CHINESE BUDDHISM.* THE religion of Buddha is now spread over the greatest part of Asia; Thibet, China, Great Tartary (as far as the Eastern Ocean), Corea, Japan, and India beyond the Ganges, are subject to its influence. Until recently, Europe had but very superficial notions of the nature of this interesting creed. Thirty years ago, the celebrated Pallas published the second volume of his work on the Mongolian Nations, which contains ample information on the mythological and liturgical parts of the Lamaïc branch of Buddhism, but none on the esoteric basis of this faith. In a series of papers read before the French Academy of Inscriptions, Deguignes the elder endeavoured to illustrate this very difficult subject, but the materials he had at his command were incomplete and imperfect, and by confounding Buddhism and Brahmanism together, the learned author increased the obscurity instead of removing it. Deshauterayes's Recherches sur la Religion de Fo, inserted, many years after his death, in the seventh and eighth volumes of the Journal Asiatique of Paris, are more useful, and derived from more genuine sources. But all these works were far from sufficient to elucidate so obscure a doctrine: we now possess a fund of better information on the subject, through the exertions of some of the members of the Asiatic Societies of Calcutta, London, Paris, and St. Petersburgh, who have corrected a great number of errors respecting the philosophical system of Buddhism, and demonstrated that it bears a strong similitude to that of Spinoza. Nevertheless, our knowledge of Buddhism is yet very incomplete, and we therefore hail with satisfaction and gratitude every work calculated to enlarge it. The Catechism of the Shamans, recently translated from the Chinese by Professor Neumann, gives a short but interesting view of the laws and priesthood of Buddha in China. Unfortunately, we have not the original within our reach, and the translator has even forgotten to mention the Chinese title of the work; for we cannot suppose that it is the same as the Sha mun jih yung, or Breviary of the Shamun, frequently quoted in his notes. M. Neumann, having lately visited Canton, was fortunate enough to procure a large Buddhist library, for the most part printed at the Hae chung sze monastery, situated on Honan Island, opposite to the European factories. This library consists of about 300 large volumes, including a part of the sacred works translated from the Sanscrit; also some original publications of the Buddhists in China, and their liturgical works. M. Neumann had not time at Canton to examine closely this valuable and interesting collection of books; he looked slightly over them, with the hope of meeting with a treatise, in a small size, which would serve as an introduction or guide" in the vast wilderness of Indian physics, ethics, and metaphysics." Perusing many volumes, he at last thought that the present Catechism, printed at Canton in the year 1763, would be the best The Catechism of the Shamans; or the Laws and Regulations of the Priesthood of Buddha, in China. Translated from the Chinese Original, with Notes and Illustrations, by CH. FR. NEUMANN. London: printed for the Oriental Translation Fund. 1831. adapted to give "a tolerable idea of the speculative and practical part of Buddhism." This hope, we are sorry to state, has been too sanguine; we do not find the work before us calculated to afford the slightest notion of Buddhistic philosophy. It is merely a comment on the ten fundamental laws of the Chinese priesthood, and the twenty-four regulations for their conduct in the monastic life, which we here give in M. Neumann's version, without warranting its correctness. The ten laws are 1. Thou shalt not kill any living creature. 2. Thou shalt not steal. 3. Thou shalt not be lewd. 4. Thou shalt not do wrong by the mouth. 5. Thou shalt not drink strong liquors. 6. Thou shalt not perfume the hair on the top of thy head; thou shalt not paint thy body. 7. Thou shalt not behold or hear songs, pantomimes, and plays, nor shalt thou perform thyself. 8. Thou shalt not sit or lye on a high and large couch. 9. Thou shalt not eat after the time. 10. Thou shalt not have in thy possession either a metal figure (an idol), or gold, or silver, or any other valuable thing. The twenty-four regulations are 1. Respect to be paid to a chief Sha-mun. 2. Duties towards the teacher (guru). 3. On going out with the master. 4. General behaviour. 5. Concerning the dinner. 6. On praying and saluting. 7. On going to hear the law. 8. On studying. 9. On entering the great hall of the monastery. 10. How to behave yourself in going to the altar, or, being in your cell. 11. On transacting business. 12. On bathing. 13. (This article, says M. Neumann, relates to personal necessities; but it is too disgusting, and incompatible with our manners, to be translated.) 14. On sleeping. 