN HEIRMAN. shuayigigyon bu pinaiye BAR— WA BLAM, T.1442-T.1451) into Chinese, as well as other wingya texts belonging to the same school.” The origin of the Milasersstvddavingya is still under debate. On the ‘one hand, it contains very old material, while on the other hang, it also includes elements added at a time when all the other vinayas already bad been finalised and additions to them were no longer allowed. This seems to be the result of the fact that it was the vinaya of the Sautrantikas, a Sarvastivada branch that became the dominant one between the fifth and the seventh centuries.” Once the domination of the Sautrantikas ‘was established, they renamed themselves as Molasarvastivadins that is, the original Sarvastivadins.” Thetr vinay, now also finalised, became the prevailing vinaya in Northern and Central India, especially in Nalanda, a famous centre of Buddhist studies.” In this sense, itis not surprising that during his stay in India (671-695), and during the more than ten years that he spent in Nalanda, Yijing was confronted mainly with the Milaservastvadavinaya. As it is clear from his travel account (1.2125), for Yijing, disciplinary rules were very important, and he was concerned with the Chinese vinaya situation. According to him, many misinterpretations had been handed down,” and it was even getting difficult to understand he vingya because so many men had already handled it. The only way out was to return to the original texts themselves.” Therefore, Vijing was of the opinion that the Milasreitidavnea, a Tiberan ranstaon as well as many Sanskei rage moots are extant. For deals see Yuyama 1979, pp, 12-83. ® Willemen, Desein & Cox 1998, pp. 125; Heirman 1999, pp. 855-856, “The fact tha the Molasarvasividins call themselves “il whether to be inter= preted as “the origina” Sarvastivadins) or as “the rene” ff other sects) (ef Enomoto 2000, pp. 240-244), and the fac dha in some tens, the Molasarvastvadias and the ‘Sarvstvidins are considered as belonging to ane and the same raciion, des no imply that there is ao dillerence between the two school. Althougl the Soredstvadeiya and she AMilsereiadasnaya are sir, they also ifr in many ingances, and therefore We shorter Sardsivsdvinayecanoot jum be a summary of dhe longer Milauarsdstedderinay, sit was claimed inthe Maldprpdramitpadea (7. 1809,25,756¢5~5; eee abso Wilemen, Desscin & Cox 1996, pp. 88-89; Enomoto 2000, pp. 244-245). On dhe other hand, Le similarses benseen the wo vingyar revel that, to a certain extent, they developed in a parallel way. For more details see Feirman 1999, pp. 852 866. = Wang 1994, pp. 180-183; Kieter-Pilz 2000, pp. 219 $02. 2 Nijing, 12125 54-206291-22. Yijing, T:2125.54.205¢20-206ad. Vijing compares ube enya situation with a deep ‘wel, he water of which has been spoiled alter a river has overflowed. IF a they mad ‘wishes to drink of dhe pure water of the wel, he ean only do 50 by endangering his lite. jing adds that this Kind of situation would not vcwur if ane only abided by the sina Cexts themselves (and not bythe Iter commer) Lot mde gs 2 a He 4 niversit f SHAG‘BUNGE: FROM INDIA TO CHINA, 179 the original disciplinary rules—as one could still find chem in India—had to be emphasised. He took the Milasareastivadavingya as a. basis. By doing 30, Yijing never said that the other vingyas were less valuable. To ‘Yijing, the only important fact was that one followed one, unspoiled sinaya.™ His own preference for the Millasarestivadavinaya seems to rely mainly on two facts, First of all, because of his long stay in Nalanda, he had become an expert of the Milasaredstivddavinaya, and secondly, this Indian vinaya had not yet been spoiled by any Chinese commentar- ies and interpretations. Despite the translation of Yijing, however, the ‘Milasoroéstivadavinaya did not become popular in the Chinese monaster- ies. Instead, as we will see further, it was the Dkarmaguptakacingsa that with the help of an imperial edict issued by the Emperor Zhongzong "PAR (f. 705-710), conquered the whole of China.” 3.3, The Origin of the Northern Vingyas The above has shown that in China, there were mainly two centres of singya translation: Chang'an (Xi'an) in the north, and Jiankang (Nanjing) in the south. As for the origin and the original languages of the Indian ina translated into Chinese, the information is generally rather scarce. Some scholars have tried to gain some more knowledge by analysing the phonetic renderings used in the transtations of these texts. A serious difficulty for this kind of study is the cumulative tradition of standard terms that were passed down from translator to translator and that therefore do not testify the linguistic situation of the text in which they Vijing undestines that each teadicon equally leas to nirain, but thatthe precepts ofthe diferent schools should not be intermingled (:2125.54 2050286). cis noc impossible thac the Empress Wu Zetan (, 650-708) had in mind wing the newly aesived singa to er advantage (personal communication of the Inte Professor Force, apo Yjing was iodeed clasely inked to the imperial court of Wa Zeta, and afer his earn ffom Indian 695, be resided inthe mast important dynastic monastery the Da Puxian Si ACHHSESF in che capital Luoyang This monastery had been founded by Wu Zetia, and was a centre of translation and propaganda for the empress. It also had an ordination platform (Forte 1983, p. 695) fs thus aot imposible thatthe empress might have thought to use the dlaardntsadevingye for her own purposes, comerting China into a Buddhist state ce Forte 1976; 1992, pp. 219-231). fut time vas nol on her sie. Although a Molasorvasivida kamadcand (et of procedures) and A sneyandhoe list of rules and ie commentary) for monks had been transiated by 703, the translation of the Mfdaswedtivideuingya a8 2 whole was fished only afi Wo ‘Zeian’s death in 705 (see Yuyama 1979, pp. 12-33; Matsumura 199, pp 171.173). [Nonciheless, the retacon between her imperial cour and the ute of certain ena ext, ‘esmains an intriguing subjec for further research,180 ANN HEIRMAN appear” Still, an analysis of the Chinese renderings combined to the study of the extant Indian manuscripts can provide strong clues.”” The first vinaya translated into Chinese was the one of the Sarvas- tivadins, the prominent school in Northwest India and in Central Asia.” Although they once used Northwest Prakrt (i.e., Gandhart}” by the time that Kumarajiva made his translations, the language used by the Sarvastivadins was Buddhist Sanskrit. Of the Dharmaguptakas, it has been argued that they originally used Gandhars, gradually wrned to Buddhist Sanskrit, and eventually used Sanskrit Also, the Dharmaguptakas seem to have been prominent in the Gandhara region." Therefore, since in the fifth century, Gandhart ‘was stil in use, itis not impossible that the Indian Diarmaguplakevinaya, recited by Buddhayasas, is related to the Gandhart tradition.® ‘The Mahasamghikas are attested mainly in the northern and the central part of the Indian subcontinent™ Since they were active in the Gandhara region, they presumably once used Gandhars.” How- ever, the most prominent language used by the Mahasimghikas, or al least by the Mahasimghika-Tokottaravadins, a sub-branch of the “Mahaisamghikas, seems to be a ‘language in the transiionat state from Prakrit to Sanskrit’. As for the Mahisasakas, attested in Andhra Prades, in Panjab and in Pakistan (Uddiyana),® not a Jot is known on the original language of % Paleybiank 1999, p. U7 For more detail sf Boucher 1958. © Rieter Pole 2000, pp. 297 258, © Fussoan 1989, pp. 441-4; Salomon 1999, p11 © von Hiner 1989, pp. 353-854; von Simson 2000, pp. 2-4 © Waldschmit 1980; pp. 164-169; Chung & Wile 1997, pp 92-35. M, Nishimura (0997, pp. 260-265), onthe other hand, of the opinion dat ony two ing pases tan be dacerned inthe Dhar maguptac adios 1) Gandbaet, 2) Bacdhise Sars For fuer deta sce Heirman 2002 pp 400-103, {1 Salomon 1989, pp. 166-178. Funhur tad, however, is neded ta deteraine hose important the postion of the Dharmaguptakas exacdy was (Alon and Salomon 2000, Pp. 271-273; Boucher 2000s, pp. 63-09% Lene 2003, pp 17-19} A further indication of fe Gandhie origin, is a teference to Wie Arapacana s- Inbacy fund in the Dharnaetloingyy T4962 089al4. [nal probability this “m= Inbary was orignal frmulsed n'a Gandharrspeaking environment and titer tng Rharosisoript Salomon 1990, p. 271) “eile Plz £000, 293. ® Salomon 1999, p. [71 ® Roth 1970, pp. fe-v,Sc sts von Hiniber 1989, pp 359-351. On the Rates of his language ace Rod, 1970, p.