Introduction

Networks of cross-cultural exchange served as channels for the movement of Buddhism across Asia. Just as trade networks facilitate long-distance economic transactions, religious networks contribute to the mobility of beliefs and practices, as well as dynamic processes of migration, conversion, pilgrimage, and monastic expansion. Network analysis has been applied more extensively to the natural and social sciences, particularly economics, but scholars in the humanities, in general, and religious studies, in particular, tend to suspect that network models are overly functional, reductionist, and deterministic. Critics of network analysis observe that extreme applications severely limit the role of intention and agency since models aim to show how actors are governed by systematic patterns in a structured system. However, Buddhist monks, missionaries, pilgrims, and other religious agents are not merely acted upon by static structures but create their own networks of religious mobility. Thus, parallel networks of religious exchange and transmission overlap with but are not necessarily embedded within exogenous economic, political and social networks. Religious and economic networks often share routes and hubs since centres of power and wealth have multiple functions as places of veneration and cultural production. By linking monastic communities with sources of economic and social support, Buddhist networks act as catalysts for expansion and long-distance transmission.

Buddhist archaeological, epigraphic and literary evidence demonstrates links between regional networks of shrines and monasteries that facilitated religious transmission and long-distance trade networks. From the earliest periods, wealthy and powerful donors funded stūpas and monasteries in locations near cities and in prosperous rural areas with surplus resources to support monastic communities. Patterns in the distribution of Buddhist material remains reflect symbiotic relationships between the growth of trade networks, the support of rulers, and the expansion of Buddhism across geographical and cultural boundaries. As the establishment and survival of residential Buddhist monasteries depended on basic material conditions, the growth of the samgha was directly tied to the generosity of wealthy donors, including merchants involved in commercial exchanges. While Buddhist institutional expansion is not fully determined by economics alone (since other social and cultural factors are also necessary to stimulate donations in exchange for religious merit), religious and economic spheres are mutually imbricated.

INTRODUCTION

Most of the Indian Abhidharma texts available in Tibetan translation were produced in the ninth century by the Tibetan translators Ska ba dpal brtsegs, Ye shes sde, and Cog ro klu'i rgyal mtshan in collaboration with the Indian panditas Jinamitra, Śīlendrabodhi, Prajnāvarman, Dānaśīla, and Viśuddhisim{ ha. They prepared translations of the Abhidharmasamuccaya (P 5550) and its commentaries, the Abhidharmasamuccayabhāsya (P 5554) and the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā (P 5555), of parts of the Prajnaptiśāstra (P 5587-5589), of the Abhidharmakośa(bhāsya) (P 5590 and 5591) and its commentary, the Sphutārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā (P 5593), of the Sārasamuccaya (P 5598), as well as of the Pancaskandhaka (P 5560) and its three commentaries, namely, Sthiramati's Pancaskandhakavibhāsā (P 5567), Gunaprabha's Pancaskandhavivarana (P 5568) and *Prthivībandhu's Pancaskandhabhāsya (P 5569). The latest translation of an Indian Abhidharma treatise into Tibetan was probably produced by the Tibetan grammarian and translator Chos skyong bzang po (1441-1527/28), also known by his Sanskrit name Dharmapālabhadra, who rendered into Tibetan Sthiramati's extensive commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāsya, the Abhidharmakośabhāsyatīkā Tattvārthā (P 5875).

Despite the existence of a great variety of Abhidharma works in the Tibetan canon, only two of these texts made their way into the general curriculum of Tibetan monastic education and were transmitted in a continuous lineage: the Abhidharmakośa(bhāsya) and the Abhidharmasamuccaya. Remarkably, the teaching transmission of the Abhidharmasamuccaya is considered to have continued uninterruptedly from the ninth century, even through the “grey period” of Tibetan history (i.e. through post-imperial times from 842 until the end of the tenth century), while the Abhidharmakośabhāsya was reintroduced to Tibet by the Indian pandita Smrti in the late tenth century after a gap in the early transmission lineage.

Besides the Abhidharmasamuccaya, the Abhidharma of the Yogācāras is also represented in the Tibetan tradition by a collection of indigenous works that deal exclusively with the Yogācāra concepts of the “notion of ‘I’” (klistamanas, nyon mongs pa can gyi yid) and the “store mind” (ālayavijnāna, kun gzhi rnam par shes pa).

