[1] In using the term kosŭng (“eminent monks”), Kakhun is following the example of Hui-chiao, who distinguished “eminent” from “famous”: “If men of real achievement conceal their brilliance, then they are eminent but not famous. ...” See KSC, 14, 419a 22-26, and Arthur F. Wright, “Hui-chiao’s Lives of Eminent Monks” in Silver Jubilee Volume of the Zinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo of Kyoto University (Kyoto, 1954), pp. 407-408. ◀◀
[2] Little is known of this scholar monk, except that he was a friend of such famous writers of Koryŏ as Yi Il-lo 李仁老 (1150-1220; KRS, 102, 10a-b), Yi Kyu-bo 李奎報 (1168-1241; KRS, 23, 35b, and 102, 3a-5b), and Ch‘oe Cha 崔滋 (1188-1260; KRS, 25, 17b-18a, and 102, 14b-16a). Yi Il-lo reports, in the P‘ahan chip 破閑集 (1964 ed.), 2, 39, that Kakhun often likened himself to Li I-chi 酈食其, styling himself “a bald drunkard of Kao-yang” 高陽醉髠; Yi also comments that Kakhun’s poetry resembled that of Chia Tao 賈島 (779-843), a T‘ang monk who returned to laity and was the author of a collection of verse, Ch‘ang-chiang chi 長江集 (Ssu-k‘u ch'uan-shu ts‘ung-mu, 150, 8a-b). In fine, Kakhun was a literary monk, immensely popular among contemporary men of letters, especially among seven writers known as the “Seven Sages of the Kangjwa” 江左七賢 who compared themselves to the “Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove” and indulged in elegant pleasure (for more on these poets see n. 150 to the translation). For more on Kakhun see P‘ahan chip, 2, 39-40; Tongguk Yisangguk chip 東國李相國集 (1958 ed.), 16, 5a; Pohan chip 補閑集 (CKK), 3, 154-156; CPT, I, 5-7; Tongguk sŭngni rok 東國僧尼錄, in Zokuzōkyō, IIB, 23/3, 347c-d; SGYS, Introduction, pp. 29-31. For Chia Tao’s verse see Ogawa Tamaki, 小川環樹, Tōshi gaisetsu (Tokyo, 1958), pp. 68-70; for a brief biographical notice see A. R. Davis, ed., The Penguin Book of Chinese Verse (Harmondsworth, 1965), p. 23, and HTS, 176, 4052b; for translation of his poem see Robert Payne, ed., The White Pony (London, 1949), p. 242, and Witter Bynner, The Jade Mountain (New York, 1929), p. 12. For Li I-chi see Shih chi, 97, 0228b ff.; Ch‘ien Han shu, 43,0464d-0465b; Burton Watson, Records of the Grand Historian of China (New York, 1961), I, 283, n. 6. For the expression “kangjwa” (chiang-tso in Chinese) see JAOS, 82 (1962), 383. ◀◀
[3] On Mount Ogwan 五冠山, thirty ri west of Changdan 長湍. Once the most famous monastery in the Koryŏ capital, it is no longer extant. See TYS, 12, 9b-10b. According to the Chunggyŏng chi 中京誌 (CKK, 1911), 6, 269, it was on Mount Puso 扶蘇山. ◀◀
[4] See SGYS, Introduction by Ch‘oe Nam-sŏn, and the somewhat antiquated essay by Imanishi Ryū in Geimon, 9 (1918), 601-616. ◀◀
[5] See Geimon, 9 (1918), 749-761. SGYS quotes or comments on a biography of eminent monks as simply Sŭngjŏn 僧傳 (3, 121, 127, 128; 5, 215, 231), as Kosŭng chŏn (3, 122; 5, 233), or Haedong Sŭngjŏn 海東僧傳 (4, 184 and 187). Unless Iryŏn is referring to the biography of monks compiled by Kim Tae-mun 金大問 (SGSG, 46, 6), which existed at the time of the compilation of SGSG, he must be referring to KSC. See SGYS, Introduction, pp. 29-30. The Taegak kuksa munjip 大覺國師文集 (1931), 16, 4b8, mentions Haedong Sŭngjŏn, possibly that by Kim but definitely not the compilation of Kakhun. ◀◀
