nor disliking samsāra. On the other hand, the meditations connected with objects, like the meditation on impurities, on breath or on the elements, are said to lead to rebirth in Tusitain presence of Maitreya. The treatise ends with a long prediction of the future decline of the Law. 2 Conclusion The present article is to show that at the early stage of spreading of Mahāyāna teachings in China traditional Sarvāstivāda methods of meditation where used together with the new Mahāyānist methods and evaluations that became eventually completely predominant by the end of the Tang Dynasty and in the period of five dynasties following it. The emphasis on analytical meditations characteristic for the early history of Buddhism in China has been gradually abandoned in favor of meditations emphasizing the Buddha nature and Pure Land contemplation. The study of treatises translated by Ven. Xuan Zang and Kumārajīva, which put emphasis on the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness, were discontinued in most of the monastic institutions in China. The revival of this tradition appeared only by the end of Qing Dynasty, when many Chinese monks, such as Ven. Tai Xu, but especially lay followers like Han Qing Jing or Liang Qi Chao or even Chan masters like Xu Yun, pointed out their importance for understanding of Buddhism in general. The meditation treatises attributed to Kumārajīva represent a transitional period in Chinese Buddhism, when the so called Hīnayāna scriptures where still widely studied and appreciated. In that period of history, even in the first motherland of Buddhism, in India, there seems to have not been any significant rift between the communities of monks practicing the path to Arahathood, and those practicing the path of Bodhisattvas. This fact is well attested by travel reports of Chinese monks visiting India at that time like Ven. Fa Xian and Xuan Zang. The meditation treatises discussed in this paper seem to have served as notes by disciples of Kumārajīva to his teachings on meditation. It seems that neither them nor Kumārajīva himself were interested in drawing a sharp line between the so-called Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, and purposefully avoided any conflicting views. If emphasizing the path of Bodhisattva, they did it without belittling the achievements of Arahats as in the later period. They rather, as in the early teachings of the Transcendental Wisdom sūtras, put emphasis on a unitary nature of all Buddhist teachings, only trying to show the advantages of the teachings emphasizing Emptiness. References Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō. 1924–1934. Edited by Takakusu, Junjirō, and Kaigyoku Watanabe. Tōkyō: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai. The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue. 1979. Edited by Lancaster, Lewis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Spirituality Studies 1 (2) Fall 2015 53 (9)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=