kewo9.cc 
To be sure，snippets of the story were already circulating in the 4th?c.，and a shorter Ayu?wang?jing had been known to Daoan盗安（312－385），who significantly labelled it as a spurious text.[26]It is，however，only starting from ca.379，in the wake of the arrival at Chang＇an裳安of a group of Sarvāstivāda missionaries from northwest India，that more substantial redactions of the legend make their appearance in China.[27]A long coda on Asoka is placed at the end of the Sengqieluocha?suoji?jing僧伽羅剎所集經（Scripture compiled by Samgharakva，T vol.4 no.194），translated in 384－385 by Zhu Fonian竺佛念（fl.383－413）from a text recited by Samghabhadra（fl.382－399）.[28]In 391 again Zhu Fonian translates，from an Indic text recited by Dharmananda曇蘑難提（fl.383－391），the Ayu wang taizi Fayi huaimu yinyuan jing阿育王太子法益徊目因緣經（T vol.50 no.2045），a prototype of the Kunālāvadāna in the Asoka cycle.[29]A version of the tale of Asoka＇s brother Vitasoka is included in the Chuyao?jing出曜經，a commentary in parables on the Udāna（or Udānavarga），translated in 399 once again by Zhu Fonian and Samghabhadra at Chang＇an.[30]Long digressions on the legend also occur in the Fenbie gongde?lun分別功德論（T vol.25 no.1507），a commentary to the newly translated Ekottarikāgama probably composed in the same period and place.[31]
These long Asokan narratives entered northern China in rapid succession，and must have been backed by more substantial materials in oral transmission.Their introduction should be seen as part of a veritable sea change，whose magnitude has largely escaped scholarly appraisal so far.Starting from ca.379，we witness in the first place the sudden arrival at Chang＇an of a fairly large number of clerics from northwest India，notably from an area regularly named as Jibin罽賓in Chinese sources，which appear to have included not only Kashmir，but also Gandhāra and sometimes even Tokhāristān.[32]These monks，of generally Sarvāstivāda affiliation，are remembered especially for stoking up Abhidharma scholasticism.[33]In fact，they did much more：they introduced the first complete gama collections as well as the first written vinaya codes，fostering conceptions of scriptural orthodoxy and social orthopraxis that the monastic communities of China had hitherto lacked.[34]Another momentous import that these monks appear to have brought along is a Buddhist chronology reckoning years from the parinirvāoa of the Buddha，with an era fixed at 530 BCE that would inform eschatological views and speculation on the end of the Law.[35]The idea of a lineage of patriarchs，stretching back to the time of the Buddha and presiding over the correct transmission of the Dharma，may have been another seminal input of the Sarvāstivāda mission.[36]It is consistent with this new climate，and indeed one of its outcomes，that in the wake of the translation of the Zengyi?ahan jing增壹阿喊經（Ekottarikāgama）in 384－385 at Chang＇an，the common surname Shi釋（Sākya）was adopted for all Buddhist monks，implying a shared gotra?affiliation and corporate identity for the entire clergy.[37]
It is in this context that we should understand the introduction of the Asokan model of a king supporting an organized Buddhist church，shepherded by her own charismatic leaders，such as Upagupta and Yasas.[38]That model would foster an entirely new political image of Buddhism in China，in which the clergy would stake out for herself a role as a social power to be reckoned with.A forceful illustration of this paradigm occurs in Zhu Fonian＇s preface to the Ayu wang taizi Fayihuaimu yinyuanjing，the first long story of this－worldly Buddhist kingship to appear in China as a self－contained text.In the time of Asoka，we are told，
羅漢御世，汎濟億數。國主師宗，玄化滂湧。萬民仰戴而不已，神祇欽賴而愈泳。
...the arhats would rule the world（yushi御世），bringing universal salvation to the multitudes.The Sovereign would venerate them as masters，and profound transformation would spread impetuously.The people would revere them unremittingly，the spirits above and below would defer to them even further.[39]
The translation，completed on 15 April 391，had been commissioned and encouraged by Yao Min姚旻，a member of the royal clan of the Later Qin侯秦，[40]who would thus anticipate the celebrated practice established only a decade later by his nephew Yao Xing姚興（r.394－415）with Kumārajīva.