[6] This must have been in or about 1914. The manuscript copy once owned by Asami Rintarō 淺見倫太郞, now in the Asami Collection in Berkeley, Calif., has the following colophon: “Paek Tu-yong 白斗鏞 obtained it at the Hallam sŏrim 翰南書林on April 25, 1914. On February 15, 1917, I compared and collated my copy with that of Watanabe Akira 渡邊彰.” The Asami copy consists of 29 sheets, 10 lines to a page, 19-20 letters to a line. ◀◀
[7] The number of chapters in HKC is a matter for conjecture, but internal evidence makes it certain that there were more than two. For instance, Kakhun promises us a bi6ography of Anham (1019c29), and it is in fact in chap. 2, but in 1019c7 he refers us to a biography of Chajang which cannot be found in the extant two chapters. The Pulgyo, 46-47 (April-May 1928), 57b, suggests, without documentation, that there were ten chapters. ◀◀
[8] This information is in the Introduction to HKC by Ch‘oe Nam-sŏn, in the Changwoe chamnok 藏外雜錄, I (Seoul, 1956), p. 66. Yi Hoe-gwang was active, from about 1908, in the reform movement of the Korean Buddhist Church. In March 1908, fifty-two Buddhist representatives met and established the Wŏnjong chongmuwŏn 圓宗宗務院 in the Wŏnhŭng monastery, outside the East Gate in Seoul, in the hope of uniting and reforming the Korean church. At the meeting Yi was elected as the Taejongjŏng 大宗正. In September 1910 he went to Japan with credentials signed by seventy-two monasteries, and on October 6 signed a document pledging the merging of the Korean church with that of the Sōtō sect of Japan. But soon opposition arose, especially from the monks in Chōlla and Kyōngsang provinces, headed by Pak Han-yōng 朴漢永 (1870-1948) of the Paegyang monastery 白羊寺 in South Chōlla, Han Yong-un 韓龍雲 (1879-1944) of the Pōmō monastery 梵魚寺 and Chin Chin-ŭng 陳震應 (1873-1941) of the Hwaōm monastery 華嚴寺. They in turn organized the opposing Imje (Lin-ch‘i) sect. With the promulgation of the ordinance on the Korean Buddhist Church by the Governor-General in June 1911, however, this struggle was brought to a lull. See Yoshikawa Buntarō 吉川文太郞, Chōsen no shūkyō (Keijō, 1921), pp. 67-69, a short notice of Yi with his portrait; Takahashi Tōru 高橋亨, Richō bukkyō 李朝佛敎 (Tokyo, 1929), pp. 920-941; and CPT, II, 620-626. ◀◀
[9] Built in 802 on Mount Kaya 伽倻山, near Hapch‘ŏn kun 陜川郡, North Kyŏngsang Province. It was one of the three major monasteries in Korea. TYS, 30, 31a-22a; CJS, I, 493-500; Kuksa taesajŏn, II, 1700a-b ◀◀
[10] Southwest of North Kyŏngsang. Originally Sŏngsan kaya 星山伽倻, one of the six members of the Kaya confederation. Silla conquered Kaya and established Ponp‘i hyŏn 本彼縣. Its name was changed by King Kyŏngdŏk 景德王 to Sinan 新安 (SGSG, 34, 7) and later to Pyŏkchin kun 碧珍郡. It has been a kun since 1895. TYS, 28, 17a-b. ◀◀
[11] This according to the Introduction to HKC by Ch‘oe Nam-sŏn (p. 75). The Kwangmun hoe was organized in 1910 by Ch‘oe with a view to preserving the Korean classics and disseminating them among scholars. The association published seventeen titles before 1945. ◀◀
