As I've been translating Ibn al-Faqih and his account of the Balkh and the Barmakids, my professor and I have always understood that Naw Bihar = New Vihara. Vihara, of course, is the name for Buddhist temples. In reading other translations of primary source material, however, I have noticed that other authors have translated or understood Naw Bihar to be a reference to Fire Temples aka Zoroastrian places of worship. So far, I've been unable to understand why this happens, because as far as I can tell, there's a pretty clear difference between the translation of the name of Zoroastrian places of worship and Buddhist places of worship. Even more than that, Richard Bulliet, in his article "Naw Bahar and the Survival of Iranian Buddhism" suggests there may have been a particular strain of Iranian Buddhism, itself distinct and different from the Mahayana and Theravada schools of Buddhism. There were many "Naw Biharas" located through Tocharistan into Iran (Iranian-speaking or Iranian-influenced places), with the name meaning "New Spring" in Persian. Without further archaeological evidence, as Bulliet laments, there is no hard evidence for a distinctly Persian flavor of Buddhism.
On another related note to the issues of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism is the issue of the Barmakids. Bulliet states rather plainly the notion has been dispelled in recent scholarship that the Barmakids were descended of Zoroastrian priestly origins, and rather have origins in the Buddhist priestly class, taking their name Barmak from the title of the leader of the monastery. More than that, the Barmak probably had vast regional authority in Bactria and Tocharistan. In my translation work of Ibn al-Faqih, I've come across a passage on a rather well-known incident, describing the indignation of the King of Kabul over the conversion of Barmak abu Barmak abu Khalid to Islam. The king fired off a letter to the new Barmak, the son of the previous, though now-converted, Barmak, who went by the new name Abd Allah, describing his feelings over the matter, saying what amounted to "nothing good has ever come from Islam". The leader of one Buddhist monastery in Balkh, even though highly important in its time, would not have attracted such attention of local rulers with a move like this unless his authority was more than just religious in nature. Likely, he was a powerful temporal as well as spiritual authority, perhaps akin to a Pope or a Caliph? That is pure speculation on my part, though an educated guess, nevertheless.
Once again, I'll leave the matter of the Barmakids to another post. For now, just remember that when looking at a translated text, what you're reading always passes through the lens of one or more translators, and their finished product may not always be a perfect mirror of the original text.
On another related note to the issues of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism is the issue of the Barmakids. Bulliet states rather plainly the notion has been dispelled in recent scholarship that the Barmakids were descended of Zoroastrian priestly origins, and rather have origins in the Buddhist priestly class, taking their name Barmak from the title of the leader of the monastery. More than that, the Barmak probably had vast regional authority in Bactria and Tocharistan. In my translation work of Ibn al-Faqih, I've come across a passage on a rather well-known incident, describing the indignation of the King of Kabul over the conversion of Barmak abu Barmak abu Khalid to Islam. The king fired off a letter to the new Barmak, the son of the previous, though now-converted, Barmak, who went by the new name Abd Allah, describing his feelings over the matter, saying what amounted to "nothing good has ever come from Islam". The leader of one Buddhist monastery in Balkh, even though highly important in its time, would not have attracted such attention of local rulers with a move like this unless his authority was more than just religious in nature. Likely, he was a powerful temporal as well as spiritual authority, perhaps akin to a Pope or a Caliph? That is pure speculation on my part, though an educated guess, nevertheless.
Once again, I'll leave the matter of the Barmakids to another post. For now, just remember that when looking at a translated text, what you're reading always passes through the lens of one or more translators, and their finished product may not always be a perfect mirror of the original text.
No comments:
Post a Comment