前言2005 年 3 月 19 日、京都大學人文科學研究所北白川會議室において「唐代研究のために」と題する特別講演會を開催した。報告者はベルリン・ブラン
デンブルグ科學院の王丁氏と、プリンストン大學宗教學部の陳懷宇氏。ともに現在國外にあり、今後とも國際的規模で活躍が期待される若手研究者である。この册子には兩氏による當日の報告原稿に若干手を加えて頂いた改訂版を收録する。
われわれの 21 世紀 COE プログラム「東アジア世界の人文情報學研究教育
據點 — 漢字文化の全き繼承と發展のために」では、現在 “唐代ナリッベー
ス” の構築をすすめつつあるが、常に唐代研究の新しい成果に目を向けて、最新の學術的水準を保持したいと考えている。その意味でも、ここに收められた二編の論文は、新資料の提示と新しい方法の運用によって、唐代研究に新しい知見をもたらし、少なからずその進展に寄與するものと信じる。電子版
も含め、廣い讀者を獲得することを期待してやまない。

2005 年 7 月 16 日
高田時雄

1

漢字文化の全き繼承と發展のために
京都大學 21 世紀 COE 東アジア世界の人文情報學研究教育據點

特別講演會「唐代研究のために」••

日時：平成 17 年 3 月 19 日（土）14:00 より
場所：京都大學人文科學研究所北白川會議室

プログラム：• 王丁 Wang Ding (ベルリン・ブランデンブルグ科學院） "柏林吐魯番特藏中一件出自交河的漢文摩尼教文書"• 陳 懷 宇 Chen Huaiyu （ プ リ ン ス ト ン 大 學 ） "A Buddhist Classification ofAnimals and Plants in Early Tang China"
使用言語は中國語・英語、通譯なし。

柏林吐魯番特藏中一件出自交河的漢文摩尼教文書*
王 丁

一 弁言
二十世紀初德國的吐魯番探險（1902-1914）在西域的考古與採集工作取得多方面的收穫，文字1

與藝術收集品異常豐富，構成所謂德國吐魯番特藏（Turfansammlung）。 文書的大部分為宗教性
寫本，其中絕對多數屬佛教内容，世俗文書與古籍比較少。這既反映古代西域的一千多年以來的以佛教為主的基本文化特徵，另外也不應忽略，德國考察隊主要的計劃工作對象即是古代佛教寺院、
洞窟遺址，在廢墟埋藏中發現大量的佛教文獻應屬意中之事。吐魯番特藏中最早的紀年文書是 1902
至 1903 年冬春之際出自高昌（Qočo）故城的 α 遺址、現藏柏林印度藝術博物館（Museum für Indische
Kunst, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz）的漢文《〈正法華經 • 光世音普門品〉
2

張施題記》（北涼神璽三年，公元 399 年）。 最晚的文書因缺乏本身紀年，文書整體的年代下限僅
能作大致的推測，估計是蒙元時期，其中數件漢文及混合語言寫本於上世紀九十年代曾由印度藝術3

博物館借至日本展出，對此，池田温氏等學者有很好的介紹。 另外，柏林還藏有若干件清代文書和近代書籍殘葉，應是德國探險隊由當地偶然搜集帶回。這部分資料固然不乏研究價值，但應該與地下出土古代歷史文書和古書殘篇區別對待。因此，談到柏林藏西域文書的年代跨度可以有兩種講法，四世紀至十四世紀；四世紀至二十世紀。文書的來源地主要是吐魯番盆地的古城遺址如高昌故城、交河（Yar-Khoto）故城及勝金口（Sengim）、木頭溝（Murtuq）、葡萄溝（Bulayïq, Buluyuk）、
小桃溝（Qurutqa）、七康湖（Ciqqan-köl）以及位於鄯善縣境内的吐峪溝（Toyuq）、大小阿薩古城（Chong-Hassar-Shahri, Kichik-Hassar-Shahri）、七克台（Čiqtim, Čiqtam）等石窟寺及寺院遺址。4 此外，焉耆（Karashahr）、庫車（Kuča）、沙雅（Shahyar）、巴楚（Maralbashi）等地也出有一定數量

* 本文初稿曾應高田時雄教授邀請于 2005 年 3 月在京都大學人文科學研究所宣讀，欣蒙到會諸位先生指教、鼓勵。德國柏林國家圖書館
東方部允許刊佈本文討論的五件文書圖片，在此敬表謝意。
1

Zieme 2004，14。參看 Zhang Guangda – Rong Xinjiang 1998 (1999), 24-26；榮新江 1996，68ff。

2

Kimm 1925，601 已提到這件文書。

3《現代書道二十人展第 35 回記念—トゥルファン古写本展》，朝日新聞社 1991，8，12，13，14。

4

雖然德國探險隊沒有進行過墓葬發掘，但相當數量的文書收購自當地挖寳人之手，來歷不明，因而不能排除其中尚含有墓葬文書的成分。

1

的漢文文書。絲路南道不屬於德國探險隊工作範圍，但柏林也藏有若干件來自和田的漢文文書。因此可以説，德藏文書包括了塔里木盆地南北廣大的地區，年代跨越從公元四世紀至十四世紀逾一千
年的時間。吐魯番特藏的另一個突出特點是多語種的版刻書籍，這一點與敦煌藏經洞情形不同，說
明雕版印刷品大行於河西地區之前，藏經洞已於十一世紀初封閉。雕版印刷品應在此後在西域地區
獲得廣泛傳播，對漢文字文化的西傳起有舉足輕重的作用。據筆者初步檢讀，柏林藏西域出土的漢文印本殘片數量約在千件左右，内容仍以佛經為主。各國西域收集品中涉及古代知名的不同經藏版
本及單刻本種類可觀，已經有學者比定出開寶藏、契丹藏、金藏等，柏林這部分珍貴資料尚待系統研究。
前面提到，大宗的佛教寫本、印本之外，吐魯番特藏中還包括其他古代宗教的材料。具有特殊意
義的是中古時期傳播來華、而在其本土及其他曾經流行過的地區久已沉湮的摩尼教文獻的遺存。涉
及到的語言文字有中古伊朗語即中世波斯語（Middle Persian）、帕提亞語（Parthian, 又譯番兜語）、
粟特語（Sogdian）、近世波斯語（New Persian）、大夏語（Bactrian）與古代突厥語（Old Turkish）、
吐火羅語（Tocharian）等。總的數量尚無正式統計數字，據藏家柏林–勃蘭登堡科學院吐魯番研究所（Turfanforschung, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften）最新估計，中古伊朗
語諸種語言摩尼教寫本約有 4000 件（用摩尼教文字書寫的文書約 3500 件，用粟特文書寫的文書約5500 件）。回鶻語摩尼教寫本已編目的有 594 個文書號。 合計起來，各語種摩尼教文書的數量超過4000 件。就今所知，整個柏林特藏的文書估計件數是 40000。這樣，吐魯番盆地所出摩尼教文書約占文書總數的一成。因文書多半為大小不等的斷片，上述數字並不代表完整篇章。
一個世紀以來，中古伊朗語、古代突厥語等摩尼教文書的解讀與研究是國際東方學取得的突出成績之一。相形之下，德藏漢文摩尼教文書的比定工作有所突破還是近數十年的事情。第一項成果
是井ノ口泰淳與 Thomas Thilo 二氏合作實現、由 Thilo 於 1987 年 5 月在前東柏林國家科學院舉行的
題為“古代東方寫本研究整理中的問題”(Probleme der Edition und Bearbeitung altorientalischer
6，
Handschriften) 國際學術會議上發表。 該文討論的兩件文書是 Ch 258（圖 1 Ch 258r，圖 2 Ch 258v）
Ch 174 = T II T 1917（圖 3 Ch 174r，圖 4 Ch 174v）。從内容上看，Ch 258 部分與《摩尼教下部贊》的
個別句段很接近，但也有現有的漢文摩尼教文獻中完全未見的文字，想來應屬於不同的輯抄本。
Werner Sundermann 氏為這部分珍奇的文字找到了兩件帕提亞語的對應文本(一件以摩尼教文字書
寫，另一件以粟特文字書寫)以及一件粟特語的對應文本，語句、字彙相當系統的一致性表明，漢5Wilkens 2000。嗣後，又有若干件回鶻語寫本由 Wilkens 比定為摩尼教文書，部分尚待公佈。

6Thilo 1991。

2

7

文本是以伊朗語本為藍本的“翻造品”（“Chinese remake”）。 尤為引人注目的是 Ch 258 開本小巧，字體纖細，行款錯落有致，推測該寫本或有可能原係冊子本。 Ch 174 不見於今存摩尼教漢文文獻。1997 年吉田豊氏比定、公佈另兩件柏林藏漢文摩尼教文書殘片 Ch 3138v（圖 5）和 Ch 3218v（圖86），從現存的文字看，兩件均為《摩尼教殘經》的抄本。 近年，小田義久氏在龍谷大學藏西域文
9

書中檢出一件《摩尼教下部讚》卷第一的寫本斷片（O. 4982A） ，残存文字與該經敦煌本相應部分完全一致。《大谷文書集成》卷三該項下未注明文書的出土地点，據大谷西域文書的一般情況與有關摩尼教文書出土地的現有知識仍可推測，O. 4982A 來自吐魯番地區的可能性是存在的。若然，合計上述發現，出自吐魯番地區的漢文摩尼教寫本文獻迄今為止知有 5 件。

二 Ch 1363
本文介紹的一件漢文文書編號為 Ch 1363，現藏德國柏林國家圖書館 （Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin,
Preußischer Kulturbesitz）。墨書寫本，麻紙，厚薄不勻，色淡褐黄，簾紋不顯，吃墨性強，紙面尚存輕微紅土痕跡，残片邊緣形狀不規則，殘高 9.1 公分、寬 5.8 公分。正背兩面均書寫文字，出自不同手筆。背面（圖 7）無欄線，字大小不均，字跡稚拙，為利用舊字紙背面（“反故”）的二次寫本，
書寫年代有可能比正面晚。内容為佛教性質的雜寫，文字未比定。正面文書（圖 8）就現存部分看，
原文書有烏絲欄，上欄不存，有下欄，欄寬 1.8 公分，楷書，結體略扁（1.0 × 0.8 公分）10，可見三
行，第一行殘存的偏旁字劃遠不足以推補原字，就原件反復觀察，發現一些復原的線索，在此暫且不論。殘片文字清晰可讀者共九字，錄文如下([ ]表示闕文，• 表示一個殘字 )：
1

[ •

•

•

•

2

[•] 造新明界其3[•] 泉樹木花菓

4

[

]

]

第三行的“泉”字係據殘劃擬補。其上一字就殘劃看似為“氵”旁的下面兩點。
特定術語與慣用語表明，上述寫本有可能是一件摩尼教文書。下面文字比對的依據是敦煌出11

漢文摩尼教文獻《摩尼教下部贊》、《摩尼教殘經》、《摩尼光佛教法儀略》 以及已確認的五件吐魯7Sundermann 1991b；1996, 105-111。

8

吉田豊 1997。此點本文初稿有誤，承榮新江先生提示改正。

9

小田義久 2003, 86。

10

竺沙雅章先生垂告，依藤枝晃先生的漢文寫經書法年代分類標準，Ch 1363 應歸入 D 期，即回鶻期。

11

三種敦煌寫本據《大正藏》及 Schmidt-Glintzer 1987 校正錄文、林悟殊錄文 1987; 1991; 1997，行數按《大正藏》引用。少數異體字、避3

番出土漢文摩尼教文書残片。Ch 1363 正面僅存兩行九個字，“造新明界”可能在原文屬於一句，“泉樹木花菓”有可能屬於一句。下面就文中出現的九個字在上述摩尼教文獻中的已知用法作一比較。

z“明界”是摩尼教的核心概念之一，漢文文獻中用例如下：
上啓明界常明主，並及寬宏五種大。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 普啓贊文》(H.122)

魔族永囚於暗獄，佛家踴躍歸明界。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎无上明尊偈文》(H.234)

饑火熱惱諸辛苦，明界常樂都无此。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎明界文》(H.289)

迫迮諸災及隘難，恐懼一切諸魔事，
戰伐相害及相煞，明界之中都无此。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎明界文》（H.294）

上從明界，下及幽塗，
所有眾生，皆由此度。
《摩尼光佛教法儀略》(C.80a24-25)

z“光明界”是“明界”的同義語，經文駢散相間，由於韻腳或對仗的緣故加減一兩個字，語義
無別：伽藍處所皆嚴淨，彼无相害及相非。
生死破壞无常事，光明界中都无此。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎明界文》(H.274)

光 明 界 中 諸 聖 等 ，其 身 輕 利 无 疲 重 。
妙 形 隨 念 遊 諸 刹 ，思 想 顯 現 悉 皆 同 。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎明界文》(H.319)

光 明 界 中 諸 聖 尊 ，遠 離 懷 胎 無 聚 散 ，

諱字逕改爲通行字。縮略語代碼如下：C = Compendium, Ch = Chinesische Turfantexte in Berlin, H = Hymn scroll, O = Otani Collection, T = Traité.