INTRODUCTION

Buddhism, and no less so Theravāda Buddhism, has been a transnational movement right from its beginning. The Mauryan king, Aśoka's sending of monks to the regions adjacent to India in the third century bce is a well-known and oft-quoted example, and the spread of Buddhist texts and artefacts in subsequent centuries has been the subject of numerous studies. This expansion to the east culminated in the period between c. 800 and 1200 ce, when Buddhism gradually disappeared in its Indian homeland but simultaneously resurged as a mass religion in mainland Southeast Asia. It is important to note that this relationship was by no means unilinear, as Buddhists from outside South Asia regularly returned to the “Middle Country” to visit its sacred places, study in one of its monastic centres such as Nālandā or Anurādhapura, and exchange ideas, texts, ordination lineages and all kinds of artefacts.

At the heart of this exchange system lies the Bay of Bengal. Ever since Fernand Braudel's pioneering study of the Mediterranean, historians have recognised that the sea cannot only separate people but also bring them together and provide for the transfer of goods and ideas, as well as facilitate any other sort of exchange and communication. The ocean as a platform for intercourse, exchange and communication in all their forms – one could as well call it a “sea square” for this purpose – has thrilled historians ever since, making the study of oceans and their sub-systems, as well as the social and economic networks which they bear, an important field of historical research. Even though it is less closed than the Mediterranean, the Bay of Bengal seems to fit Braudel's model quite well. Landlocked on its northern and eastern sides, the Bay is open on its southern side, opening not only the Indian east coast for communication with Southeast Asia, but also serving as a link between the Indian Ocean in the west and the China Sea in the east. This maritime route was part of the larger “silk road of the sea,” which stretched from China through Southeast Asian waters and the Malacca Straits to south India into the Indian Ocean and further west towards the Red Sea and the east coast of Africa.

Introduction

This article examines the story of the Buddha's first return to his home city Kapilavastu after his awakening, as found in the fifth chapter of the Buddhist work known as the Book of Zambasta. This is possibly the oldest extant Buddhist text in Khotanese, an Eastern Middle Iranian language once spoken and written in Central Asia, in part of what is now the north-western Chinese region of Xinjiang.

My purpose here is to investigate the fifth chapter in the context of the reception of the Mahāyāna in Khotan. In particular, I explore how an appreciation of the mode of transmission of the text, through the analysis of its structure and contents and in comparison with a number of possible sources and parallels, can contribute to the reconstruction of the first documentable stages in the spread of the Buddhadharma to Khotan.

Chapter five is found as such in the only virtually complete manuscript of the Book of Zambasta, stemming from the eighth century. It was not included in ms. T III S 16, the earliest witness of this work, datable on palaeographic grounds to the fifth/sixth centuries, since the single surviving folio of this earliest witness, which contains stanzas belonging to chapter nine, enables us to calculate that the manuscript only contained part of the collection starting from chapter seven, that is, counting backwards, the first folio of the manuscript must have contained the beginning of chapter seven. Theoretically, this earliest witness could have been either a selection of the work for independent circulation or an initial nucleus which was subsequently expanded. Thus, in theory, there are two possibilities: either chapter five was part of the Book of Zambasta from the very beginning or, if the work developed as a collection through a number of unattested intermediate stages of formation (or if it were to become a collection later, as the result of a single redactional event), it became part of such collection after the fifth century, in which case, as a consequence, the chronology of its redaction would remain uncertain. However, the possibility that the work did not exist from the outset in its present shape is less likely, given the character of the Book of Zambasta as a collection of individual texts distinctively designed and intercommunicating as one unitary work in terms of both content and structure.

Introduction

There is a long history of contact between the Buddhist communities of Lanka (now Sri Lanka) and those in the region we refer to as Southeast Asia. This rich history is characterised by complex processes of influence and exchange that bound Lanka to the wider southern Asian region in ways that we still struggle to understand. Buddhist texts, persons carrying other forms of specialised knowledge, modes of devotional-ritual practice, and aesthetic patterns travelled along intersecting land and maritime circuits through this region. At crucial points from the twelfth century onwards, monastic lineages from Lanka, often referred to as Sīhala Sangha (monks related to the land of Sīhala), were imported to polities in what is now Burma and Thailand. In turn, royal and non-royal agents from Lanka brought monastic lineages from parts of Burma and Siam during the era of the Kandyan kings, and also during the years of British colonial rule. The British and French colonial presence, as well as growing Christian missionary influence, created numerous challenges for southern Asian Buddhists, as well as new possibilities for institutional development and social alliances. Here, I look briefly at some of the contexts in which Lankan Buddhist monks looked to Southeast Asian monastic lines and polities in their attempt to relieve pressures created by the Christian missionary presence and by the British removal of local royal patrons of Buddhism. This sets the stage for looking more closely in the other direction from Lanka to mainland Southeast Asia in order to see how the kingdoms of Burma and Cambodia understood Lanka's Buddhist arena as a source of ritual benefits and succor even as they experienced British and French colonial intrusion more sharply.