[12] Introduction, pp. 1-6; chap. 1, pp. 7-21; chap. 2, pp. 22-30. Pak Pong-u 朴奉右, in his “Ch‘ŏnggu sŭngjon pŏram” 靑丘僧傳寶覽, published in the Shin pulgyo 新佛敎, nos. 21-27 (February-November, 1940), incorporates practically all of HKC. Ch‘oe Nam-sŏn, in his Tonggyŏng t‘ongji 東京通志 (Kyŏngju, 1933), 2, 30b3-32a2, quotes the life of Pŏpkong without the eulogy. In May 1956 Tongguk University reprinted the Dainihon bukkyō zensho text as the first number in the Changwoe chamnok series, without any emendation or improvement. ◀◀
[13] There was a brief notice of the book by Imanishi Ryū in SR 史林, 3 (July 1918), 452-458 (reprinted in his Kōraishi kenkyū [Keijō, 1944] pp. 223-235). A brief description of the contents appeared in English in the Asiatic Research [Center] Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 9 (January 1962), 18-23. ◀◀
[14] For I-ching’s biography see SKSC 1, T. 50, 710b-71 la, and for his translations, T. 55, 567a- 568b. ◀◀
[15] Wright, “Hui-chiao’s Lives,” pp. 390-392, 407. ◀◀
[16] According to the theory advanced by him at the debate in 520 (HKSC, 23, 624c26-625a4, and KHMC 1, T. 52, l00c10), the Buddha entered Nirvāna in the jen-shen year of King Mu, for which see Yamanouchi Shinkyō 山內晉卿, Shina bukkyōshi no kenkyū 支那佛敎史の硏空 (Kyoto, 1921), pp. 162-165; Zürcher, I, 273; references in HJAS, 15 (1952), 188-189, n. 94; and Kenneth K. S. Ch‘en, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey (Princeton, 1964), pp. 29, 185. ◀◀
[17] The falsity of this account has been pointed out by Tsukamoto Zenryū 塚本善隆 in Shina bukkyōshi kenkyū (Monumenta Serica, 16 [1957], 370) and by Wright, ‘‘Hui-chiao’s Lives,” pp. 394-395, n. 5, and HJAS, 26 (1966), 307. ◀◀
[18] For his biography see Ch‘en, Buddhism in China, pp. 234-235, and Paul Demiéville, Le Concile de Lhasa (Paris, 1952), pp. 185-186, n. 3. ◀◀
[19] For his biography see KSC, 4, 348b-349c. Also see Fukunaga Mitsuji 福永光司, “Shiton to sono shūi,” Bukkyō shigaku 佛敎史學, 5 (March 1956), 12-34, and Paul Demiéville, “La pénétration du Bouddhisme dans la tradition philosophique chinoise,” Cahiers d‘Histoire Mondiale, 3 (1956), 26-28. ◀◀
[20] HKC, 1016b2-4. ◀◀
[21] HKC, 1016b8-9. ◀◀
[22] Three locales are advanced as the place of origin of Sundo: (1) Former Ch‘in (SGSG, 18, 3, and HKC, 1016a7); (2) Eastern Chin (HKC, 1016a9-10); and (3) Wei (SGYS, 3, 121, where Iryŏn quotes a certain biography of monks only to refute it). ◀◀
[23] HKC, 1016al8-20. ◀◀
[24] HKC, 1022c20. ◀◀
[25] Wright, “Hui-chiao’s Lives,” and Denis Twitchett, “Problems of Chinese Biography,” in Wright and Twitchett, eds., Confucian Personalities (Stanford, 1962), pp. 24-39 ◀◀
[26] HKC, 1022a 18. ◀◀
[27] HKC, 1016c22-23. ◀◀
[28] HKC, 1019b 11-12. ◀◀
