IN PATNA. FÂ-HIEN’S LABOURS IN TRANSCRIPTION OF MANUSCRIPTS, AND
INDIAN STUDIES FOR THREE YEARS.
From Vârâṇasî (the travellers) went back east to Pâṭaliputtra.
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 mahâyâna monastery,[1] he found
a copy of the Vinaya, containing the Mahâsâṅghika[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
gâthas,[6] being the sarvâstivâdâḥ[7] rules,—those which are observed
by the communities of monks in the land of Tsʽin; 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
Saṃyuktâbhi-dharma-hṛidaya-(śâstra),[8] containing about six or seven
thousand gâthas; he also got a Sûtra of 2500 gâthas; one chapter of
the Parinir-vâṇa-vaipulya Sûtra,[9] of about 5000 gâthas; and the
Mahâsâṅ-ghikâḥ 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 Tâo-ching arrived in the Central
Kingdom, and saw the rules observed by the Śramaṇas, 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 Tsʽin, 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] Mahâsâṅghikâḥ simply means ‘the Great Assembly,’ that is, of
monks. When was this first assembly in the time of Śâkyamuni 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 pû (部). Four times in this chapter the character
called pû 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 tripiṭaka, columns 400 and 401, and Nos. 1119
and 1150, columns 247 and 253.
[6] A gâthâ 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 vaibhâshika school,
asserting the reality of all visible phenomena, and claiming the
authority of Râhula.’
[8] See Nanjio’s Catalogue, No. 1287. He does not mention it in his
account of Fâ-hien, who, he says, translated the Saṃyukta-piṭaka
Sûtra.
[9] Probably Nanjio’s Catalogue, No. 120; at any rate, connected with
it.
[10] This then would be the consummation of the Śramaṇa’s being,—to
get to be Buddha, the Buddha of his time in his Kalpa; and Tâo-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.