Life of Fâ-Hien; Genuineness and Integrity of the Text of his Narrative;
Number of the Adherents of Buddhism.
1. Nothing of great importance is known about Fâ-Hien in addition to what may
be gathered from his own record of his travels. I have read the accounts of him
in the “Memoirs of Eminent Monks,” compiled in A.D. 519, and a
later work, the “Memoirs of Marvellous Monks,” by the third emperor
of the Ming dynasty (A.D. 1403-1424), which, however, is nearly all borrowed
from the other; and all in them that has an appearance of verisimilitude can be
brought within brief compass.
His surname, they tell us, was Kung, and he was a native of Wû-yang in
P’ing-Yang, which is still the name of a large department in Shan-hsi. He
had three brothers older than himself; but when they all died before shedding
their first teeth, his father devoted him to the service of the Buddhist
society, and had him entered as a Sramanera, still keeping him at home in the
family. The little fellow fell dangerously ill, and the father sent him to the
monastery, where he soon got well and refused to return to his parents.
When he was ten years old, his father died; and an uncle, considering the
widowed solitariness and helplessness of the mother, urged him to renounce the
monastic life, and return to her, but the boy replied, “I did not quit
the family in compliance with my father’s wishes, but because I wished to
be far from the dust and vulgar ways of life. This is why I chose
monkhood.” The uncle approved of his words and gave over urging him. When
his mother also died, it appeared how great had been the affection for her of
his fine nature; but after her burial he returned to the monastery.
On one occasion he was cutting rice with a score or two of his
fellow-disciples, when some hungry thieves came upon them to take away their
grain by force. The other Sramaneras all fled, but our young hero stood his
ground, and said to the thieves, “If you must have the grain, take what
you please. But, Sirs, it was your former neglect of charity which brought you
to your present state of destitution; and now, again, you wish to rob others. I
am afraid that in the coming ages you will have still greater poverty and
distress;—I am sorry for you beforehand.” With these words he
followed his companions into the monastery, while the thieves left the grain
and went away, all the monks, of whom there were several hundred, doing homage
to his conduct and courage.
When he had finished his noviciate and taken on him the obligations of the full
Buddhist orders, his earnest courage, clear intelligence, and strict regulation
of his demeanour were conspicuous; and soon after, he undertook his journey to
India in search of complete copies of the Vinaya-pitaka. What follows this is
merely an account of his travels in India and return to China by sea, condensed
from his own narrative, with the addition of some marvellous incidents that
happened to him, on his visit to the Vulture Peak near Rajagriha.
It is said in the end that after his return to China, he went to the capital
(evidently Nanking), and there, along with the Indian Sramana Buddha-bhadra,
executed translations of some of the works which he had obtained in India; and
that before he had done all that he wished to do in this way, he removed to
King-chow (in the present Hoo-pih), and died in the monastery of Sin, at the
age of eighty-eight, to the great sorrow of all who knew him. It is added that
there is another larger work giving an account of his travels in various
countries.
Such is all the information given about our author, beyond what he himself has
told us. Fâ-Hien was his clerical name, and means “Illustrious in the
Law,” or “Illustrious master of the Law.” The Shih which
often precedes it is an abbreviation of the name of Buddha as Sâkyamuni,
“the Sakya, mighty in Love, dwelling in Seclusion and Silence,” and
may be taken as equivalent to Buddhist. It is sometimes said to have belonged
to “the eastern Tsin dynasty” (A.D. 317-419), and sometimes to
“the Sung,” that is, the Sung dynasty of the House of Liu (A.D.
420-478). If he became a full monk at the age of twenty, and went to India when
he was twenty-five, his long life may have been divided pretty equally between
the two dynasties.
2. If there were ever another and larger account of Fâ-Hien’s travels
than the narrative of which a translation is now given, it has long ceased to
be in existence.
In the Catalogue of the imperial library of the Suy dynasty (A.D. 589-618), the
name Fâ-Hien occurs four times. Towards the end of the last section of it
(page 22), after a reference to his travels, his labours in translation at
Kin-ling (another name for Nanking), in conjunction with Buddha-bhadra, are
described. In the second section, page 15, we find “A Record of
Buddhistic Kingdoms;”—with a note, saying that it was the work of
the “Sramana, Fâ-Hien;” and again, on page 13, we have
“Narrative of Fâ-Hien in two Books,” and “Narrative of
Fâ-Hien’s Travels in one Book.” But all these three entries may
possibly belong to different copies of the same work, the first and the other
two being in separate subdivisions of the Catalogue.