4

遍 國 安 寧 不 驚 怖 ，元 无 怕 懼 及 荒 乱 。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎明界文》(H.333)z“光明世界”是由“明界”而“光明界”的進一步延伸：唯 願 諸 佛 ，哀 愍 彼 性 ，起 大 慈 悲 ，與 其 解 脫 ，
自引入於光明世界。
《摩尼教下部贊》(H.408-409)

其 氣 、風 、明 、水 、火 、憐 愍 、誠 信 、具 足 、忍 辱 、智 惠 及 呼 嚧 瑟德 、 𠷺嘍

德 與 彼 惠 明 ，如 是 十 三 ，以 像 清 淨 光 明 世 界 明 尊記驗。
《摩尼教殘經》(T.82a28-b2)

我從常樂光明世界，為汝等故，持至於此。
《摩尼教殘經》(T.85c13-14)

z“常明界”：
一 切 光 明 諸 佛 等 ，各 願 慈 悲 受 我 請 ，
與 我 離 苦 解 脱 門 ，令 我 速 到 常 明 界 。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 普啓贊文》(H.147)[]各 願 慈 悲 受 我 請 ，

與 我 離 苦 解 脱 門 ，令 我 速 到 常 明 界 。
吐魯番文書 Ch 258rz

“常明世界”為“常明界”的延伸形式：
稱讚褒譽，珎重廣大。
彼真實主，最上光王。
常明世界，及其聖眾。
《摩尼教下部贊》(H.373)

5

又復轉引到於彼岸，遂入涅槃常明世界。
與自善業，常受快樂，合眾同心，一如上願。
《摩尼教下部贊》(H.399-400)z“新明界”三個字是判定 Ch 1363 歸屬於摩尼教範疇的鎖鑰：
我今諦信新明界。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 普啓贊文》(H.143)“造新明界”出現於漢文摩尼教文獻中，就今所知以 Ch 1363 為僅見。

z“造”，也是摩尼教文獻中出現過的字，例如：
為破落故，造新穢城。
《摩尼教殘經》(T.83a19-20)

次為左右无數眾等，亦造宮室。
《摩尼教殘經》(T.83b6-7)

願舍所造諸僭咎。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 贊夷數文》(H.046)

又啓樂明第二使，及與尊重造新相。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 嘆无常文》(H.125)z“樹木花菓”一語雖不直接見諸傳世文獻，類似的說法尚可舉下例為證：
降大法春榮性地，性樹花菓令滋茂。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 贊夷數文》(H.031)“性樹花菓”與“樹木花菓”有一字之差，語序稍異。摩尼教以“善能譬喻”（allegory）著名，
花草、果實、樹木、森林是常見的喻體。就與本文相關的詞語看，下列語例可資比較：
敬礼稱讚常榮樹，眾寶莊嚴妙无比。
擢質彌綸充世界，枝葉花果□□□。
一切諸佛花間出，一切智慧菓中生。

6

《摩尼教下部贊》(H.007-008)

常榮寶樹性命海，慈悲聼我真實啓。
《摩尼教下部贊》(H.012)

復是大聖蒲萄枝，元植法薗清淨苑。
卒被葛勒籐相遶，抽我妙力令枯悴。
復是大聖膏腴地，被魔栽蒔五毒樹。
唯希法鑺利刀鐮，斫伐焚燒令清淨。
其餘惡草及荊棘，願以戒火盡除之。
榮秀一十五種苗，申暢一十五種本。
復是大聖新妙衣，卒被魔塵來坌染。
唯希法水洗令鮮，得法身清淨躰。

懇切悲嘷誠心啓，眾寶庄嚴性命樹。
最上无比妙毉王，平安淨業聚眾善。
常榮寶樹性命海，基址堅固金剛躰。
莖幹真實无妄言，枝條脩巨常歡喜。
眾寶具足慈悲葉，甘露常鮮不彫果。
食者永絕生死流，香氣芬芳周世界。
已具大聖冀長生，能蘇法性常榮樹。
《摩尼教下部贊》(H.068-075)

放入香花妙法林，放入清淨濡羔群。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 贊夷數文》(H.078)

臭穢肉身非久住，无常時至並破毀。
如春花葉暫榮柯，豈得堅牢恒青翠。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎無常文》(H.089)

卉木兼苗實。
吐魯番文書 Ch 258v

若人能食此果者。
大谷文書 O. 4982A

7

若食此菓者，而得獲常住。
吐魯番文書 Ch 258r

z“泉”字在文書中殘缺，僅餘下半部分。這個擬補的依據是摩尼教文獻善用“泉源”作比：百川河海及泉源，命水湛然皆香妙，若入不漂及不溺，亦无暴水來損耗。
《摩尼教下部贊 · 歎明界文》(H.290)

泉源清流无間斷，真甘露味无渾苦。
《摩尼教下部贊》(H.304)

江海及泉源。
吐魯番文書 Ch 258v

第三行的“泉”上一字就殘劃看似有可能為一個從“氵”的字，或許即是“源”。若然，“源泉”
即上引摩尼教習見語彙“泉源”之倒文，語序相反，語義不異。
上述引證的具有摩尼教文獻特徵的常用術語“新明界”、“（源）泉”、“樹木花果”，出
現於如此之短的上下文中，其彼此關聯的程度顯然，似可確保 Ch 1363 為摩尼教文書。因爲文字有
異同処，尚不能確定這個残片在現存的幾種篇幅較長的經典《摩尼教下部贊》、《摩尼光佛教法儀略》、《摩尼教殘經》中的歸屬。目前所知出自吐魯番的幾種漢文摩尼教文書中除了個別語句文字一致之外，就整體來看，異同出入較大。這是否暗示，漢文摩尼教文獻在上面提到的三種敦煌經典之外曾經尚有逸文別篇？

三 年代
近年來，學者探討摩尼教初傳高昌的年代，認為唐朝統治西州時期（640–792 年）佛教興盛，摩尼教甚難在丁谷、寧戎兩寺窟區建立自己的窟龕。摩尼教在高昌的出現，與 792 年吐蕃佔領西州後遷走一批高昌官吏及高僧有關，佛教的衰落為摩尼教的興起提供了契機。803 年漠北回鶻汗國直接
控制高昌後，摩尼教團立穩腳跟，並漸漸獲得傳播。所以，摩尼教到達吐魯番並獲得發展的時間是九
世紀初。

12

這個結論實際主要基於對幾件帶有歷史訊息的伊朗語、回鶻語摩尼教文書的分析12

榮新江 2000，228-229。

13

同上，221-224。

8

13

，所

得結論建立於操不同語言的摩尼教信從者同屬一個共同體這一前提之上，較之就單一語言文獻立論基礎固然更為穩固、可信。
目前比定出的幾件柏林藏漢文文書寫本也透露出一些時代的信息。發現於吐峪溝的摩尼教文書
Ch 3138v（圖 5）和 Ch 3218v（圖 6）書寫於上品唐麻紙, 為古董家艷稱的“硬黃”14，表面尚有上蠟砑光的痕跡，一般僅見用於官抄或大寺供養的佛經。雙面有字，標準唐楷，墨色漆亮而不透紙。
殘高 20.5 公分，存 15 字，下欄尚存。據此推算，原紙直高是否在 26 公分至 27 公分之間，行款承
用每行 17 字的佛經卷子抄寫規制？尚待更完整的同類寫卷資料予以證實。Ch 3218v（圖 6）行 1 第
2 字、Ch 3138v（圖 5）行 4 第 5 字左上的“民”字都用缺筆的寫法，“愍”為避唐太宗李世民（627–649
年在位）的名諱。這兩件寫本的正面為醫方書，筆者已另有討論。15 該醫書中同樣存在避諱寫法，如“治”（Ch 3138r 行 3 第 1 字 [圖 9]），Ch 3218r 行 2 第 10 字 [圖 10]），“氵”旁少寫一點，寫作“冶”，為缺筆諱例，所避的是唐高宗李治（650–683 年在位）名諱。“旦”（Ch 3138r 行 2 第 4字）（圖 9）字上半部分的“日”與下邊的長橫之間加一點，為增筆諱例，避唐睿宗李旦（684 年在位）名諱。這三位皇帝前後相繼，在七世紀中執政共達五十七年。
上述三例避諱字表明，這件寫本的形成時代的理論上限是 627 年，但是既然三個諱名出現於同一件寫本中，最晚的諱字當最接近寫本的實際產生年代，這意味著本文書中的“旦”字所諱的唐睿
宗世及此後的時間，即是說，從 684 年直至 907 年唐代覆亡這段時間，為該寫本的產生年代區間。 無論如何，Ch 3138v 和 Ch 3218v 兩殘卷無疑是唐代摩尼教寫經，就紙張、墨色、書風等綜合觀察，似可看作中唐以前、有可能距離開元十九年（731 年）《摩尼光佛教法儀略》寫定頒行不久的時期完
成的抄本。
Ch 258r/v（T II T 1319）、Ch 174r/v（T II T 1917）兩件漢文摩尼教文書同樣出自鄯善吐峪溝，其内容一部分是《下部贊》，一部分為新見内容。其年代沒有明確線索，研究者作了三種估計：唐代；
九至十三世紀，即回鶻高昌國時期；九世紀。16 Ch 174v（圖 4）兩次出現“恒”字，頗可注意：恒 修 惡 業 謗 聖 賢 。（ 行 3b）
以及：
明 門 對 我 鎮 恒 開 。（ 行 5a）“恒”字寫法不避唐穆宗李恒（821–824 年在位）的名諱。依避諱常例看，形成這種現象可能出於14

古紙鑒定家認為，這種工藝考究的紙張的製成使用年代一般在初唐、中唐之間，見潘吉星 1975，86。

15

Wang Ding 2002。

16

Thilo 1991, 170。

9

三種原因：書手避諱不嚴；該寫本完成於穆宗即位之前；該寫本完成於唐亡之後。從文書的形制、
書寫格式看，Ch 258 也許年代更晚，可能會晚於唐代。
Ch 1363 本身既無紀年字樣，兼之由於保存下來的篇幅過短，未包含漢文文獻中常見的標誌書
寫時代的避諱字等年代線索。一般而言，紙張、墨色、書法、行款、寫本形制等外部特徵不足以構
成獨立的標尺以判斷寫本的年代。祖本、抄本源流傳承的判定本來是相當複雜的問題，如果研究者
面對的又是斷篇殘簡，則更無從入手。其實，即使是擁有大量寫本遺存的伊朗語摩尼教文書也基本
上無法在可靠的基礎上斷代。

17

這也許是諸多經過反復抄寫、覆刊的古代宗教文獻具有共性的問

題。唯一可行的途徑似為綜合考求摩尼教漢文文獻的歷史記載與已知吐魯番出土摩尼教文書的内外證據，在摩尼教始通中國、開教回鶻、在西州成為國教這樣一個大的上下文中確定本文書的位置，
具體到吐魯番盆地則是從八世紀中葉摩尼教正式獲准在唐西州闡教到西回鶻高昌王國時期（九世紀
中葉至十三世紀）間摩尼教由興盛到式微這四百年中著眼，爭取達到一個接近史實的年代範圍。
一件出自敦煌藏經洞的據考為十世紀西州佛教講經文的寫本（S 6551），頗可與大約同時代的王18

延德行記相印證而互有詳略。 作者在文中為佛家爭一短長，歷數當時流行於吐魯番盆地、勢力可與釋教分庭抗禮的“波斯佛、摩尼佛、火祆佛、哭神”，是現知漢文文獻中有關吐魯番地區摩尼教
活動年代最晚的一項記載，同樣可以作為 Ch 1363 斷代的參考基準。

四 文書來源：交河城的摩尼教寺院？
本 文 書 下 部 界 欄 外 帶 有 探 險 收 穫 品 原 始 編 號 （ Fundsigel 或 Fundsignatur ）： “T III
Yar-Choto”(圖 8），其中，“T III”係紫色戳記，“Yar-Choto”為手寫; 玻璃板上粘貼的標籤分別作“T III 1058”、“Ch 1363”。德藏西域文書的最初編號方法一般由四項内容組成： T 代表吐魯番，大寫羅馬數字 III 代表德國第三次吐魯番探險（1905-1907），Yar-Choto 代表發掘或採集地點雅
爾和圖，最後一個數字代表來自該處的發現品的序號。由於整理時的差錯及戰爭疏散造成的損失，有相當數量的柏林藏文書的原始編號脱落、散失，或欠缺某些項目。“Ch 1363”是戰後按語言分
類編的漢文文書流水號。就 Ch 1363 這件文書而言，“T III Yar-Choto”缺數字，“T III 1058”缺文
書來源。因而，上述兩個標記含義不同：T III Yar-Choto 表示第三次吐魯番探險發現於交河的文書；
T III 1058 表示第三次吐魯番探險發現的第 1058 件文書。因為文書地脚有鉛筆書寫的“Yar-Choto”
這一原始記錄，所以無論上述問題答案如何，均不影響該件文書來自吐魯番交河某處遺址的事實。
17

Sundermann 1992, 74.