-l 1980, pp. 8-93. Kiar Pe 2600, p 290 ioratYar: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 181 their vingya, Stil, atleast for the vingya text translated into Chinese, a few scholars have advanced the hypothesis that it was written in Sanskrit ‘This is based on some preliminary studies of the phonetic renderings, as well as on the fact that the biography of the Kashmirian transla- tor Buddhajiva says that in his youth in Kashmir, he had a Buddhist ‘master belonging to the Mahisasaka school.” Since in Kashmir, the prominent Buddhist language was Sanskrit, the latter language is put forward as a not improbable guess." In an article on the texts found by Faxian in Sri Lanka," however, J. W. de Jong is doubtful about this hypothesis. He points out that the studies on the phonetic renderings certainly do not give a clear picture, and that the origin of one of the translators cannot be proof enough of the language that he used. In that context, he underlines that Buddhayasas too was from Kashmir He was one of the translators of the Dharmagaplakavinaya, a vineya that most probably was not translated from Sanskrit. Finally, for the Milasarestinadaoinaya, the situation is comparatively clear. The original text was written in Sanskrit, and, as indicated above, at the time of Yijing, it was the prominent vingya in the region of Nalanda.” 4, THe TRANSLATION OF THE THERAVADA ‘TRADITION It is clear that the above mentioned translations all are related to the languages of northern Buddhism, that is, Gandhart, Buddhist Sanskrit and Sanskrit. Not one extant vingya is related to the Sinhalese Pali tradi tion, despite the fact of quite frequent contact between China and Sri Lanka at a time when the Chinese Buddhist community was eagerly Jooking for as many Indian texts as possible. 4.1, Cantact Sri Lanka~-China As is sill the case today, the southern or Theravaca tradition was pre- dominant on the island of Sri Lanka at the time of the Chinese viagya translations. Contrary to the northern tradition, its texts never reached China via the northern land routes. The language of the original texts % Hujino, 7:2059,50,99903-4. % Demiéville 1975, p. 203: von Hiniber 1989, p. 354. 2 de Jong 1981, pp. 109-112, © ar more dels, sce KielferPalz 2000, pp. 209-300, i192 ASN MEIRMAN is Pali, and its followers are predominantly Hinayanists. Although, in the first centuries of the spread of Buddhism in China, Sri Lanka was much less known than many other parts of the Indian subcontinent, the Chinese were certainly aware of the existence of a Sinhalese Buddhist community. Apart from the visit of the monk Faxian to the island (see above), several other contacts between Sri Lanka and China have been recorded, both in Buddhist texts and in secular historical sources. Maybe the most striking example of obvious contact between the Theravada Sinhalese Buddhist communities and the corumunities in China is the (second) ordination ceremony of Chinese nuns ca. 433. As seen above, the first Chinese nun Zhu Jingjian was ordained in the presence of the Bhiksusmgha only. This goes against one of the fundamental rules {(gerudtarma}?" accepted by the first Indian nun Mahaprajapati as a condi- tion for the creation of a bhitswrisangha. One of these rules states that a woman should be ordained first in the presence of a bhiksurixamgha and then in the presence of a bkitsuangha. Most fifth century Chinese vinayas specify that ten nuns are required for the first ceremony in the Dhiksunisangha.® This procedure has assured the proper and uninter- rupted transmission of the rules for women from the time of the Buddha onward. In China, however, it is clear that, originally, the rule hhad not been followed, since at the time of Zhu Jingjian’s ordination, there was no Chinese bhiswrtangha, This situation led to discussion as mentioned in several biographies of the Bigiuné zhuan*® Tt reached its peak in the first half of the fifth century. At that time, in 429, a foreign boat captain named Nanti RE#, brought several Sinhalese ‘nuns to Jiankang, the capital of the Southern Song dynasty.” For the first time, a group of fully ordained foreign nuns was present in China Yet, their number was not sufficient, a problem that was solved a few years later when a second group of eleven Sinhalese nuns arrived. ora discussion of the rues see, among others, Homer 1980, pp. 118-161; Nolot 1991, pp. 397-405; Hisken 1998, pp. 154164; Heirman 1997, pp. 34-43; Hisken 19976, pp. 345-366; Heirman 1998; Heirman 2002, part 1, pp. 63-65. © Mahisahvingya, TL421.22.187e7-8; Mahisinghiningy, 1425.22 473c24-26; Diarmegypokainye, °E1428.22.763524, 6328-29. Inthe Sersetvedsingys, C1485, the number of nuns is not explcidy mentioned. For more details, see Heieman 2001, ‘pp, 294-295, note BB * Baockang, 1.2068.50.934e24-25, 987b25-c4, 99GeI4-21, 941a16-22. See uijiao, Goosen nan, T-2059.50 94 1228-7 > Baochang, 12063.50.98%e12-[4, According to Hui group consisted of eight auns. "Baochang, .2063,50,93921-22, st4e5-5, 72059,50.341a2%, the SHES: EeYA: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 183, Consequently, it became possible to offer the Chinese nuns a second ordination, this time in the presence of an adequate quorum of fully ordained nuns. Afterwards, the discussion on the validity of the Chinese runs’ ordination died out.” ‘Apart from the Sinhalese delegations that made the second ordination of Chinese nuns possible, around the end of the fourth and the begin- ning of the fifth century also other missions from Sri Lanka to Southern China took place." According to the Biancheng ln BEES" (Essay on the Discernment of Right), the sumara Tanmocuo S¢E0 was sent to the court of the Chinese Emperor Xiaowu Zi (r. 373-396) by the king of Sri Lanka who was impressed by the emperor’s devotion to Buddhism." He was to present to the Chinese emperor a statue of jade. The Oficial Histories of the Liang" and of the Southern Dynasties," as well as the Gaoseng ztuan,'® further mention that the Sinhalese mission arrived at the Chinese court during the yixi period (405-418) of Emperor An’s 3 reign.” This implies that the journey must have lasted at least ten years. According to B. Ziircher, this is very improbable. He points out that the long period might be the result of a chronological computation by Chinese historians who wanted to account for the fact that the present was destined for the Emperor Xiaowa (who died in 396), but only arrived during the yixi period. E, Ziircher argues that this artificial ealeulation is not necessary since © The basic cext ed at the erdination ceremony is aoe mneniioned in any source It presumably was 2 Chinese sae, For a dizeussion, see Heirman 2001, pp. 289-298, ‘The northern par of China had less coniaet with $15 Tanks, Sil, according to the Hse IL, vol. & p. 3086, in the beginning of the Tai'an period (455 460), five Sinhalese mons reached the Northeen Wei capital. The mons tid thae they Inad waversed the countries of the Western Regions, which reuns that, contrary t9 the Sinhalese missions that mest probably went co the south of China using the sea rout, they had. come overland, "Compiled by the monk Falin (672-640: T.2110.52.502c27-29, ‘8 Variant in Hula, 2050.50.41 Tznmoyi SBME. \ccording to E. Zircher (2972, vl. 1, p- 152}, the name might be a rendering of Dharonayukts- "0 On this mission, see also Lévi 1900, pp. 414-415; Zurcher 1972, vol. t, ps2. "aang 54, vol, 3, p. 806. "© Nani 78, vo, 6, po 1964, ‘ Hhuifiaa, 12059 50.41062-5. See also Zhipan, 1.203549 456225-26. 