In the two Chinese copies of the narrative in my possession the title is
“Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms.” In the Japanese or Corean
recension subjoined to this translation, the title is twofold; first,
“Narrative of the Distinguished Monk, Fâ-Hien;” and then, more at
large, “Incidents of Travels in India, by the Sramana of the Eastern
Tsin, Fâ-Hien, recorded by himself.”
There is still earlier attestation of the existence of our little work than the
Suy Catalogue. The Catalogue Raisonné of the imperial library of the present
dynasty (chap. 71) mentions two quotations from it by Le Tao-yuen, a
geographical writer of the dynasty of the Northern Wei (A.D. 386-584), one of
them containing 89 characters, and the other 276; both of them given as from
the “Narrative of Fâ-Hien.”
In all catalogues subsequent to that of Suy our work appears. The evidence for
its authenticity and genuineness is all that could be required. It is clear to
myself that the “Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms” and the
“Narrative of his Travels by Fâ-Hien” were designations of one and
the same work, and that it is doubtful whether any larger work on the same
subject was ever current. With regard to the text subjoined to my translation,
it was published in Japan in 1779. The editor had before him four recensions of
the narrative; those of the Sung and Ming dynasties, with appendixes on the
names of certain characters in them; that of Japan; and that of Corea. He
wisely adopted the Corean text, published in accordance with a royal rescript
in 1726, so far as I can make out; but the different readings of the other
texts are all given in top-notes, instead of foot-notes as with us, this being
one of the points in which customs in the east and west go by contraries. Very
occasionally, the editor indicates by a single character, equivalent to
“right” or “wrong,” which reading in his opinion is to
be preferred. In the notes to the present republication of the Corean text, S
stands for Sung, M for Ming, and J for Japanese; R for right, and W for wrong.
I have taken the trouble to give all the various readings (amounting to more
than 300), partly as a curiosity and to make my text complete, and partly to
show how, in the transcription of writings in whatever language, such
variations are sure to occur,
“maculae, quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit nature,”
while on the whole they very slightly affect the meaning of the document.
The editors of the Catalogue Raisonné intimate their doubts of the good taste
and reliability of all Fâ-Hien’s statements. It offends them that he
should call central India the “Middle Kingdom,” and China, which to
them was the true and only Middle Kingdom, but “a Border
land;”—it offends them as the vaunting language of a Buddhist
writer, whereas the reader will see in the expressions only an instance of what
Fâ-Hien calls his “simple straightforwardness.”
As an instance of his unreliability they refer to his account of the Buddhism
of Khoten, whereas it is well known, they say, that the Khoteners from ancient
times till now have been Mohammedans;—as if they could have been so 170
years before Mohammed was born, and 222 years before the year of the Hegira!
And this is criticism in China. The Catalogue was ordered by the
K’ien-lung emperor in 1722. Between three and four hundred of the
“Great Scholars” of the empire were engaged on it in various
departments, and thus egregiously ignorant did they show themselves of all
beyond the limits of their own country, and even of the literature of that
country itself.
Much of what Fâ-Hien tells his readers of Buddhist miracles and legends is
indeed unreliable and grotesque; but we have from him the truth as to what he
saw and heard.
3. In concluding this introduction I wish to call attention to some estimates
of the number of Buddhists in the world which have become current, believing,
as I do, that the smallest of them is much above what is correct.
i. In a note on the first page of his work on the Bhilsa Topes (1854), General
Cunningham says: “The Christians number about 270 millions; the Buddhists
about 222 millions, who are distributed as follows:—China 170 millions,
Japan 25, Anam 14, Siam 3, Ava 8, Nepal 1, and Ceylon 1; total, 222
millions.”
ii. In his article on M. J. Barthelemy Saint Hilaire’s “Le Bouddha
et sa Religion,” republished in his “Chips from a German
Workshop,” vol. i. (1868), Professor Max Muller (p. 215) says, “The
young prince became the founder of a religion which, after more than two
thousand years, is still professed by 455 millions of human beings,” and
he appends the following note: “Though truth is not settled by
majorities, it would be interesting to know which religion counts at the
present moment the largest numbers of believers. Berghaus, in his
‘Physical Atlas,’ gives the following division of the human race
according to religion:—‘Buddhists 31.2 per cent, Christians 30.7,
Mohammedans 15.7, Brahmanists 13.4, Heathens 8.7, and Jews 0.3.’ As
Berghaus does not distinguish the Buddhists in China from the followers of
Confucius and Laotse, the first place on the scale really belongs to
Christianity. It is difficult to say to what religion a man belongs, as the
same person may profess two or three. The emperor himself, after sacrificing
according to the ritual of Confucius, visits a Tao-sse temple, and afterwards
bows before an image of Fo in a Buddhist chapel. (‘Mélanges Asiatiques de
St. Pétersbourg,’ vol. ii. p. 374.)”