18

張廣達 – 榮新江 1989。

10德國吐魯番探險隊曾於 1905 年、1906 年夏季兩次在交河工作。具體的方位、遺址情況以及考古收穫詳情未見於 von Le Coq 與 Grünwedel 的論著 19，前一次因為當時 von Le Coq 前往迪化辦理
運輸事宜，留技工 Bartus 代理主持探查、發掘，致使工作記錄不連續，結果在後來以他的名義發
20

表的著作中未能得到充分的反映 ，這在整個研究結果後期整理、公佈中不是孤例。與其他有詳細記錄的遺址相比，交河給人以似乎在此沒有展開系統工作、收穫品亦不突出的印象。實際上，德國
人在交河的發掘工作具有相當大的規模，對此未刊的德國吐魯番探險檔案史料提供了補充性的描
述，Grünwedel 在第三次探險考察期間于 1906 年 8 月 17 日由吐魯番二堡住處致信他的柏林人種學
博物館同事 F. W. K. Müller，報導此前數日他在雅爾湖工作，收集品包括“兩箱壁畫、若干件怪異
21

的陶土頭像及塑像肢體殘片，而壁畫中所表現之不同民族的供養人形象尤為可異”。 由此推測，
這些發現品的地點當是交河故城的北部與西部的寺院中心區。後期對文書的研究表明，交河遺址發
現品的文化內涵非常豐富，文書涉及漢、梵、藏、回鶻、蒙等語言文字，最近德藏中又有大夏語（Bactrian）文書殘片的發現。

22

就摩尼教文獻而言，早在 1910 年，von Le Coq 即發表兩件得自交河的回鶻語摩尼教禮懺文（T II Y 60a，T II Y 60b）
。23 其他出自交河的回鶻語摩尼教文書還有數件。24
就今所知，伊朗語摩尼教文書有五件出自交河, 25 均為雙面寫反故文書，另一面均為漢文寫本，M7860、M 7861、M 7862（原始出土號均為 T II Y 34，應為同組 [Bündel] 文書）三件以摩尼教文字書寫
的中世波斯語贊文。另一件有 T II Y 34 記錄的文書顯然出自同一遺址，文字、語言、正背關係與前26

三件相同，文字内容相似，係於 2004 年在文書揭裱過程中發現，編號為 M 7850b。

與高昌故城、吐峪溝寺窟出有上千件摩尼教文書與數百件摩尼教繪畫品的數量相比，交河遺

191905 年 6 月 Bartus 獨力在交河進行發掘，見 von Le Coq 1913, 1。關於第三次探險對交河遺址的考察，Grünwedel 1912，4 寫道：“（1906 年）

8 月 9 日至 20 日停留吐魯番。在吐魯番城北山坡地工作。探訪、發掘交河。”
20德國探險隊技工 Bartus 掌握基本的測繪技能，檔案研究表明，von Le Coq 書中若干平面圖的實測和草圖其實出自 Bartus 之手。

21

印度藝術博物館藏檔案 E, No 1753/06 (Turfanakten MIK, Band VI Museum für Völkerkunde, Acta betreffend die zweite Expedition nach Turfan. Vol. 3,

vom 15. September 1906 bis 30. Juni 1907. Pars I.B. 38a, 原卷無頁碼): „Hier angekommen bin ich zunächst nach Murtuk geritten, dessen Tempel
durchaus nicht so zerstört ist, wie ich fürchtete – dann nach Urumtsi, um mit den chines. Behörden und den Russen (wieder Krotkov !)Zusammenhang zu bekommen und endlich nach Yarchoto. Ich bin gestern von Yarchoto zurückgekehrt und habe zwei Kisten Fresken und einige
merkwürdige „Clay“-Köpfe und Torsos mitgebracht. Unter den Fresken sind besonders einige Volkstypen-Stifterfiguren merkwürdig. Bevor ich
nach Yar ritt, besuchte ich auch die Höhlen bei Turfan selbst: zwischen den Dörfern Qûrutqâ, Bâghrâ und Bûlaryôq. ...“ 這件檔案史料由 Cordula
Gumbrecht 博士提供，承印度藝術博物館館長 Marianne Yaldiz 教授同意本文引用發表，作者謹表謝意。
22

Sims-Williams 2004.

23

von Le Coq 1910，15-20。參 Wilkens 2000，Nr. 399，Nr. 405。嗣後，von Le Coq 指出雅爾湖不僅出土大量的佛教藝術品，而且摩尼教文

獻佔有特殊地位，見氏著 1912 圖版 40（中文譯本頁 120）。
24

參 Wilkens 2000，Nr. 420（Y 59），Nr. 421（Y 59），Nr. 422（T II Y 54）。

25

參 Boyce 1960，132。

26

Christiane Reck 博士見告。至於粟特語寫本，現知有一件編號為 Ch/U 6579（T II Y 59/26）的敍事體文書殘片，未公佈。

11址發現上述十餘件同類文書這一數量確乎不多。但是，有一個事實不應忽略，即德藏文書中相當數
量的最初出土及收集號原始記錄未流傳下來。對於伊朗語摩尼教文書，早期研究者放棄使用原始登錄號，通編 M (代表 Manichaica) 號，導致部分原始登錄號遭到銷毀，造成不可彌補的損失。27 可以有理由推想，包括原本來自交河的摩尼教文書在内的、有明確來源地的若干文書就此遂成無主文書。所以，交河摩尼教文書實際當不止目前的十餘件之數。
交河城據信為擁有相當規模的摩尼教活動的地區，根據是黃文弼氏早年在吐魯番收集、今藏北京中國歷史博物館的回鶻語摩尼教寺院文書長卷，其中提及高昌回鶻時期的摩尼寺，具名者有三個：solmï manistan 唆里迷摩尼寺、qočo manistan 高昌摩尼寺、yar manistan 交河摩尼寺。28 書闕有
間，有關高昌回鶻時期交河的地位我們所知甚少，但是，既然它可與唆里迷、高昌這樣西域孔道之上的通都大邑相提並論，其規模與重要性想必可觀，擁有當時在高昌回鶻王國見尊為國教的摩尼教
寺院也是情理中事。可惜到目前為止考古工作在考察交河地區的寺廟遺址時，可以認定的一般都是
29

佛教遺跡。 如所周知，古代吐魯番地區在不同時代存在過佛教、祆教、景教、摩尼教等東來宗教，
其寺宇往往經改造後彼此承用，形成學術界已基本公認的“二重寺”或“二重窟”的現象。

30

因此，存世的宗教性遺址表層之下尚有可能掩藏他種宗教文化因素，有待揭明，而目前人們對同一遺址的文化歸屬判定也會因研究者理論背景、觀察角度有異而導致不同的結論。有關交河地區確有摩31

尼教寺院殘跡的報導 ，應予以充分重視。結合文書記載，探討有無可能在未來的田野工作中獲得
交河摩尼寺的進一步線索，當是宗教遺址的考古學研究中具有意義的課題之一。
根據早期探險工作的成果與後來中國新疆考古學家的新發現，人們一般認為，中古摩尼教在吐
魯番盆地有多個中心，以出土文書以及洞窟壁畫為判定標準，高昌故城、柏孜克里克 （Bezeklik） 千32

佛洞、吐峪溝寺窟在此之列。 三件明確來自吐峪溝的漢文文書（Ch 258 = T II T 1319; Ch 174 = T II T
33

1917; Ch 3138 = T III T 132）暗示，吐峪溝有可能曾经是漢人摩尼教信仰的中心。

交河地區可以看作摩尼教宗教生活在吐魯番盆地西部的中心，這一信仰帶有多語言共同體的特質，信眾在當地擁有27

Boyce 1960，XXI 及注 3; XXIII- XXIV。Sundermann 1991a, 284。發掘登錄號在探險收集品整理早期階段已有意外損失，參見 v. Le Coq

1913, Tafel 44 „Die Fundnummern der hier wiedergegebenen Stücke sind leider durch einen ungünstigen Zufall zerstört worden.“28

耿世民 1978，502 文書行 32-33, 112-113，505 譯文，509 注解。森安孝夫 1991，40, 45 文書轉寫，63-64, 93 注釋。“唆里迷”即今之焉耆（Karashahr），參張廣達 – 耿世民 1980 = 張廣達 1995，31-55。
29

李肖 2004，40-41，259。

30

森安孝夫 1991。

31

森安孝夫 2003, 82。

32

Sundermann 1991a, 288-289。

33參 Mikkelsen 2004, 213。

12

一座摩尼寺。以上的初步推測倘能成立，均賴新發現的漢文文書 Ch 1363 與前述來自交河的伊朗
語、回鶻語寫本以及回鶻語摩尼教寺院長卷為證。

五 餘論
漢文摩尼教文獻意味著漢人—至少是通漢文的—摩尼教信徒的存在。漢文正史記載，摩尼教在
唐代為西胡和回鶻人的宗教，官方限制其在漢人中的傳播。這從反面透露有漢人摩尼教信眾的存在。中古波斯語摩尼教讚美詩 Maḥrnāmag（M 1 = MIK III 203）有長篇題記，内稱書手於 761-762 年
開始謄抄該文，未抄畢因故中斷，抄本放置到焉耆的摩尼寺中，808-821 年回鶻保義可汗在位時寫
竣。這四十餘年正值西州繼從屬於唐朝（640–793 年）先陷於吐蕃、再易手回鶻的轉變時期。篇中臚舉西域諸城如北庭、高昌、龜茲、佉沙（一說:伽師 = 疏勒？）、撥換、焉耆、于祝的摩尼教信從護
法者，其中提到作為摩尼教支持者的若干唐代駐西域文武官員，據 F. W. K. Müller 比定，如大將軍(行3447)、侍郎(行 83)、副使(行 70，94-95)、判官(行 106)等。

近年，吉田豊氏考證出 syrtwš (行 47)

35

與 syrṯwšyy (行 73) 即漢文官稱“節度使”。 明確具有摩尼教神職的是一位叫 lyfwṯwšy 的人（行3676）， fwṯwšy 一詞 Müller 比定為官稱“副都司” ，他的職名後面標署 nywšʾgbyd
38

37，直譯“耨沙39主” ，義為“聽者之首” ，即某種層次的一般摩尼教在家信眾的組織者，說明這位漢族官吏作爲
信徒參與地方摩尼教信仰活動的程度。漢官被列入西州回鶻摩尼教庇佑人，其背景大約是西州開教之初回鶻貴族享有唐廷恩寵，不僅可以自由信教，而且可以借安西軍政權要以自重其位、榮顯其教。
頗具意味的是，該寫本完成之時，唐朝軍政體制已從西域撤出，但是題記部分并未將漢官刪去。這
一事實是否暗示，至少是 M 1 的題記部分當完成於八世紀末西州陷蕃、安西四鎮淪亡以前，似乎尚
有討論的餘地。

40

散見於吐魯番盆地的摩尼教漢文文書斷片表明，在此之後吐魯番綠洲的多民族生

存共同體中仍然葆有一定數量的漢人居民的存在，其語言、文化、信仰的實踐並未全然胡化。

34

Müller 1912, 9-12 及 32-34。

35

吉田豊 1994，370。參榮新江 2000，221。

36

Müller 同上，並加問號以示審慎。

37

Müller 此處作 nigôšakpat / Nigōschakpat。

38《摩尼光佛教法儀略》五級儀的“耨沙喭” nywšʾgn，為帕提亞語 nywšʾg 的複數形式（“譯云一切淨信聽者”，“一切”為多數），因nywšʾgbyd 一詞中用單數，結合中古音構擬音 nyok-ša (見石田幹之助 1925=1973, 291-292)及 nuok ṣa （見吉田豊 1986，62），-k 或 -g 屬
於音節“喭”，故從略。
39

或譯“聽聞者”、“聽子”、“淨信聽者”、“信施士女”、“士女”，參馬小鶴 2003，422。

40說明回鶻摩尼教與漢族政權關係的另一個例證是上引回鶻語寺院長卷，據突厥學家推測為九至十一世紀文書，其上十一處蓋有漢文朱方

印“大福大回鶻|國中書門下|頡于迦思諸|宰相之寶印”。該印據陳國燦 2002a，494 考證當為大中五年（851）中央政府因回鶻與歸義軍節度使張議潮收復西州而頒發的諸種“丈組寸印”之一。想來回鶻世襲貴族繼承前代受封於漢族政權的印信，因為寶愛而作為官印沿用。