2 According to F. Zrcher (1872, vol 2, p. 371 n. 375), the oldest but no longer ‘gtant source may have been the anonymous Jn Nien sh Shisius sion bol yu sang ji ‘BFR AMALIE (Accoun| of the White Jade State Presented [by the King of] Sri Lanka at tye Time of the Jin Emperor Xizown, a work mentioned in Sengyou's catalogue (.214553.922) ‘i Zurcher, 1972, ol. 1, p. 152. fe peEsiey CCEA B194 ANN HEIRMAN even when the present was destined for Xiaowu, the mission can have started many years after 396, the Sinhalese court having no up-to-date information on the death of the Chinese emperor. Further referring to a note in che Official History of the Jin dynasty! thar says that in 413, Dashi Xfi" sent a tribute of regional products to the Chinese court, E. Ziircher concludes that the year 413 might be the year that the envoy arrived. The statue of jade. four feet and two inches high, ‘was placed in the Waguan monastery (Waguan si I. '#¥), an important monastery in the capital Jiankang where many prominent monks such as Zhu Sengfu “(i & (ca. 300-370) and Zhu Fatai “7K (320-387) had resided." The Liangstu'"® and the Nanski”® further mention that besides the jade statue, the envoy also brought ten packages (za it) of texts It is nor clear which texts these might have been. ‘The period that saw the most extensive contact between the Chinese and the Sinhalese courts was the period between 428 and 435. Not only did the boat capsain Nanti bring several Sinhalese nuns to the Chinese capital Jiankang, the Sinhalese king Mahanama (reigned 409-431)" repeatedly sent products and messages to the Chinese Emperor Wen ‘KX (reigned 424-453) of the Song dynasty.!’> According to the entry (on Sxi Lanka in the Official History of the Song dynasty"* in the fifth year of the suaqjia period of Emperor Wen (428), the Sinhalese king sent a delegation to the Chinese court to pay tribute. Four monks!” offered the emperor two white robes and a statue with an ivory ped- cestal."® There was also a letter in which the king asked for an answer to be sent back to him. In the section on Emperor Wen, however, the ‘Songs does not mention any tribute paid by Sri Lanka in the fith year of yuanja, but it mentions such a tribute in the seventh year (430)." Tinh 10, walt, 264 v9 Probably De Sejpo KER / $F, Soi Lanka See Zarcher, 1972, vo. 1, 147-150; Toukamoto 1985, vol. 1, pp. $85~396, ° Liga 54, we. 3, p 50. °° Kens 18, vol. 6, p96. "Based on Geiger 1960, p. 224 8 ordeals on the masitine relations berwren Soutbeast Asia and China, see Zircher 2002, pp. 30-82 18 Sh 37, 08 9. 2304, 1 EX, men who practice the way. “This delegaton te also mentioned in dhe Nauk 78, ol 6, p. 1965, The Lengsha ‘5, vo. 3, p- 000, refers to & delegation inthe sts yar of ean (429). On tis mi sion sce aso Lis 1900, pp 412-413, "8 Simp 5, vol 78. Allo mentioned in the Nan 2, vo. 1 7b 5 LE th be wan vorxa: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 185 Also the Buddhist historian Zhipan #48 (A. 1258-1269) refers in his Focu tong $6#H8EEC'™ (Record of the Lineage of the Buddha and Patriarch) to a Sinhalese tribute mission. He places it in the fith year of juavjia (428). According to Zhipan, the Emperor Wen replied to ‘Mahanama’s letter. He told the Sinhalese king that there were scarcely any Hinayana texts in China and asked the king to send him copies. It is not clear whether or not the king ever received such a request and whether or not he answered is, but the fact that Zhipan’s text is very late diminishes its credibility on this matter. ‘The Official Histories of the Song, of the Liang and of the Southern Dynasties, further mention that in the twelfth year of yuanja (435), the Sinhalese again sent an envoy to pay wibute."® The Liangshu and the Nanshi add that also in 527, a Sinhalese king called Jiaye (Fiaske) jialuo belive HONEA BFB™ sent tribute to China. The letter addressed to the emperor is an almost exact copy of the former king Mahanama’s Jeeter!"™ 4.2. The Pali Theravada Tradition At the time of the first contact between the Sinhalese and the Chinese communities, there were two leading monasteries in Sri Lanka: the Abhayagirivihaira and the Mahavihara, The Abhayagirivihara was founded by king Vattagamani Abhaya between 29 and 17 BC. It 5.49 SEGIG-18, 496c27-28, 3, vl, pp. 83:97, vol 8, p. 2884 Longa 54, vol 3, p. B00: Nan 2, p48, 7, vol. 6 1265. The Aanchao Song heyoo (p. 717), Important Documents of the Southern Dynasty of he Sng, compiled by Zhu Mingpan in the second fall of the nineteenth centry seers tothe Nanaia concludes that there ous have been three delegations: 428, 8 $30 and in 433. "ng 3, Vol. |, p71; 54 VOL 8p 800; Naat 7, vol 1, p. 205; 78, 0b 6, 1965 (Jie (efi jt lle AREURETSEA), Te not clea to whom enacy thane eh eping ng nS Lana var ing Sian Ce 10, 225). According to Liv (1800, p. #20, eh” might refer Faso, “hal” 10 Esme eon of eb igh be the Seen my aye fr novice Tn theca fo nantes were nermingled, poubly the name of her ing King Saka, who in Inala indeed became nonce (C6 CaW p36, 3945-40), and thename of a son of the former King Upatie, namely Kasei, who dsp the legacy Sia ngs, Wh ray ta oD, Side Di the reference to he Pa trator 1 According o E Zircher (2002, p. 5, n. 25) itmay be thst the authentic Liang mates had been lost, and thatthe compilers of the Oficial Hiuory of the Liang ‘hase ofl the gap by “borrowing” the Song tex186 ANN HEIRMAN became a strong rival of the Mahavihara, founded during the reign of Devanampiya Tissa (247-207 BC)."® With the support of several kings, the Abhayagirivihara gradually expanded. In his travel account,"* the ‘monk Faxian describes the monastery as a very rich place with five thou sand monks, receiving the support of the royal house. The Mabavihara, according to Faxian, had three thousand monks. He describes it as the second most important monastery, also frequented by the king. He does not tell us about any rivalry between the two monasteries. Not a lot is known about what was particular to the Abhayagirivihara. Most, if not all their texts have completely disappeared after king Parakkamabah I (1153-1186) decided to reunify the three Theravada sgroups of Anuradhapura: the Abhayagirivihara, the Jetavanavihiral”™ and the Mahavihara. The monks of the first vo monasteries were re-ordained according to the Mahavihara tradition. Consequently, the Mahavihara texts gractually became the only ones to survive, while the Abhayagirivihara viewpoints arc only known from a very small number of quotations in non-Abhayagirivihara Pali texts." In fifth and sixth century China, apart from the account of Faxian, no other texts report on the situation of the Sinhalese Buddhist com- munities. Also on the Pali Theravada tradition as a whole, the Chinese had litle information since only a few Pali texts were ever translated into Chinese. OF these, two texts are extant: the Jietuo daolun REBEL (1648, Treatise on the Path to Liberation) and the Shanjan li pipesha SRRE BM (1.1462, “Good for Seeing” Commentary). In addi- tion, a translation of a Theravada vinaye (Tapili {{h.E2¥l)) by the monk Mahayana" is mentioned in the catalogues but is no longer extant. ‘Also the now lost Wisbai bensleng jing HEA (Stra of the Five Hundred Jatakas), also translated by Mahayana was possibly based on a Pali texi."™® "3 Geiger 1960, yp. 186, 225; Res, 198, pp. 04-92. 