THE NAME OF "MESSIAH" FOUND IN A BUDDHIST BOOK; THE NESTORIAN MISSIONARY ADAM, PRESBYTER, PAPAS OF CHINA, TRANSLATING A BUDDHIST SÛTRA BY J. TAKAKUSU M. A. Ph. D. The first Nestorian missionary Olopun and his associates went to China in A.D. 635. Favorably received by T'ai-tsung, the then ruling emperor of the TangDynasty, he was engaged in a mission work in the city of Ch'ang-ngan (Singan-fu). In A.D. 781 that famous nestorian monument with a Syro-chinese inscription, of which a vast literature has been produced in Europe and in America, was erected to commemorate the diffusion of who,in 1888,published a new translation of the inscription and a lecture on the monument; he also found a confirmation as to its genuineness from other sources. = Now the same Adam King-tsing, who erected the monument, is mentioned again in a Buddhist book, which in a way gives light on the activity of the Nestorian missionaries in China. While I was referring to the Buddhist canonical books of China, the other day, I came across a book called the "Chêng-yüan christianity in China. The Syro-chinese Sin-ting-Shih-kiâo-muh-luh" composition was made by a persian missionary, Adam, presbyter and chor-, i. e. "The episcopos, and papas of China, whose chinese name, as the inscription shows, was King-tsing of the Ta-ts' in monastery 大秦寺. This monument had long been buried in the ground, until in 1625 it was dug up and the inscription was brought to light. Many facsimiliæ and translations were since produced, the genuineness of the inscription was questioned and once it was almost attributed to a Jesuit fabrication. At last its genuineness was completely established by the two able scholars Mr. Wylie and M. Pauthier, who handled the subject by a series of discussions, based on the concensus of chinese antiquaries and on a great variety of historical, biographical and topographical notices in its details, and elucidated every point by a fulness of evidence which leaves nothing more to be desired. They were followed by Dr. Legge of Oxford | New Catalogue of (the books of) the Teaching of Sakya in the period of Cheng-yuan" (A.D. 785-804) compiled by Yuen-chao, a priest of the Si-ming monastery of the Western Capital (Si-ngan-fu). For this book see Bodleian Library, Jap. 65DD, Vol. VII, fol. 5 v°. In this I found a passage relating to the Nestorian Missionary which I translate as follows: "Prajña, a Buddhist of Kapiśa, N. India 1), travelled through Central India, Ceylon, and the Islands of the Southern Sea (Sumatra, Java etc.) and came to China, for he heard that Mañjuśrî was in China. He arrived at Canton and came to the upper province (North) in A.D. 782 He met a relation of his in A.D. 786, who came to China before him. He translated together with King-tsing (= Adam) 2), a persian priest of the monas 1)法師梵名般剌若北天竺境迦畢試國人也。 2) In my translation of I-tsing's Record (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1896) p. 224, "named Adam" ought to have been in brackets, for it is not in the text. We get the name from the Inscription. 590 tery of Tâ-ts'in (Syria), the Satparamita-E.** sûtra) from a Hu text, and finished translating seven volumes. But because at that time Prajña was 聞奏、意望流行。聖上 not familiar with the Hu language, nor 濬哲文明、允恭釋典。 understood the Chinese language, and as King-tsing (Adam) did not know the**.*** . Brahma language (sanskrit), nor was versed in the teaching of the Sâkya, so 且夫釋氏伽藍大秦 though they pretended to be translating the text, yet they could not, in reality,‡ELLAÐ ́ obtain a half of its gems (i. e. real meanings). They were seeking vain glory 全乖。景淨應傳彌尸 privately, and wrongly trying their luck. They presented a memorial (to the. pagated. The Emperor (Te-tsung, A.D. 780-804), who was intelligent, wise L and accomplished, who revered the canon.. of the Sakya, examined what they had 涇渭殊流。Vide貞元新 translated, and found that the principles contained in it were obscure and the wording was diffuse. 