Stuart Young's new book, an examination of the Indian Buddhist patriarchs Aśvaghoṣa (Maming), Nāgārjuna (Longshu), and Āryadeva (Tipo), is a welcome contribution to the academic construction of Chinese Buddhist history. Rather than approaching Chinese sources as evidence of Indian historical realities, in this compelling new study Young examines the Indian patriarchs as figures constructed according to, and therefore reflective of, Chinese concerns. And rather than addressing these constructions in terms of Sinification, Young argues that it was the very fact of their perceived Indianness that rendered these men so compelling and important in the Chinese Buddhist landscape. In Young's reading, the shifting Chinese constructions of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, and Āryadeva serve as indices of the development of Chinese Buddhism from the fifth century through the tenth.
Theoretically, the book is informed by the concept of cultural repertoires, effectively introduced by Ann Swidler and popularized in the field of Asian religions by Robert Campany.Footnote 8 By approaching the Chinese construction of these Indian patriarchs in terms of repertoires of practice, Young outlines the development of Chinese Buddhism from its broad acceptance in the fifth century to its full enculturation in the tenth while successfully avoiding the tired trope of Sinification.
Chapter 1 focuses on the earliest representations of the Indian patriarchs and the evident concerns of the fifth-century Chinese Buddhists that these express: how to practice Buddhism in a world devoid of a Buddha and, worse yet, during the age of the dharma's decline? By constructing the Indian patriarchs as literati gentlemen engaged in learned discussion, composing philosophical treatises, practicing meditation, and living as recluses, these early Chinese accounts provided authoritative models of Buddhist sainthood in the latter days of the dharma, effectively demonstrating the ideal repertoire of practices for Chinese Buddhists in similar circumstances.
This theme is developed in chapter 2, which concerns the images of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, and Āryadeva in Chinese sources following the imperial persecutions in the second half of the sixth century. In these sources Young identifies new Chinese constructions of the Indian patriarchs addressed to new Chinese Buddhist interests. Here, the Indian patriarchs are conceived within a master-disciple lineage and as important counselors to Indian heads of state. Again these depictions serve to establish and authorize specific repertoires of action for Chinese Buddhists that speak to the historical concerns of Chinese Buddhists in the wake of imperial suppression.
Chapter 3 addresses the evolving representations of the Indian patriarchs from the sixth to the eighth centuries as authors of doctrinal commentaries. Young reads this turn as the establishment of new repertoires of practice of Chinese Buddhists in response to the Chinese awareness of living at a geographic remove from the Buddhist holy land of India—a “borderland complex” effectively ameliorated by the establishment of scriptural commentary as a legitimate and valuable means of preserving the dharma and opening the way for local, Chinese commentarial literature during the Sui-Tang period.
Chapters 4 and 5 concern the developing images of Nāgārjuna and Aśvaghoṣa, respectively. Here the theme of localization comes to the fore with the Chinese construction of Nāgārjuna and Aśvaghoṣa as local deities, responsive to specific Chinese concerns through a variety of ritual techniques. Chapter 5 takes a more synoptic view of the Indian patriarchs, examining their Chinese constructions in relation to the Buddhist arhats and celestial bodhisattvas, arguing that the value of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, and Āryadeva for Chinese Buddhists lay in their identities as human beings who attained sainthood and divinity in the absence of the Buddha.
Young ends his book with a summarizing conclusion that points to other possible directions of research, and three appendices that provide full translations of some of the primary sources that inform his study.
Young's book is meticulously researched and skillfully written, and it provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of Chinese Buddhism's historical development. Incorporating a number of sources that have heretofore gone unexamined and touching on a number of themes, the work will be of interest to scholars of Buddhism and Chinese religion, as well those working more generally in Chinese history. His approach to the Chinese construction of the Indian Buddhist patriarchs serves as a valuable model for others interested in the cross-cultural movement of religious traditions.
