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.

The Rediscovery of Gāndhārī Literature

Recent years have witnessed a recovery of early Buddhist manuscript treasures from South Asia that, in scale and significance, can only be compared to the early twentieth-century discovery of a flourishing medieval Buddhist culture in monasteries and settlements along the Silk Roads in what is now Xinjiang (China), and to the discovery, in the 1930s, of a Buddhist manuscript deposit near Gilgit (Pakistan). Like the latter, the recent discoveries hail from the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and, in many cases, predate previously known textual traditions by centuries. Many of the new manuscripts are in Sanskrit and written in varieties of the Brāhmī script, but the very earliest layer among them, dating from as early as the first century bce to the second century ce is written in the Kharos|thī script and in the local Middle Indo- Aryan language, Gāndhārī, with varying degrees of substrate influence from other dialects and, later, increasing Sanskritisation. At the outset of this paper,it will be useful to give a brief overview of Gāndhārī manuscript discoveries and of the currently known corpus of Gāndhārī literature since the available overviews have already been outdated by the rapid pace of events.

Until the 1990s, the only substantial Gāndhārī manuscript known to scholarship was the so-called Gāndhārī Dharmapada (now referred to as the Khotan Dharmapada), discovered in 1892 near Khotan on the southern Silk Road. This long birch-bark scroll apparently contained the complete text of a previously unknown version of the Dharmapada but only two-thirds of it survive and are now preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg. After a long series of preliminary studies, the Khotan Dharmapada was definitively edited by John Brough in 1962. Our only other sources for early Gandhāran Buddhism consisted of a limited number of Gāndhārī inscriptions (some containing literary and doctrinal references), archaeological and art-historical evidence, and the reports and translations of early Chinese pilgrims.

The situation changed radically when, in 1994, the British Library acquired a collection of twenty-nine birch-bark scroll fragments, and the Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project was established at the University of Washington to study these earliest remains of Buddhist and South Asian written literature.

Undoubtedly, Aśoka (c. 268-232 bce) and Jayavarman VII (1182-1220?), two of the greatest rulers of India and Southeast Asia were Buddhists by any definition. Aśoka produced the earliest and largest number of inscriptions of early India, all of them with a clear Buddhist connotation. And Jayavarman VII left to us, most likely, not only Southeast Asia's largest number of royal inscriptions but also the largest number of monuments in Angkor, all of them of a Buddhist nature as are his inscriptions, too. Aśoka and Jayavarman were not only rulers of India's and Southeast Asia's most impressive early and medieval states, which may rightly be termed as empires, but under both of them, their states even reached their climax. However, the puzzling problem is that their deaths were followed by an inexorable decay of their erstwhile great empires. What matters in this context is that this decay was linked with a reaction against the Buddhism propagated by these great Buddhist rulers. The Buddhist tradition of a Brahmanical counteraction against Buddhism under the Śungas has been refuted with good cause. After all, the marvellously carved railings of the Buddhist stūpa of Bharhut belong to the age of the Śungas. But none of Aśoka's weak successors on the Mauryan throne is known to have followed his dhamma policy. Pu|syamitra Śunga, who killed the last Maurya ruler in 187 bce, is known to have conducted two horse sacrifices, an act detrimental to Aśoka's dhamma. Jayavarman VII's reign, however, was definitely “followed by a violent reaction accompanied by acts of vandalism.” Buddhist temples founded by Jayavarman were converted to Śaivism which seems to have been reintroduced as the state cult. Hundreds of small Buddhist images were systematically destroyed in Preah Khan and Ta Prohm. In 1933, broken pieces of Bayon's principal image, a 3.6-m Buddha, were discovered at the bottom of its central well. The crucial question is whether the causes of the posthumous fate of Aśoka's and Jayavarman's great achievements have to be traced to the biography of these rulers, or whether it represents, respectively, an inherently ambivalent nature of the relationship between Buddhism and the state in India and pre-Theravāda Buddhist Southeast Asia.

Let me begin with some detailed deliberations on Aśoka.