定釋教目錄 [Japanese Tripi taka, t'ao (XXXVIII), 7th fasc., P. 5 verso}. So far the extract from the book of Yuen-chao. As to the identity of Adam with King-tsing there is no doubt whatever, as the parallel texts of the inscription clearly show. Moreover 2) the Sanghârâma of the Sakya and the monastery of Tâ-ts'in(Syria) differing much in their customs, and their religious practices being entirely opposed to each other, King-tsing (Adam) ought to hand down the teaching of Mi-shi-ho (Messiah), and the Sakyaputriya-Śramanas should propagate the sûtras of the Buddha. It is to be wished that the boundaries of the doctrines may be made distinct, and the followers may not intermingle. Ortho-history, doxy and heterodoxy are different things just as the rivers King and Wei have a different course". 乃與大秦寺波斯儈 景淨依胡本六波羅 傳譯、未獲半珠。圖竊 It is very interesting to have this little contemporary notice of the Nestorian from a Buddhist source. Christianity of China, as Gibbon remarks in his famous in the 7th and 13th century, is invincibly proved by the consent of Chinese, Arabian, Syriac and Latin evidence. In addition to these we have now a reference made by an eye-witness in a Buddhist work. It was under the Emperor Te-tsung (A.D. 780-804), that King-tsing (= Adam) had erected the monument, and under the same translating a Buddhist Sûtra. I have took place before the erection of the Emperor, he was recorded to have been some doubt as to whether the translation monument or after it, though from what we have in the above extract, the translation seems to have been made after the inscription 3). 1) The complete chinese title of this book is 大乘理趣六波羅密經 2) Hereafter the sentences seem to be a part of the imperial Edict. If so, the whole text of the Edict may be found in some book. 3) Prajña came to the upper province in A.D. 782, while the monument was erected in A D. 781. But the year in which they were translating the Buddhist book is not given. But their united work seems to have been stopped by an Edict no doubt as a result of jealousy of Buddhist priests. Té-tsung, the ruling Emperor, was claimed as patron by both Buddhists and Nestorians, and was praised by both sides. It might have been so, as such has often been the case in China as well as in India. If we compare the statements of both sides, we can easily understand the emperor's attitude toward religions of his time. I may find another occasion for entering into this question. Adam on his part seems to have adopted many Buddhist terms in expressing himself. In the inscription we find a number of Buddhistic expressions 1) or ideas, as Dr. Edkins has already remarked. This fact can now be explained as the result of King-tsing's study of Buddhism, for we have the evidence that he was engaged in translating Buddhist works. It is most natural for him to be anxious to get a knowledge of Buddhism in order to learn right religious terms for expressing himself to the people. As to the characters representing 'Messiah', the phonetization is exactly the same as that of the inscription, shi' only of 'mi-shi-ho' being a different character of the same sound 2). We should like to know what had become of the book which Adam was translating. That sûtra is indeed preserved in the Buddhist canonical books, but it is ascribed entirely to his colleague Prajña (see no. 1004 Nanjio, catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka). Whether or not the translation is the same as that which was made by both we cannot tell. For the students of the syro-chinese inscription and of the early missions of China, it may be worth examining this special sûtra, for it may throw some light on the composition of that singular inscription. 