What about Rats? Buddhist Disciplinary Guidelines on Rats: Daoxuan’s Vinaya Commentaries

Buddhist texts generally prohibit the killing or harming of any sentient being. However, while such a ban may seem straightforward, it becomes much more complex when annoying or dangerous animals are involved. This paper focuses on one such animal—the rat. These rodents feature prominently in monastics’ daily lives, so it should come as no surprise that both Indian and Chinese Buddhist masters pay attention to them. In the first part of the paper, we investigate the problems that rats can cause, how monastics deal with them, and what the authors-compilers of Buddhist vinaya (disciplinary) texts have to say about them. In the second part, we focus on how Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667)—one of the most prominent vinaya masters of the early Tang Dynasty—interprets the vinaya guidelines and their implementation in Chinese monasteries. As we will see, he raises a number of potential issues with regard to strict adherence to the Buddhist principles of no killing and no harming, and so reveals some of the problematic realities that he felt monastics faced in seventh century China.

Three curious dogs in a Dunhuang manuscript: re-evaluating the identification of “yaks” in Pelliot chinois 2598

A relatively understudied manuscript in the Pelliot collection, Pelliot chinois 2598, features a drawing on its verso of three animals tentatively identified as yaks. However, I would like to re-identify these as being a particular kind of dog which appeared suddenly in the early Tang 唐 (618–907) dynasty. This case will be built on the visual correlations between this image and other descriptions and depictions of such dogs. The manuscript and drawing as a whole will also be explored to contextualize this depiction, which may in turn lead us to hypothesize about the existence, visually or physically, of these dogs and their associated tropes in Dunhuang 敦煌.

Introducing the Chinese Name-taboo Method Gaijian An expansion of recent work by Dou Huaiyong

ABSTRACTThe present paper represents the first attempt to expand Dou Huaiyong’s recent contributions to the field of the Chinese name-taboo practice or bihui 避諱. Exclusively dealing with gaixing 改形 (modify the shape), a taboo method recognized only by Dou Huaiyong, the paper delves into his use of the term gaixing and a group of orthographies that might overthrow the recognition. Although it abandons the term gaixing and promotes a new phrase gaijian 改件 (modify the components), the paper finds Dou Houiyong’s core conclusion agreeable, taking gaijian as a taboo method that appeared in the year 658 by analyzing 500 stones carved between 618 and 663. While doing so, this paper introduces for the first time gaijian to the English scholarship, proposing to re-examine how the Chinese name-taboo practice developed in the early Tang dynasty.