IN PATNA. FÂ-HIEN’S LABOURS IN TRANSCRIPTION OF MANUSCRIPTS, AND INDIAN
STUDIES FOR THREE YEARS.
From Varanasi (the travellers) went back east to Pataliputtra.
Fâ-Hien’s original object had been to search for (copies of) the
Vinaya. In the various kingdoms of North India, however, he had found
one master transmitting orally (the rules) to another, but no written
copies which he could transcribe. He had therefore travelled far and
come on to Central India. Here, in the mahayana monastery,(1) he found
a copy of the Vinaya, containing the Mahasanghika(2) rules,—those which
were observed in the first Great Council, while Buddha was still in the
world. The original copy was handed down in the Jetavana vihâra. As to
the other eighteen schools,(3) each one has the views and decisions of
its own masters. Those agree (with this) in the general meaning, but
they have small and trivial differences, as when one opens and another
shuts.(4) This copy (of the rules), however, is the most complete, with
the fullest explanations.(5)
He further got a transcript of the rules in six or seven thousand
gathas,(6) being the sarvastivadah(7) rules,—those which are observed
by the communities of monks in the land of Ts’in; which also have all
been handed down orally from master to master without being committed
to writing. In the community here, moreover, we got the
Samyuktabhi-dharma-hridaya-(sastra),(8) containing about six or seven
thousand gathas; he also got a Sutra of 2500 gathas; one chapter of the
Parinir-vana-vaipulya Sutra,(9) of about 5000 gathas; and the
Mahasan-ghikah Abhidharma.
In consequence (of this success in his quest) Fâ-Hien stayed here for
three years, learning Sanskrit books and the Sanskrit speech, and
writing out the Vinaya rules. When Tao-ching arrived in the Central
Kingdom, and saw the rules observed by the Sramanas, and the dignified
demeanour in their societies which he remarked under all occurring
circumstances, he sadly called to mind in what a mutilated and
imperfect condition the rules were among the monkish communities in the
land of Ts’in, and made the following aspiration:—“From this time forth
till I come to the state of Buddha, let me not be born in a frontier
land.”(10) He remained accordingly (in India), and did not return (to
the land of Han). Fâ-Hien, however, whose original purpose had been to
secure the introduction of the complete Vinaya rules into the land of
Han, returned there alone.
NOTES
(1) Mentioned before in chapter xxvii.
(2) Mahasanghikah simply means “the Great Assembly,” that is, of monks.
When was this first assembly in the time of Sâkyamuni held? It does not
appear that the rules observed at it were written down at the time. The
document found by Fâ-Hien would be a record of those rules; or rather a
copy of that record. We must suppose that the original record had
disappeared from the Jetavana vihâra, or Fâ-Hien would probably have
spoken of it when he was there, and copied it, if he had been allowed
to do so.
(3) The eighteen pu {.}. Four times in this chapter the character
called pu occurs, and in the first and two last instances it can only
have the meaning, often belonging to it, of “copy.” The second
instance, however, is different. How should there be eighteen copies,
all different from the original, and from one another, in minor
matters? We are compelled to translate—“the eighteen schools,” an
expression well known in all Buddhist writings. See Rhys Davids’
Manual, p. 218, and the authorities there quoted.
(4) This is equivalent to the “binding” and “loosing,” “opening” and
“shutting,” which found their way into the New Testament, and the
Christian Church, from the schools of the Jewish Rabbins.
(5) It was afterwards translated by Fâ-Hien into Chinese. See Nanjio’s
Catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka, columns 400 and 401, and Nos. 1119
and 1150, columns 247 and 253.
(6) A gatha is a stanza, generally consisting, it has seemed to me, of
a few, commonly of two, lines somewhat metrically arranged; but I do
not know that its length is strictly defined.
(7) “A branch,” says Eitel, “of the great vaibhashika school, asserting
the reality of all visible phenomena, and claiming the authority of
Rahula.”
(8) See Nanjio’s Catalogue, No. 1287. He does not mention it in his
account of Fâ-Hien, who, he says, translated the Samyukta-pitaka Sutra.
(9) Probably Nanjio’s Catalogue, No. 120; at any rate, connected with
it.
(10) This then would be the consummation of the Sramana’s being,—to get
to be Buddha, the Buddha of his time in his Kalpa; and Tao-ching
thought that he could attain to this consummation by a succession of
births; and was likely to attain to it sooner by living only in India.
If all this was not in his mind, he yet felt that each of his
successive lives would be happier, if lived in India.