Notes
n o t e s introduction 1. T. 2145: 5b27, cited in Cheung 2006. All citations marked “T.” refer to CBETA, and all translations are my own unless otherwise credited. 2. I use the term “Indo-Sinitic” to indicate the flow of tangible and intangible goods from India to China, as opposed to “Sino-Indian,” which emphasizes the flow in the opposite direction. The former is copiously documented in historical sources, though much less is known about the latter. Recent monographs focusing on the broader cultural impact of Buddhism in China include Kieschnick 2003 and Sanping Chen 2012. While the transmission of Chinese ideas to India will not be discussed here, some ruminations on this subject can be found in Pelliot 1912; Chatterji 1959; Filliozat 1969; Bagchi 1981: 247– 54; White 1996: 61–66; Samuel 2008: 278–82; Alter 2009; SCC 2: 427–30. 3. Studies of medical knowledge in early Indian Buddhist sources are available in Haldar 1977, 1992; Mitra 1985; Zysk 1998; Ṭhānissaro 2007: 54–68. An excellent introduction with annotated bibliography of primary and secondary sources is available in Mazars 2008. For studies of Chinese Buddhist medicine in Western languages, see the very useful overview in Hōbōgirin 3: 224–65 (English translation in Demiéville 1985), as well as Filliozat 1934; Birnbaum 1989a, 1989b; Deshpande 1999, 2000, 2003–4, 2008; Salguero 2009, 2010, 2010–11, 2012, 2013. For East Asian scholarship on the topic, see Obinata 1962, 1965; Fukunaga 1972, 1990; Ma, Gao, and Hong 1993: 113–83; Tso 1980, 1994; Tu 2001; Xue 2002: 500–727; Ma Zhonggeng 2005: 75–169; the numerous publications by Chen Ming listed in the references; and other works cited throughout this book. (Chen Ming 2013 and Deshpande and Fan 2012 were published while this manuscript was in final stages of preparation, and I have not had the opportunity to integrate them fully into the arguments and data presented here.) 4. The word “medieval” is derived from the European historical experience, and its application to Chinese history has been controversial (see, e.g., Barrett 1998; Luo 2005). Most of these debates concern comparisons between Chinese and European feudal or aristocratic social features, and hinge on related disagreements over what we mean by “modernity” in the Chinese context. I will not repeat these arguments here. I use the word “medieval” because it is in many quarters accepted as a convenient label for the period from the collapse of the Han dynasty in the early third century to the establishment 152 notes to pages 2–6 of the Song dynasty in the late tenth. Occasionally, I use the term “early medieval” to refer to the Period of Division, 220–589 c.e. 5. Although I refer to various “traditions” of religion and medicine throughout this book, I do not mean to imply that these are monolithic or unchanging bodies of knowledge handed down from time immemorial. Rather, I understand traditions as intergenerational social processes involving many individual acts of transmission, reception, reinterpretation, and retransmission. They are dynamic, continually “negotiated, reformulated , abandoned, reinvented, and concealed” over time (Engler and Grieve 2005: 2). On “tradition” in Chinese medicine, see especially Scheid 2006, 2007. 6. See, e.g., Edward L. Davis 2001; Strickmann 2002; Lo and Cullen 2005; Despeux 2010; Deshpande and Fan 2012. 7. See, e.g., Shi Wangcheng 1992; Zhu Jianping 1999; Shen 2001; essays in Rahman 2002; and numerous works by Chen Ming and Vijaya Deshpande cited in the references . 8. This position was most influentially articulated in Unschuld 1979a; repeated in Unschuld 2010: 132–53. 9. Examples of this approach include Wright 1959; Ch’en 1964, 1973; Wales 1967. See discussion and critiques of this mode of scholarship in Gimello 1978; Canepa 2010; Stephen Teiser’s introduction in Zürcher 2007. 10. The cultural systems theory was most influentially expressed in Geertz 2000 [1973]. For scholarship relevant to Buddhist healing, see especially the works cited in the references by Michel Strickmann, whose French dissertation title included the word “syncrétismes,” and whose many publications rely on this model. 11. See discussion in Mollier 2008: 1–22. 12. Examples of the discourse-centered approach in the study of medieval Chinese Buddhism include Sharf 2002; Campany 2003, 2012a; Cole 2009. Specifically on the term “repertoires,” see discussion in Campany 2009: 28–30, 2012b: 37–43. 13. Sharf 2002: 16. 14. See discussion of these two modes in the social sciences and humanities more generally in Sewell 1999. 15...
OR
Buy This Book in Print