13摩尼教隨西遷回鶻到達西州是 762 年以後的事，三十餘年後西州陷蕃，唐朝在此行使了 150
餘年的主權宣告結束。半世紀後高昌再易手於回鶻。以漢文化為標誌的唐代軍政體制從西域撤出後，那裏的漢語使用者數量當不會很高。同樣採自交河故城、今藏京都龍谷大學的大谷文書 O. 8078，
41

為一件現存三行文字的漢文官文書，内容係“回鶻天可敦下西州洿林界園子種田簿” 。學者將其
42

年代訂為“回紇年次未詳（八世紀末以降）”

或“當是回鶻進入穩定統治以後的九世紀（？）”

43。“天可敦”三字以上文書殘闕，原來是否還有字，無由得知。如果這個句子可以按目前字面讀

解的話，就會產生一個疑問，即如何解釋本來使用突厥語作爲母語的回鶻王后“天可敦”對臣民下達一道漢文官書？田簿中所記園子曹庭望及其他五人，因文書殘斷人名不完整，姓名俱見的有“曹縱々”與其弟“（曹）閏那”。據西州史常情判斷，曹姓屬於東來的昭武九姓胡人，經世代定居後業已有不同程度漢化。這種特殊語言政策的存在暗示漢語言族群仍然足夠具有規模，其重要性迫使
由漠北遷來、九世紀中成爲天山東段主宰勢力的回鶻官方在行政事務中採取某種具有雙語政策性質
的舉措，以應付胡漢分居雜處、官方語言暫時難於定于一尊的局面。同時，經過數個世紀漢族或漢化文化的薰陶影響，使得吐魯番地區非漢人對漢語言文字的掌握已經達到可觀的程度。一組經考定
44

為唐開元二年（724）的官文書表明，胡人賊寇中有善講漢語者。

佛教僧侶中漢僧善胡語文與胡僧

善漢語文的歷來史不絕書，此處不贅。吐魯番特藏中高昌回鶻時期的漢文世俗文書少見，但漢文佛經抄本、印本量大，另外回鶻語、漢語混合文字佛教寫本也有一定數量，表明回鶻僧侶具備閱讀漢
文的能力。因此，就發現于吐魯番的漢文摩尼教文獻來看，胡人胡寺作為其收藏使用者的可能同樣
也是存在的。
VI. 參考文獻Acta betreffend die zweite Expedition nach Turfan. Vol. 3, Museum für Indische Kunst (MIK), Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Preußischer Kulturbesitz（普魯士文化遺產基金會柏林國家博物館印度藝術博物館藏德國第二次吐魯番探險專檔第三卷）。
Boyce, Mary 1960: A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection (Deutsche
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung Nr. 45). Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Chavannes, Ed. – Pelliot, P. 1911: “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine.” Journal Asiatique, 499-617.
陳國燦 2002a：《敦煌學史事新證》（敦煌學研究叢書）。蘭州：甘肅教育出版社。
陳國燦 2002b：《吐魯番出土唐代文獻編年》（補資治通鑑史料長編稿系列 ‧ 香港敦煌吐魯番研究中心研究叢刊）。
41

小田義久 2003，229 下。

42

池田溫 1979，565。

43

陳國燦 2002b，341。

44

Takata 2004，333。

14臺北：新文豐出版公司。
耿世民 1978:《回鶻文摩尼教寺院文書初釋》。
《考古學報》51/4，497-516。修訂本刊《新疆考古三十年》，烏魯木齊：
新疆人民出版社 1983，529-548。英文本 Geng Shimin 1991: “Notes on an Ancient Uighur Official Decree Issued to a
Manichaean Monastery.’ Central Asiatic Journal 35, 209-230。
黃文弼 1954:《吐魯番考古記》（考古學特刊第三號）。北京： 中國科學院。
池田溫 1979:《中國古代籍帳研究》。東京大學東洋文化研究所紀要別冊。
石田幹之助 1925:《敦煌發現「摩尼光佛教法儀略」に見えたる二三の言語に就いて》。《白鳥博士還曆記念東洋史論叢》= 1973《東亞文化史叢考》（東洋文庫論叢第五十四）東京：東洋文庫，285-298。
Kimm, Chung Se 1925: “Ein chinesisches Fragment des Prātimokṣa aus Turfan.” Asia Major II (F.W.K. Müller Festschrift),
597-608.
Le Coq, Albert von 1910: “Chuastuanift, ein Sündenbekenntnis der manichäischen Auditores. Gefunden in Turfan(Chinesisch-Turkestan).” Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Anhang 4.
Le Coq, Albert von 1913: Chotscho. Facsimile-Wiedergaben der wichtigeren Funde der ersten Königlichen Preußischen
Expedition nach Turfan in Ost-Turkistan. Berlin: Reimer & Vohsen. 影印本 1979 Graz: Akademische Druck- undVerlagsanstalt。趙崇民中文譯本： 《高昌—吐魯番古代藝術珍品》。烏魯木齊： 新疆人民出版社 1998。
李肖 2004:《交河故城的形制佈局》（考古新視野叢書）。北京： 文物出版社。
林悟殊 1987:《摩尼教及其東漸》。北京：中華書局。
林悟殊 1991:《倫敦藏敦煌寫本〈下部贊〉原件考察》。
《季羨林教授八十華誕紀念論文集》。南昌： 江西教育出版社,
871-900.
林悟殊 1997: 《摩尼教及其東漸》。臺北：淑馨出版社。
馬小鶴 2003:《粟特文 ’δw wkrw ’ncmn（二部教團）與漢文“四部之眾”》。榮新江主編《唐代宗教信仰與社會》（北京
大學盛唐研究叢書）。上海辭書出版社,413-433。
Mikkelsen, Gunner B. 2004: “The Fragments of Chinese Manichaean Texts from the Turfan Region.” In: Turfan Revisited,213-220 + Plate 37 & 38。
森安孝夫 1991:《回鶻ウイグル=マニ教史の研究》(A Study of the History of Uighur Manichaeism. Research on Some Manichaean
Materials and their Historical Background)。《大阪大學文學部紀要》(Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Osaka University)
XXXI/XXXII, 1991。
森安孝夫 2003: “The Flourishing of Manichaeism under the West Uighur Kingdom. New Edition of the Uighur Charteron the Administration of the Manichaean Monastery in Qočo.” In:《シルクロードと世界史》（World History
Reconsidered through the Silk Road）. 大阪大学 21 世紀 COE ブロダラム「インターフェイスの人文学」2002 · 2003
年度報告書 3，63-83。
Müller, F. W. K. 1912: „Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichäischen Hymnenbuch (Maḥrnâmag).“ Abhandlungen derPreußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, V.
小田義久 2003:《大谷文書集成》叁（龍谷大學善本叢書 23）。京都：法藏館。
潘吉星 1975:《故宮博物院藏若干古代法書用紙之研究——中國古代造紙技術史專題研究之三》。《文物》1975: 10，84-88。
榮新江 1996:《海外敦煌吐魯番文獻知見錄》（東方文化叢書）。南昌:江西教育出版社。
榮新江 2000:《摩尼教在高昌的初傳》。新疆吐魯番地區文物局編，柳洪亮主編 《吐魯番新出摩尼教文獻研究》，北京：
文物出版社，215-230。
Schmidt-Glintzer, Helwig 1987: Chinesische Manichaica. Mit textkritischen Anmerkungen und einem Glossar (Studies in Oriental
Religions, 14). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2004: “Two Bactrian Fragments from Yar-khoto.” In: Turfan Revisited, 325-332.
Sundermann, Werner 1991a: “Completion and Correction of Archaeological Work by Philological Means: the Case of the15Turfan Texts.” In: Histoire et cultes de l’Asie Centrale préislamique, ed. by P. Bernard & F. Grenet, Paris, 283-288 = 2001,
427-436.
Sundermann, Werner 1991b: “Anmerkungen zu: Th. Thilo, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu zwei chinesisch-manichäischen
Textfragmenten der Berliner Turfan-Sammlung.’ ” In: H. Klengel & W. Sundermann (eds.): Ägypten – Vorderasien –Turfan (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients, 23). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 171-174.
Sundermann, Werner 1992: “Iranian Manichaean Texts concerning the Turfan Region.” In: A. Cadonna (ed.): Turfan and
Tun-huang the Texts. Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route. Firenze: Olschki, 63-84 = 2001, 461-485.
Sundermann, Werner 1996: “Iranian Manichaean Texts in Chinese Remake: Translation and Transformation.” In: Alfredo
Cadonna – Lionello Lanciotti (eds.): Cina e Iran. Da Alessandro Magno alla Dinastia Tang. Firenze: Olschki, 103-119 = idem
2001, 515-532.
Sundermann, Werner 2001: Manichaica Iranica. Ausgewählte Schriften von Werner Sundermann (Serie Orientale Roma,LXXXIX/1,2). Christiane Reck – Dieter Weber – Claudia Leureni – Antonio Panaino (eds.). 2 vols. Roma: Istituto
Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.
Takata, Tokio 2004: “The Chinese Language in Turfan with a Special Focus on the Qieyun Fragments.” In: Turfan Revisited,333-340.
Thilo, Thomas 1991: “Einige Bemerkungen zu zwei chinesisch-manichäischen Textfragmenten der Berliner
Turfan-Sammlung.” In: H. Klengel & W. Sundermann (eds.): Ägypten – Vorderasien – Turfan (Schriften zur Geschichte
und Kultur des alten Orients, 23). Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1991, 161-170 + Taf. XX-XXIII.
Turfan Revisited. The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road (Monographien zur Indischen
Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie, 17). Ed. by D. Durkin-Meisterernst, S. Raschmann, J. Wilkens, M. Yaldiz, and P.
Zieme. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag 2004.
Wang, Ding 2002: Chinesische Turfantexte mantischen und magischen Inhalts in der Berliner Turfansammlung. Diss. Freie
Universität zu Berlin.
Wilkens, Jens 2000: Alttürkische Handschriften, Teil 8: Manichäische-türkische Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag. (Veröffentlichungen Orientalischer Handschriften Deutschlands, Bd. XIII, 16).
吉田豊 1986: 《漢訳マニ教文獻における漢字音寫された中世イラン語について(上)》。《內陸アジア言語の研究》
II, 1-15。
Yoshida, Yutaka 1997: “On the Recently Discovered Manichaean Chinese Fragments.” 《内陸アジア言語の研究》 XII,
35-39.
張廣達 1995:《西域史地叢稿初編》（中華學術叢書），上海古籍出版社。
張廣達 – 耿世民 1980:《唆里迷考》。《歷史研究》1980:2，147-159。收入張廣達 1995，31-55。
張廣達 – 榮新江 1989:《有關西州回鶻的一篇敦煌漢文文獻―S6551 講經文的歷史學研究》。
《北京大學學報》 1989:2，
24-36。收入張廣達 1995，217-248。
Zhang Guangda – Rong Xinjiang 1998 (1999): “A Concise History of the Turfan Oasis and its Exploration.” Asia Major, 3rdser. XI/2, 13-36.
Zieme, Peter 2004：“Von der Turfanexpedition zur Turfanedition.” In: Turfan Revisited, 13-18.

16

圖 1 Ch 258r

圖 2 Ch 258v

圖 3 Ch 174r

圖 4 Ch 174v

17

圖 5 Ch 3138v

圖 6 Ch 3218v

圖 7 Ch 1363v

圖 8 Ch 1363r

18

圖 9 Ch 3138r

圖 10 Ch 3218r

19

A Buddhist Classification of Animals and Plants in Early Tang China
Huaiyu Chen 陳懷宇

Introduction
Drawing upon some sources in Daoxuan’s Ritual of Measuring and HandlingLight and Heavy Property (Liangchu qingzhong yi 量 處 輕 重 儀 ), this paper will
examine how a Chinese Buddhist master classifies animals and plants in early Tang
China. In his text, Daoxuan’s classification is based on Caturvargika-Vinaya (Sifenlü)
and classifies all monastic property into thirteen categories. In the second category, hetalks about the fields, gardens, and plants. For instance, he writes about plants asfollows:
First, the vegetables planted in the gardens (there are four cases): thefirst case is called presently planted five types of births: first, the root
type (radish, ginger, and so on); second, the stalk type (pomegranate,
willow, and other vegetables); third, the knot type (polygonum, celery,and so on); fourth, the miscellaneous type (sugar cane, bamboo, reed,and so on); fifth, the type of seed (coriander, perilla, and so on). The
second case is called vegetables that are separated from the earth.1
一園圃所種菜蔬（其例有四）：初謂現植五生種，一根種（蘿蔔薑芋之屬）；二莖種（即榴柳及菜屬）三節種（即蘿勒蓼芹等）四雜種（蔗竹荻蘆）五子種（荽荏之屬）二離地菜茹。

In the same text, Daoxuan also gives a list of fruits as follows:
Second, the trees of five fruits planted [in the garden] (there are threecases): first, five fruits presently on the trees, which are called the shell
fruits (such as walnut), the skin fruits (pear, crab-apple, apple, melon,
and so on), the core fruits (peach, apricot, jujube, persimmon, and soon), the horn fruits (all kinds of beans from the mountains and rivers),
and the cart fruits (the seeds of pine and cedar, and so on). Second, thefruits that are detached from the earth. Third, those that include thebranches, skin and shells.2

1

Daoxuan, “Liangchu qingzhong yi,” T. no. 1895, vol. 45: 841a. In this case, I only cite the sentences thatare crucial to my current discussion.
2
ibid., T. no. 1895, vol. 45: 841a.