It cannot be emphasized enough that Zhu Fonian＇s vision of a world ruled by Buddhist holy men，whom a devout monarch would reverence and the masses obey，was absolutely unprecedented in China，and its Indian antecedents，even considering the ideology of the Pāli Dīpavamsa，cannot be traced further back than one or two generations earlier；one has to look at contemporary developments in the Mediterranean，with the Christianization of the Roman empire under Theodosius I（r.379－395），to find an appropriate parallel，and an exploration of the Eurasian perspective is indeed likely to yield important insights into the far－reaching transformations of Buddhism in the 4th c.[41]For our present purposes，let us register that the Buddhist missionaries who converged on Chang＇an from northwest India at the end of that century made nothing short of a bid to churchdom，as it were，and that this bid pivoted to an essential extent on a radically new idea of kingship.The following decades would see conflicting reaction to their claims，from utter persecution to the making of alternative templates of Mahāyānist autocracy，and the paradigm in which the king supports an organized clergy with its own leaders would soon succumb to the vision of a monarch that leads an acephalous monastic body.An investigation of this changed landscape，however，shall be left for a future occasion.
[1] On these royal figures see in particular Bareau 1993.
[2]Among the translations that we can assign to the Eastern Han period with a degree of confidence（following Nattier 2008：35－110），Bimbisāra（Pingsha洴沙）and Prasenajit（Posini波斯匿）make a cameo appearance（with no mention of their attitude to the Buddhist religion）in the Daoxing?banruo jing（2.434a8－9），Zhi Chen＇s version of the Avtasāhasrikā－praj?āpāramitā sūtra（cf.Conze 1973：110 for a rendering of the corresponding passage in the Sanskrit text）.Another translation attributed to Zhi Chen，the Azheshi wang jing阿闍世王經（T vol.15no.626；Skr.＊Ajātasatrukaukrtyavinodāna sūtra），features king Ajātasatru as protagonist，but in a distinctively Mahāyānist treatment that departs considerably from āgama／nikāya narratives（see Harrison 1993：152－154，and cf.Bareau 1993：34－37；for reservations on Zhi Chen＇s authorship of T.626，see Miyazaki 2007 and Nattier 2008：84－85）.The long narratives on the conversions of king Bimbisāra and king Prasenajit in the Zhong?benqi?jing（1.152a16－153b27；2.159b18－160b17）are subject to my foregoing caveat regarding the date of this translation.
[3] Gokhale 1966：15.
[4]Seef mplth fll＇，orexae，eoowing passage from An Shigaos translation of an Ekottarikāgama－typeanthology，the Zajing sishisi bian雜經四十四編，misplacedamidst the Qichu sanguan?jing七處三觀經（on this misplacement see Harrison 1997）：從是無有能橫奪福者，縣官盜賊猫火，皆不能得害（T vol.2 no.150A，p.878b21－22），and cf.itsparallelin thethe PāliSappurisadāna sutta：na cassa kutoci bhogānam upaghāto āgacchati aggito vā udakato vā rājato vā corato vā appiyadāyādato vā（A.iii.173）.Here，as in other early translations，rāja is felicitously rendered as xianguan縣官，an item of Han political jargon that could refer both to the emperor＇s person and to its administrative machinery，as thoroughly explained in Loewe 2008：519－527.
[5]On the Brahmanical reaction in the post－Kuvāoa age see Witzel 2006.I discuss these developments in connection to the transformations in Buddhist?avadāna?literature in Palumbo（in preparation）.
[6] See Tomomatsu 1931：306－308.
[7] For a full discussion see Palumbo（in preparation）.
[8] On this text see Dietz 1994.
[9] See La Vallée Poussin 1926：196－203；cf.Strong 1983：51－52.
[10]See Apitan piposha lun，16.120a5－10.
[11]See Shier you?jing，p.146b7－13；on this text see Pelliot 1923：97－105，although this scholar＇s attribution of the translation to one＊Kālodaka（Jialiutuoqie迦留陀伽）in 392 CE is not supported by the oldest catalogue，the Chusanzang?ji?ji（4.30b10－11），which lists the Shier you?jing as an anonymous translation extant in two slightly different variants.
[12]See Shijia?pu，1.3a17－b1710a5－，b21（passim）；Jinglü?yixiang，3.10a23－b29，4.15a9－22.On these two works see Durt 2006.
[13] For a general introduction to Asoka in Buddhist history and myth see Lamotte 1958：244－283；on the legend see especially Przyluski 1923 and Strong 1983.
[14] See Przyluski 1923：91－93.
[15]For a radical reinterpretation of one such scene，excluding any connection with Asoka，see Schlingloff 1982.Even if the remaining one or two friezes，for which a link to the Asokan story has been suggested，should stand serious scrutiny，they would show at best the relative antiquity of one or two anecdotes，certainly not of a developed narrative.The early dating of the Sācī stūpa with its carved lintels is in itself open to question.
[16]At least as documented by its Chinese translation，the Fosuoxing?zan佛所行贊（T vol.4 no.192，5.54b1－24），produced in the 5thc.，and by the much later（11thc.）?Tibetan version（cf.Johnston 1972：120）.The Sanskrit text of the second half of Asvaghova＇s great poem has not been preserved.
