Bulletin of Catholic University of Peking

68 BULLETIN NUMBER FOUR

year of the Ta-Li period (768 A.D.); and another work, the Hui-Ch’ang YiPin Cha, tells us that prior to the T’ien Pao period (742-755 A.D.) Manicheism was under proscription. Hence the Min Shu is obviously mistaken in its statement that the said Maniche-an temple was built during the K’ai Yuan period (713-741 A.D.).

As both the Min Shu and the Yi Chien Chih speak of Laotse’s metamorphosis into Mani, it is clear that such a tradition was current during the Sung and Yuan dynasties. The sole difference between the two accounts is that, while the Yz Chien Chih states in so many words that this legend is derived from a Taoist scripture known as Hua Hu Ching, the Min Shu avers that Hua Hu Ching is itself a Manichzean scripture. At present we do not possess a complete copy of the Hua Hu Ching. Only two volumes of this work, the first and the last, are still preserved at Tun-huang in Kansu. As regards that portion of the first volume which treats of Sulin (Syria) and is alleged to be Manichean, I have already shown in a previous chapter that it is a Taoist forgery of T’ang dynasty. The other parts are all devoted to Taoism and contain no reference to Manicheism. Why, then, did Ho Ch’iao Yuan, the author-of the Alin Shu, claim that 1t was a Manichean scripture? The only explanation seems to be that Ho Ch’iao Yuan, not being himself a Manichean, was not in a position to know of the falsity of this spurious tradition, and so transmitted it as a view current in his time without presuming to question its authenticity.

We are, nevertheless, much indebted to Ho Ch’iao Yuan for the many interesting details which he has left us concerning the state of Manickeism in Fu-kien. When he informs us that Lin Shih-ch’ang, the scholar who made the presentation of the Manicheean scriptures during the reign of Sung Chen Tsung (988-1022 A.D.), was a native of Fu-kien, it brings to mind the words of the Y2z Chien Chih: “The eaters of vegetables and worshippers of devils are still more flagrant in San Shan (z.e., Fu-kien),”’ as well as that other passage from the T’zao Tua Chuang by Lu Yu: “The Religion of Light (Ming Chiao) is still more flourishing in Fu-kien.”’ What Ho Chiao Yuan tells us about the Buddha Mani being named “‘the Bright Buddha Ma-Mani”’ and about the proscription of Manicheism by the first emperor of the Ming dynasty because the sect bore the same name as the reigning dynasty, shows us that Manicheism was then known as the Ming Chiao (“Religion of Light”). His interpretation of Ma in M@Ma-Mani as meaning “Great” is new to me and enables one to understand the meaning of J/a-JZabz, an appellation which first appears in the imperial edict of the twentieth year of K’ai Yuan (732 .4.D.). The existence of the Manichean temple with its “Jade Fountain” and “‘Cloudy Stair”’ in the reign of Wan-li (1573-1619 A.D.) is a clear indication of the devotional activities of the Manichzeans in that period.

(“An Inquiry concerning the Penetration of Manichzism into China.”

Chapter XV.)