21

二栽種五果之樹（其例有三）初現樹五果。謂殻果（即胡桃）膚果（即梨柰林禽木瓜等）核果（即桃杏棗柿等）角果（山澤諸豆）輿果（松柏子等）二離地果子; 三樹枝皮殻。

Besides the list of plants, Daoxuan also gives a list of animals in the same text.
He mentions camels, horses, donkeys, and so on.3
Daoxuan’s lists of plants and animals offer us an opportunity to understand how
a Buddhist master classified plants and animals and how to deal with them in thecontext of Chinese Buddhist monasticism. I have discussed the issue about how to deal
with these plants and animals elsewhere, in this paper I will focus on how to understandthe historical context in which the lists of plants and animals were produced in
Daoxuan’s case.
In order to avoid the confusion of defining animals, it is worth noting that in thisstudy the animals we examine are restricted to non-human animals living in nature andsociety. Every definition of subject in human society may possess historical and cultural
implications. In the historical sense, the animals examined in this paper are the ones in
the perception of medieval Chinese people. This study will contextualize the Buddhistclassification of animals and plants in the history of Chinese Buddhism. On the one
hand, animals and plants played a significant role in the Buddhist community inmedieval China – as they constituted the fundamental physical basis of monastic
community. On the other hand, the Buddhist community had to gain the knowledge
about animals and plants to properly incorporate the use of animals and plants into its
cultivation toward enlightenment, particularly in accordance with the regulations in the
Buddhist monastic codes (Vinayas).
Daoxuan, as a leader of the Buddhist community in early Tang China, made acontribution in classifying animals and plants and therefore dealing into Buddhist
community. Daoxuan touches on the issue of the relationship between animals andhumans in numerous cases in his writings. However, he uses generic terms in his
writings to indicate creatures and nature, without considering their practicality of thoseterms in China. For instance, he uses “sisheng” (four forms of births) to refer to all
creatures in the world, yet does not explain how to understand this term.4 Nonetheless,
Ritual of Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property remains one of the mostsignificant documents in offering a set of practical regulations in the context of Chinese
3
4

ibid., T. no. 1895, vol. 45: 845b.
Daoxuan, Zhong Tianzhu sheweiguo zhiyuansi tujing, T. no. 1899, 45: 882c.

22

Buddhist monasticism.5 Based on this document, we can also find how Daoxuan adjusts
the monastic regulations of dealing with animals and plants in the context of Chinese
Buddhism.
Before we move to discuss the classification of animals and plants in Chinese
Buddhist monasticism, we have to clarify some issues that might be raised. First, since
we will examine the idea of the classifications of animals and plants in Chinese
Buddhism, it might be unnecessary to define what animals and plants are as aphilosophical presumption. Instead, we will understand what animals and plants mean
to Tang Buddhists. Second, this study merely deals with Daoxuan’s idea about theclassification of animals and plants in Chinese Buddhism. In other words, limited to ahistorical study of ideas, this study will not touch on the practical behavior of monks
and nuns as well as lay people in dealing with animals and plants. 6 The historicalsources about the practical behavior of Chinese Buddhists in dealing with animals andplants are too vast, far beyond the scale of the current study.

Buddhist Zoology
Classifying animals is an important step for dealing with the relationshipbetween human beings and animals as well as human beings and nature. Only recently
has contemporary scholarship become aware of the subject of classifying animals in
traditional China.7 Since medieval Chinese monastic community was not isolated fromthe natural world, it was not to be designed as a separate space for human beings only.
Animals always took part in the daily activities of Buddhist monastic members.8 Manysocial historians have viewed this participation as merely an economic matter. However,in my opinion, this participation should be examined in a larger context. Scrutiny should5

For an evaluation of this document, see my recently completed PhD. dissertation, “The Revival of
Buddhist Monasticism in Medieval China” (Princeton University, 2005), chapter 4.
6
For a general survey of Buddhist attitude towards natural world, see Peter Harvey, An Introduction to
Buddhist Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), chapter 4: “Attitude to and Treatmentof the Natural World,” pp. 150-186.
7
For a recent example, see Guo Fu, Li Yuese (Joseph Needham), and Cheng Qingtai, Zhongguo gudaidongwuxue shi 中國古代動物學史(Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1999), chapter 4, pp. 131-141, Guo Fusummarizes the systems of animal classification in Erya, Guanzi, Liji, Lüshi chunqiu, Kaogongji, andBencao gangmu; Gou Cuihua, “Zhongguo gudai de dongzhiwu fenlei 中國古代的動物學分類” Kejishi
wenji 科技史文集 4 (1980), p. 43;Gou Cuihua et al., “Ye tan zhongguo gudai de shengwu fenleixue
sixiang 也談中國古代的生物分類學思想” Ziran kexueshi yanjiu 自然科學史研究 1: 4 (1982), p. 167;
Gou Cuihua et al., Zhongguo gudai shengwuxue shi 中國古代生物學史(Beijing: Kexue chubanshe,
1989); Gao Yaoting, “Woguo gudai dongwu fenleixue chengjiu de chubu tantao,” Dongwu xuebao 動物
學報 21: 4 (1975), p. 298.
8
Animals, Skt. tiryaña, Pali. tiracchāna, Ch. chusheng 畜生, bangsheng 傍生, or hengsheng 橫生.

23

be carried out in multiple dimensions, among which are religious ethic, economic, andeven biological considerations. In terms of religious ethics, dealing with animals
remains a very significant subject. 9 In early Buddhism, animals were viewed as
intellectually inferior. While Buddhism does not provide a clear hierarchical structure in
the world of animals, according to Vinaya, killing a small animal should be punishedthe same as killing a big animal.10 In the theory of reincarnation, although animals wereviewed the same as human beings and could be reborn based on their deeds (karmas),
the path of animals was inferior to the path of human beings. In early Buddhist ethics,
Buddhist ethics still gives priority of human beings to the animals. Paul Waldau
discusses animal rights in Buddhist tradition.11 He says that in Buddhist tradition, theFirst Precept of no killing provides a basis to promote universal compassion toward
animals as an ethic absolute. 12 By tracing some scriptures in Pali canon, Waldausuggests that, tiracchāna (animals) are different from humans because they do not havemental dimensions.13 Thus, Waldau concludes that, “The Buddhist tradition confirms
the ancient nature of a concern for living beings, a concern which has been dominated in
the other major religious and philosophical traditions by a tendency to ethicalanthropocentricism.” 14 Therefore, it is not surprising when Daoxuan, a medieval
Chinese Buddhist master, talks about animals, still in the context of the economic andreligious applicability of animals in monastic community.
9

Padmanabh S. Jaini, “Indian Perspectives on the Spirituality of Animals,” in Buddhist Philosophy andCulture: Essays in Honour of N. A. Jayawickrema, ed. David J. Kalupahana and W. G. Weeraratne(Colombo, Sri Lanka: N. A. Jayawickrema Felicitation Volume Committee, 1987), pp. 169-178; Sakya
Trizin, A Buddhist View on Befriending and Defending Animals (Portland: Orgyan Chogye Chonzo Ling,
1989); Christopher Chapple, Karma and Creativity; Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian
Traditions (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993); Mary Evelyn Tucker andDuncan Williams eds., Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds (Harvard
University Center for the Study of World Religions, 1997); Eric Reinders, “Animals, Attitude toward:
Buddhist Perspective,” in William M. Johnston ed. Encyclopedia of Monasticism (Fitzroy Dearborn,2000), pp. 30-31.
10Lambert Schmithausen, Buddhism and Nature: The Lecture delivered on the Occasion of the EXPO
1990. An Enlarged Version with Notes (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1991);
idem., “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ethics: VI. The Status of Animals,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics(1997). James P. McDermott, “Animals and Humans in Early Buddhism,” Indo-Iranian Journal 32: 2(1989), pp. 269-280. Bimal Churn Law, “Animals in Early Jain and Buddhist Literature,” Indian Culture
12: 1 (1945), pp. 1-13.
11
Paul Waldau, The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals (Oxford University
Press, 2001), chapters 6 and 7; and his article, “Buddhism and Animals Rights,” in Damien Keown ed.,Contemporary Buddhist Ethics (The Curzon Critical Studies in Buddhism Series. Richmond, Surrey,
England: Curzon Press, 2000), pp. 81-112; Paul J. Waldau and Kimberley Patton (eds.), A Communion of
Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
12
Idem., “Buddhism and Animals Rights,” in Damien Keown ed., Contemporary Buddhist Ethics (TheCurzon Critical Studies in Buddhism Series. Richmond, Surrey, England: Curzon Press, 2000), pp. 85-86.
13
Ibid., p. 93.
14
Ibid., p. 105.

24

Categorizing human beings and animals together as beings has a long history in
Indo-Iranian religious tradition. As early as 1920s, George Sarton (1884-1956) has
noted that Manichaeism attempted to classify everything with pentads.15 Hanns-Peter
Schmidt further explains that, “The Manichaean pentad comprises men, quadrupeds,
flying, aquatic and creeping creatures. It occurs in Parthian, Sogdian and Turkish texts,
and it is also mentioned by Augustinus (in inverted order).”16 As Schmidt lists, in thissystem, all creatures were classified into five groups (under category in Turkish): twolegged human beings, four-legged living beings, flying living beings, living beings in
the water, and living beings creeping on the ground on their belly. In Latin, they are:animalia/bipedia, quadrupedia, volantia, natantia, and serpentia.17 In this list, men wereclassified with animals together, though human beings were listed as the first category,just as how Daoxuan listed.
Daoxuan also offered some regulations for dealing with animals in medieval
Chinese Buddhism. Some points from his text should be marked here. First, he lists
slaves, servants, and animals together. Although it is not surprising to list animals andhuman beings together, since animals are also sentient beings in Buddhist cosmology, it
seems that in the case of Daoxuan’s list economic status is the principle basis ofclassification. Daoxuan seems to view both animals and slaves as the same kind ofmonastic income received from devout donors. 18 Plants were also income of themonastic community, but they were “produced” from the lands and fields owned by themonastic community, rather then offered by donors.
Daoxuan places the animals that could be owned by the monastic community
into three categories: domesticated animals, wild animals, and the animals that are
rejected in the monastic code. In observing the first two categories, it is clear that thisclassification is based on the relationship between animals and human society. 19 In
particular, Daoxuan classifies animals based on whether they could be used formonastic economic purposes. The third category reveals that this system of

15

George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science (Baltimore, Pub. for the Carnegie institution of
Washington by the Williams & Wilkins company, 1927), p. 333.
16
Hanns-Peter Schmidt, “Ancient Iranian Animal Classification,” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 5/6(1980), p. 231.
17
Ibid., 232.
18
Bencao gangmu also lists human beings and animals together. See Guo Fu, “Dongwu de fenlei,” Guo
Fu, Li Yuese (Joseph Needham), and Cheng Qingtai, Zhongguo gudai dongwuxue shi 中國古代動物學史(Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1999), chapter 4, p. 137.
19
George G. Simpson, Principles of Animal Taxonomy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962).

25

classification was particularly based on regulations governing the Buddhist communitythat were shaped by monastic ethics.
We can tell from this list that this system of classification must have been
justified by the traditional Buddhist view of animals and the contemporary situation at
Daoxuan’s era. Brian. K. Smith examined the animals of ancient India, and suggested
that they were classed as either domesticated (grāmya, “of the village”) or wild (āramya,“of the jungle”). 20 Based on Baudhāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra (24: 5), “The seven village
animals are the cow, horse, goat, sheep, man, ass, and camel as the seventh; some saythat mule [is the seventh]. The seven jungle animals are [wild] cloven-hoofed animals,
animals having feet like dogs, birds, crawling animals, elephants, monkeys, and river
animals as the seventh.”21 Roswith Conard examined archaeological evidence and listed
the following domestic animals in ancient Indus civilization: cattle, sheep, goat, pig,
horse, camel, dog, and fowl. He also listed animals such as the bull, buffalo, elephant,cat, dove, and peacock as possibly domesticated animals. The dove, peacock, tiger, andrhinoceros played an important role in the religious life of ancient India.22 From thelists above, we know that all five sorts of domestic animals in Daoxuan’s list were thesame as the domestic animals classed in ancient India: camels, horses, donkeys, sheep
and goats, and cows.
In Daoxuan’s classification, domesticated animals included camels, horses,
donkeys, bulls, and sheep, and so forth.23 All of these animals could legally belong to
the permanent dwelling sangha (changzhu sengqie 常住僧伽). Their affiliated saddles,
saddle blankets, ropes, railings, folds, mangers, and stables could belong to the monastic
community too. But if there were any whips and sticks, the monastic community could
not own them. Instead, the monastic community was to burn these whips and sticks and
20

Brian K. Smith, “Classifying Animals and Humans in Ancient India,” Man 26: 3 (1991), pp. 527-548;
and his book Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 241. In ancient Iran, there were several classification systems ofanimals. In Yaśt (13.74) the animals were listed into two divisions: pasuka “domestic” and daitika “wild”.
See Hanns-Peter Schmidt, “Ancient Iranian Animal Classification,” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik
5/6 (1980), pp. 214-215. Schmidt also notices that in Rgveda animals has been classified as wild anddomesticated ones; see Schmidt, 1980, p. 233.
21
Brian K. Smith, Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 248.
22
Roswith Conard, “The Domestic Animals in the Cultures of India,” Journal of Indian History 52(1974), pp. 76-78.
23
Edward H. Schafer lists the following animals as domestic animals: horses, cattle, camels, sheep andgoats, asses, mules, onagers, and dogs. See his The Golden Peach of Samarkand: A Study of T’ang
Exotics (Berkeley, Los Angles, and London: University of California Press, 1963), pp. 58-78. Schafer
also lists some wild animals; see ibid., pp. 79-91.

