Thich Hang Dat, 1 A REAPPRAISAL OF KUMĀRAJĪVA’S ROLE IN MEDIEVAL CHINESE BUDDHISM: AN EXAMINATION OF KUMĀRAJĪVA’S TRANSLATION TEXT ON “THE ESSENTIAL EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD OF DHYANA” A THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST Abstract For many centuries, Buddhologists have considered Kumārajīva as a strong advocate of Mahāyāna Buddhism and an equally strong opponent of Hīnayāna Buddhism. However, this assumption is debatable. My thesis addresses this assumption to determine its validity. Hence, I have reappraised his life, his role and contribution to Medieval Chinese Buddhism, as well as the cultural and social environments prior and contemporary to him. I especially paid attention to the translation of the meditation texts such as The Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna, to find evidence that either supports or disputes the assumption that Kumārajīva was an advocate of Mahāyāna only. It is my conclusion that Kumārajīva not only advocated Mahāyāna, but also Hīnayāna Buddhism throughout his life and works. Thich Hang Dat, 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgement Table of Contents Part I. Analysis 1. Introduction 2. Background of Chinese Buddhism prior to Kumārajīva‘s arrival in Chang‘an 3. Translators that preceded Kumārajīva 4. Kumārajīva‘s biography 5. His prolific translation works 6. His fame as an advocator of Chinese Mahāyāna and the founder of Mādhyamika 7. Cultural and social influences of Sarvāstivādin Hīnayāna a. Central Asian Buddhist community b. Chang‘an center c. His collaborators of translation works d. His disciples‘ request of translation the meditation texts e. His competition with Buddhabhadra 8. His meditation texts 9. His translation texts of meditation ―Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna.‖ a. Background of the text b. Analyze and compare between this text and those of Pāḷi Nikāya c. Determine Kumārajīva‘s addition and revision of the old version d. The text‘s role and its influence e. Compare this text to other meditation texts that Kumārajīva translated Thich Hang Dat, 3 f. Compare Kumārajīva‘s translated meditation texts with those of his prior and contemporary texts 10. Conclusion Part II. Translation of the text, “The Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna” 1. First Fascicle 2. Second Fascicle Appendix. Comparison between Kumārajīva‘s new version of ―The Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna‖ to that of the old version Bibliography Chinese version of the “The Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna” 禪法要解 Thich Hang Dat, 4 Part I. Analysis 1. Introduction This thesis is divided into two parts: analysis and translation of the text, Essential Teaching of The Method of Dhyāna. In the analysis, I am going to discuss about the introduction, the background of Chinese Buddhism prior to Kumārajīva‘s arrival in Chang‘an 長安, Kumārajīva‘s preceded translators, Kumārajīva‘s biography, his prolific translation work, and his fame as the founder of Mādhyamika and advocator of the Chinese Mahāyāna. Also, I will examine the cultural and social influences of the Sarvāstivādin thought on his thoughts and translation works, especially those of the meditation texts, including: his Sarvāstivādin communities in Central Asia; the contemporary condition of his working place, Chang‘an center; his Sarvāstivādin collaborators in translation work; his disciples‘ request for teachings and translation of texts on meditation; and his competition with Buddhabhadra (359-429). Next, I will discuss, in general, his translation of texts on meditation. Afterwards, I will discuss about one particular meditation text that he translated, The Essential Explanation of The Method of Dhyāna, including: its background; analysis and comparison with the Pāḷi Nikāya; determining his addition and revision of the old version; the text‘s role and influence; comparing and contrasting this text to his other meditation texts; comparing and contrasting Kumārajīva‘s translational meditation texts with those of his prior and contemporary texts. In the conclusion, I will draw the argument that while he was considered as an advocator of Mahāyāna, especially a founder of the Chinese Mādhyamika School, his thoughts and translation works, particularly the meditation texts, were heavily influenced by the Āgamas of the Sarvāstivādin tradition, or Hīnayāna. Namely, Kumārajīva‘s role was an advocate for both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna in medieval Chinese Buddhism. Thich Hang Dat, 5 2. Background of Chinese Buddhism prior to Kumārajīva’s arrival in Chang’an One of the most significant events in the history of religion was the transplanting of Buddhism with its complete scriptural canon, doctrines, moralities, and cultures from India to China, which had its own ancient culture. Starting