A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms E-Book

Fa-Hien

• Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 234

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

The record of personal observations gathered by the Chinese priest Fa-hien during the travels he made at the beginning of the fifth century in Central Asia, the Punjab, India, Ceylon and thence back by sea to China, were repeatedly published, apparently under different titles, in the course of the fifth and following centuries and when the Buddhist canon was authoritatively fixed by the Sung dynasty, this record was included in the Tripitaka with the sanction of the Sung and subsequently the King dynasties. Both the Corean and Japanese editions of the Buddhist Tripitaka also include Fa-hien's Record among the canonical writings of Northern Buddhism. The text suffered, in the course of time, slight corruptions, but the differences existing between the secular editions, as contained in various Confucian cyclopedias, and the canonical editions of the Buddhist churches of China, Corea and Japan, are very small. Dr. Legge was, so far as we know, the first translator of this work who took pains to collate the principal existing recensions of the Chinese text, and he has now produced, on the basis of the Corean edition, a text which may be considered as critically established.

Leseprobe

A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms

Fa-Hien

A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Fa- Hien

Translated by James Legge

Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Loschberg 9

Deutschland

ISBN: 9783988680013

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

CONTENTS:

PREFACE.. 1

INTRODUCTION.. 7

CHAPTER II. ON TO SHEN-SHEN AND THENCE TO KHOTEN.. 16

CHAPTER III. KHOTEN. PROCESSIONS OF IMAGES. THE KING’S NEW MONASTERY.20

CHAPTER IV. THROUGH THE TS’UNG OR “ONION” MOUNTAINS TO K’EEH-CH’A;—PROBABLY SKARDO, OR SOME CITY MORE TO THE EAST IN LADAK.24

CHAPTER V. GREAT QUINQUENNIAL ASSEMBLY OF MONKS. RELICS OF BUDDHA. PRODUCTIONS OF THE COUNTRY.26

CHAPTER VI. ON TOWARDS NORTH INDIA. DARADA. IMAGE OF MAITREYA BODHISATTVA.28

CHAPTER VII. CROSSING OF THE INDUS. WHEN BUDDHISM FIRST CROSSED THE RIVER FOR THE EAST30

CHAPTER VIII. WOO-CHANG, OR UDYANA. MONASTERIES, AND THEIR WAYS. TRACES OF BUDDHA.33

CHAPTER IX. SOO-HO-TO. LEGEND OF BUDDHA.35

CHAPTER X. GANDHARA. LEGENDS OF BUDDHA.37

CHAPTER XI. TAKSHASILA. LEGENDS. THE FOUR GREAT TOPES.38

CHAPTER XII. PURUSHAPURA, OR PESHAWUR. PROPHECY ABOUT KING KANISHKA AND HIS TOPE. BUDDHA’S ALMS-BOWL. DEATH OF HWUY-YING.39

CHAPTER XIII. NAGARA. FESTIVAL OF BUDDHA’S SKULL-BONE. OTHER RELICS, AND HIS SHADOW.43

CHAPTER XIV. DEATH OF HWUY-KING IN THE LITTLE SNOWY MOUNTAINS. LO-E. POHNA. CROSSING THE INDUS TO THE EAST.47

CHAPTER XV. BHIDA. SYMPATHY OF MONKS WITH THE PILGRIMS.49

CHAPTER XVI. ON TO MATHURA OR MUTTRA. CONDITION AND CUSTOMS OF CENTRAL INDIA; OF THE MONKS, VIHARAS, AND MONASTERIES.50

CHAPTER XVII. SANKASYA. BUDDHA’S ASCENT TO AND DESCENT FROM THE TRAYASTRIMSAS HEAVEN, AND OTHER LEGENDS.55

CHAPTER XVIII. KANYAKUBJA, OR CANOUGE. BUDDHA’S PREACHING.61

CHAPTER XIX. SHA-CHE. LEGEND OF BUDDHA’S DANTA-KASHTHA.62

CHAPTER XX. KOSALA AND SRAVASTI. THE JETAVANA VIHARA AND OTHER MEMORIALS AND LEGENDS OF BUDDHA. SYMPATHY OF THE MONKS WITH THE PILGRIMS.63