26

destroy them, for they were used to torture the domestic animals. Nonetheless,
Buddhist community can enslave these domesticated animals in the daily life, which isagainst early Buddhist attitude toward animals. Schmithausen has summarized acommon view in early Buddhism that “existence as an animal is a very unhappy one,much more painful than human existence. One of the reasons is that animals are
enslaved by man: used as vehicles, beaten and exploited.”24 Although Daoxuan rejects
the whips and sticks for bringing pain to animals, he does not reject the idea of using
animals as vehicles in monastic community.
Some animals were domesticated in Daoxuan’s era, but were not used for
economic purposes. Daoxuan classifies these as wild animals. In Daoxuan’s list, wild
animals includes apes (yuan 猿), monkeys, river deer (milu 麋鹿), deer, bears, ringed
pheasant, rabbits, mountain cocks, and wild geese. Among these, apes, bears, and geese
were also listed as wild animals in ancient India. 25 These wild animals and theiraffiliated cages and frameworks were not to be accepted by the monastic community
even if donated. If the monastic community received these animals, it was to release
them, because these animals were obstacles to the Buddhist path. 26 At this point,
Daoxuan does not claim the value of compassion; rather, he emphasizes the austere life
for monastic members. He prevented them from keeping these animals which required
more than that could be provided by the monastic community. Some animals in
Daoxuan’s list might mostly live in northern China. As Xu Tingyun 徐庭雲 recently
illustrates, the river deer (milu) was common in central and northwest China, especially24

Lambert Schmithausen, Buddhism and Nature, 1991, p. 16.
Brian K. Smith, Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 248.
26
In Japanese Buddhology, there are many articles dealing with the idea of releasing life in Tiantai
tradition. This tradition is centered on the founder of Tiantai School, Zhiyi. See Huang I-mei 黄依妹,
“Kaisatu Hōjō to Jin no shiso 戒殺放生と仁の思想,” Oryō shigaku 鷹陵史学 13 (1987), pp. 29-55;
Kuwatani Yuken 桑谷祐顕, “Hōjō shisō ni okeru kyōsei 放生思想における共生” Nihon bukkyō gakkai
nenhō 日本仏教学会年報 64 (1999), pp. 213-227; Chiba Shōkan 千葉照観, “Chūgoku ni okeru hōjō
shisō no tenkai: seshoku shisō no kannen o chūshin ni 中国における放生思想の展開: 施食思想との関連を中心に,” Tendai gakuhō 天臺學報 36 (1993), pp. 89-95; Namura Takatsuna 苗村高綱, “Chigi
daishi no hōjōchi ni tsuite 智者大師の放生池について,” Shūgakuin ronjū 宗学院論輯 22 (1976), pp.
72-85. On the relationship between Zhiyi and Fanwang jing, see Fujii Kyōkō 藤井教公, “Tendai Chigi tobonmōkyō 天台智顗と『梵網経』,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 90 (1997), pp.
241-247. For a later development of the idea of releasing life, see Chün-fang Yu, Renewal of Buddhism inChina: Chu-Hung and the Late Ming Synthesis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981); Joanna F.
Handlin Smith, “Liberating Animals in Ming-Qing China: Buddhist Inspiration and Elite Imagination,”
Journal of Asian Studies 58: 1 (1999), pp. 51-84; Duncan Williams examines how this practice wascarried out in medieval Japan. See his “Animal Liberation, Death, and the State: Rites to Release Animals
in Medieval Japan,” in Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Williams eds. Buddhism and Ecology: The
Interconnection of Dharma and Deed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 149-164.
25

27

in Shaanxi 陝西, Shanxi 山西, Ningxia 寧夏, Henan 河南 and Anhui 安徽.27 In contrast,
the sources Xu examined do not mention the situation in southern China. However, apes
and monkeys mainly lived in southern China in the Tang period. In tracing these two
animals in Tang poems, Xu suggests that they might be active in Guizhou, Sichuan,
Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Zhejiang and Anhui, or the area around the two banks of the
Yangtze River. Occasionally, Tang people also encountered monkeys in Shaanxi andHenan. According to Xu, tigers and elephants were also active in many areas. In
Guangdong and Anhui, people saw heads of elephants, while tigers were seen in bothurban and rural areas in northern China. Bears were active in the Guangling 廣陵 area
(modern day Jiangsu). In northwestern China, cattle became the favorite hunting animalof the emperor Xuanzong.28 Therefore, it seems that most of the animals that Daoxuan
mentioned were active in northern China.
Daoxuan also discussed hens, ducks, and pigs. 29 He pointed out that theseanimals could bring pollution to pure Buddhist monastics so that monks should not keep
them. All cages and frameworks used to confine these wild animals should be destroyedby fire. The third category included animals that were prohibited by the monastic code.
These animals included cats, dogs, eagles, and mice, which might suggest that thiscategory mainly referred to pets. Daoxuan also pointed out that the monastic community
should destroy bows and arrows as well as other weaponry, because these weapons
could be used to hunt animals. Interestingly, animals such as hens and pigs are classified
as domesticated ones in non-Buddhist society. So this category seems to be a Chinese
Buddhist invention.
From Daoxuan’s interpretation, the monastic community should not be involved
in killing and trading animals. Otherwise, the bad deeds accumulated from killing andtrading would bring terrible retribution to the monks. Buddhism has a long tradition ofprohibiting injuring animals, and other living beings. As Lambert Schmithuasen
remarks, “In the so-called ‘ascetic’ religions of Ancient India (Jainism and Buddhism),killing or injuring living beings is regarded as both unwholesome and fundamentally
immoral; for, on the one hand, killing or injuring them is bad karma entailing evil
27

Xu Tingyun, “Sui Tang wudai shiqi de shengtai huanjing 隋唐五代時期的生態環境,” Guoxue yanjiu
國學研究 vol. 8 (2001), pp. 209-244, especially 215-216.
28
Ibid., pp. 216-222.
29
But Daoxuan does not mention how to deal with birds. Birds were important to medieval Chinesesociety, at least in Dunhuang. See Lewis Mayo, “The Order of Birds in Guiyi jun Dunhuang,” East AsianHistory 20 (2000), pp. 1-59.

28

consequences for the perpetrator after his death, and on the other all living, sentient
beings are afraid of death and recoil from pain just like oneself.” 30 Schmithausen
continues to point out that in ancient India, not only humans and animals but also plants
and seeds were regarded as sentient beings. This no-killing tradition has been inheritedby Chinese Buddhists. In early Tang period, Daoxuan states that selling animals wasmore evil than simply killing them. For the monastic community, the principle ofcompassion was to be strictly obeyed in dealing with animals. As Daoxuan said, themonastic community should erect its sacred house of compassion (cibei shengzhai 慈悲聖宅).31
Unlike Confucianism, in medieval Chinese Buddhism, animals were not to be
used for sacrifice, not even to the three Jewels: the Buddha, Dharma and sangha.32 Thus,
the animals donated by lay people were not to be dedicated to the Buddha or the sangha.
Rather, they were donated for the daily use of the monastic community. 33 Current
scholarship on animals from the Confucian perspective has suggested that in ancient
China, Confucians may have viewed animals in light of their values of benevolence andreciprocity.34 Historically, Buddhism protected animals from being sacrificed in ancientIndia. This compassion toward animals might also function as a powerful tool against
old Brahmanical ritual in which animals were sacrificed.35
It seems that in Chinese Buddhist monasticism, Vinaya masters played a role inclassifying animals. Daoxuan is such an example. He classified everything a monastic
community might have owned. The classification of animals seems to be mainly basedon the monastic code (Vinaya) in Indian Buddhist tradition. However, there were many
Chinese translations of a variety of Vinaya traditions available. Therefore, Chinese
Vinaya masters had to justify their classifications to accord with changing situations. In
30

Lambert Schmithausen, Buddhism and Nature (Tokyo, 1990), p. 5.
Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 845c.
32
In my dissertation “The Revival of Buddhist Monasticism in Medieval China,” chapter two, we haveseen that during the ceremony of venerating the Buddha’s relics, some Buddhists sacrificed their bodies.
But the Buddhist never sacrificed the bodies of the animals to venerate the relics of the Buddha. In some
Jataka stories, we can even find that the Prince of Bodhisattva even donated his body to feed the hungry
tigress. See “Vyaghri Jataka,” Jatakamala No.1. This story does not occur in the Pali Jataka.
33
In South Asian tradition, some animals were also viewed as sacred. See Trilok Chandra Majupuria,
Sacred Animals of Nepal and India (Lashkar, 2000).
34
Donald N. Blakeley, “Listening to the Animals: The Confucian View of Animal Welfare,” Journal of
Chinese Philosophy 30: 2 (2003), pp. 137-158. The main source Blakeley uses in his article is the worksof Confucius, Mencius, Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming. He does not touch the sources from Han to Tang
periods.
35
Christopher Key Chapple, “Animals and Environment in the Buddhist Birth Stories,” in Mary Evelyn
Tucker and Duncan Ryūken Williams eds., Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma andDeeds (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 131-148, esp. 140.
31

29

pre-Buddhist Chinese society, rules or sage-kings had authority in classifying theanimals. 36 It is still debatable to what extent Chinese taxonomy of animals wasborrowed from the Indian tradition, and it is an issue that deserves a profoundexploration.37 In ancient Indo-Iranian civilization, religious priests played the role inclassifying everything, including beings. The classification of animals in Indo-Iranianculture has been mainly discussed in their sacred scriptures, such as Avestan andPahlavi texts, Rgveda, and Bundahiśn. Most systems developed in these religious texts
were based on their religious values, and reflected their religious feature, or even served
their religious needs. For example, in the Zoroastrian system, animals were classified as
good and evil based on whether they were created by the bright god (Ahura
Mazdā/Ohrmazd) or the dark god (Angra Mainyu/Ahriman).38

Buddhist Botanical Taxonomy
The system of classification has a long history in China.39 In Xunzi, plants wereclassified into grasses and trees (caomu). In the era of Warring States, moresophisticated systems of classification appeared. For instance, in some early texts, plants
were classified into one hundred types of flower (baihui), one hundred types of grain(baigu), one hundred types of fruit (baiguo), one hundred types of vegetable (baishu),and one hundred types of medicine (baiyao). The principle of these primitive systems ofclassifications is the forms and uses of the plants.40 The first systematical classification
36