13 oles srg aeion2 "Inthe rd conta, de Sagatas, ier eed the Jtavanaviaravson, si tom Se Nata ene ahh end se ce 18 P at Non Hiniber 1996, pp. 22-23. One Pal text, the Sadlamnepiyan, he date of bic uncer, ssc abe wo the Abhay eager Sie he Athayapteeaart rt aan oe Hoe 1996 p30) 1 This acm bea surname gen toa monk weve in Mayen tee. See frimtoce tcInn ont Gana ed 48) nh wos ele aay Begun sach 4 Sehayans tens ys 2089 0 3p Seon Hier th. 37 addon, te olny HERE REE (:146, Le fe yersit DR LA ip‘vA: PROM INDIA TO CHINA 187 ‘The Fietwo daotun oF Vimultimagga is a manual of the Theravada tra~ dition compited by a certain Upatissa."” The original Pali text is lost, but the Chinese translation is still extant. It was made by the monk *Samghabhara™” {@(H13EH of Funan" in 515. “The Shanjian ta piposka is a partial translation into Chinese of the Pali ‘Samantapasadika, a fourth or fifth century Mahavihara commentary on the Pali Fingya. The translation was made by the monk Samghabhadra {in 488-489, and shows the influence of many other Chinese traditions." It seems not to have been widely diffused, since the earliest biography ‘works! do not even mention it once among the works studied by the Buddhist masters." Its, however, briefly mentioned as an existing wingya text in the additional commentary on the oinaya masters in the Gaoseng Questions of Up, ransated in the fifth century has sometimes been considered as ‘text based on a Pal original. This hypathesis is now rejected by most scholars for more details see Heirman, 2004, p. 377, " von Hinbber 1996, pp. 128-126 ' Demivile etal 1978, p. 281: the reconstruction of the name is uncertain "Along the Mekong River. In the fist centuries AD, Funan had a very important caport frequented by both Indian and Chinese travellers Becaue of the winds these traellers weve ollen ohiged to remain in the pore for several mond. This sGavulated 2 cultural dialogue, parucularly besween Funan and India Tarling 1999, Vol. 1, pp. 192-196), See also Riefier-Palz 2000, pp. 435-459, ‘The Chinese version has been translated by N. R. M. Ehara, Soma Thera and Kheminda ‘Thera under the tile The Pith of Freda by de Aralant Upatcia, Troelated into Chinse bythe Tip Saghapaa of Finan (Golaxabe 1961) "> Samghabhadea clearly underwent the influence of the Chinese environment he was living tn. He (or his deples, Bapat und Hirakavwa 1970, p. Il) adapted the text to the Chinese habits, shoving familiarity with the Chinese sinayas, pardeolaly with the Dharmagupiakainey and the Sareinedasinya. See Heisman, 200%. "% Hula, Geng eluen (1.2089) compiled around AD 530; Daoxuan, Xu gaosng ven (1.2060), the final version of which hae probably been compiled by Daoxuan's ‘iciplesshorly aller his death in 667 (Wagner 1995, pp. 78-79}; and Zanning, Song eg huan (7.2061), compile around 983, and covering the period berween Dace Aeath and the eaxly Song (Dalia 1987, p. 16) ‘9 Sil, dhe works mentioned in several catalogues: Fei Changfang, £2034.49.95b18- 17, 14 Sengyou, T2145, 55.18620-28, 8228-52; Fajing etal, T2146.55.140325;, Yancong et al, T2147.55.159622-28; Jingtal et al, T2148.55.185a4-5; Daoxuan, T2149.55.26262-29, 300b1~2, SLObS, 324a15-16; Jngrasi, T2151.55.563b2 1-24; Mingquan et al, T.2153.55.434a13-15, 47009; Zhisheng, “F:2154.55.535e9-10, {618e25-26, 69505, 719e27-28; Yuanzha, T.2157.58.888e0-B34a7, 958a25-26, T043b10-11. % ‘The work also figures among che texts preserved inthe Ximing monastery (imag sf GBH) in Chang’an—where Daosuan was the abbot—as indicated in the monastery catalogue copied by Daoxtan in his tang niin le (12149.58.31009), Ct, Daoxtan’s biography, 1-2061.50.79057-781b26, translated into English by Wagner 1995, pp. 255-268; sce also Forte 1988, pp. 699-70188, ‘AN HHIRMAN lan. Also, the famous commentator Daoxuan i'# (596-667) places it among the essential vingya traditions on which he intended to base his vingya commentaries," along with the vingya texts of the Mahasamghika, the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvastivada, the Mahidasaka, the Kasyaprya,'" and the Vatstpuuriya™ schools. As also together with some other basic texts: the Pinimu jing EEE BEAR (? Vinayamatrka, T.1463), & commentary on the vingya of an unknown school translated at the ‘end of the fourth or at the beginning ofthe filth century:" the Modeleie tun PRAGS) MH, an abridged version"? of Sapoduo bu pinimodelegie ES BEE PMAWNIM °Saredstiddavinayonitka, T1441), a commen. tary on the Saredstinadevinaya translated by Samghavarman in 435;! the Sapoduo lun REZ %, presumably" a reference to the Sapoduo pinipipnsha RIES PIE BIRD (Sarttitdaninaynibhase, T1410), probably translated after the Sarsitizddeoingya and before 431; the Pinaiye ti EEFZAB, in all probability a reference to the Binaiye RAED (1.1464), a zingya text related to the Sarvastivada school, and translated bby Zhu Ponian in 383;"° the Mingliaa bn 877 8, an abridged version of the Lit ershi'er mingliao lun 12. SAT a (1.1461, Explanatory ‘Commentary on Twenty-two Seanzas of the Vinaya), a commentary on a lost pratimoksa of the Sammidyas translated by Paramdirtha in 568;' and the Wubai wen fa chao tiyi HERE EE IE (Vinnya ' 2080.50.403620. "© See T.1808.40.3b21-27. "A note species that only the pitimoly Ga, a fist of precepts) i availble T has ‘been translated into Chinese by Prajtavvc’ in 543 (Wuyama 1979, p43) "A note indicates that no Vatsipatya eng ext ts actually available " Demiéville et al, 1978, p. 125; Yuyama 1979, p. 44. According to & Lamovte (1958, p. 212) this est belongs to the Hatinavata schoo, In the Bigs 2huan, a colece ‘ion of biographies of Chinese nuns compiled by Baochang 516 aid 519 {Tsai 199, 1. 108), a Fim jig is inked to dhe Sarvasvada school (1.2063.50.947529-cl), See Sengyou, 2145.55. 04¢24; Fang et al, 1.2146.35,140bl: Vancong etal ‘72147 59.155b25-26; Jingal etal, 1214855. 188a7-B; Daosuan, 1:2149.99.258el, 0065-6, 310012, $24a19-20, Jingmai, T2151.55.362a24-25; Mingquan et a, “T2153.53.493c16-20, 470c18; Zhisheng, T'2154,55.527b40-c1, 619¢21-29, 69962 3, 719¢28-24; Yuanzhao, 72157.55.824017 18, 95342122, 1O1906-7, 5 Demiville eal. 1978, p. 123; Yoyama (979, p. 8 © According to Demiévill ct al. 1978, p. 332, the tile Sap fm cefere 10 the Sépoiua bu pnimedelpie, 1441, Tn that case, Dasa’ enumeration would contain the same text twice It thus seems more logic that Sipado un sa telerence to the Sapoie iippeste, T1440, referred to as “lun (68) by the monk Zhishou in his inodueson ‘0 the text eluded in T:1490.23.558c10-559813, ‘wDemiville etal. 1978, p. 123; Vayama 1979, pp. 8-9. © Demivlle etal. 1978, p. 125; Yuvarea 1979, pp, 7-8. Demidvle etal. 1978, p. 125; Vayama 1979, pY1yara: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 189 Commentary on the Five Hundred Questions on the Essentials of the Dhara), 2 n0 longer extant text that, according to an additional note of Daoxuan, is a compilation on vinaya matters ordered by Emperor ‘Wa if (1: 502-550) of the Liang 2 dynasty. ‘The translator of the Samantapasadika, Samghabradra, is said to be a foreigner,"? or a man “of the western regions”."° He translated the text in Guangzhou, in the Zhulin PK (Venuvana) monastery,” together with the Sramana Sengyi (848. The Pali Samantapasadita is presented as a Mahavihara text." Tis Chinese translation, however, shows a prob- able Abhayagirivihara connection." This is particularly clear when with respect to the famous ainga discussion between the Mahaviharins and the Abhayagiriviharins, namely the debate on the nun Mettiya,!® Samghabhadra adheres to the Abhayagirivihara viewpoint. Such an Abhayagirivihara connection is also put forward with respect to the above mentioned Vimuttimagge, which, according to many buddholo- gists," might be affliated to the latter monastery. Since, moreover, the most extensi contact becween the Chinese and Sinhalese took place “© Fei Changlang, T2084 49.95b19; Dacnuan, 7:214955.2620. Zheng, T3154. 