CHAPTER XXI. THE THREE PREDECESSORS OF SAKYAMUNI IN THE BUDDHASHIP.70

CHAPTER XXII. KAPILAVASTU. ITS DESOLATION. LEGENDS OF BUDDHA’S BIRTH, AND OTHER INCIDENTS IN CONNEXION WITH IT.71

CHAPTER XXIII. RAMA, AND ITS TOPE.75

CHAPTER XXIV. WHERE BUDDHA FINALLY RENOUNCED THE WORLD, AND WHERE HE DIED.77

CHAPTER XXV. VAISALI. THE TOPE CALLED “WEAPONS LAID DOWN.” THE COUNCIL OF VAISALI.79

CHAPTER XXVI. REMARKABLE DEATH OF ANANDA.83

CHAPTER XXVII. PATALIPUTTRA OR PATNA, IN MAGADHA. KING ASOKA’S SPIRIT-BUILT PALACE AND HALLS. THE BUDDHIST BRAHMAN, RADHA-SAMI. DISPENSARIES AND HOSPITALS.85

CHAPTER XXVIII. RAJAGRIHA, NEW AND OLD. LEGENDS AND INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH IT.88

CHAPTER XXIX. GRIDHRA-KUTA HILL, AND LEGENDS. FÂ-HIEN PASSES A NIGHT ON IT. HIS REFLECTIONS.91

CHAPTER XXX. THE SRATAPARNA CAVE, OR CAVE OF THE FIRST COUNCIL. LEGENDS. SUICIDE OF A BHIKSHU.93

CHAPTER XXXI. GAYA. SAKYAMUNI’S ATTAINING TO THE BUDDHASHIP; AND OTHER LEGENDS.96

CHAPTER XXXII. LEGEND OF KING ASOKA IN A FORMER BIRTH, AND HIS NARAKA.99

CHAPTER XXXIII. MOUNT GURUPADA, WHERE KASYAPA BUDDHA’S ENTIRE SKELETON IS.102

CHAPTER XXXIV. ON THE WAY BACK TO PATNA. VARANASI, OR BENARES. SAKYAMUNI’S FIRST DOINGS AFTER BECOMING BUDDHA.103

CHAPTER XXXV. DAKSHINA, AND THE PIGEON MONASTERY.106

CHAPTER XXXVI. IN PATNA. FÂ-HIEN’S LABOURS IN TRANSCRIPTION OF MANUSCRIPTS, AND INDIAN STUDIES FOR THREE YEARS.108

CHAPTER XXXVII. TO CHAMPA AND TAMALIPTI. STAY AND LABOURS THERE FOR THREE YEARS. TAKES SHIP TO SINGHALA, OR CEYLON.110

CHAPTER XXXVIII. AT CEYLON. RISE OF THE KINGDOM. FEATS OF BUDDHA. TOPES AND MONASTERIES. STATUE OF BUDDHA IN JADE. BO TREE. FESTIVAL OF BUDDHA’S TOOTH.112

CHAPTER XXXIX. CREMATION OF AN ARHAT. SERMON OF A DEVOTEE.118

CHAPTER XL. AFTER TWO YEARS TAKES SHIP FOR CHINA. DISASTROUS PASSAGE TO JAVA; AND THENCE TO CHINA; ARRIVES AT SHAN-TUNG; AND GOES TO NANKING. CONCLUSION OR L’ENVOI BY ANOTHER WRITER.121

PREFACE

Several times during my long residence in Hong Kong I endeavoured to read through the “Narrative of Fâ-Hien;” but though interested with the graphic details of much of the work, its columns bristled so constantly—now with his phonetic representations of Sanskrit words, and now with his substitution for them of their meanings in Chinese characters, and I was, moreover, so much occupied with my own special labours on the Confucian Classics, that my success was far from satisfactory. When Dr. Eitel’s “Handbook for the Student of Chinese Buddhism” appeared in 1870, the difficulty occasioned by the Sanskrit words and names was removed, but the other difficulty remained; and I was not able to look into the book again for several years. Nor had I much inducement to do so in the two copies of it which I had been able to procure, on poor paper, and printed from blocks badly cut at first, and so worn with use as to yield books the reverse of attractive in their appearance to the student.

