The Indianizationof China

and of South-East Asia

by

H. G. QUARITCH WALESPh.D., Litt.D.

LONDON

BERNARD QUARITCH, LTD.11 Grafton Street, New Bond Street

1967

67-1 98089

INTRODUCTION

IN view of the extent to which both China and South­east Asia have experienced the cultural influences ofIndia, it would seem that a comparative study­

from the point of view of the responses made by theinfluenced civilizations - has much to commend it. "Onehas considerable sympathy for the scholar, whetherorientalist or historian, who prefers to cultivate his ownfield without bothering about what is over the fence.Nevertheless I think it is highly desirable that scholars ineach discipline should occasionally look over the fence oreven try to break it down, so as to restore in the worldof the imagination the continuity of the real world,which never ceases to exist however much we com­partmentalise our knowledge."1 These words, comingfrom a sinologue, may perhaps be construed as. aninvitation to students of South-east Asia to avail them­selves of the vast amount of evidence accumulated bysinology on this matter ofcommon interest: Indianization.And I would make so bold as to suggest that such acomparative study will not be without mutual benefit.

Before such fence-breaking could be attempted on anyconsiderable scale there existed until recently one or twoobstacles that had to be removed. The first was thecommon assumption, fostered by the extreme Indianists,that virtually every aspect of civilization in the Indianizedstates of South-east Asia had undergone more or lessthorough Indianization, that they were in fact Indiancultural colonies. By those standards the impossibility ofconsidering China on the same plane as "Greater India"

I Prof. Edwin G. Pulleyblank in Orientalism and History, Ed. D. Sinor,Cambridge, 1954, p. 57.

Xl

xu INTRODUCTION

seemed absurdly self-evident. The second major obstaclewas that Chinese studies had not yet gone so far as toprovide adequate comprehensive surveys of the over­whelming mass of accumulated material, which would actas introductions to anyone approaching the inquiry fromthe South-east Asian side of the fence, and which wouldalso serve as guides to further reading.

Overcoming the first obstacle involved absorbing andrecognizing the truth of van Leur's novel proposition,first enunciated in regard to early Indonesia; but equallyapplicable to the rest of Indianized South-east Asia:"Hindu [i.e. Indian] cultural influence had to do onlywith sacral rites and ritual, and also literature and govern­ment techniques which had a consecrated magicalcharacter."l Social and legal aspects of Indian culturecould make little appeal, most of South-east Asiantechnology was the result of adaptation to contemporaryor previous environment, and indeed there were widefields of human endeavour in which local usage remainedsupreme. Once this limitation is conceded we begin tosee that the Indianization process in South-east Asia andin China can be regarded as cognate, and that thereforecomparisons may prove fruitful. Yet anyone at all familiarwith oriental civilizations must immediately add that vanLeur's dictum can be interpreted in no narrow spirit,for where is the aspect of life in these traditional culturesthat is not in some degree affected by religion and magic?

A few indications which we have of the sort of Indianinfluences in China which we might regard as secular, butwhich would certainly not have been so regarded in thatplace and time, may be alluded to here, since there isinsufficient information to follow up their fate in the bodyof this book. That the las/ras, or Indian text-books, playeda part in the Indianization process of South-east Asia has

1 ]. C. van Leur, Indollesian Trade and Society, The Hague, 1955, p. 25 I.

INTRODUCTION xiii

long been suggested, and sometimes exaggerated, but forChina the supposition rests on definite evidence, althoughthe Us/ras themselves have long been lost, so that exactknowledge of their contents is lacking. However a list of:Brahmanical works (each beginning with the wordPo-Io-men or Brahman), which had been translated intoChinese, is known from their mention in the biblio­graphical catalogue in the history of the Sui dynasty.These include the Po-Io-men Thien Wen Ching (BrahmanAstronomical Manual),Po-lo-men SuanFa(Brahman Mathe­matics), Po-Io-men Yao Fang (Brahman Pharmaceutics);also a Hsi-Yii 1I1ing I so chi Yao Fang (the Best Prescriptionscollected by the most famous Physicians of the WesternCountries),l the latter probably at least partly of Indianorigin. How these came to be modified in China, orwhether the loss is partly due to ultimate rejection we<10 not know.

During the T'ang dynasty the Chinese were certainlyinfluenced by Indian ideas in astronomy and calendricalmatters: Yang Ching-fang, a disciple of the Indianmissionary Amoghavajra, wrote in 764: "Those whowish to know the positions of the five planets adoptIndian calendrical methods. One can thus predict whatHsiu (heavenly mansion) a planet will be traversing. Sowe have the three clans of Indian calendar experts,Chiayeh (Kasyapa), Chhuthan (Gautama), and Chumolo(Kumara), all of whom held offices in the Bureau ofAstronomy."2 From this we see how Indian astronomers(or astrologers) were advising at the Chinese capital, ata time when we cannot doubt that they were also presentat the courts ofSouth-east Asian rulers. As to the particulardans mentioned, we know that it was a member of theKasyapa clan who made the calendar for 665, and one of

1 J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1954, p. uS.2 Needham, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 202.