[29] In chronological order they are: (1) Ado was an illegitimate son born to a Wei envoy, Kulma ????摩, and a Koguryŏ woman, Ko To-nyŏng 高道寧. In 263 Ado went to Silla from Koguryŏ. This information is supposed to be contained in the Sui chŏn 殊異傳, according to HKC (SGSG, 4, 4; SGYS, 3, 122-123). The year 263 was obtained by counting 250 years (three thousand months in the prophecy uttered by Ado’s mother) back from 527, the year Buddhism was allowed to be practiced in Silla. (2) During the time of King Nulchi 訥祗王 (417-458), Mukhoja 墨胡子 came from Koguryŏ (SGYS, 3, 122). (3) During the time of King Pich‘ŏ 毘處王 (479-500), Ado, with three attendants, came to Morye’s 毛禮 house. His appearance was strikingly similar to that of Mukhoja (SGSG, 4, 3). (4) Ado came to Ilsŏn kun 一善郡 on March 11, 527, according to the ancient records now lost. The Sisa 詩史, quoted by HKC, offers essentially the same account, except that it places the origin of a Chinese envoy in Liang instead of Wei. Yi Ki-baek 李基白 thinks that (1) is out of the question because the state of Wei did not exist at that time, and proposes that we recognize two Ados, one who came to Koguryŏ and another who came to Silla. If Ado came to Koguryŏ, he was from the Former Ch‘in rather than Eastern Chin (Yŏksa hakpo 歷史學報, 6 [1954], 134, n. 1, and 140-141). Yi opts for (3) because of the friendly relations that existed between Silla and Koguryŏ at that time (ibid., 136-137, n. 1, and 138, n. 4). Eda Shunyū 江田俊雄, in Bunka 文化, 2 (1935), 968, feels that (2) is possible because King Pich‘ŏ (or Soji 炤知) already kept a monk in his palace (SGYS, 4, 54-55) and because the king’s predecessor had the Buddhist name Chabi (“compassion”). Suematsu Yasu-kazu 未松保和 takes (4) to be the most likely, in Shiragi-shi no shomondai 新羅史の諸問題 (Tokyo, 1954), pp. 212-216, 222. ◀◀
[30] HKC, 1018c25-26. ◀◀
[31] For the status and function of monks in Silla and other kingdoms see Yi Ki-baek, yŏksa hakpo, 6 (1954), 182-191. ◀◀
[32] HKC, 1016a23-24. ◀◀
[33] HKC, 1016a22. ◀◀
[34] For Ko-i see T‘ang Yung-t‘ung, “On Ko-yi, the Earliest Method by which Indian Buddhism and Chinese Thought Were synthesized,” in Radhakrishnan: Comparative Studies in Philosophy (London, 1951), pp. 276-286. ◀◀
[35] For Hui-yüan, Tao-an’s disciple and founder of the “White Lotus Community” on Mount Lu in 402, see KSC, 6, 357c-361b. For his ko-i method see Demiéville, Cahiers d‘Histoire Mondiale, 3 (1956), 23-24. For more on Hui-yüan see bibliography in Ch‘en, Buddhism in China, pp. 515-516, See also n. 413 to the translation. ◀◀
[36] Shih chi, 123, 0267a-b (Watson, Records of the Grand Historian of China, II, 267-274, passim); Ch‘ien Han shu, 61, 0509c-0510c; 95, 0603b; Frederick Hirth, “The Story of Chang Ch‘ien, China’s Pioneer in West Asia,” JAOS, 37 (1917), 89-152; Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge, 1954), I, 107-108; and Kuwabara Jitsuzō 桑原隲<藏, “Chō Ken no ensei,” Tōzai kōtsūshi ronsō 東西交通史論叢 (Tokyo, 1944), pp. 1-117. ◀◀
[37] For Su Wu, who returned to China in 81 B.C. after nineteen years of captivity by the Huns, see Shih chi, 110, 0247a (Watson, Records of the Grand Historian of China. II, 190); Ch‘ien Han shu, 7,0308b (Homer H. Dubs, The History of the Former Han Dynasty, II [Baltimore, 1954], 161). ◀◀
[38] HKC, 1018b4. ◀◀
[39] HKC, 1018b5-6. ◀◀
[40] HKC, 1019b8-20. ◀◀