from the first century CE, the Indian Buddhist transplantations into China flourished in the fourth century through hundreds of translated volumes of Buddhist canon from Indic and Central Asian languages into Chinese. This testifies to the tremendous diligence of the monks and their abilities to work through a foreign culture. Through an inner affinity with the ancient Chinese thought of Daoism and Confucianism, Buddhist philosophy could persistently gain the trust from all classes of Chinese people. As an important factor of Buddhist practice, meditation has been promoted by the very first Buddhist missionaries from India and Central Asia together with their sacred images and books, such as An Shigao 安世高 (n.d) around 148 CE, who had translated and taught meditation techniques belonging to the Nikāya tradition. Depending on the viewpoint one assumed, the nature of contemplation was interpreted either in Hīnayāna or Mahāyāna fashions, which doctrinally influenced the methods and experience of enlightenment. Buddhist pioneers in China translated both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna texts that existed side by side as they did in India. The use of Taoist terms for Buddhist beliefs and practices not only helped in the difficult task of translation, but also brought Buddhist scriptures closer to the Chinese people. However, the conformity of word and thought is insufficient to understand, and many first-generation Chinese Buddhists misunderstood some important Buddhist teachings. During the third century, a spiritual movement of Dark Learning Xuanxue 玄學 or the Study of Mystery used the teachings of Laozi Thich Hang Dat, 6 老子 and Zuangzi 莊子as a bridge for understanding Chinese and Buddhist philosophies.1 Between 168 and 188, Lokakṣema, and Indo-Scythian, came to China to translate some important texts of Mahāyāna literature. During the second half of the third century, Dharmarakṣa, who was considered as the greatest Buddhist translator before Kumārajīva, translated numerous Mahāyāna sūtras. The first period of Chinese Buddhism came to an end with two well-known Chinese Buddhist monks, Daoan 道安(312-385) and Huiyuan 慧遠(337- 417). Daoan rejected the syncretistic method of geyi 格 義 and exegetical strategy that mixed mundane literature and Buddhist scriptures. Huiyuan combined Buddhist and Taoist elements in meditational practice. Then, the arrival of Kumārajīva ushered the second period of Chinese Buddhism. In a well-equipped translation institute that Kumārajīva founded and headed, numerous Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna works were rendered into Chinese within eight years.2 3. Translators that preceded Kumārajīva In order to understand the important role of Kumārajīva in the second phase of Chinese Buddhism, let‘s review the thirteen great translators, who worked hard during the first phase of Chinese Buddhism, and who cemented the solid foundations for Kumārajīva to establish his vital role in the Eastern Buddhist development. Prior to Kumārajīva, Chu Sanzang ji ji出三藏記集 of Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) listed thirteen prominent translators from different ethnic origins: An Shigao 安世高 (n.d), Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, Lokakṣema (2nd CE), Zhi Yao支曜, Yan Fotiao 嚴佛 調 , An Xuan 安玄, Kang Mengxiang 康孟祥, Zhu Jiangyan 竺將炎, Zhi Qian支謙 , Kang 1 Dark Learning, Xuanxue is a philosophical movement that sought understanding of the supreme reality (Dao) and questioned social conventions (Stephen Little, Shawn Eichman, Daoism and the arts of China (Chicago, IL: Publications Department of The Art Institute of Chicago, 2000), 185. 2 Heinrich Dumoulin, A History of Zen Buddhism, trans. Paul Peachey (Boston, MA: Beacon Press Inc., 1969), 64- 68. Thich Hang Dat, 7 Senghui 康僧會 (?-280), Bai Yan白 延, Zhu Shixing 朱士行 (3rd CE), and Dharmarakṣa (230?- 316). An Shigao translated mainly Hīnayāna literature, including thirty-four texts with forty fascicles. Regarding the Mahāyāna literature, Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa produced the most texts, in which the former rendered thirty-six texts with forty-eight fascicles, and then later translated one hundred and fifty-nine texts with three hundred and nine fascicles. Less productive than An Shigao, Lokakṣema , and Dharmarakṣa, the early translators produced altogether about ninety-six texts with one hundred and sixty fascicles as follows: Zhu Shuofu with one text and with one fascicle; Zhi Yao with one text and with one fascicle; Yan Futiao and An Xuan working together with two texts and with two fascicles; Kang Mengxiang with one text which had one fascicle; Zhu Jiangyan with one text and with two fascicles; Kang Senghui with two texts and with fourteen fascicles; Bai Yan with three texts which contained four fascicles; and Zhu Shixing with one text with twenty fascicles. These translators