35.93812 * [tgimetsing fo neat se sae monasery where, according to 2158, 2 Pal sin wn rasa no Chinese, a around the same pesod ee sore 59)- 203449 obe3 3 instead of ° The introductory vere ofthe Sananopsll at hat the work intends vo bea Pal versonof already exsing Sinhalese cotmentanes noe io make te rthodo. agition ofthe Maltihra iternainaly accesible” (on Hiner 1990, p 108) See Heiman, 2004 “This debate fs the only matter on which we know the viewpoint of the Abhayagirihtea Vina von Hiner 1996, p. 2, I cusses statemene in the Pl Hinge that eels us thatthe mun Metiya (Ste Mate laelyaceased the venerable Datla Mallapata (Si. Dray Malar, Karan 2000, p 283, note 2) of hav= ing raped hes lation of te iat ite prcepl (eating io a defnteveexleion from the Budi statu of monk o unk When de ler ats to have bed, te Pal Vinge (Vn, vel 3 pp. 16238-1684; fr the spe thet have sued fn» Chine trasaton, sce Heiman 20002, pp. 31-34) wane her tobe expeled Ths sstcment lend to Iga dscusion betwos the Mabiviharavasins andthe Abbayagivasng a2 Iti clear fom a pasage in the Pal Samaunpsadid (Sp, vol. 3, pp. 98430-5849). ‘ere the question i asked what dhe atal reson of eyes capstone ls von tinuber 1997, pp 87-91; shen 1997a, pp 96-88, 102-108) The Chinese version of the Sumonupavadla (T1462 24, 266c88-76722) dors not refer tothe cone lroversy between the Mahavihara and the ABbayagirvihsa, but it does point to the ‘al oem conering Mea exponen ct salsa she ha to be expel Geese she heel! achiowledged Uist she had comated a (igi) alfence This explanation corespond othe Abhayagiviara posion. “for references, ee Norman 1991, pp, 48-44, Skiing 1994, pp 199-202; von inber 1996, p. 156 Heirman, 2004, pp. 373-376. a Be SRS ae Nai +E mise sity bil190 ANN HEIRMAN. during or just after the reign of the Sinhalese king Mahanama, who was maybe more favourably disposed towards the Abhayagirivihara than to the Mahavihara,"” it is not impossible that when the Chinese ‘came into contact with the Sinhalese monasteries, these monasteries were mainly connected with the Abhayagirivihara, 4.3, The Pali Vinaya ‘As mentioned in Faxian’s travel account, it was not easy to obtain ringya texts Sill, he finally succeeded in obtaining three aingyas. One of these, the Mahifasakavingye, he found in Sti Lanka, Since at that time, vingya matters were a prominent issue for the Sinhalese Theravada masters, and since Faxian spent (wo years on the island, it is striking that he never obtained a Pali Vingya text, nor even mentioned the existence of any angya discussions. Sail, he was well acquainted with both che Abhayagirivihara and the Mahavihara, the two most impor- tant Theravada monasteries. The fact that Faxian did not acquire any Pali Vingya text in Sri Lanka, does not imply that the Pali Vinaya never reached China. The Ci sanzangjijs"* the catalogue compiled by Sengyou around 518, mentions thac during the reiga of Emperor Wit ‘iE (483-493) of the Qi FF dynasty, a certain monk called Mahayana translated two texts in Guangzhou: one is entitled Wiebai bensheng jing RB 4648 (Sacra of the Five Hundred Jalakes), and the other is ‘Theravada vinaye text, entitled Tapiti HEE. Sengyou further men- tions that the two texts were never presented t0 the emperon™® and were subsequently lost. This explains why the two texts translated by Mahayana were never widely known in the Chinese monasteries. A new text had to be presented to the imperial court before it could be diffused. If this presentation did not take place, a text could easily disappeac: Adikaram 1955, p 98. * Sengyou, 1:214555.15b16-19, » Acording othe Decl kang along nul (2193.59 484010-12), the tyanslation of the Tapfi took place in the *Bamboo-grove Monastery” (Zhai 3 "WPARGE, Venuvana Monastery) This information is said o’be based on Fel Changfang’s {ataloge In the extant version of the later catalogue (1.2084), however, chi oortar ton i no included, "The wording 7FEEIMB (‘hey aid not reac the capital”), indicates tha the texts wore not refuted by the imperial cour, but for some reason never made i € the capwal iankang, "Kuo 2000, pp. 682-687. Some texts, however, di become popular even without SPB‘cart: FROM INDIA TO GNA 191 ‘The question remains, however, why the two texts, and especially the Pali Vinaye, never reached the imperial court. Was it because of a lack of interest in this aingya? At the time that the Pali Vingya was translated, the Sareastiidavinaye was firmly established in the south of China, mainly as a result of the efforts of the monk Huiyuan 65% (G34-417)."2 The monasteries no longer felt that there was a lack of cisciplinary texts, and this feeling might have prevented the spread of yet another vingye, Stil, in the fifth century, there was quite an eclectic interest in vingya traditions, and many masters certainly studied more that one text (sce further). Moreover, contrary to the Pali Vinay itself, the partial translation of the commentary on this winaya, did gain some popularity and attracted the attention of the famous vingya master Daoxuan. So, why not the Pali Fingya? Could there be any connection, ‘with the fact that the text was clearly a Hinayana text? This does not seem plausible since also all che other Chinese aingyas used for ordina- tion in the Chinese monasteries are of Hinayana origin. Yet, at the time that the vivayas were translated into Chinese, the Sinhalese monks and nuns were almost exclusively Hinayana followers," while monks ‘and nuns ordained by means of another vinaye, were often closer to the Mahayana movement." Moreover, the Pali Htmayana tradition as a whole was not very popular despite travellers such as Faxian who visited Sri Lanka. And even Faxian did not bring Theravada texts with him, Instead, during his stay in Sri Lanka, he obtained copies of the Dirghdgama,"® of the Sanyuktdgama,' of a “Miscellaneous pilaka?™® (cazang #8), and of the vinaya of the Mabtsasakas."@ Not one of these having been approved by the emperoe These are mainly devoionah tens or tes seated to miricles (Kuo 2000, yp. G87, 690M}. See alo Drége 1991, pp. 195-208. "once 1972, vol. |, pp. 229-280; Takamoto 1985, ve. 2, pp. 689-802. "9 Aldiough Si Lanka wa a Thera and thus (adonally, Hinayan) county some monks abo made se of Mahayana texts, paricualy the mons belonging 1 {he Abliyagiivira, See, fr intanee, Becher, 1976; 1998, pp. 1218; Wang 14, 176; Kiefer 000, . 300, se Wang 1994, p. 178; Kefer-Por 200, p. 308-300, '5 ‘The manserpt of the Dighigana browgn back by Faian was aot washed, smaybe beenue in 413 Buddbayass apd Zhu Fonan already had Wanted another Dighgoma marae (T) Ao The Sompotigme vandated by the Central Indian monk Gunabhdra berwcen 35 an 18 GE raat rag ay Pan jong 198, pl 9 This ex has been raat into Chinese by Fasian himself (1.785) and is poe sibly a par of 3 Kido Jong 1981, p. 105) MBoessisescar es, de SOR 4) Lidrar HAE192 ANN HERMAN texts can be traced back to a Theravada origin. So even though Faxian stayed in Sri Lanka for about wo years, he scems not (0 have been interested in the Theravada texts. Noteworthy also is that in the lists of the important schools, so popular in China from the fourth century onwards, the Theravada tradition never appears. These lists mostly contain five schools," known for their oizaya texts." The Pali Vinaye is never mentioned, and seems not have played any role. It was isolated in Guangzhou, in the south of China, Why did it remain so isolated? ‘Was it because of political events? The aingya was translated during the reign of Emperor Wu (482-493) of the Southern Qi dynasty. it was a quite prosperous period and a time of stability. After the death of Emperor Wu, however, the dynasty quickly went down. Rathless and incompetent leaders succeeded one another: It was hardly a time to enlarge libraries under imperial sponsorship. This might account for the disappearance of the Pali Vingya. The chaotic period lasted until a