[17]For the Sanskrit text of the four?Divyāvadānachapters on Asoka see Cowell and Neil 1886：348－434；English translation in Strong 1983：173－294.On the Divyāvadāna?see Winternitz 1933：284－290.Winternitz notes that“the collection as a whole，could not have been in existence earlier than the 4th century A.D....probably nearer to 400 A.D.”（ibid.，pp.285－286）.
[18] T vol.50 no.2042；French translation in Przyluski 1923：223－427.
[19] T vol.50 no.2043；English translation in Li 1993.
[20]See Zaahan?jing，23.161b13－170c20（no.604），25.177b15－180a5（no.640），25.180a6－182a7（no.641）.
[21]On Asoka as a cakravartin of the Iron－Wheel see Strong 1983：49－56.
[22]I shall not consider here the Pāli versions of the legend，which had comparatively little visibility in China，and only from the end of the 5th c.；for a comparison between the Sanskrit and Pāli traditions on Asoka，see Strong 1983：18－26.
[23]For a detailed comparison of the narrative structure of the Ayu?wang?zhuan and the Ayu?wang?jing with their Sanskrit counterparts see Matsumura 1993.
[24]See Lidai sanbao?ji，6.65a12，19－20.Here the Lidai sanbao?ji purports to draw its information from an earlier catalogue，the Jinshi zalu晉世雜錄，allegedly completed by the monk Zhu Daozu竺盗祖（d.419），which has in fact be shown to be an early 6th－century forgery：see Tan 1991：111－120，and Palumbo 2003：179－180.An Faqin安法欽，allegedly a monk from Anxi安息（Parthia），is utterly unknown outside his mention in the Lidai sanbao?ji.
[25]See，for example，Ayu?wang?zhuan，4.113b13－14（Skr.evam mayā s rutam＝ru shi?wo wen如是我聞），4.113c5－7（Kumārajīva＇s coinages for the thirty－seven bodhipakvya－dharma）；see alsosuch formsas niepan涅槃for Skr.nirvāoa（passim），or the very transcription of the name Asoka as Ashuqie阿恕伽（passim）.The extended textual parallels，reaching in places verbatim identity，that the Ayu?wang zhuan presentswith the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan付法藏因緣傳（T vol.50no.2058），translated in 472 in northern China，should therefore be reconsidered：on their basis，and not questioning the traditional attribution of the Ayu?wang?zhuan，Henri Maspéro（1911）had concluded that the latter was a 6th－century forgery，lifting text from the former.A reverse scenario，in which the Ayu?wang?zhuan is produced either on the basis of the Fu fazang?yinyuan?zhuan or drawing on a common source，but evidently in close chronological proximity，seems more plausible in the light of what has been said.
[26]See Chu sanzang?ji?ji，5.38c5.This text，misleadingly titled“Great scripture of king Asoka”（Da Ayu?wang?jing大阿育王經），consisted of a single scroll against the seven（in some editions five）of the Ayu?wang?zhuan and the ten of the Ayu?wang?jing translated by Samghavara.The short Da Ayu?wang?jing has been lost，but a long excerpt survives in the Shijia?pu，5.78c8－79a9；the same anthology（5.76a2－b6）also includes a quotation from an Ayu?wang?jing阿育王經manifestly different from Samghavara＇s translation（which is later than the Shijia?pu）；this text should probably be identified to the Xiao Ayuwang?jing小阿育王經，also in one scroll，mentioned in a list of anonymous translations in the Chu sanzang?ji?ji，4.33c27.Both narratives pivot on Asoka＇s contest with the nāgas for the possession of the Buddha＇s relics.Brief stories on Asoka，sometimes remarkably at variance with the longer legend，and whose translation may be assigned to the 4th c.in view of their style and terminology，are disseminated across a number of anthologies and collections of avadānas；I will provide a critical inventory on another occasion，but here I will point to those included in three“Scriptures of Sundry Parables”（Za?piyu?jing雜譬喻經）：T vol.4 no.204，story no.9，p.501a6－8；T vol.4 no.205，nos.5，6，7，1.503a19－c20；T vol.4 no.206（Jiu舊za piyu?jing），no.14，1.513a12－b9；no.41，2.517b10－17.
[27] On the activities of Sarvāstivāda missionaries and translators in northern China during this period see Tang 1997：155－161，248－249；Zürcher 2007：201－204.
[28]See Sengqieluocha suoji jing，3.144c13－145b16.
[29]See Zhu Fonian＇s preface to this translation，further discussed below，in Chu sanzang?ji?ji，7.51b14－c16，and T vol.50 no.2045，p.172a17－b19.For the Kunālāvadāna，being the story of Asoka＇s son Kunāla，see Divyāvadāna，ch.XXVII，in Cowell and Neil 1886：382 l.7－419 l.13（Sanskrit text）；cf.Strong 1983：234－286（English translation）.There are significant discrepancies between the plot of the Ayu wang taizi Fayi huaimu yinyuan jing and thatof the Kunālāvadāna，whereas thelatter agrees with the corresponding sections in the Ayu?wang?zhuan and in the Ayu?wang jing.
