[
    {
        "id": 205133,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1966",
        "page_number": 89,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "84\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nTT\n\nalso Mahayanists, to have a close relationship. The same did not apply to the Theravadins of Southeast Asia of Burma, Ceylon, Thailand, and Indo-China. Not only did they have a different kind of Buddhism (which many of them regarded as \"pure\" in contrast to the \"corrupt\" Mahayana), but there was a much greater language barrier than between China and Japan, which both used the same ideograms. Until Dharmapala's abortive visit to Shanghai in 1893, there had been virtually no contact between Chinese and Theravada Buddhists for many hundreds of years.\n\nIt was therefore a significant event when in 1930 Huang Mao-lin (Wong Mou-lam) was sent to Ceylon by the Pure Karma Association in Shanghai. His mission was to study Theravada and explain Mahayana or, as we might say today, to start a dialogue. In 1934 the Ceylonese bhikkhus Soma and Kheminda returned his visit. Unfortunately when they reached Shanghai they found no facilities for study and went on to Japan. Nonetheless, during their brief stay they spoke on the Buddhist radio station, XMHB, and met many Chinese devotees. They were followed the next year by Narada, another bhikkhu from the same temple (that is, the Vajirarama in Colombo). Narada visited Shanghai, Hangchow, Soochow, Hankow, and had a meeting with T'ai-hsü. In 1946 Soma and Kheminda again went to China, this time accompanied by Pannasiha, to start a Pali college in Sian at T'ai-hsü's invitation. When they arrived they found that the civil war had broken out in Shensi and that Sian was inaccessible. After spending three months in Shanghai they returned to Ceylon.\n\nWhereas Asian Buddhist visitors to China came mostly from Ceylon, Chinese Buddhists went not only to Ceylon, but to Thailand, Burma, India, and Indo-China. Usually they went as pilgrims or for re-ordination or to minister to the overseas Chinese, but sometimes their purpose was to study the Pali language and Theravada doctrine. This did not always work out too well.\n\nIn December 1935 four Chinese monks left for such study in Thailand, where they were welcomed by the Supreme Patriarch and lodged in a royal temple.33 Shortly thereafter five other monks were sent to Ceylon, where they received a Theravada",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210325,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1984",
        "page_number": 296,
        "title": "RAS-1984",
        "content_text": "275\n\nA large clump of such \"public\" trees (HAB) exists, for instance, on the north-east slope of Kowloon Peak.\n\n10 See, however, section 2 of this Note. The late Mr. T. S. Woo, MBE (formerly of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department and the Kadoorie Agricultural Aid Association) stated that local “Hill Tea” was once dealt in by Gibb, Livingston, but that this later died away, probably as a consequence of the great growth in Indian and Ceylonese tea exports in the late nineteenth century (Note by K. C. Iu).\n\nPlate 39.\n\n12 Elsewhere in this journal, D. Faure in \"Notes on the History of Tsuen Wan\" mentions tea growing on Tsing Yi and at Chuen Lung in the earlier part of this century.\n\n11 Section 3 of this Note discusses this \"tea\" more fully.\n\n14\n\nPlate 40.\n\n15\n\nSessional Papers 1907, p. 221.\n\n16 \"A Notice of the Sanon District\" reprinted JHKRRAS, Vol. 7, 1967, p. 122.\n\n17 The Mau Tso Ngam Village Representative, Mr. Cheng Kau-hung, has also spoken to me (PHH) about herb collection. He stressed that knowledge of herb collection was kept as a secret and handed down from father to son, the father going to remote spots on the hillside to point out herbs to his son where prying eyes could not see what was done. Only some of the Mau Tso Ngam village families knew how to collect herbs, and this information was kept even more carefully from villagers from other villages. The prepared herbs were sold to shops in Kowloon City, a few cents being paid before the War for a well-prepared catty of the less frequently found herbs. The herbs were usually not those found in the Standard Pharmacoepia but \"Mountain Drugs\" (山藥), representing local folk remedies. Sellers of “Mountain Drugs\" can still be found in the New Territories Market towns. Mr. Cheng stressed the difference between medicinal herbs the identification and preparation of which was kept secret, and those herbs usable as food in famines, which it was the duty of the elders to ensure every villager could recognise, and know how to prepare, in case the need ever arose (Note PHH).\n\nDr. Chong Siu-cheung, with a group of local herbalists, has prepared a 5 volume book in English and Chinese “Chinese Medicinal Herbs of Hong Kong\" (Commercial Press, Hong Kong, 1978-84) describing and discussing the uses of about 1,100 species of plant with medicinal properties found in Hong Kong. This book, however, does not cover the place collection or preparation played in the village society or economy (Note KCI).\n\nPlate 41.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215790,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2002",
        "page_number": 89,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "22\n\n76 Gullick, Malaya, Chap 4 p 43\n\n77 the petition 1857 to House of Commons (cf. Buckley, supra, p 758); Hansard 3rd series, vol cxlix, p 988\n\nHansard, 3rd series, vol cxlix, p 990 - 991;\n\n-\n\nTurnbull, 'Convicts in the Straits Settlements, 1826-67', JMBRAS, xliii, no 1 (1970) p 88\n\nP 98 - McNair, the Superintendent of convicts in Singapore, remarked in his report for 1858/59 how well the convicts worked at brickmaking and roadbuilding, which made them 'still a positive advantage to this colony'\n\n7\n\nBlundell, in his Annual Report for 1858/59, pointed out that Singapore owed all its roads, canals and public works to convict labour\n\n79 Turnbull, Ibid, p 89 - Indian convicts were allowed a freedom that astonished outside visitors (for example, Lord Elgin in 1857 cf. Walrond T, Letters and Journals of James 8th Earl of Elgin, p 189) They often worked on roads and buildings without guards, sometimes they were employed as domestic servants or in government offices, and they could earn and keep wages\n\n80 Turnbull, Ibid, p 90 - those who did abscond were invariably given up by Chinese and Malays to claim the rewards on their heads\n\n81 Turnbull, Ibid, p 91 - In 1833, a European overseer was murdered by a convict; in 1852, there were two clashes between police and convicts in Penang; in 1853, a group of Sikh prisoners attacked their peons in Singapore\n\n82 Hansard, 3rd series, vol cxlix, p 991; for example a Ceylonese convict, Tickery Bandah, who was released in 1864, settled down in Malacca as a shopkeeper, writer and amateur lawyer. He even kept up a correspondence with the King of Siam (cf. Cameron, supra pg 376; Turnbull, supra (on convicts), p 91)\n\n83 Hansard, 3rd series, vol cxlix, p 988\n\n84 Turnbull, supra (on convicts), p 91\n\n85 Their origins are obscure.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    }
]