In the meantime I kept studying the subject of Buddhism from various sources; and in 1878 began to lecture, here in Oxford, on the Travels with my Davis Chinese scholar, who was at the same time Boden Sanskrit scholar. As we went on, I wrote out a translation in English for my own satisfaction of nearly half the narrative. In the beginning of last year I made Fâ-Hien again the subject of lecture, wrote out a second translation, independent of the former, and pushed on till I had completed the whole.

The want of a good and clear text had been supplied by my friend, Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, who sent to me from Japan a copy, the text of which is appended to the translation and notes, and of the nature of which some account is given in the Introduction, and towards the end of this Preface.

The present work consists of three parts: the Translation of Fâ-Hien’s Narrative of his Travels; copious Notes; and the Chinese Text of my copy from Japan.

It is for the Translation that I hold myself more especially responsible. Portions of it were written out three times, and the whole of it twice. While preparing my own version I made frequent reference to previous translations:—those of M. Abel Rémusat, “Revu, complété, et augmenté d’éclaircissements nouveaux par MM. Klaproth et Landress” (Paris, 1836); of the Rev. Samuel Beal (London, 1869), and his revision of it, prefixed to his “Buddhist Records of the Western World” (Trübner’s Oriental Series, 1884); and of Mr. Herbert A. Giles, of H.M.’s Consular Service in China (1877). To these I have to add a series of articles on “Fa-hsien and his English Translators,” by Mr. T. Watters, British Consul at Î-Chang (China Review, 1879, 1880). Those articles are of the highest value, displaying accuracy of Chinese scholarship and an extensive knowledge of Buddhism. I have regretted that Mr. Watters, while reviewing others, did not himself write out and publish a version of the whole of Fâ-Hien’s narrative. If he had done so, I should probably have thought that, on the whole, nothing more remained to be done for the distinguished Chinese pilgrim in the way of translation. Mr. Watters had to judge of the comparative merits of the versions of Beal and Giles, and pronounce on the many points of contention between them. I have endeavoured to eschew those matters, and have seldom made remarks of a critical nature in defence of renderings of my own.

The Chinese narrative runs on without any break. It was Klaproth who divided Rémusat’s translation into forty chapters. The division is helpful to the reader, and I have followed it excepting in three or four instances. In the reprinted Chinese text the chapters are separated by a circle in the column.

In transliterating the names of Chinese characters I have generally followed the spelling of Morrison rather than the Pekinese, which is now in vogue. We cannot tell exactly what the pronunciation of them was, about fifteen hundred years ago, in the time of Fâ-Hien; but the southern mandarin must be a shade nearer to it than that of Peking at the present day. In transliterating the Indian names I have for the most part followed Dr. Eitel, with such modification as seemed good and in harmony with growing usage.

For the Notes I can do little more than claim the merit of selection and condensation. My first object in them was to explain what in the text required explanation to an English reader. All Chinese texts, and Buddhist texts especially, are new to foreign students. One has to do for them what many hundreds of the ablest scholars in Europe have done for the Greek and Latin Classics during several hundred years, and what the thousands of critics and commentators have been doing of our Sacred Scriptures for nearly eighteen centuries. There are few predecessors in the field of Chinese literature into whose labours translators of the present century can enter. This will be received, I hope, as a sufficient apology for the minuteness and length of some of the notes. A second object in them was to teach myself first, and then others, something of the history and doctrines of Buddhism. I have thought that they might be learned better in connexion with a lively narrative like that of Fâ-Hien than by reading didactic descriptions and argumentative books. Such has been my own experience. The books which I have consulted for these notes have been many, besides Chinese works. My principal help has been the full and masterly handbook of Eitel, mentioned already, and often referred to as E.H. Spence Hardy’s “Eastern Monachism” (E.M.) and “Manual of Buddhism” (M.B.) have been constantly in hand, as well as Rhys Davids’ Buddhism, published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, his Hibbert Lectures, and his Buddhist Suttas in the Sacred Books of the East, and other writings. I need not mention other authorities, having endeavoured always to specify them where I make use of them. My proximity and access to the Bodleian Library and the Indian Institute have been of great advantage.