iii. Both these estimates are exceeded by Dr. T. W. Rhys Davids (intimating
also the uncertainty of the statements, and that numbers are no evidence of
truth) in the introduction to his “Manual of Buddhism.” The
Buddhists there appear as amounting in all to 500 millions:—30 millions
of Southern Buddhists, in Ceylon, Burma, Siam, Anam, and India (Jains); and 470
millions of North Buddhists, of whom nearly 33 millions are assigned to Japan,
and 414,686,974 to the eighteen provinces of China proper. According to him,
Christians amount to about 26 per cent of mankind, Hindus to about 13,
Mohammedans to about 12 12, Buddhists to about 40, and Jews to about 12.
In regard to all these estimates, it will be observed that the immense numbers
assigned to Buddhism are made out by the multitude of Chinese with which it is
credited. Subtract Cunningham’s 170 millions of Chinese from his total of
222, and there remains only 52 millions of Buddhists. Subtract Davids’
(say) 414 12 millions of Chinese from his total of 500, and there remain
only 85 12 millions for Buddhism. Of the numbers assigned to other
countries, as well as of their whole populations, I am in considerable doubt,
excepting in the cases of Ceylon and India; but the greatness of the estimates
turns upon the immense multitudes said to be in China. I do not know what total
population Cunningham allowed for that country, nor on what principal he
allotted 170 millions of it to Buddhism;—perhaps he halved his estimate
of the whole, whereas Berghaus and Davids allotted to it the highest estimates
that have been given of the people.
But we have no certain information of the population of China. At an interview
with the former Chinese ambassador, Kwo Sung-tao, in Paris, in 1878, I begged
him to write out for me the amount, with the authority for it, and he assured
me that it could not be done. I have read probably almost everything that has
been published on the subject, and endeavoured by methods of my own to arrive
at a satisfactory conclusion;—without reaching a result which I can
venture to lay before the public. My impression has been that 400 millions is
hardly an exaggeration.
But supposing that we had reliable returns of the whole population, how shall
we proceed to apportion that among Confucianists, Taoists, and Buddhists?
Confucianism is the orthodoxy of China. The common name for it is Ju Chiao,
“the Doctrines held by the Learned Class,” entrance into the circle
of which is, with a few insignificant exceptions, open to all the people. The
mass of them and the masses under their influence are preponderatingly
Confucian; and in the observance of ancestral worship, the most remarkable
feature of the religion proper of China from the earliest times, of which
Confucius was not the author but the prophet, an overwhelming majority are
regular and assiduous.
Among “the strange principles” which the emperor of the
K’ang-hsi period, in one of his famous Sixteen Precepts, exhorted his
people to “discountenance and put away, in order to exalt the correct
doctrine,” Buddhism and Taoism were both included. If, as stated in the
note quoted from Professor Muller, the emperor countenances both the Taoist
worship and the Buddhist, he does so for reasons of state;—to please
especially his Buddhist subjects in Thibet and Mongolia, and not to offend the
many whose superstitious fancies incline to Taoism.
When I went out and in as a missionary among the Chinese people for about
thirty years, it sometimes occurred to me that only the inmates of their
monasteries and the recluses of both systems should be enumerated as Buddhists
and Taoists; but I was in the end constrained to widen that judgment, and to
admit a considerable following of both among the people, who have neither
received the tonsure nor assumed the yellow top. Dr. Eitel, in concluding his
discussion of this point in his “Lecture on Buddhism, an Event in
History,” says: “It is not too much to say that most Chinese are
theoretically Confucianists, but emotionally Buddhists or Taoists. But fairness
requires us to add that, though the mass of the people are more or less
influenced by Buddhist doctrines, yet the people, as a whole, have no respect
for the Buddhist church, and habitually sneer at Buddhist priests.” For
the “most” in the former of these two sentences I would substitute
“nearly all;” and between my friend’s “but” and
“emotionally” I would introduce “many are,” and would
not care to contest his conclusion farther. It does seem to me preposterous to
credit Buddhism with the whole of the vast population of China, the great
majority of whom are Confucianists. My own opinion is, that its adherents are
not so many as those even of Mohammedanism, and that instead of being the most
numerous of the religions (so called) of the world, it is only entitled to
occupy the fifth place, ranking below Christianity, Confucianism, Brahmanism,
and Mohammedanism, and followed, some distance off, by Taoism. To make a table
of percentages of mankind, and assign to each system its proportion, is to seem
to be wise where we are deplorably ignorant; and, moreover, if our means of
information were much better than they are, our figures would merely show the
outward adherence. A fractional per-centage might tell more for one system than
a very large integral one for another.