1) He used the Buddhistic words for 'monastery', 'priest' etc. 2) I gave these chinese symbols in my I-tsing, p. 224, note. NÉCROLOGIE G. EUGÈNE SIMON. M. SIMON avait été envoyé en mission en Chine par le Ministère de l'Agriculture en 1860; il avait remonté le Kiang en février 1861, sur le navire anglais qui conduisait l'amiral Hope, le major Sarel, le capitaine Blakiston dans le Haut-Fleuve. C'est dans ce voyage que Simon fit la connaissance de Jean Dupuis, avec lequel il arriva à Han-keou le 11 Mars 1861. Son dernier écrit devait être l'introduction au livre 1) de ce dernier sur les Origines de la question du Tong-king paru il y a quelques semaines. Il remontait dans le Nord en 1862. Puis, en 1863, Simon visitait le Sze-tchouen et rentrait en France l'année suivante. Grâce à M. Drouyn de Lhuys, il put changer de carrière et fut envoyé en 1865 comme consul à Ning-po. Depuis, il fut transféré à Foutcheou, puis à Sydney (Nouvelle-Galles du Sud) qui fut son dernier poste consulaire. Il fut mis ensuite à la retraite et il vient de mourir à St. Georges d'Oléron le 29 Septembre 1896. Pendant son séjour en Chine, Simon s'est occupé spécialement de questions d'agriculture 2) et des sociétés d'argent 3). Il nous a 1) Les Origines de la Question du Tong-king, par Jean Dupuis, Explorateur du Fleuve Rouge. Paris, Augustin Challamel, 1896, in-18, pp. XXXVI-240. 2) Carte agricole générale de l'Empire Chinois, première feuille, par G. Eugène Simon, Consul de France à Ning-po..... Texte: Préface, Légende et Répertoire. 1866. 1 cah. lith, pet. in-fol. de pp. 27 sans les tableaux. Carte agricole générale de l'Empire Chinois. Texte, Préface, Légende et Répertoire. Par Monsieur G. Eug. Simon, Consul de France à Ning-po. (Journ. N. C. B. R. As. Soc., N. S., No. IV, Déc. 1867, pp. 209 et seq., Art. X.) L'Agriculture en Chine à propos d'une carte agricole de la Chine par Eugène Simon, Consul de France. (Bull. Soc. de Géog, 6o Sér, II, 1871, pp. 401—423). 3) Note sur les petites Sociétés d'argent en Chine. Par M. Eng. Simon, Consul de France à Ning-po. (Journ. N. C. B. R. As. Soc., No. V, N. S., Déc. 1868, pp. 1 et seq) Sur les Institutions de Crédit en Chine, par Mons. G. Eug. Simon, Consul de France à Fou-Tcheou. (Ibid., No. VI, N. S, 1869-70, pp. 53 et seq.) laissé le récit de son voyage en Chine'); depuis qu'il est rentré en Europe, il a écrit un livre sur la Cité chinoise 3) qui a fait beaucoup de bruit à cause de théories qui ne me paraissent pas toujours complètement justifiées. Il était un collaborateur actif de la Nouvelle Revue, du Bulletin de la Société d'Acclimatation, etc. Henri CORDIER. GEORGE PHILLIPS. It is with profound regret that we have to announce to our readers the death of our friend and collaborator Mr. GEO. PHILLIPS, who died on Sunday, 25th October last, at his residence at Christ Church Avenue, Brondesbury, London, at the age of sixty years. M. GEORGE PHILLIPS was born on the third of October 1836 at Lower Walmer, Kent. He received his first instruction at a school at Hastings, Sussex, and finished his education at King's School and King's College, London. At the age of 21, he entered the China consular service in 1857, as student interpreter in Hongkong, and after having passed through several employments in this service, among other places in Foochow, Ning-po and Chen-kiang, he was appointed acting vice-consul at Pagoda-Island and acting consul of Amoy. In March 1878 he was appointed British Consul at Kiu-kiang. In 1880 he was transferred as Consul to Tai-wan-foo in Formosa. From August 1882 till April 1886 he was officiating consul at Swatow, when he took a furlough to England, where he arrived on July 1st, and was a few weeks after named Consul at Foochow in the province of Fuh-kien; which post, however, he only took up in November 1887. In August 1892 he retired from service on a pension, and has since been living in England. His first scientific articles, especially geographical, were published in the now - Récits d'un 4) Séance publique de la Société impériale d'acclimatation 4 mars 1870. Voyage en Chine par G. Eugène Simon, Consul de France en Chine. Extrait du Bulletin de la Société Impériale d'Acclimatation (No de Mars 1870). Paris, Imprimerie de E. Martinet, 1870, br. in-8, pp. 18. 5) La Cité chinoise, par G. Eug. Simon, ancien consul de France en Chine, ancien élève de l'institut national agronomique de Versailles. Paris, Nouvelle Revue, 1885, in-12, pp. 3891 f n. c. La Cité chinoise. Par Eugène Simon (Ann. de l'Ext. Orient, 1882-1883, V, pp 97-110). China: its Social, Political, and Religious Life. From the French of G. Eug. Simon. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1887, in-8, pp. 342. |