[41] HKC, 1018b3-9. ◀◀
[42] This was the Hŭngnyun monastery, for which see nn. 234 and 280 to the translation. ◀◀
[43] HKC, 1019a26-27. ◀◀
[44] HKC, 1021a6. ◀◀
[45] SGYS, 3, 132, 137. ◀◀
[46] HKC, 1019c5-7. ◀◀
[47] His surname was Kim, his given name Sŏnjong 善宗; he was bom on the Buddha’s birthday. He went to T‘ang in 636 (or 638, according to HKSC, 24,639bl3) with his disciple Sil 實 and others. He went first to Mount Wu-t‘ai to worship Mañjuśrī, then to Ch‘ang-an, and finally to the Yün-che monastery 雲際寺 on Mount Chung-nan to study. At the request of Queen Sŏndŏk he returned in 643 with 400 cases of Buddhist scriptures (SGSG, 5, 3). He built the T‘ongdo monastery 通度寺 (CJS, I, 532-534) in Yangsan and established the Vinaya school in Korea. He lectured chiefly on the Mahāyānasaimgraha and the latter part of the Brahmājala. For his biography see HKSC, 24, 639a8-640a2; SGYS, 4, 191-194; and Tongsa yŏlchŏn 東師列傳 (Changwoe chamnok, II [1957], 5-8). Scattered references to him also occur in SGYS, 1, 69; 3, 137-140, 165-170, 171-172. The relics in the T‘ongdo monastery that Chajang brought over from China were moved by Sejong to the Buddha Hall in the palace, but were finally returned to China when Huang Yen came to Korea (1419) to collect sacred objects. They were offered to Ming as part of the 558 pieces that Huang carried away (Sejong sillok 世宗實錄, 5, 8b; 16a). ◀◀
[48] For Wu-t‘ai (or Ch‘ing-liang, Śīta or Śīsīra?), see TP, 48 (1960), 54-61, and Demiéville, Le Concile de Lhasa, pp. 376-377. According to SGYS, 3, 165-166, the sole purpose of Chajang’s trip to China was to witness Mañjuśrī on Wu-t‘ai. Perhaps, like most Chinese and Korean devotees, he believed that the Avatamsaka was preached by Śākyamuni and collated by Mañjuśrī. Tao-hsüan 道宣, however, does not record the pilgrimage in his biography of Chajang. Iryŏn’s explanation is that Chajang kept it secret during his stay in China (SGYS, 4, 192). Ennin 圓仁, who himself made a pilgrimage to Wu-t‘ai during his stay in China (838-847), reports a similar story related to Buddhapāla that he heard there. See his Nittō guhō junrei kōki 入唐求法巡禮行記 (Dainihon bukkyō zensho, 113; Tokyo, 1918), 3, 237b-238a (Edwin O. Reischauer, Ennin’s Diary [New York, 1955], pp. 246-247); 3, 243b (Reischauer, p. 266). ◀◀
[49] SGYS, 3, 137-138. This must be one of the reasons why Silla kings, aside from their Buddhist piety and fervor, adopted Buddhist names. The title of the twentieth king of Silla was Chabi; that of the twenty-third king, Pŏphŭng; the tabu-name of the twenty-fourth king was Sammaekchong 三麥宗 or Simmaekpu 深麥夫, which is considered to be a transcription of Śramana; that of the twenty-sixth king, Chinp‘yŏng 眞平 (579-632), Śuddhodana, and of his queen, Māyā, and finally that of Queen Chindŏk, Śrīmālā. See Yi Ki-baek, Yŏksa hakpo, 6 (1954), 189, n. 21. ◀◀