XIV INTRODUCTION

the Gautama clan for the years 697 and 698. GautamaSiddhartha was the most famous of all these Indianastronomers, and he wrote a treatise on astrology in 729containing a translation of an Indian calendar. TheKumara clan worked in association with the most famousT'ang astronomer I-Hsing (682-727) who closely calcu­lated the magnitude of the sidereal year fraction. 1

In medicine the Indian theory that a healthy conditionof the body results from the four elements of which itconsists, earth, water, fire and air, all being in a properstate of equilibrium, was introduced to China, as is shownby the writings of the seventh century T'ang physicianSun Ssu-miao. He wrote that a successful physician mustbase his knowledge not only on Confucian and Taoisttheory but also on Buddhist medical works, for onlythose would enable one to appreciate the healing power oflove and compassion.2 A Chinese noble named King-shengleft a work named Che ch'an ping pi yao fa, which hetranslated in A.D. 45 5, apparently from Indian sources,which deals with cures for diseases which may result fromthe practice of meditation. It includes a description of thenervous system and deals with the treatment of nervousand heart diseases which may result from the shock ofdisturbance during meditation. It was in the T'angperiod that emperors seem to have been particularlyanxious to secure from India or Central Asia the servicesof Brahmans reputed as thaumaturges, and able to reducethe effects of old age. 3 Finally, it appears that "Indianmusic came through Kucha to China just before the Suiperiod, and had a great vogue there in the hands ofexponents such as Tshao Miao-Ta, a man of Brahmanicalorigin".' From these examples it may be concluded that

1 Ibid., Vol. 1, p. u8 and Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism in China, Princeton,1964, p. 481,

2 Ch'en, op. cit., p. 482.3 P. C. Bagchi, India and China, 2nd edn., New York, 1951, p. 172 f., Needham, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 214.

INTRODUCTION xv

"the recognition that Indian influences were confined tomatters of religion and magic has to be construed in asufficiently wide manner.

I now come to the second obstacle that had to beovercome before a comparative study could be broached,the availability of books making more readily accessiblethe vast yield of sinological scholarship. And here Igladly acknowledge that but for the chance reading ofProfessor Arthur F. Wright's Buddhism in Chinese History,Stanford, 1959, I should probably never have recognizedthat such a study was now ripe to be made. These sixlectures proved most stimulating, as did his suggestionsfor further reading, especially the indispensable articleby Paul Demieville "La Penetration du Bouddhisme dansla tradition philosophique chinoise", a brilliant expositionto which Professor Wright himself expresses his indebted­ness. For the pre-Indianized civilization of China,especially religious Taoism, the well-known works ofHenri Maspero furnished all the material desired. For thehistory of Chinese Buddhism, a scholarly and compre­hensive work, Buddhism in China, by Kenneth K. S. Ch'en,appeared in 1964, just as I was realizing that that greatstand-by Sir Charles Eliot's Hinduism and Buddhism wouldno longer meet my need.

In the field of art I was fortunate in having theauthoritative and well-illustrated treatise of Sickmanand Soper, The Art and Architecture oj China, secondedition, London, 1960. If I say that this has much of thevalue, if not the refinement of detail, of Ph. Stern'sworks on Cham and Khmer art, many readers will atonce recognize the great importance that I attach to it.This is not to deny that for more ample material thancould possibly be included within the covers of a generalsurvey I have found it necessary to peruse the olderpublications, and where sculpture is concerned this meansthe basic works of Oswald Siren. Here I may mention the

XV! INTRODUCTION

very agreeable surprise that awaited me, both in these artbooks and in K. Ch'en's Buddhism in China, namely tofind that full and unhesitating recognition was accordedto the important part played by the continuing effect of thepre-Indianized Chinese civilization in the development ofChinese Buddhist thought and art. Perhaps this was to beexpected in view of the relatively full documentation ofthis previous civilization; whereas in South-east Asiathe continuing activity of the pre- and proto-historiccivilization has had to be established often on the strengthof very indirect evidence, and in face of entrenchedopposition from the extreme Indianists. To find that mytask here would be lightened in this vital respect wascertainly very encouraging.

In the evolution of Chinese Buddhist art this continuingeffect of the pre-Indianized civilization is no doubt mostclearly revealed from T'ang to Yiian times in the archi­tecture and architectural decoration of the pagodas, forarchitecture is less subject to canonical control than is deitysculpture; but this is less ofa difficulty here than I found tobe the case in Indo-Javanese sculpture, where Indian influ­ences during several centuries were more intense. If I con­sider here primarily the sculpture, regarding the other twoart forms architecture and painting as subsidiary, this isbecause I have found that the sculptural evidence is moreabundant and more accessible, both to see and toillustrate. Since I attached an importance to first handacquaintance with my subject matter, comparable to whatI have had for many years with the sculpture of South­east Asia, as par~ of this st~dy I made tou~s of the princip~l

museum collectlons of Chmese art both m Europe and mAmerica. Much of the finest work in the Americancollections can be referred to in the illustrations accom­panying the above mentioned publication of Sickman andSoper, from which I shall not hesitate to quote wheneverit seems advisable to give the reader what will be readily

INTRODUCTION xvii

accepted as an authoritative and disinterested opinion.The sculptures here reproduced are those which seem •best to illustrate the main developments, but to a certainextent it has been possible to introduce an element ofvariety by choosing examples different from those usedby Sickman.

