Bulletin of Catholic University of Peking

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PEKING 67

During the reign of Cheng Tsung (988-1022 A.D.), a Fu-kien scholar, Lin Shih Ch’ang, presented the scriptures (of the Manicheans), entrusting thern to the care of the Oficial College of Foochow. When T’ai-Tsu (1368-1398 4.D.) founded the dynasty (7. e., the Ming dynasty, 1368-1628 a.p.), he gave the Three Religions (Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism) to the people for observance. As he objected to this religion (Manicheism), because it bore a name (Ming Chiao) identical with the Dynastic Appellation, he ordered its members to be expelled and their temples to be destroyed. At the instance, however, of the Minister of Finance, Yu Hsin, and that of the Minister of Rites, Yang Lung, this decree was never put into force but remained suspended. At present, those among the people who are followers of this sect, recite incantations and use charms which they call the “Formule of the Masters,” but these are no longer much in evidence. Behind the temple there is a peak called Wan Shih Féng (‘the Peak of Ten Thousand Rocks’), a fountain called Yii Ch’uan (Jade Fountain’), a stairway called Yiin T’1 Peh Chi (‘the Cloudy Stair of a hundred Flights’) as well as ey engraved inscriptions.”

Hua Piao Hill is very seldom mentioned in books dealing with Fu-kien province. Neither in the Pa-Min T’ung Chih (1488-1505 A.D.), nor in the Ch’uan-Chow-Fu Chih (1573-1619 A.D.), nor in the Ch’uan-Chow-Fu Chih-Sheng of Tsao Hsiieh Ch’uan (circa 1630 A.D.) can we find the name of Hua Piao Hill. Hence the existence of a Manichzan temple built in the Yuan dynasty on the slope of that Hill has been hitherto practically unknown. Thanks, however, to the enlightening details afforded by the foregoing passage from the Min Shu, the former existence of this temple is brought to light, a discovery which will undoubtedly be welcomed by those interested in archeological research.

This passage from the Min Shu

presents not a few points of divergence from the testimonies cited in the previous chapters.

First of all, according to Christian historians (who base their calculations on. the Babylonian chronology), the year of Mani’s birth was 216 A.D. and that of his death 277 A.D., it being assumed that the year 216 of the Christian era corresponds to the year 527 of the era of the Seleucid of Babylon. According to the Min Shu, however, the year of Mani’s birth was 208 A.D. and the year of his death was 266 A.D. Consequently, the difference between the two accounts amounts to a period of eight years in the case of his birth, and of eleven years in the case of his death. Now, in the process of establishing concordance between two systems of chronology, an error of one year may well occur, because the months may not coincide, but an error of eight or eleven years is much too great to be attributed to a miscalculation, and can only be explained by a

- difference of traditions.

The second point of divergence is the year of the introduction of Manicheism into China. According to the Fo Tsu T’ung Cha, it was introduced by a Manichzean Butotan who came to the Chinese Court in the first year of Yen Tsai (694 A.D.), whereas the Min Shu tells us that the Manicheans were already in China during the reign of T’ang Kao-Tsung (650-683 A.D.). At present we have no means of deciding which of these two traditions is correct.

The third point of discrepancy relates to the date of the building of the Manichzan temple, the Ta Yiin Kuang Ming Ssu. According to the Seng Shih Lioh, it was built in the third