I may be allowed to say that, so far as my own study of it has gone, I think there are many things in the vast field of Buddhist literature which still require to be carefully handled. How far, for instance, are we entitled to regard the present Sûtras as genuine and sufficiently accurate copies of those which were accepted by the Councils before our Christian era? Can anything be done to trace the rise of the legends and marvels of Sâkyamuni’s history, which were current so early (as it seems to us) as the time of Fâ-Hien, and which startle us so frequently by similarities between them and narratives in our Gospels? Dr. Hermann Oldenberg, certainly a great authority on Buddhistic subjects, says that “a biography of Buddha has not come down to us from ancient times, from the age of the Pâli texts; and, we can safely say, no such biography existed then” (“Buddha—His Life, His Doctrine, His Order,” as translated by Hoey, p. 78). He has also (in the same work, pp. 99, 416, 417) come to the conclusion that the hitherto unchallenged tradition that the Buddha was “a king’s son” must be given up. The name “king’s son” (in Chinese {...}), always used of the Buddha, certainly requires to be understood in the highest sense. I am content myself to wait for further information on these and other points, as the result of prolonged and careful research.

Dr. Rhys Davids has kindly read the proofs of the Translation and Notes, and I most certainly thank him for doing so, for his many valuable corrections in the Notes, and for other suggestions which I have received from him. I may not always think on various points exactly as he does, but I am not more forward than he is to say with Horace,—

“Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.”

I have referred above, and also in the Introduction, to the Corean text of Fâ-Hien’s narrative, which I received from Mr. Nanjio. It is on the whole so much superior to the better-known texts, that I determined to attempt to reproduce it at the end of the little volume, so far as our resources here in Oxford would permit. To do so has not been an easy task. The two fonts of Chinese types in the Clarendon Press were prepared primarily for printing the translation of our Sacred Scriptures, and then extended so as to be available for printing also the Confucian Classics; but the Buddhist work necessarily requires many types not found in them, while many other characters in the Corean recension are peculiar in their forms, and some are what Chinese dictionaries denominate “vulgar.” That we have succeeded so well as we have done is owing chiefly to the intelligence, ingenuity, and untiring attention of Mr. J. C. Pembrey, the Oriental Reader.

The pictures that have been introduced were taken from a superb edition of a History of Buddha, republished recently at Hang-châu in Cheh-kiang, and profusely illustrated in the best style of Chinese art. I am indebted for the use of it to the Rev. J. H. Sedgwick, University Chinese Scholar.

JAMES LEGGE.

Oxford:

June, 1886.

Sketch Map Of Fâ-Hien’s Travels

The accompanying Sketch-Map, taken in connexion with the notes on the different places in the Narrative, will give the reader a sufficiently accurate knowledge of Fâ-Hien’s route.

There is no difficulty in laying it down after he crossed the Indus from east to west into the Punjâb, all the principal places, at which he touched or rested, having been determined by Cunningham and other Indian geographers and archaeologists. Most of the places from Ch’ang-an to Bannu have also been identified. Woo-e has been put down as near Kutcha, or Kuldja, in 43° 25′ N., 81° 15′ E. The country of K’ieh-ch’a was probably Ladak, but I am inclined to think that the place where the traveller crossed the Indus and entered it must have been further east than Skardo. A doubt is intimated on page 24 as to the identification of T’o-leih with Darada, but Greenough’s “Physical and Geological Sketch-Map of British India” shows “Dardu Proper,” all lying on the east of the Indus, exactly in the position where the Narrative would lead us to place it. The point at which Fâ-Hien recrossed the Indus into Udyâna on the west of it is unknown. Takshasila, which he visited, was no doubt on the west of the river, and has been incorrectly accepted as the Taxila of Arrian in the Punjâb. It should be written Takshasira, of which the Chinese phonetisation will allow;—see a note of Beal in his “Buddhist Records of the Western World,” i. 138.

We must suppose that Fâ-Hien went on from Nan-king to Ch’ang-an, but the Narrative does not record the fact of his doing so.

INTRODUCTION

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.