Roel Stercx, “Animal Classification in Ancient China,” East Asian Science, Technology and Medicine(2004), forthcoming; Stercx ananlyzes animal classification in ancient China centered on Erya. In Erya,animals were classified into four categories: insects, fish, birds, and beasts. Also see his book The Animal
and Daemon in Early China (Albany: State University of New York, 2002), chapter three; and his article,“Transforming the Beasts: Animals and Music in Early China,” T’oung Pao 86: 1-3 (2000), pp. 1-46.
37
Very few works have touched issue of the taxonomy of animals in medieval China. An early attempt
has been done by Zhang Mengwen, see his Zhongguo shengwu fenleixue shi shulun (1940). Zou Shuwen,“Zhongguo gudai de dongwu fenleixue,” in: Li Guohao, Zhang Mengwen, Cao Tianqin ed. Zhongguo
kejishi tantao (Hongkong: Zhonghua shuju xianggang fenju, 1986), pp. 511-524.
38
Hanns-Peter Schmidt, “Ancient Iranian Animal Classification,” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 5/6(1980), pp. 209-244. Schmidt notes that, “Manichaeism differs from Zoroastrianism by considering all
animals as demonic creatures. They must however be protected because they contain incarcerated
particles of light.” See Schmidt, 1980, p. 232.
39
Nguyen Tran Huan. “Esquisse d’une histoire de la biologie chinoise des origines jusqu’au IVe siècle,”
Revue d’histoire des sciences 10 (1957), pp. 31-37; Joseph Needham, “The Development of BotanicalTaxonomy in Chinese Culture,” Actes du douzi’_me congrés international d’histoire des sciences (1968),
pp. 127-133. For medicinal plants, see Hu Shiu-ying, An Enumeration of Chinese Materia Medica (HongKong: Chinese University Press, 1980). For an earlier survey of Chinese botany, see E. Bretschneider,“Botanicon sinicum. Notes on Chinese Botany from Native and Western Sources,” Journal of the North
China Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 16, 25, 29 (1881-1895), reprinted in Nendeln, Lichtenstein, 1967.
40
Zhongguo zhiwu xuehui ed., Zhongguo zhiwuxue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1994), pp. 11-12. For
study of crop plants, see Francesca Bray, “Essence and Utility. The Classification of Crop Plants in30

of plants in ancient China appeared in Erya, a dictionary. Based on Erya’s classificationof plants, some herbological and agricultural works developed the tradition of Chineseplants classification centered on medicinal plants.41 In the early Tang Dynasty, Newly
Compiled Herbology (Xinxiu bencao), an official work sponsored by the central
government in the Xianqing period of the Emperor Gaozong classified all plants into
five categories based on their forms and uses: grasses (cao), trees (mu), fruits (guo), riceand grains (migu), and vegetables (cai). 42 Buddhists in early Tang Dynasty, such as
Daoxuan, seemed to have been aware of this tradition of plants classification in China.
Although most monks did not engage in farming activities in medieval Chinese
Buddhist monasteries, many plants were donated and cultivated. Buddhist masters faced
the problem of dealing with these plants as monastic property. In order to determine theownership of these plants, the masters first had to classify the plants and account forthem. Unlike his economic classifications of laborers and animals, Daoxuan classified
the plants in the Buddhist monastic communities mainly based on empirical principles.
Daoxuan’s system covers five kinds of vegetables, five fruit trees, and five grains.43 It is
worth noting that all these plants are considered economic plants nowadays.44 Since
they were economically valuable, their significance in the monastic community was noless than in a non-monastic community. In other words, they served the daily living
needs of monks. According to Daoxuan, the ownership of all plants belonged to themonastic community.45 Individual monks should not own any plants.
As I have noted previously, Daoxuan’s classification was based on his learningof Four-part Vinaya, and his classification was justified by the context in which he wassituated. Indeed, some geographical and historical elements might have had an impact
China,” Chinese Science 9 (1989), pp. 1-13. For earlier scholarship of evaluating ancient Chinese
botanical works, see E. Bretschneider, “The Study and Value of Chinese Botanical Works,” Chinese
Recorder 3 (1870), pp. 157-163.
41
Zhongguo zhiwu xuehui ed., Zhongguo zhiwuxue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1994), pp. 12-14.
42
Ibid., pp. 38-43, esp. 41.
43
For plants in ancient India, see Trilok Chandra Majupuria, Religious and Useful Plants of Nepal andIndia: Medicinal Plants and Flowers as Mentioned in Religious Myths and Legends of Hinduism andBuddhism (Lashkar, 1988; revised by D.P. Joshi, 1989); Lambert Schmithausen, The Problem of theSentience of Plants in Earliest Buddhism (Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 6, Tokyo: The
International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990), and his Plants as Sentient Beings in Earliest Buddhism(Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, 1991).
44
For economic plants in China, see Hu Xiansu, 胡先驌 Jingji zhiwuxue 經濟植物學(Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 1953). For a study on the origin of cultivated plants, see N. I. Vavilov, The Phyto-geography Basisfor Plant-breeding, Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992).
45
Xie Chongguang, “Jin Tang siyuan de yuanpu zhongzhiye,” Zhongguo shehui jingjishi yanjiu 3 (1990),
pp. 1-7.

31

on Daoxuan’s assessment of the monastic plants as they did on his assessment of themonastic animals. More specifically, Daoxuan’s list illustrates that most plants,
including vegetables and grains as well as fruit trees, were plants mostly cultivated innorthern China and served as staple food for the northerners. Hence, Daoxuan’s list
reflected specifically the monastic community in northern China as well as the socialhistorical situation of the monastic community in northern China.
Why can we conclude that most plants in Daoxuan’s list were cultivated innorthern China? In taking a closer look at the plants Daoxuan discussed, we find that theterms Daoxuan used were terms often used in northern China. In Daoxuan’s system ofclassification, which adheres to the tradition of the Buddhist monastic codes, the fivekinds of vegetables were ordered by five-birth types (wusheng zhong 五生種).46 They
included the type of root (genzhong 根種), the type of stalk or stem (jingzhong 莖種),the type of knot (jiezhong 節種), the type of miscellania (zazhong 雜種), and the type ofseed (zizhong 子種). The type of root includes radish (luobo 蘿蔔), 47 ginger (jiang
薑 ), 48 Colocasia antiquorum (yu 芋 ), 49 and so on. The type of stalk includes
pomegranate (liu 榴), willow (liu 柳), and some similar vegetables. The type of knot
includes polygonum (liao 蓼 ), Chinese celery (qin 芹 ). 50 The type of miscellania
includes sugar cane (zhe 蔗), 51 bamboo (zhu 竹), Anaphalis yedoensis (di 荻), andPhragmites communis (lu 蘆). The type of seed includes coriander (sui 荽)52 and Perilla46

Li Hui-lin, “The Vegetables of Ancient China,” Economic Botany 23 (1969), pp. 253-260.
Latin: Raphanus sativus. For a short history of its cultivation, see Li Fan, Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu
fazhanshi, pp. 107-109.
48
Latin: Zingiber officinale. Li Fan suggests that this plant was originally cultivated in western plateau of
China, especially in present Yunnan and Guizhou areas. See his Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi, pp.
132-133. It was well cultivated in ancient India and China; see Berthold Laufer, Sino-Iranica: ChineseContributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran, with Special Reference to the History ofCultivated Plants and Products (Chicago, 1919); Chinese version, Lin Yunyin trans. Zhongguo Yilang
bian: Zhongguo dui gudai Yilang wenmingshi de gongxian zhuozhong yu zaipei zhiwu ji chanpin zhi lishi(Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1964, reprinted in 2001), pp. 376-377.
49
Latin: Colocasia esculentum. For its cultivation in China, see Su Song Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian
kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 488-489.
50
According to Li Fan, there are two kinds of celeries: Oenanthe javanica and Apium graveolens. It
seems that the celery Daoxuan lists here is the former, which was more popular as vegetable cultivated inancient China. For more information about these two celeries in ancient China, see Li Fan, Zhongguo
zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi, pp. 138-139.
51
Xinxiu bencao (ch. 17) cites Tao Hongjing’s Bencaojing jizhu that this plant was mostly cultivated insoutheastern China. Su Song also gives a brief description of this plant. See Su Song, Tujing bencao(Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 487-488.
52
Latin: Coriandrum sativum.
47

32

ocimoides (ren 荏 ). 53 In 1061, Su Song finished compiling a herbal work titledIllustrated Scripture of Herbs (Tujing bencao 圖經本草) and listed sugar cane alongwith persimmon and apple as types of fruit.54 It is also worth noting that in Su Song’sclassification, fruits include both Colocasia antiquorum (yu) and sugar cane (zhe), whichappear as vegetables in Daoxuan’s classification.
In terms of fruits, Daoxuan’s list also shows that most fruits he lists were
cultivated at his time in northern. Daoxuan has listed two kinds of classification forfruits. The first category is called five fruits55 presently on the tress (xianshu wuguo 現樹五果). They are fresh fruits that included the fruit of shell (keguo 殼果), the fruit ofskin (fuguo 膚果), the fruit of core (heguo 核果), the fruit of horn (jiaoguo 角果), andthe fruit of cart (yuguo 輿果).56 According to Daoxuan, the first group of fruits includes
walnut (hutao 胡 桃 ) and chestnut (li 栗 ). Hutao also appears in Fayun 法 雲 ’s
Collection of Names and Meanings in Translations (Fanyi mingyi ji 翻譯名義集). In
this Buddhist work, it has been suggested that its Sanskrit form is Juglans regia (ch. 24).
However, Berthold Laufer argues that this fruit originally came from Iran, based on its
transliteration pārasī which means “Iranian.” 57 Laufer also notes that in the fourth
century, not many Chinese people knew of this plant. He cites Su Song 蘇頌inIllustrated Scripture of Herbs (Tujing bencao) and says that hutao seems to be
cultivated mostly in northern China.58 The second group of fruits includes pear (li 梨),5953

Daoxuan, Liangchu qingzhong yi, T. no. 1895, vol. 45: 841a.
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 487-488.
55
Skt. Pañca-phalāni. This term “wuguo” did not appear in Chinese official histories until Western Jin
Dynasty (fourth century); see Chen Shou, History of Wei (San guozhi: Wei shu), ch. 16, pp. 511, 841.
While in Wei Shou’s History of Northern Wei (Wei shu), it was used to describe the situation in Western
Regions (xiyu); see Wei shu, pp. 2222, 2243, 2272-2274, 2278. Similar uses can be found in History ofNorthern Dynasties (Bei shi), pp. 915, 3131, 3212, 3224-3225. It might be borrowed from Buddhist
sources.
56
The name of five fruits appears in Foshuo yulanpen jing, trans. By Zhu Fahu (3rd, century) see T. no.
685. vol. 16: 779b. While modern monk Cizhou comments on Foshuo yulanpen jing and identifies these
five fruits as keguo, heguo, fuguo, huiguo and jiaoguo. For a discussion on this scripture, see Stephen F.
Teiser, Ghost Festival in Medieval China (Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1988), pp. 48-56.
57
See his Sino-Iranica: Chinese Contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran, with Special
Reference to the History of Cultivated Plants and Products (Chicago, 1919), pp. 254-256
58
Ibid., p. 257. Su Song’s book is an excellent to trace where the plants were cultivated. Laufer also notesthat Le Shi’s Taiping huanyu ji (compiled around 976-981) also says that in Shaanxi and Shanxi people
cultivated hutao, see chs. 30 and 47. Also see Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu
chubanshe, 1988), pp. 494-495.
59
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 496-497.
54

33

crab apple (nai 柰), apple (linqin 林禽)60 and melon (mugua 木瓜).61 The third group offruits includes peach (tao 桃), apricot (xing 杏),62 jujube (zao 棗),63 and persimmon (shi柿).64 The fourth group of fruits includes all kinds of beans cultivated in valley andmarsh (shanze zhudou 山澤諸豆). The final group of fruits includes the seeds of pinetree and cedar tree (songbaizi 松柏子). The second category indicates the dried fruits,
including dried jujube, pear, plum (li 李),65 apricot, persimmon, large tangerine (gan 柑),
tangerine (ju 橘), orange (cheng 橙), chestnut (li 栗),66 and pomelo (you 柚). Daoxuandoes not mention some typical fruit trees that have been long cultivated in southern
China, such as lychee (lizhi 荔枝),67 banana (xiangjiao 香蕉), olive (ganlan 橄欖),68
and coconut (yezi 椰子).69. While their names did not appear in Daoxuan's work, thesefruits and their history in southern China were recorded in many works in medieval
China. For example, the Guide of Grasses and Trees in the South (Nanfang caomu
zhuang 南方草木狀)70 has mentioned that lychee, coco, banana, and olive ere cultivatedin south China. 71 In the eight century, lychee was the favorite fruit of the emperor
Xuanzong and his concubine Yang Guifei. Another famous fruit Daoxuan did not
mention in his list is mango, which in Sanskrit is called āmra and in Chinese is called
anluo (am-la or am-ra 庵羅).72 Although it is a common fruit recorded in Buddhist

60

Both nai and linqin are ancient names of apple (Latin: Malus pumila). According to Li Fan, nai is alittle bit larger than linqin, and both these two fruit trees were mostly cultivated in northwest China; see
his Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi, pp. 178-179. In modern Japanese, kanji “linqin” refers to apple.
61
Ibid., pp. 486-487.
62
Latin: Prunus armeniaca. Mostly it was cultivated in north China. See Li Fan, Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu
fazhanshi, pp. 172-174.
63
It was originally cultivated in northwest and north China. See Li Fan, Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi,
pp. 196-198; Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 497-498.
64
Su Song says that it was cultivated in both south and north. See Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou:
Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 485-486.
65
Latin: Prunus salicina. See Li Fan, pp. 169-170.
66
Li Fan, Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi, pp. 199-201.
67
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 489-490. Su Song indicatesthat litchi from Sichuan area was particularly famous in the Tang Dynasty, based on Bai Juyi’s work.
Now Bai Juyi’s work is not extant. Su Song also says that at his time, the litchi from Fujian was better
than others.
68
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 499-500.
69
For coco, see ibid., pp. 223-224.
70
For an English translation, see Li Hui-lin, trans. Nan-fang ts’ao-mu chuang. A Fourth Century Flora ofSoutheast Asia (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1979). Ma Tai-loi examines its authenticity; see
his “The Authenticity of the Nan-fang ts’ao-mu chuang,” T’oung Pao 64 (1978), pp. 218-252.
71
Ibid., pp. 218-219; pp. 223-227. Miscanthus sinensis (mangguo) was also brought by Xuanzang to
China in seventh century; see ibid., p. 228.
72
Berthold Laufer, 1919, p. 552. Its Latin name is mangifera indica. Laufer also notes that mango was anative Indian fruit, called the king of Indian fruits. It is also considered as one of the most delicious fruits