skilfal general overthrew the Qj in 502 and started his own dynasty, the Liang dynasty (502-557)."" It scems impossible to point out exactly why the Pali Hinaya remained so unknown, Maybe it was a mixture of bad luck and bad timing, com- bined with the general lack of interest in the Pali Hinayana tradition, and aggravated by the fact chat there was no longer a real need for vingya texts. The uinaye was lost very soon after its translation, Sail, at Jeast the awareness that such a copy ever existed made it to Jiankang, since in 518 Sengyou, who resided in the capital, included the Tepil in his catalogue, but indicated that it was lost.” 5. Tae Ecurcric Ust or Cumvese Voranis Ta the above, we have seen how in the course of the fifth century, the Chinese rinaya context totally changed. From an imperative need for disciplinary texts, the situation turned into an overwhelming richness. ‘The fifth century saw the translation of all but one of the major vingyas, as well as of many additional vinaya texts. This, however, also caused 1 Mosly the Sarvasivadins the Dharmaguptakas, tue Kaiyaptyas, the Mahssacaka, and the Mahasamghilas (see Lariowe 1958, pp. 595-594) "Wang 199%, pp. 172.173. See ale note 177 " For a detailed overview of the events of the Southern Qi, sce Bielenstein 1996, om, 165-15, "See note 158.ikata: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 193 some problems. When stricily interpreted, all vingas state that only a harmonious sangha (samagrasamgha) can perform legal procedures, such 1s ordinations. The terms samagra and samgha imply that all monks and nuns who are present in the legal district (sina)! have to attend the ceremony; that there has to be unity in legal procedures and unity in the recitation of the precepts, this is unity in the recitation of the prétimolsa atthe posadha® ceremony,” and that there have to be enough ‘monks or nuns in order to carry out a formal act in a legally valid way: This kind of sangha is only possible within one and the same school (niki, defined by a common ningya.!” The disciplinary texts clearly leave no place for eclecticism, Still, several cases show that in fifth century China, this does not seem to have been an issue. At least for the translator of the Pali Semantapasadika, there was no problem to borrow freely from various sources." Even more significant is that at the nuns’ ordination ceremony in ca. 433, the participants probably did not belong to the same aingya traditions. Although it is not said on which vingya text the ceremony was based, it most probably relied on cone of the vinayas translated into Chinese." The Sinhalese nuns, on the other hand, in all probability belonged to the Theravada school. In any case, it is clear that the obligatory presence of ten fully ordained nuns in order to perform a legally valid ordination ceremony received alf the "In order to have a legally valid procedure, any formal at his to be carried out within well delimited distri nd), See note 25, "THA ceremony lil every fortnight and atended by all monks/sne of the district {ain}, so tha the unity of the order i wealirmed. At this ceremony, the pratimal ist of precepts is recited. Pali vines, vol. 3, p. 173.89 (8ce also the definition of “not to live in the community" (roms) in Vin, vol. 8: 28-20-22), Mahiasabvingye, T.1421,2,.20 ‘Molasongtasinaya, T.1428.22.282¢23-25; Diarmopepatacinay, T1478 22.595a15-16; Surasinadazinay, T435.23.266e18-28, See alko Flarwon Hieber 1994, pp, 219-2: “Tieken 2000, pp. 2-2, 10-11, 13, 26-27, who points out that “unanimous” isthe prominent meaning of “samena"; Herman 20022, pare 2, p. $27, nn 250-292. © Depending on the legal procedure, there shuld be fo, Be, ten oF rwenty Fully ‘ordained participants (ce Fleirman 2002a, par 2, p. $15 a. 228), "8" Schools (ukija) are defined by the recogetion of a common vingya, and thus of 4 common prince. See Bechert 1993, p. St: "As a rule, monks belonging to ai. ferent Nikayas do not conduct joint Sanghakarmas [formal acs]. Though they may not always dispute dhe validity af each other's orlinaton, they do not recognise it a5 bbeyond dispute either. Ir there were doubts about the validity the Sanghakarma would ‘be questionable I the valieity of ordinations sealed into question, the legitimacy of the Sangha i eudangered.” TW See note 135, ' Before the ceremony could take place, the Sinhalese nuns had to learn Chinese (72089.50.3¢160,194 ANN HERMAN attention, to the expense of the winaye tradition of the participants. {As for the later ordinations of the Chinese monks and nuns, the zinayas do nor seem to be mutually exclusive. The south usually preferred the Sarvastivadavingya, while in the north the Makisighikavingya prevailed, followed by the Dharmagubtakavinaya."" The latter vingya gradually gained in importance until, in the north, it became the most influential one by the time the northern monk Daoxuan iff (596-667) wrote his com- mentaries, The south still mainly followed the Sareastivadavinaya, From the seventh century onwards, more and more protest was raised against the use of different vingyas in China. In his Further Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan ia 218), the monk Daoxuan regrets that even though the first ordinations fin China] were based on the Dharmaguptaka school, one followed [in the south] the Sarvastivada school." Also Yijing argues against the cclectic use of vingya rules and stated that for a Buddhist community itis important to strictly observe only one wingya."® The idea of the exclusive use of one vingya in the Chinese monasteries was not only based on Buddhist motives, but potiti- cal reasons also played an important part. When affer a long period of fragmentation of the Chinese terrivory (317-589), the frst emperor of the Sui dynasty (¢ 589-605) came to power, he was bidding for the favour of the Buddhist community in his struggle to make the country one. At the same time, he also wanted 10 control the community and its ordinations." ‘The rulers of the carly Tang, although less favour- able towards Buddhism than the Sui rulers, continued this policy of control. Tn this context, a unification of the ordination procedures ‘would have been helpful to the court. It is therefore not surprising that when the very active vingya master Dao'an SB (654-717), who seemed ' See Heirman 2001, pp, 293-298, ‘8 ‘See Heirman 200%, pp. 402-424. ' Daacuan, T.2060.50,62006. See also Daosuan's Sin li shanfn bugu xing chao (£.1804.40,2019 20}: one singe (Dharmegupiekmingye) is the bass, bot, if needed, otter ‘ingyes can be consulted. Te ser note 7 °™ The search for uifcaton of the Chinese einpire and the control of the Chinese ‘Budelist monks ae closely intermingled fcc Wright 1957, pp. 93-104; Weinsein 1973, . 