15. On sitting by the fire-side. 16. On the behaviour in the sleeping-room. 17. On visiting a nunnery. 18. On being in a house of the laity. 19. On going begging. 20. On going out of the monastery. 21. On purchasing any thing. 22. Not to do any thing without permission. 23. On travelling. 24. M. Neumann thought it not proper to translate this last section of regulations, belonging chiefly to lexicography. The Chinese author gives the names of the various monastic vestments, and of some other articles and proceedings connected with the Buddhistic worship, both in Sanscrit and with the Chinese translation. He explains the various plaits and seams peculiar to the different ranks of the priesthood, and he directs what particular dress is to be worn in performing this or that ceremony. M. Neumann's preface, and the notes which he has added to the text, are far from suggesting a high idea of his aptitude to write on the subject of Buddhism, and show that he possesses very imperfect notions of the nature of the creed and its relation to the Brahmanical system. "Buddhism," he says, "is a reform of the old Hindoo orthodox church; it is a new building on the same ground, and with the same materials, but without that most cruel and abominable invention of the human mind-the invention of castes. All the outworks of Hindooism remain; the whole legion of gods and goddesses, of spirits and demons, together with all the fabulous mountains and seas, with their monstrous inhabitants. In a word, Buddhism is the Lutheranism of the Hindoo church." We are by no means disposed to subscribe to this comparison of Buddhism and the reformation of Luther. In fact, Buddhism adopted only the external and mythological forms of the religion of Brahma, whilst it totally demolished its philosophical basis. Luther, on the contrary, maintained the fundamental rules of Christianity, never denied by the Catholic church, and rejected only the lumber of human ordinances and exterior ceremonies, by which the creed was encumbered. The Brahmanical system is founded on the basis of an only God, manifested by numberless emanations; true Buddhism totally rejects this idea, and does not admit the existence of a God like that of the Christians and the Hindoo deists. In Buddhism, the place of God is occupied by the absolute or the non-entity, in opposition to entity, which latter is only the product of illusion. The spirit, enchained, during a longer or shorter time, by entity and matter, is finally dissolved or absorbed in the absolute, from whence it sprung. It is difficult to conceive how an author, ignorant of this first principle of Buddhism, could trust himself to write on the subject; but our astonishment is complete on finding M. Neumann declaring, at page 45, "that the Bhagavad Gita is, in many respects, the best commentary on the Buddhistic tenets." There are perhaps not two philosophical doctrines more opposite to each other than those of the Arjoon Gita and of S'àkiamuni. M. Neumann is right when he rejects, in his preface, the pretended uniformity which has been said to exist in the system and ceremonies of Buddhism and Roman Catholicism; but we are thunderstruck at hearing him exclaim, at the same time: "are not the Bodhisatwas, what the word implies, all popes; and are not the immediate followers of Buddha called Bodhisatwas, that is, beings who act by the holy spirit of Buddha, and are his vicars on earth?" Either the Professor does not possess a clear idea of the attributes of the Pope, or his notions of those of the Boodhisatwas must be very erroneous. The name of the latter has no affinity to that of Buddha, although derived from the same Sanscrit radical, and this title is not applied to the immediate followers of S'âkiamuni. Bodhisatwa is the name given to those souls which have attempted the highest step of perfection, but which, in a former existence, made a vow to undergo a new incarnation, in order to promote the welfare of created beings. In this and in all other points of Buddhism, there can be no question of a holy spirit; an idea totally unknown to the religious system of S'âkiamuni. But it is not only on philosophical and religious points that we deem it. discreet not to give implicit credit to M. Neumann's statements, for, although we have not before us the Chinese text of the Catechism published by him, many passages lead us to conclude, that the learned Professor, in undertaking the translation of this little work, has presumed too much upon his abilities, being destitute of the preparatory information requisite for the task. His very first note would be sufficient to establish this fact. He says: "Sha-mun (9063, 7816, in Morrison's Alphabetical Dictionary), in our text sha-me (9063, 7571), is the Sanscrit s'ama, and means, in this language and in Bengali, tranquillity, calmness, indifference.' There are, in this sentence, as