[
    {
        "id": 210634,
        "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-1985",
        "page_number": 241,
        "title": "RAS-1985",
        "content_text": "Dear Sir,\n\nI have examined the fragment of ch. 494 of the Ta pan-jo po-lo-mi-to ching (Maha-prajna-paramita sutra) which you forwarded to Mr. Gardner on behalf of Mr. Nixon. It is undoubtedly a genuine document from the Tunhuang monastic library. I was extremely fortunate that Mr. Dzo Ching-ch'uan, who has worked on these manuscripts in Paris, came to London the other day, and was kind enough to give a second opinion. He considers that it is either 8th or 9th century, but certainly no later. The top and bottom have been trimmed, but it is impossible to say whether in modern times or not. Some of our documents were trimmed before the 10th century.\n\nThe Tibetan document we consider to be later, from the type of paper, but we are not able to comment on the text. I have taken the roll personally to the India Office Library, and they will write separately.\n\nThe fundamental work on paper, calligraphic style, dating sequences, etc., has yet to be done. Among the Tunhuang documents scattered throughout the world there are several hundred of the same title as the Chinese fragment. This one is average to good, with a greater variation of characters in the column than is usual.\n\nYours Sincerely,\n\nsgd.\n\n(E.D. Grinstead)\n\nAssistant Keeper\n\nThe scroll is described in our catalogue as follows:\n\n大般若經\n\n大般若波羅蜜多經卷第四百九十四第三分善現品 第三之十三三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯\n\n1\n\n44×24公分 卷軸 敦煌殘卷共 26 行行17字\n\nThe text of the scroll is reproduced in Plate 14.\n\nJames Hayes",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1985.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gt54s866x",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212140,
        "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-1990",
        "page_number": 82,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "59\n\nall had their scriptures'; but no other faith could now be confused with the Christians' 'brilliant teaching'. Also, though this may be a mere coincidence rather than a tactful regard for continuity, they chose a new term which sounded in Chinese very similar to the term previously in use. They chose an intriguing variant of a common Chinese character in order to catch the eye. The man who invented the term 'brilliant teaching' had a rare gift for public relations, and a high degree of sensitivity to Chinese culture.\n\nEnough evidence exists to suggest that the term 'brilliant teaching' was invented and actively promoted, both in the capital Ch'ang-an and elsewhere in China, by Adam, the composer of the Sian tablet inscription. In the following sections it will be argued that Adam invented the term 'brilliant teaching' not long before 781, that he launched the term publicly in the Sian tablet inscription, that he strove to have the term applied consistently in all the dioceses of China of which he was archbishop, and that he ordered old manuscripts to be recopied and 'doctored' so that they reflected the new terminology.\n\nAdam, Nestorian Metropolitan of China in 781\n\n6\n\nVery little is known for certain about Adam, the Nestorian metropolitan of China in the 780s. The name Adam seems to have been very rare in the Nestorian Church, and it is possible that Adam's parents were not Nestorians. All we can confidently conclude from the Sian tablet inscription is his rank. The inscription begins with the Chinese sentence 'Written by Ching-ching, a monk of the Syrian monastery', which is followed by a corresponding sentence in Syriac: Adam qasisa ur apisqupa u papasha de Tzinisthan, “Adam, priest, bishop, and archbishop of China'. We know from the Book of Governors, a ninth-century history of the Nestorian monastery of Beth Abhe in Kurdistan, that the monk David was sent out to China as metropolitan around 800. He may well have been Adam's immediate successor.\n\nFortunately, we can go a little further in building up a picture of the author of the Sian tablet inscription. Adam is also mentioned in a contemporary Chinese work as the recipient of a stinging rebuke from the emperor Te-tsung (779-805) for an inelegant translation of a Buddhist scripture which he had undertaken in collaboration with a Buddhist monk. The story is told in a biography which records the journey of the monk Prajna from northern India to Ch'ang-an in 782.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212141,
        "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-1990",
        "page_number": 83,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "60 \n\na year after the erection of the Sian tablet. During his stay in the Chinese capital he met the Nestorian archbishop, and the two men embarked on an ambitious project:\n\n\"He collaborated with Ching-ching, a Persian priest of the Ta-ch'in monastery, on a translation of the Satparamita-Sutra from a Uighur text, and translated seven volumes in all. But at that time Prajna was not familiar with the Uighur language, and did not understand Chinese, and Ching-ching did not know Sanskrit and was not familiar with the teaching of Shakya. Although they claimed to have translated the text, they did not really extract its real value. They wanted to make a name for themselves, and gambled that they would not be caught out. They submitted their translation to the emperor [Te-tsung], expecting that he would have it published. But the emperor was not fooled at all. He was a shrewd man and a fine scholar, and had a great respect for the canon of the Shakya. He examined their translation and found that they had muddled the author's thought and obscured the clarity of his language.”\n\nThe passage concludes with a direct quotation from a decree of the emperor Te-tsung:\n\n\"The monastery of the Shakya and the Ta-ch'i monastery have different customs and conflicting religious beliefs. Let Ching-ching hand down the teachings of Mi-shi-he ba (i.e. Messiah) and the Shakya monks publish the scriptures of Buddha. The boundaries of the two doctrines must be kept distinct, and their followers must not intermingle. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are two different things: the King and Wei rivers flow in two different courses.\n\nIt may be possible to go further still. Besides the reference to Adam in the Sian tablet inscription already quoted, the Syriac notes at the end of inscription make another reference to a man named Adam. He is described as Adam mesamsona bar Idbuzid qurapisqupa, ‘Adam, minister, son of Jazedbouzid country-bishop'. We know from a number of references in the inscription rather more about this Adam. His grandfather, dead by 781, was a man named Milis, who had been a priest in the city of Balkh in the eastern Persian province of Tocharistan,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    }
]