Looking East from Lanka

In December of 1882, Governor James Longden wrote to London from Lanka informing the Colonial Secretary, Lord Kimberley, that there were signs of millennarianism on the island. Rumour had it that “a pamphlet prophesying the imminent overthrow of British rule was circulating among the Buddhists.”There were stories told in Lanka about a King of Righteousness who would rid the island of British presence. The circulation of narratives anticipating a Buddhist-empowered end to British rule was a measure of cumulative grievance and distress on the island, and a sign of intensifying impatience with foreign and Christian rule.

The papers published in this volume were first presented at a conference entitled “Buddhism Across Asia: Networks of Material, Intellectual and Cultural Exchange,” held in Singapore over the four days 2-5 February 2009. Organised by the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and funded by the Singapore Buddhist Lodge, the conference drew over fifty participants. The primary aim of the conference was to examine the connections that were established between Asian societies and polities as a result of the transmission and adaptation of Buddhist doctrines. Papers exploring this process mainly through the analysis of textual sources are brought together in this volume. Essays that deal with the archaeological and art historical evidence will appear in Volume Two.

The essays in this volume are not intended to outline the initial stages of the spread of Buddhist doctrines to various parts of Asia. Nor are they meant to be introductory narratives of Buddhism in different regions of Asia. Rather, the essays deal with complex issues related to Buddhism, in the process by which the doctrines, in their varied forms and manifestations, became an integral part of Asian societies and history. Many of the essays are detailed exposition of these evolving phases of Buddhist history in Asia, from the early Common Era to the twentieth century. Together, they demonstrate the long history of Buddhism and highlight the intricate processes through which the circulation of Buddhist doctrines fostered intra-Asian interactions. The aim of the introductory chapter, in addition to the usual practice of briefly summarising individual chapters, is to underscore and provide a basic framework for the important phases of Buddhist interactions within which the chapters in this volume are organised.

BUDDHISM AND INTRA-ASIAN INTERACTIONS

The transmission of Buddhism is often described as a linear process, spreading through several centuries from ancient India to other parts of Asia. This is illustrated in maps with arrows from the Buddhist heartland in South Asia to Central and Southeast Asia and then onward to East Asia. In reality, the process was more complex and the transmission was certainly not unidirectional. Buddhist monks from South Asia, for example, went to China not only to transmit the doctrine, but also to pay homage to Buddhist divinities purportedly living on Chinese mountains.

Much ink has been spilled in recent years on the proper interpretation of the famous opening formula beginning with “Thus have I heard . . .” (Skt. evain mayā śrutam, Pāli evain me sutain) that appears at the beginning of most Buddhist sūtras. The issue is, first of all, how to divide the components of this formula—that is, whether the subsequent phrase “at one time” (Skt. ekasmin samaye, Pāli ekain samayain) is to be construed with what precedes it, with what follows it, or with both. At least three different interpretations of this opening formula, based on three different ideas of how to punctuate it, can be found in modern scholarly studies. Giving each of these three options in English, together with the corresponding wording in Sanskrit, they are the following:

1. “Thus have I heard. At one time the Blessed One was staying at . . . in . . .” (evain mayā śrutam | ekasmin samaye bhagavān [+ place name] viharati Sma [+ additional location details]);

2. “Thus have I heard at one time. The Blessed One was staying at . . . in . . .” (evain mayā śrutam ekasmin samaye | bhagavān [+ place name] viharati Sma [+ additional location details]); and

3. “Thus have I heard at the one time when the Blessed One was staying at . . . in . . .” (evain mayā śrutam ekasmin samaye bhagavān [+ place name] viharati sma [+ additional location details]).

Sources of various types have been adduced to support one or other of these interpretations, including the actual punctuation found in manuscripts and printed texts of sūtras in Sanskrit, Pāli and Tibetan, the treatment of the phrase in Indian and Chinese sūtra commentaries, and the wording of the formula in Tibetan translations of Buddhist sūtras. Relatively little attention has been paid, by contrast, to the treatment of the formula in Chinese sūtra translations themselves, perhaps because it has been assumed that – since Chinese texts were not punctuated until relatively recent times – they cannot help us to determine where (if at all) the opening formula should be divided.

In fact, however, the data provided by Chinese translations is of considerable Importance.