many faults as words. In the first place, M. Neumann confounds together two very different terms, for sha-mun and shame are not synonyms. The first is the Chinese transcription of the Pali word Sámana, which denotes the disciple of a Samanara (in Sanscrit T s'ráman’a), an ascetic. This word is derived from the verb s'rama, "to perform acts of austere devotion, to undergo mortification or penance." Sha-muns are, therefore, Buddhist disciples, or, as the Chinese dictionaries explain it, seih sin (8959, 9453), "those who stop (the affections of) their heart." Sha-me, on the contrary, is the Pali sámi, and the Sanscrit Fq swámí, "a master, a spiritual preceptor." This term is स्वमी deduced from the radical Fa swa, “own," which is quite different from s'rama. In the second note (p. 36) the Professor says: "the Sanscrit language is in Chinese called Fan language, and in the comments upon our Catechism, it is said that this idiom is spoken by the inhabitants of the Teen-choo country, or India; that is, it is the language of Heaven, and coeval with the world, and for that reason called Fan. This seems an accurate explanation of the word 'Sanscrit.' Indeed, Fan itself seems to be the first syllable San (in Sanscrit).” The Chinese, it is true, are, in general, prone to disfigure foreign words; but not so much the Sanscrit terms in their Buddhistic books, for which they have established a very tolerable system of transcription. There is not, however, in the whole Chinese. literature any example of so terrible a disfiguration as would be the change of San to Fan. The word Fan (2181) is employed in Chinese to designate the god Brahma; and the commentators say, that it is the name of the family or tribe of S'âkiamuni. But fan is likewise a synonym of pung or fung (Morr., P. I. v. 3, p. 149), denoting that which shoots or comes out in great abundance and every where. The Sanscrit word Brahma is derived from the radical vrih, "to increase, to extend, to spread out;" and the Thibetans translate the name of this Hindoo deity by Tsadhba, which comes from tsadh, denoting also "extension, to extend." Other Chinese Buddhists say that fan is only the first syllable of Fan-mo (2181, 7735) the Chinese transcription of Brahma. They explain the name of this god by Thsing tsing (10986, 10999), “most pure, exempt from passion." Thus fan-yu, in Chinese, is the language of Brahma coeval with the world, according to the belief of the Hindoos. M. Neumann quotes (p. 39) the title of the Chinese work Chhang-thsing-tsing-king (310, 10986, 10999, 6400), which he translates in Latin by "Deserti æterni spatii liber normalis;" but there are no characters amongst the four in this title which can be rendered by desertum æternum; the meaning of the whole is "the classic of the eternal Brahma!" At the same page, M. Neumann says that nirván'a, in Chinese nëě-pwar (7959, 8754), designates nihility, and that the description of this state, as given in Chinese Buddhistic works, has a strong tendency to an eternal matter, to the primordia cæca. But निर्वाण nirván'a is, on the contrary, the emancipation from matter by the absorption in non-entity, or in the absolute. In many instances, the translator has adulterated the meaning of the original by false applications of Sanscrit terms to the Chinese transcriptions. He renders, for instance, the Fan word pe-kew (8263, 6284) by the Sanscrit bhaga, "absence of passion, religious tranquillity." But pe-kew is the Chinese transcription of bhikshu, “a mendicant, a Buddha mendicant." The feminine of bhikshu is ya bhikshuní, ❝ a nun," and not the Sanscrit word bhaginí, “ sister,” as M. Neumann pretends (p. 46). 66 Speaking of S'akiamuni's celebrated pupil, called in Chinese Shay-lefuh (9129, 6947, 2538), he renders his name in Sanscrit by " Sariraja, the offspring of Saririni, a lady who, as we read in the Chinese notes, was so called, because she was exceedingly beautiful. “Saríra (sarírin, adj.),” adds M. Neumann, "means body, water, and also a certain water-bird called tsew." Here we have again a pretty sprinkle of mistakes. The Sanscrit name of Shay-le-fuh, or Shay le tsze (the son of Shay le), is ¶¶ Sariputra, and means "the son of Sarí," his mother, who received this name because she had eyes similar to those of the bird sáras, commonly called tsew (10883) in Chinese, and which is a large species of grey Indian crane, with red eyes and a bald head, feeding upon fishes and snakes. M. Neumann's Sariraja would signify, in Sanscrit, "the dust of Sarî." Our translator is not more fortunate with the name of the son of Buddha, born from a miraculous conception. His Sanserit name is राहुल Ráhula, and his father is therefore called, in the Hemachandra Kosha, TECH Ráhulasú, "the genitor of Râhula.” The Mongols write Rakholi for Ráhula, and the Chinese Lo how lo (7285, 4147, 7285). See Klaproth's Mémoires sur l'Asie, ii. 65. |