[30]See Chuyao?jing，6.641a10－c9.On the circumstances of this translation cf.Willemen 1973：214－218.The story of Vitasoka（Vitas okāvadāna）is the third（no.XXVIII）in the four－chapter cycle of Asoka in the Divyāvadāna；see Cowell and Neil 1886：419 l.18—429 l.5（Sanskrit text）；cf.Strong 1983：221－234（English translation）.
[31]See Fenbie gongde?lun，3.39a29－40b19.In the Chu sanzang?ji?ji（4.21c13）this text is listed as an anonymous translation from an original implausibly attributed to Kāsyapa and nanda.Ever since the Gujin?yijing?tuji古今譯經圖記，a catalogue compiled in 664 or after，this“anonymous translation”has been assigned to the Later Han period；see Gujin?yijing?tuji，1.350b24.However，already in 730 Zhisheng智升（fl.700－740）could remark that the Fenbie gongde?lun is in fact a commentary on the first four sections of the Zengyi?ahan jing增壹阿喊經（Ekottarikāgama），seemingly translated by the same person who was also responsible for the scripture＇s translation；see Kaiyuan?Shijiao?lu，13.621b20－24.Zhisheng＇s observation is largely correct，although the Fenbie gongde?lun may have been written directly in China，and in Chinese；stylistic and terminological uses，which I cannot discuss in detail here due to space limitations，point to Zhu Fonian as its most likely author，probably before Kumārajīva＇s new translation of the Avtasāhasrikā－praj?āpāramitā in 404.
[32] See Chen 2004，and cf.Enomoto 1994：361－362.The impact of these monks on the public perception of Buddhism is reflected in the transformation of Jibin罽賓in the Buddhist homeland par excellence in Taoist polemical literature，as Liu Yi劉屹has convincingly argued（Liu 1998：102－109）.
[33] See，for example，the sketch in Zürcher 2007：202.
[34] Cf.Tang 1997：155－161.
[35] See Palumbo 2011.
[36]Lineages of patriarchs of the Sarvāstivāda sect are attested from a slightly later period（ca.402－413），with the activity of Kumārajīva，his disciples and other masters（notably Buddhabhadra＇）at Changan（see Young 2008：29ff.）.However，apart from the close chronological proximity，it seems likely that the notion of lineage entered the Buddhist community of Chang＇an already in the 380s.The fundamental idea at its core，that the Buddha had“entrusted”（fuzhu付囑）the Jewel of the Law（fabao法虹）to his leading disciples Mahā－Kāsyapa and nanda，appears in fact in a sūtra included in the Zengyi?ahan jing（no.41／5－，35.746a21c24－，esp.746b27c3），originally translated in 384－385 by Dharmananda曇蘑難提（fl.383－391）and Zhu Fonian，and revised by Gautama Samghadeva in 397－398.This idea appears considerably at odds with the Buddha＇s testament in the Pāli Mahā－parinibbāna sutta，according to which after his death the only master for the monks should be the doctrine and the vinaya，implying that there should be no appointed leaders；cf.the remarks in Gombrich 1992：247.
[37]Daoan is traditionally given credit for this innovation，since he had already adopted the surname Shi釋for himself ahead of time；see his biography in Chu sanzang?ji?ji，15.108b29－c4.The same biography，however，makes it clear that this became the standard（shi式）only after the translation of the Zengyi?ahan jing and on the authority of one passage in it（cf.Zengyi?ahan jing，no.29／9，21.658b26－c17）；the close connection between the Ekottarikāgama translated in 384－385 and the monastic surname Sākya is corroborated by the discussion in Fenbie gongde?lun，5.52b6－12.The change，on the other hand，is very likely related to the emergence of the monastic self－designation Sākyabhikvu in India，on which see Cousins 2003.
[38] Cf.Strong 1983：76－83，86－89.
[39]Ayu wang taizi Fayi huaimu yinyuan jing xu序，in Tvol.50，p.172b1－2；also inChu sanzang ji ji，7.51b27－28.
[40]See Ayu wang taizi Fayi huaimu yinyuan jing xu，in Tvol.50，p.172b4－12；Chu sanzang ji ji，7.51c1－9.
[41] For a preliminary attempt at such an exploration see Palumbo（forthcoming）.
Conclusions
We shall conclude here our preliminary overview.The three major models of kingship outlined above share a number of obvious general traits，but otherwise differ considerably in their origin，meaning and function.