265), Monks were required to obtain oficial urdinagon cerdficates, and disciplin- any rules were promoted. See algo Wright (1959, p. 6a) "It was no aesident that the Sui founder chose a Vinaya master as oficial head of the Buddhist communities of the realm... [his words) expressed his wish that this specialist fn uke monastic rues sould ake fl espoosbiiy for controling und ascpining the ergy of the whole "= Weinstein 1973 and 1987‘xt: PROM INDIA TO CHINA 195 to have a good contacts with the Emperor Zhongzong, invoked the help of the imperial court to impose the Dharmaguplakavingya all over the country, his request was granted." Tt was most probably addressed to Zhongzong when the emperor was fully in power between 705 and 710. After the imperial edict was issued, also the south of China used the Dharmaguplakavinaya, 6. Coxeiusion The first period of Chinese Buddhism saw an intensive search for disciplinary rules, parallel to the growth of the Buddhist community. ‘This search reached its peak in dhe beginning of the fifth century when, in a relatively short period, four complete vingyas were translated into Chinese. Once these vinayas were transmitted in China, the Buddhist community gradually became conscious of the advantages of using only cone vingya. This was to be the Dharmaguplakavinaya. ‘The main reason for this choice seems to have been the firm belief among its defenders that the Dharmaguptaka school was the first to introduce an ordination to China. To follow this school thus assured the Buddhist community of 2 proper transmission of the ordination since the time of the Buddha. Political reasons also played their role. The fact of having only one ordi- nation tradition probably simplified stave control. In the beginning of the eighth century, around the same time that the monk Yijing translated the Milasaroastinadavinaya in the hope to purify the Buddhist discipline in China by, asic were, starting all over again, the Dkarmaguptokazingya \vas installed by imperial decree as the only right one in China. From that time until today, it has remained the only vinaya active in China. ‘Two major supplements, however, have been added: frst, the badhisatta rules as a Mahayana supplement," and later, the so-called “pure rules of Baizhang” that offer a set of rules for the practical organisation of the Chinese Buddhist monasteries."™ These typical Chinese sets of rules, however, have to remain for now the subject of a different study. Together with the vingya tradition translated from Indian texts, they form the core of the Chinese Buddhist disciplinary rules. 961 0.798e26-27. See ao Trang 1996, vol 2, pp: 820-829. See Herman 2002, p. 414. See note 5 © See note 69,196 ANN HEIRMAN Bustiocrarny Primary Soares, Texte: Chin ‘Hou Howse BE a Ye SMH. Beng: Zhonglva Shusian, 1973 [1968], 12 vols {compiled between the third and the Sth cemury prcented in 449), Juuhs BF "Eang Nusoling BEB. Beting: Zhonghua Shutian, 1974, 10 vhs {comple in 644). Nowe WISE “Li Yanshou 3968. Bejing: Zhonghua Shudian, 1975, 6 vols (compiled in 680-650. Sele 6 Shen Vee UP. Beli Zion Shan, 1748 vob. ons vn 492-4 iw BH" Wei Shou HH. Boling: Zhonghua Shadi in 531-558) Ssh BE Wei Zheng BU. Beijing: Zhonghua Shusian, 1973, 6 vols (compiled in 629-636) Liangsha BB Yao Cha SK and Yao Siian SUGAR, Bejing: Zhonghua Shudian, 1873, 3 vos (compiled in 628-635). Nanchoo Song hujeo BARGE Zhu Mingpan 8H, Shanghai, Shanghai Gaji Chubanshe, 1986 " 1974, 8 vols. (compiled ‘Tash shins daiibys ATERTASAGRAB. 1924-1935, tived and compiled by Takakusu ‘Tanjro, Kaigyoku Watanabe, and Germmyo Ono, 100 vol, Takyes Taisho ieaikyo nko "OL hag sg FURIE ia amine y Bothy dy Fons 23 “11421 Mite! b hea se BGDREBAMNLEIHR, Tansned by Brida, ZNisheng STE Dsceng BE ane Hain BE flaiedecoge 11425 Molo’ te BAREIS. Traated by BudabaGhadra and Bel Fasin ‘Masa ‘rista Sfevie BESI Ransated by Duddhayaia nd Zhu Ronan 8 (Dhoma 11455, Set i Tad by Pnyas/ Poy, Kem, Dias fu and Vimalaig (Sortie) “TiMeO. Sip piped BBE BIE BUIED Anonymous wanlaon Sadia iy T1462 Slonian tn pieshe BARRILAED. Translated by Sainghabhada (paral ‘Ghinse cacao athe Sanna) jon, Maliprelpieninpadn, Di tidy bn EBEM. Teunlted by T1981 Punt ng SEROSLEPAE, Translated by Tanwuchen SEK (Bodhi ‘elon Tish Pasion jing BERS. Trnaaced by Guosvarman (dtm THG00 Patong WE HEE, Trandate by Gapavarman naybe the 10th oe of 71588 Tino Daman 2, Be el ae sig hg HEAT “T0081 Re Changing HERD, ado BFE 12085 Phipan ESE For gl EE. 159 Huijiac SEC, Gaaseng chuan FAIS, T2060 Daoxuan 8B, Xu gaoseng gaan tt fe. Ee, Se rae f Tiel Zunning PR, Song gaoseng zhnan HE et. ‘Tabs Baochang BOB, Big’ can Efe ‘T1509 : k MER i Taiwan to‘ANA: PROM INDIA TO CHINA 197 7085 Pasan REI, Gaueg Psion luon ABER, ‘T2110 Flin 258, Bono en IER. Es Wing SE on ne Soe EP T2185 Sengyou M4, Chu sanzang, TENE RSE ee ae ingle EE ‘T0147 Yancong 5 et ay Zheng mls ATE ‘T2140 fing RPAE tal, Zong male ATES. ‘T2149 ‘Daowuan IBS, Doig win RAE POEL ‘T2ISL Fingal EM, Guin ying ut SUR REFC “055. ‘Mbegan I ca Bs dg ig te AGERE 1B Zhisheng BFE, Keon ssl Ta157 Wanshao EL, hey siding hc mols TERA EARAEIR, “esa: Sanh and Pals CGalaransa {Cals} Geiger, Wiielm (ed) 1925-1927. Crlonua. 2 vol, London: Pali Test Society. Dighanitiva (Orga ‘Rhys Davids, Thomas W., and Joseph Flin Carpenter (eds). 1889-1910. Tle Digha- mie, 3 vole. London: Pali Text Society Somaniapastita (Sp) “Tslaksu, Junio, Makoco Naga, and Kogen Mizuno (eds). 1924-1947. Somomapasadha 7 vols London: Pal Text Sociery. Sinaa Plas (Vn Olen, Hermann 1954 189-103). Hap ln. § vo, London: a ex Sole Secondary Soares ara, BW, 1985 (84), i Hit of Balin i Co, Combo: M.D, Allon, Mark, and Richard Salomon. 2000, “Kharogiht Faginents of a Gand ‘Version of the Mahaparinirvanasora™, io: Jens Braaevig ed). Manin i He Sign Cleon , Buda Mareen. Vol. y pp. 243-273 opal, Purshotiam Vshvanath, and Ara Fisahawa. 1970, NED Stor-Chin- "PrPysa A Chine Hat b) Sanhabade of Sanomepdssia Poona: Bhandarkar Orica Research Insite Bechert, Hein 1976, "Bul Feld und Verdienatibentagung® Mahayana-ideen io “Theravada Buddhisnus Ceylos", Acne Royale de Bugg, Bult cane esse sees mares epg, 5 sé, 62, pp. 27-48. T0988. The Mier of Medtaeval Si Laks tnd te Untcaon of te Sangha ‘by Parkman: Navcnd Wag and Fumimaro Watanabe ed) Std on Tddion te Homa of Prfsee AK. der Torono: University of Toronto, Grae Tar South Asian Studies pp. 11-21 1993), "On the Origination and Characteristics of Buddhist Nikayas, or School in: Pri Colloque Een Lanse, Louvaia-Newe: Instat Oaenalste de Lowain, pp. 31-36, Bienen, Han, 1096, "The Sx Dyas, Vl", Bulan of te Maton of Far Ever “fit 6, p. 5-52 Boucher, Daniels 1998, "Gandhact snd the Basly Chinese Buddhist Translations ‘Reconsidered: the Case ofthe Slap, joa ef terion Oral Sucty HBS, pp 471-506.198 ANN HERMAN —. 2000. Review on Salmon 1999, Si Pati Pe 98, pp. 88-71 200th “Sn had For Asin: he Transasion of Barbara’ Saraserps hina Janel of Iti Ati of Ds Ser: pp. 7-28. Pen Kh, 1973 90H), Bahn Chin A isto Say, Pingcton: Princeton "Untersty Pres Gedond paperback eon) Chg Jrts aod fonun Wile 997. "Eelge Bhikwvinayaibhanga Fragmented ‘Dharnagupaasin der Sarlang Fein, Heine Becher, Sven Bree ad Pera Kiefer Poke) Uno f aitcn Liratr Zee ol. Gtsngen Vantestoce fe Rupee, pp 47-94 Dain Alber A. 1987 "The Hota! Career’ of the Buddhist Hixoran Tan-in’ Dawid WE Chappell (ed). Bus end Tat Pate fr Metal Chins Sc. Fovolulu: Unverey of fsa Pres, pp. 146-180 Denese Pals a), 1980. “Dosa iy obi, Dima neil de Tend dap sre ines ops. TOky®: Matson oneodaponase. ausime volume, pp. 142-146 2PTeTD [191] "R propos de Cone de Vit, Tang Fae 40, Kraus vest, 230-296, Danivil, Poul Hubert Duet and Anna Seidel 1978 Rr dy comm ena Snape de Tes (Tale Shahi Day). Pa ibrar @ Ameique e {TOreni lye: Maison France sponse 1D: Rave Tarn 2005, "BaochangSih-Cesnury Biographer of Budi Monts. “and Noms Jura of tener Ont Sty 128.2, po. 208-218 Drbge, Jou-Pgre, 131, Ler bis en Chine olf des mass (gow “hig Pass Ecole raga Bree Oren Engmoie, Fue. 2000, ebflasarvdcnadin” and "Sarvanivadin', ins Christine hujencs Jone Uwe Haronann an oles Ni ichanne eo), Vidya Fergie fi dahed Meas. Swit Odeon! ncens Tbetia Vers, pp. 239 a0 Fare Aetorino. 1976 Pitt Pape ond Hel x China a te Ed of the Seth ‘ny, Nap, ngage Universan Oe 38s, Dai eS (Ce in Hoban ESR, Dione ene Todt dota sche el pone Pare Lise Amérique cS OFent/ hyo Matin TnanceJapoone, sain volun, p. 682-708, weNgob, Chie Sate onatenes he Seventh and Eighth Cents, i Shoshn uayn et Ea ee dn eng RAS TI UT Study an Bangs [Rosen Hye] Menu fae igemage the Fe Reon ffs, Faron BAL 2 Ryots Roo digs inagas Kent, pp. 213-228. 1394. "Daishi eRi": hiein PEAR, Dictate ene de Budioe ‘aps ts ous has top Pas Libre fAmegee & d Orient Tokyo Mon Francojaonste, spite solome, yp. 1019-1024" AN DUD. The Hepge de Sian ond ty Offa, nn Roly i Ca. Kye Inui Ian di Clr, Sec Sch wltAsia Omen uth Gra 1907. The 4h an Sd” adi Poe ate Budi Mone Tien PhD, Universty of Michigan. 