[50] Upon his return to Silla in 643, Chajang immediately climbed Mount Odae (TYS, 44, 5b) for a vision of Mañjuśrī, but owing to the darkness that lasted for three days he was unable to witness the Bodhisattva. He returned then to the Wŏnnyŏng monastery 元寧寺 and finally saw Mañjuśrī. He then moved to the Chŏngam monastery 淨嵓寺, which after his death was repaired by the monk Yuyŏn 有綠 and called the Wŏlchŏng 月精寺 (SGYS, 3, 166, and CJS, II, 33-35; but TYS, 44, 18b, reports that the Wŏlchŏng was erected by Chajang). In 705 King Sŏngdŏk 聖德王 (702-737) erected a hall for Mañjuśrī, had his image enshrined, and had monks copy the Avatamsaka (SGYS, 3, 168). For more legends centering around this sacred mountain in Korea see SGYS, 3, 170-171. ◀◀
[51] I follow SGYS, 3, 166, which reads: 一萬文殊常住在彼. Compare the reading in T. 9, 590a3-5, which differs: . . . 彼現有菩蕯<名文殊師利, 有一萬菩蕯<眷屬常受說法. See also Bunka, 2 (1935), 985-988, and 21 (1957), 562-573. ◀◀
[52] For a comparison with Western hagiography see Paul Murray Kendall, The Art of Biography (New York, 1965), pp. 40 ff., 106; Helen C. White, Tudor Books of Saints and Martyrs (Madison, 1963), pp. 4-30; and James L. Clifford, ed., Biography as an Art (New York, 1962), p. x. ◀◀
[53] HKC, 1021c7-8. ◀◀
[54] HKC, 1022a25. ◀◀
[55] HKC, 1016bl7. ◀◀
[56] HKC, 1020a17. ◀◀
[57] HKC, 1020c2-3. ◀◀
[58] HKC, 1022b27. ◀◀
[59] HKC, 1022c9. ◀◀
[60] HKC, 1016a4. ◀◀
[61] HKC, 1022c24. ◀◀
[62] For Ich‘adon see n. 263 to the translation. Concerning the magic and miracles of eminent monks Murakami Yoshimi has an interesting article in Tōhō shūkyō, 17 (1961), 1-17. After a study of theurgists in chapters 9 and 10 of KSC, he suggests: (1) Magic practiced by Buddhist missionaries was a means to an end, but being motivated by compassion, it had the power of salvation; (2) these monks had to attach themselves to the non-Chinese rulers in the North in order to gain their confidence and support for propagation, but their ultimate goal was the salvation of the people; (3) their magic is related to the abhijña; (4) the occultism in Hsien Taoism (JAOS, 76 [1956], 143) owes a great deal to theurgy imported from the Western Regions; (5) there is an element of Hsien Taoism in Buddhist magic, suggesting a fusion of Buddhism and Hsien Taoism. Although theurgy is in the line of magic and fetish, in the Six Dynasties period it had a philosophical and religious background to support it; hence a future study should investigate its relationship to contemporary learning and culture. For theurgy in the Neoplatonic school see E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951), pp. 283-311. ◀◀
[63] HKC, 1016bl8. ◀◀
[64] HKC, 1016cl9. ◀◀
[65] HKC, 1016cl9-20. ◀◀
[66] HKC, 1020b21. ◀◀
[67] HKC, 1022b28. ◀◀
[68] HKC, 1022c27. ◀◀
[69] White, Tudor Books of Saints and Martyrs, p. 17. ◀◀
[70] HKC, 1023a3. ◀◀
[71] HKC, 1018c3. ◀◀
[72] White, Tudor Books of Saints and Martyrs, p. 17. ◀◀
[73] Kendall, Art of Biography, pp. 40-41. ◀◀
[74] Ibid., p. 104. ◀◀
[75] Silla monks Pŏpchang 法藏 and Hyein 慧忍 accompanied King Chinhŭng (534-576) on his tours of inspection of the country (CKS, I, 9; SG, 2 [1930], 85). Kŏoch‘ilpu was a commander in a battle against Koguryŏ along the Han (SGSG, 44, 2-3). Monks performed similar duties in Koguryŏ and Paekche. The monk Torim 道琳 was a successful spy in Paekche (SGSG, 25, 7-8); and the monk Toch‘im 道琛 (d. 661) plotted a revival of Paekche after its fall (SGSG, 28, 5-6). See Yŏksa hakpo, 6 (1954), 182. ◀◀