34scriptures, Daoxuan did not mention it. Thus, it seems that at least in the North, it was
not well known in the Chinese Buddhist community in Daoxuan’s era. Furthermore,
ficus carica (Skt. udambara, Ch. wuhuaguo, Jp. ichijiku, New Persian. anjīr) was also
very common,73 but was omitted in Daoxuan’s list. Laufer argues that this fruit tree wasimported from either Persia or India to China, not earlier than in the Tang Dynasty. In
the Ming Dynasty, Li Shizhen said that this fruit tree was commonly cultivated insouthern China, in particular, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, Fujian, and Guangdong;and especially in Guangdong, its transliterated name of Sanskrit, youtanbo 優曇缽, wasused, hile another transliteration in Chinese “yingri 映日” might be from New Persian.
Laufer also cites Xuanzang’s record that this fruit was planted in India.74 In Daoxuan’sera, the Chinese Buddhist community was presumably still unfamiliar with this fruit,
hence Daoxuan did not include this fruit in his list.75
In Daoxuan’s classification, the five grains (wugu 五穀) included the housegrain (fanggu 房穀), the loose grain (sangu 散穀), the horn grain (jiaogu 角穀), thebeard grain (manggu 芒穀)76, and the cart grain (yugu 輿穀).77 These of the five grains
originally appear in Chinese translations of Buddhist scriptures78. Yet the name “fivegrains” (wugu) also come from indigenous Chinese tradition, as early as in the Zhou
Dynasty (5th century, B.C.). The specific names of five grains used together do notappear anywhere except in Daoxuan’s text discussed here. In Huilin 慧 琳 ’s
Pronunciation and Meaning of All Scriptures (Yiqiejing yinyi 一切經音義), citing from
Yang Chengtian 陽承天’s dictionary Assembly of Characters (Zitong 字統), the names
in ancient India, see Lambert Schmithausen, The Problem of the Sentience of Plants in Earliest Buddhism(Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1991), p. 37.
73
Maku Takamaro 滿久崇麿, Butten no shokubutsu 仏典の植物 (Tokyo: Yasaka Shobo, 1977), pp. 3032.
74
Berthold Laufer, Sino-Iranica, pp. 411-414. Based on a note in Duan Chengshi 段成式’s Youyang zazu酉陽雜俎, Li Fan also suggests that it was imported to China in the Tang Dynasty. See, Li Fan,
Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi, p. 221.
75
Heritaka (helile 訶黎勒) is another plant that Daoxuan does not mention in his list of plants. It is a very
important plant in Buddhist tradition, also frequently appears in Chinese botanical documents, such like
Tang bencao, Tujing bencao. For a study about this plant in Tang China, see Li Hongbin, “Dagu wenshu
suojian bintie toushi zhuwu bianxi,” Wenshi 34 (1992), pp. 148-151.
76
miscanthus sinensis.
77
In Tantric Buddhism, five grains included barley (Hordeum vulgare, Ch. damai, Skt. yava), wheat(Triticum aestivum, Ch. xiaomai, Skt. godhūma, paddy (Oryza, Ch. daogu, Skt. sāli), small bean (Ch.
xiaodou, Skt. masūra), and oriental sesame (Sesamum indicum, Ch. huma, Skt. atasī).
78
Modern scholars have a different system to classify all grains. See Yamaguchi Hirofumi 山口裕文 andKawase Makoto 河瀬真琴 ed., Zakkoku no shizenshi: sono kigen to bunka o motomete 雑穀の自然史―
その起源と文化を求めて(Sapporoshi: Hokkaidō Daigaku Tosho Kankōkai 北海道大学図書刊行会,
2003), pp. 3-29.

35

of five grains appear as suigu, sangu, jiaogu, qigu, and shugu. 79 Furthermore, in
Daoxuan’s ritual text, these five grains included many present grains: foxtail millet (su粟), sorghum (shu 黍, or gaoliang 高粱), broomcorn millet (shu 菽, or ji 稷),80 paddy(dao 稻),81 wheat (mai 麥),82 perilla (ren 荏),83 all kinds of beans (dou),84 even linseed(ma).85 Interestingly, in Daoxuan’s classification, both perilla and linseed are listed asgrains. This idea certainly comes from indigenous Chinese tradition. Specifically,
perilla was recorded in a botanical work titled Illustrated Scripture of Herbs (Tujing
bencao) by Su Song in the Song Dynasty, in which it is said that Perilla was called “su蘇 ” in Southern China and “ren 荏 ” in northern China.86 It seems that Daoxuan used
its northern name. Sesame was a popular food in early medieval China.87 The horn grain
indicates all kinds of beans (zhudou 諸豆) and linseed (jusheng).88 Linseed was called“jusheng” in Daoxuan’s list. This Chinese name also appeared in an ancient Chinese
herbological work titled Herbological Scripture (bencaojing); while in this work,
linseed or “jusheng” was viewed as the same plant with oriental sesame or huma which
was believed to be imported by Han general Zhang Qian, which has been recorded in
the “Section about Western regions” (“Xiyu zhuan”) of History of Han (Han shu).
However, later on many scholars made distinctions between “jusheng” and “huma.” For
instance, Tao Hongjing (456-536) says that the square-stalk one is “jusheng”; while theround-stalk one is “huma.” See his commentary on Shennong bencaojing. Ge Hongsuggests that “jusheng” is one kind of “huma,” because it has two pods on one horn. In
Su Song’s Illustrated Scripture of Herbs, a separate category (ch. 18) called the “section
79

Yiqiejing yinyi (ch. 16), Huilin, T. no. 2128, 54: 403b. Modern scholarship rarely touches this issue. For
example, Liang Jiamian traces the tradition of Chinese botanical taxonomy back to am ancient dictionary
Erya. Liang Jiamian, “Zhongguo gudai zhiwu xintaixue fenleixue de fazhan,” in Ni Gengjin ed. Liang
Jiamian nongshi wenji (Beijing: Zhongguo nongye chubanshe, 2002), pp. 413-423.
80
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 538-539. Su Song says thisgrain is the head of five grains. In north China, people called it dark cereal.
81
Ibid., 537-538. Also see Li Fang, Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu fazhanshi, pp. 22-36.
82
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 532-533.
83
Nowadays it is well known as an oil plant.
84
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 534-532, 536.
85
In Yuan Dynasty, planting beans and sesame together was recorded in a work titled Zhongyi biyong by
Wu Yi, supplemented by Zhang Fu, edited and annotated by Hu Daojing (Beijing: Nongye chubanshe,
1962), p. 15. For a general survey of cultivated plants for food, see Li Fan, Zhongguo zaipei zhiwu
fazhanshi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1984), pp. 22-66.
86
Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou: Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 514-516.
87
Jia Yingxie, Qimin yaoshu, “huma,” 13 ch. 2
88
Linseed’s modern botanical name is Linum usitatissimum. For a detailed study on huma, also see
Berthold Laufer, Sino-Iranica, pp. 288-296. According to Laufer, this plant was aslo mostly cultivated innorth China. It has been discussed in Su Song’s Tujing bencao, see Su Song, Tujing bencao (Fuzhou:
Fujian kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 526-527.

36

of rice” (mibu) is listed, including huma, two kinds of beans, millet, sorghum, grain, andso on. 89 This category not only includes five grains Daoxuan listed, but also goesbeyond Daoxuan’s five grains.
Though Daoxuan does not mention what sources he used for classifying theseplants, it seems that his classifications benefited from various Vinaya traditions. Given
that he was ordained in the Four-part Vinaya (Skt. Carturvagika-Vinaya, Ch. Sifenlü)
tradition, it is natural to conclude that his classification of economic plants was based on
the Four-part Vinaya tradition. Yet in Daoxuan’s text, some of names for plants aredifferent from Four-part Vinaya, which he might have modified them for the sake of his
Chinese readers. For example, in Four-part Vinaya, the stalk type (jingzhong) appears
as the branch type (zhizhong),90 while in Great Assembly Vinaya (Mahāsanghika-vinaya)
it is exactly as Daoxuan termed it.91
Daoxuan’s classification is different from traditional botanical taxonomy in
China. In the Tang Dynasty, some Chinese medicinal works also offer classifications.
Tao Hongjing’s work Variorum of Herbological Scripture (Bencao jing jizhu) classifies
plants into five categories: grasses, trees, fruits, grains, and vegetables, based on theprinciples of the forms and uses of the plants. Each category includes three classes(sanpin): high, medium, and low classes. In early Tang period, the Tang government
sponsored a project to compile a work titled Newly Compiled Herbology (Xinxiu bencao
新修本草), which also followed this system.92 So does Su Song’s Illustrated Scriptureof Herbs (Tujing bencao). Daoxuan’s classification focuses on the main economic
plants used in monastic communities, which includes vegetables, grains and fruits. He
does classify some trees, but his classification seems to limit trees to the category of the“trees bearing fruit”. Still being confined as a Buddhist master, Daoxuan does notfollow traditional taxonomy and list grasses and trees in separate categories. He does
not even mention the medicinal herbs that played a significant role in traditional
89

Ibid., pp. 526-539.
Sifen lü, T. no. 1428, 22: 641c.
91
Mahāsanghika-vinaya mentions five types of plants, with slight differences. For example, there is no
zazhong; instead, it uses a name of “type of heart” (“xinzhong”). See Mahāsanghika-vinaya (Mohe senzhilü), T. no. 1425, 22: 339a-b.
92
Zhongguo zhiwu xuehui ed., Zhongguo zhiwu xue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshen, 1994), p. 41.
Modern phytotaxonomy was only introduced to China in mid-nineteenth century (p. 145). Here we canonly discuss traditional Chinese botanical taxonomy because in premodern China, scholars did attempt toclassify the plants and animals. Mori Shikazō 森鹿三 studies a manuscript of Xinxiu bencao 新修本草
preserved in a Japanese private library. See his Honzōgaku kenkyū 本草学研究(Ōsaka: Takeda Kagaku
Shinkō Zaidan 武田科学振興財団, Kyōu Shorin 杏雨書屋, 1999), pp. 2-34.
90

37

botanical learning in medieval China. Daoxuan does not intend to work on planttaxonomy; his classification only serves to deal with plants of economic value to the
Buddhist monastic communities.93

Concluding Remarks
In sum, it might be safe to make some short conclusions here. First of all,Daoxuan’s knowledge of animals and plants combines both Buddhist tradition andChinese indigenous tradition. He not only justifies his knowledge of animals and plants
based on his reading of monastic code, but also considers contemporary Chinese extant
knowledge about animals and plants. Second, while classifying animals, Daoxuan views
animals inferior to human beings, even though he lists animals and monastic laborers
together. In his classification, the principle is if the animals benefit the cultivation ofindividual monastic members for their enlightenment. In other words, the animals by
any means must serve the monastic needs. He does not view animals same as humanbeing in terms of their transgression as it was argued in early Buddhism, especially in
Palī Jataka stories. In his viewpoint, classifying animals matters for the reason that themonastic community has to decide if they can keep these animals within monastic
community. Thus, the compassion Daoxuan supports in his text has nothing to do withliberation in modern discourse, rather, it has to do with the purification of monastic
individuals, the cultivation of these individuals. Daoxuan does not speak against the useof animals as labor force. Third, Daoxuan’s classification of plants is influenced by
Chinese botanical tradition more than Buddhist tradition, for he classifies plants into
mainly three groups: grains, fruits, and trees. Fourth, in Daoxuan’s list, it seems to beapparent that most animals and plants were living or cultivated in north China. It
indicates that Daoxuan’s knowledge of these animals and plants seems to be based on
his observation of monastic community in north China. Ironically, his ideal model ofChinese Buddhism monasticism is Southern Buddhism—the Buddhist monasticism insouth China. Through an examination of Daoxuan’s ideas about dealing with animals
and plants, we can also conclude that the ownership of animals and plants was restricted
to Buddhist community, and prohibited to individuals. It suggests that so-called
asceticism in Chinese Buddhist monasticism is strictly practiced in the sense ofindividual behavior, rather than a communal behavior.
93

They can also viewed as food plants; see Lambert Schmithausen, The Problem of the Sentience ofPlants in Earliest Buddhism (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1991), pp. 36-46.

38