From the point of view of South-east Asia thiscomparative study has two main objectives. Firstly, it isproposed to show that many features of the culturalevolution in the Indianized states of South-east Asia maybe interpreted on the basis of Chinese analogy, thisinterpretation often giving support to the conclusions Ihave previously drawn from the South-east Asianevidence. Such analogy has hitherto been applied to onlyone or two matters, to the prehistoric cult of Earth byMus and Coedes, and, perhaps more significantly assuggesting an approach to the whole question of theIndianization process, by Bosch in regard to the effectsof pilgrimage. But, unfortunately, as we shall see in thelatter part of Chapter I, this hopeful start was stultifiedby its author who, instead of following his initiative,immediately ousted it by his preconceived notions. Thiswould have been almost automatically corrected had amore thorough investigation been allowed to proceed,such as I hope to make here. Secondly, where at presentevidence is altogether lacking in South-east Asia whichwould give grounds for deductions on the basis ofChinese analogy, I hope to point to directions in whichthe Chinese indications suggest that further researchmight prove rewarding.

Were one to confine one's reading to the more popularworks on Chinese civilization, especially those whichavoid considering the development of each aspect of it, onewould not be surprised to find oneself fobbed off, whereIndianization is concerned, with a trouble-saving explana­tion in terms of mixture, fusion or hybridization. This is

B

xviii INTRODUCTION

also what one encounters all too commonly in regard toSouth-east Asia wherever an author, not entirely blindto the existence of a local factor, shies away from anyattempt at more penetrating analysis. Actually, as I shallhope to show, such terms as hybridization or fusion,in the Buddhist art of China, should be confined to theperiod prior to the T'ang, just as until somewhat beforethis time so-called Buddhist thought in China was inreality a fusion of Indian and pre-Indianized concepts.

The great merit of the authorities on whom I haverelied is that they provide clear and undisguised exposi­tions of the data, which enable the reader to distinguishwithout difficulty the tendencies that emerge in the courseof the evolution. This does not mean that these authoritieshave always explained cultural phenomena in cultural(rather than temperamental) terms, or in other respectsgiven much attention to what is known of the processesof culture change. Thus, to give an example, one whichI fear might even cause a certain misunderstanding,Professor Wright who, in my opinion, speaks so correctlyon page 76 of his book of Ch'an and other Chinese schoolsof Buddhism being movements "which shaped theevolving patterns of Chinese Buddhist thought andbehaviour", can yet on the next page but one say thatCh'an Buddhism can best be understood as a complex"amalgam" of Buddhist and Taoist ideas. A factor whichis actively shaping something else cannot possibly bebest understood as a mere component of an "amalgam"or mixture.

I would therefore suggest that a clearer comprehensionof some of the processes concerned may be a reciprocalcontribution which the present study can make to thefuller appreciation of the Chinese cultural evolution.This involves taking account of the work of the anthro­pologists, perhaps a more unorthodox procedure forscholars concerned with the great primary civilizations

INTRODUCTION XIX

than it is for students of South-east Asia. The latter flrebecoming increasingly aware of the need to give ear towhat the anthropologists have to tell about the primitivepeoples who survive on their borders, and it is theanthropologists moreover who actually see change inprogress. So before we start our inquiry I think it will beuseful here to outline (from my fuller statement in TheMaking oj Greater India) the more important of theseprinciples of culture change.

Culture change concerns evolution, and I use the wordin the strict sense of meaning "a process of opening outor developing what is contained or implied in something;a manifestation of related events or ideas in a natural ororderly succession" (Webster). Changes resulting frommere imitation of a series of outside influences wouldnot constitute an evolution. Such outside influences onan art or religion are certainly to be expected, but if weare still to speak of an evolution, these various influences,while enriching the art and civilization on which they arebrought to bear, will be absorbed and the evolution willpursue its course. Cultural evolution must be distinguishedfrom organic evolution, and failure to do so leads to theformulation of cultural theories that are really misappliedbiology. Unlike organic evolution, cultural evolutionnot only diverges and shows occasional convergences,but there is also borrowing or acculturation. The term"culturalistic fallacy" may be equally applied to a falseview of artistic evolution. If we say "an art evolves" or"an art renews itself", and allow ourselves to forget thatthese can only be used as convenient figures of abstractspeech, we are in danger of dosing the door to allpossibility of understanding the nature of the process towhich we thus refer so glibly. Strictly speaking humanbeings are the actual agents.

For an objective approach it is important that weshould appreciate culture change in terms of stimulus and