[76] Chinja 眞慈 (or Chŏngja 貞慈) of the Hŭngnyun monastery prayed to Maitreya that he appear in Silla in the form of a hwarang (SGYS, 3,153-155; Pulgyo hakpo 佛敎學報, 3-4 [1966], 135-149); and Knight Chukchi 竹旨郞 (or Chungman 竹曼) was thought to be a reincrnation of Maitreya (SGYS, 2, 77-78). For a discussion of how the extant Buddhist sculpture mirrors this trend, both official and popular, in Silla Buddhism, see Chewon Kim and Won-yong Kim, Treasures of Korean Art (New York, 1966), pp. 119 ff. ◀◀
[77] SGSG, 41, 2. ◀◀
[78] Yaotani Takayasu, 入栢谷孝保 in Shichō 史潮, 7 (1937), 649-656. ◀◀
[79] See Yŏksa hakpo, 6 (1954), 146 ff. Some Silla monarchs might have compared themselves to a Bodhisattva Cakravartin, but seldom to a Tathāgata. It is a commonplace to say that during the Nan-pei ch‘ao the emperor was considered in the North to be a Tathāgata and in the South a Bodhisattva. In an article in the Bukkyō shigaku, 10 (March 1962), 1-15, Suzuki Keizō 鈴木啓造 submits this equation to a fresh valuation. He cites a few instances concerning the North. For instance, Wei Shou’s Shih-lao chih 釋老志 quotes a saying attributed to Fa-kuo in which he compared Emperor Tao-wu (371-386-409) of Wei to a Tathāgata (Hurvitz, p. 53; Ch‘en, Buddhism in China, p. 146). Also, Wei Yüan-sung 㣮<元嵩 (HKSC, 35, 657c-658c), in a memorial presented to the Emperor Wu of the Northern Chou (543-561-577-578), likens the emperor to a Tathāgata. The same source also quotes the conversation held in 577 between Jen Tao-lin 任道林 and the emperor in which the latter suggests such an equation, only to be discouraged by the former. Indeed, some might have wished to believe in such an equation, but, as Suzuki argues, Emperor Wu’s view was not endorsed by the clergy. It is true that the emperors who were likened either to a Bodhisattva or a Tathāgata were all protectors of Buddhism. But it is difficult to accept this as a characteristic of Buddhism either in the South or in the North. For instances of the emperor-Bodhisattva equation see KHMC, 4, T. 52, 112b-20-21; 28, T. 52, 330a1 and 326al5; and HKSC, 25, 650b9-l1. ◀◀
[80] See, for instance, Kim Tong-hwa (2), 31-41; for a general discussion centering on Chinese Buddhism see Ōchō Enichi, Chūgoku bukkyō no kenkyū (Kyoto, 1958), pp. 326-381; Wing-tsit Chan, “Transformation of Buddhism in China,” Philosophy East and West, 7 (1958), 107-116. ◀◀
[81] Three Chinese translations are extant: (1) by Dharmaraksa, between 412 and 421, in 4 chapters (T. 16, 335a-359b); (2) by Pao-kuei, Yen-tsung, et al., in 8 chapters (T. 16,359b-402a); and (3) by I-ching, in 703, in 10 chapters (T. 16, 403a-456c [trans. Johannes Nobel, Suvarnaprab-hsāottama-sūtra, 2 vols., Leiden, 1958]). For a description of the contents see M. W. de Visser, Ancient Buddhism, in Japan (Leiden, 1935), I, 263-269, 431 ff. For its reception in China and Japan see Kanaoka Shūyū 金岡秀友, “Kongōmyōkyō no teiōkan to sono Shina-Nihonteki juyō,” Bukkyō