1593" "Mpty, Rita, and Monae Prtce in Sung Ch'an Bodhi” Tain B. Fay and Peer N Gregory et Relon on Soy Pg ond Surg Ginn, Hovolle, Unversity of Howat resp. P4-208. Frebergen Ole, 2000. Dir Ot nde en ign Destin de Sigh in ren Bastions Wiesbaden: Harrssi Ft: Clann 199, De Teanga de Ch Stern dr pen Yi De ‘Bich dv Cc Baio gps shen oni dm ee Eto, Bee Pee Lang Tupman, Gerard. 1989, “Ganda erie, guna pare", ne Colee Cai (e4) “nts dam Hite nda, Pk Clg de rane, pp #3350 f Sk LOS & Patan Onin oi‘Nara: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 199 Geiger, Wilhelm, 1960. Culture of Coon in Metieal Tines Elted by Heinz Becher. ‘Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, Gero, jacques. 1990 (1972) Lemond cin Pave: Armand Cat. (Groner, Paul,1990a, "The Faveng cing and Monae Dsipline in Jopanese Tendais "A Seudy of Annen's Fut jovtattkisol”, in: Robert E. Buswel (ed). Chinse Bu Acta Honcu: Unies of Haat Pres po, 231-200 19940. “Phe Ordination Rina in the Payrm Siva within the Context ofthe Eas ‘Asian Buddhist Vinaya Tradition, in: f Kuang Skan Report of Iteration Confrence ‘on Oh'an Budéhon. Kaohsiung: Fosuang shan, pp. 220-250. Heirman, Ann, 1997. “Some ftemarks on the Rie of the Bidzuaitangie and on the ‘Orcination Geremony for Rlitsuns according othe Dharmaguptaka Ving, Joureal of te Lsernational Asso of Buds Suds 20:2, pp. 38-85. 5 1808 Gara para Page Rae din Jor of Bait Sar 1011-2, pp, 18-26. ——. 1988. "Vinee: perpeiuum mobile’, Asatte Sui! Etudes Aitigues $3.4, pp. 849-871. =, 2000. “What Happened to the Nun Maiteeyi2", Journal of the Interatonel “Avan of Dudas Sue 23.1, pp. 29-41. —"r00Mb. “On Some Fragments of the Biikuatptinaze of the Sarvaivadins, ‘Bust Salis Rate 17-1, pp. 916 2001. “Chinese Nuns and their Ordination in Pith Century China”, Jered of ‘he Ieerntnal scan of Buh Saber, 242, pp. 275-305. 200. The Disipine i Fir Pars; Res fo Nan econ the Daroagupaovnge Dali: Mosilal Banarsidss, 3 pare. =, 2002. “Can we Trace the Barly Dharmaguprakas?’, Twurg Poe 88, pp. 396- 2, 2004. “The Chinese Somanupiidit and is School Afiiaion”, Zeit der Dasschen Morgetindisclen Geeliclt 154-2, pp. 371-596. Hiniiber, Oskar von. 1988, “Origin and Vanedes of Buddhist Sanskrit, in: Colewe Calla ed). Dinkctes dan ls titers indrarwana, Pars: College de France, pp. 341-367. 1996. 4 Handbook of Pa Litera. Berns Walter de Gruyter 1997, “Buddha Law According to the Theravada Vinge T: Some Additions a Gorecons, ara ft ontonal Asotin of Ba Ses 202, po -92. Hiratawa Pill, Akira 1970, Risa Kenya BIBOKEIU/A Shay of the Vnye-Poe, Tokyo: Sankibo Bussborn, Hirakawa, Akira (tc) Gn collaboration with Zenno fkuno anid Paul Grones). 1982 ‘Manaste icine forthe Buds Ni 4n Exlh Tanto of the Chinese Tes of he “Mebisingite Bil Vnaye. Paina: Kashi Jayasval Research Tite Horner, [sling B. 1930, Women wader Prine Bud, Layne and Abeer. New York E. P Dutton and Company Huvon Hiner Hiya, 199% Dat Pradhan, Jif fr di budistiche Bein jn Vinay der iaserescins, Reinbok: De. Inge We2ler Vetag fr Onentasche Fachpablhatonen, isken, Ute, 1993, “Die Logende von der Binrchtung des budhistschen Noonenordens im Fingyo-Pae Ger Thera, i: Reinold Grinendai, Jrs-Ue Horta snd eura Kifer (ed). Studien ur Indole nd Budhsmasund, Fegabe de Snars Be Idan Badismasnde fr Pres De Heine Bete zum 60, Cebu om 20 Juni 1992. Bon: India et Tbetea Vering, pp. 134-170. —<"1997a. "The Application of the Vingy term nasand, Journal of he Iteration Asian of Bude States 20.2, pp, 93-11. 957%. Die scien Ji che bude Nomuengncinde ie Vinya-Pitaka der Thewsiin. Beri: Dietrich Reiter Verag,200 ANN HEIRMAN isp pv csr eo Cpt Jan yw ae ree Se wales fh, OL toga lhe aol ng fh einer rome een ae Kieffer-Piilz, Pera, 1992. Die Sind, Virschriflen zur Regelung der buddhistischen Gemeindegrenze ie, a eg eee et eee Ft erie Como Belg te ara ae eee attest mtn a den ort der bin De aa eee Feng Pe Lamotte, Esenne. 1958. Histoire du bowldhisme indien des origines @ Cre Soka. Louvain: ohetet ee ee ae Fal at at i 2 et a een am is x Vg Hees Peo Ne gat a Aare Tome, Tom 0 esa, sa Rac er eo Mabe sar fe Og epee a nna Bele dias Be on a mic ead coer enewn ane eee opcan Nishimoto HE4E, RyOzan. 1928. “Rajeyaku Jaju Bikuni Haradaimokusha Kaihon no ‘Shutgugen aarabint Shobu So-Ni Raihon to Taisho Kenkyo” M4V;384 ULE ew KK O HE MRE ANE LA A OSA GATE (A Recently Discovered BENE is OPREMB REEL OREO Beh, Doerr rane fe race omen eat en as Re ae rc ee seer ca rts ty Dem oH Dot Sem Pen Rete er Ses rte cig CLE et pe ei ee ere ae RR atc i tg, gin i ei Nh) aint ahi Ba GO Seg ant edi a fee Boots hr elgg a Pet Ned Stare et Bele ee Be eee a oe ero Tokyo $4 ¢ ae National baiPINAYA: FROM INDIA TO CHINA 201 80, ania tres of she Language of te Ana Maas Tatotaravadine and this importance for Ea Bodhi ‘Tracaon', in Helms Heth ca) De Sede se adden being, Cuingen Vandexest E Repeat pos 70-15. sabomom, Richa, 1990 ‘New Evidence for a Gandhart Origa of the Arapacana ‘Syabay' hl of the Aeron Oneal Sait 10.3, pp 236-273 —SYM9, Jet Hd Solfo Cod he BriGN Li Rho Pops Tendon: he Bash Libary Shab, Robert 1968, Bingpies des nines inet (Kao seg thon) de How Louvain: Baers de Laura sua oven ai Simons cosy von, 2000, Png dr Ss nach Yorn on le Lides ‘nd Fleder Hand, Tal I fete Teva, Cont. Wotndas se Nc ce {BL Goningen:Vandentoeck & Roprect ling Per 894, “Ponamegge and Abhay: The Form Agaregae Accontng to ihe Sintenltay’ ral of he Pal Tet Suey 30¢ pp 1-0, Tag Yngtong 195 (8 ript 180, Hen i La ein Pt "BERRI ICHTMRAE, Bancao: Lun Chubaashe, 2 wee sang, Nehols cd) (900. The Canby sty of Stet Ai. V1 Fon Ea Tine ve 1500. Cate: Cambrage Univer Pres “Tighe Hernan, 2000, Alcea snd the Gud: Sogn a Sud of lak’ Sis Ta a ir Rok Has Dan fe Sl of Ol and An Ses Gop 130. “Tah Kathryn Ann, 1994, Lies of te Meng Bgropis of Cline Budi Nes fm te ‘unk Be Suh Cnet, Hon: Univers of Healt Pro ‘etlamto, Zeng. 1905 ty of Ents Bdan Po action the ‘arth of Huon, Vrarlated for Japanese (Chee Buy Ta, 1979) by Leon Bunid. Toi Kodama Inernatcral vole Wagner Rabin & 1996 Bung Bly and Pr: A Sut of Dei ‘Coinad ‘es of Emmet Sky, Pu. dseroton, Hanard Universe. Walsh, Ero 1950-1951. Dar Mehta, et Sensi Tdtsck, gi et dow PS ct ig Chon ter csiten Etta Voy Mfr, Revie: inde Vrag Bein, 3 Pars —. 1980. “Central Asian Sora Fragments and their Relation to the Chinese Agamas”, i Hina Mccher (ed). Dw Spe der das buses Daeg, Gage Mindenhowet & Rupr pp 36-17 Wang, Bangre 1094 -Badahla Nikyas dough Ancient Chine Ee, a: Hank aul acon Uonchgn co buicienLimtr vce Vandenoec lupe pe 5. 2s Weise Sti 1973. “operat Puonage in he Formation of Tang Bushs, ins Arthur Vinghr and Denis Teh ede). Prpctins the Tangs New Haven ann: Yale Universy Pes pp 265-308 Radin sete Pog. Cambridge: Cambridge Universyy Pest. ‘icinen, Ghar, hat Descn nn Got Cas 598 Soir Dah Shain ee il Wight Aho 1954, "Bigenphy and Haggai, uch’ His of Eni a Ie Se ote eo He abr gst, Ky yo Une, ny A ros7. “The Formation o Sui Ieology 581-604: John Iitbank ed. Chine That en sions. Ciego: Tae Unters of Chicago Pes OMIM. bn Chie toy. Stators Stanford Univers Pres Via, 2002 Te Orch of Pdtt Nas Gls n Cle tle Telia ond Si of te Chane ge Honoka: Unersity of await Pres gaa Aka. 19704 Sweat Srey of Bui St Lira Esser Tel: Vinayae "Fre Wiesbaden: Frame Seen Gas fOE te wat a Cniversity202 ANN HEIRMAN Zarches, Erk. 1972 (1959), Te Buiet Cogs of China, The Spread and Adoption of Buidlism in Early Medina China. 2 vols, Levden: Beil. 1980. “Hfan Buddhism and the Western Regions, in: WH Ly Idema and Erk ‘ircher (eds): Though and Law in Qi ant Hon Clin, Sues Dedicated to Anthony Heed onthe Otcsion of hs Eighth Birthday. Leiden: Bel, pp. 158-182 2002. "Tidings frm the South, Chinese Court Buddhist» and Overseas Relations in he Fit Cony AD": Artin one ad eden ie) i {0 te East, Slat Stein Monory of Giuliana Bere (1928-2001). Kyo: Vaan School of East Asian Studies, pp. 21-48, wate E niversi