The Ekottarâgama-sûtra (Aṅguttara), translated by Dharmanandin, of
Tukhâra (Fa-hsi).
The Abhidharma disquisitions, by Dharmayasas,(102) of Kophene.
During the period of Lung-an (397-401) the Ekottarâgama (Anguttara) and
Madhyamâgama-sûtras(103) were translated by Saṅghadeva of Kophene. This is
probably the Ma_gg_hima Nikâya, translated by Gotama Saṅghadeva, under the
Eastern Tsin dynasty, 317-419.
In the period Î-hsi (405-418) the Shâman _K_i-fâ-ling brought from Khoten
to Nanking, the southern capital, the Hwâ-yen Sûtra in 36,000 gâthâs, and
translated it. This may be the Buddhâvata_m_saka-sûtra, called the
Ta-fang-kwang-fo-fa-yan-king (Beal’s “Catalogue,” pp. 9, 10). This
translator is not mentioned in the K’ai-yuen-lu.
In 420 the Tsin dynasty came to an end.
The Emperor Thai-wu (424-452), of the N. Wei dynasty, persecuted the
Buddhists, 446; but from the year 452 they were tolerated. This dynasty
lasted from 386 to 535, when it was divided into two.
In 458 there was a conspiracy under Buddhist influences, and more
stringent laws were enforced against them.
In 460 five Buddhists arrived in China from Ceylon, _viâ_ Tibet. Two of
them, Yashaita, and Vudanandi, brought images.(104) In 502 a Hindu
translated Mahâyâna books, called Fixed Positions and Ten Positions.(105)
During the dynasties of _Kh_î (479-502), Liang (502-557), and _Kh_in
(557-589), many famous Shâmans came to China, and translated books.
The Emperor Wû of Liang (502-549) paid great honor to Buddhism. He made a
large collection of the Buddhist canonical books, amounting to 5,400
volumes, in the Hwâ-lin garden. The Shâman Pao-_kh_ang compiled the
catalogue in fifty-four fascicles.
In the period Yung-ping, 508-511, there was an Indian Shâman Bodhiru_k_i,
who translated many books, as Kumâra_g_îva had done. Among them were the
Earth-holding _s_âstra (bhûmîdhara _s_âstra?) and the Shi-ti-king-lun, the
Da_s_abhûmika _s_âstra, greatly valued by the followers of the
Mahâyâna.(106)
In 516, during the period Hsî-phing, the Chinese Shâman Wei-shang was sent
to the West to collect Sûtras and Vinayas, and brought back a collection
of 170 books. He is not, however, mentioned as a translator in the
K’ai-yuen-lu.
In 518 Sung-yun, sent by the queen of the Wei country from Lo-yang to
India, returned after three years, with 175 volumes. He lived to see
Bodhidharma in his coffin. This Bodhidharma, the twenty-eighth patriarch,
had arrived in Canton by sea in 528, in the time of Wu-ti, the first
Emperor of the Liang dynasty. Some Sanskrit MSS. that had belonged to him,
and other relics, are still preserved in Japan.(107)
In the time of the Emperor Wû, of the Northern _K_âu dynasty (561-577), a
Shâman, Wei-yüan-sung, accused the Buddhist priests, and the Emperor
persecuted them. But in the first year of Kao-tsu, the founder of the Sui
dynasty, in 589, toleration was again proclaimed. He ordered the people to
pay a certain sum of money, according to the number of the members of each
family, for the purpose of preparing Sûtras (the Buddhist canon) and
images. And the Government caused copies of the whole Buddhist canon to be
made, and placed them in certain temples or monasteries in the capital,
and in several other large cities, in such provinces as Ping-_k_âu,
Hsiang-_k_âu, Lo-_k_âu, etc. And the Government caused also another copy
to be made and to be deposited in the Imperial Library. The Buddhist
sacred books among the people were found to be several hundred times more
numerous than those on the six Kings of Confucius. There were 1,950
distinct Buddhist books translated.
In the period Tâ-yeh (605-616) the Emperor ordered the Shâman _K_i-kwo to
compose a catalogue of the Buddhist books at the Imperial Buddhist chapel
within the gate of the palace. He then made some divisions and
classifications, which were as follows:—
The Sûtras which contained what Buddha had spoken were arranged under
three divisions:—
1. The Mahâyâna.
2. The Hînayâna.
3. The Mixed Sûtras.
Other books, that seemed to be the productions of later men, who falsely
ascribed their works to greater names, were classed as Doubtful Books.
There were other works in which Bodhisattvas and others went deeply into
the explanation of the meaning, and illustrated the principles of Buddha.
These were called Disquisitions, or _S_âstras. Then there were Vinaya, or
compilations of precepts, under each division as before, Mahâyâna,
Hînayâna, Mixed. There were also Records, or accounts of the doings in
their times of those who had been students of the system. Altogether there
were eleven classes under which the books were arranged:—
1. Sûtra. Mahâyâna 617 in 2,076 chapters.
Mixed 487 in 852 chapters.
Mixed and doubtful 172 in 336 chapters.
2. Vinaya. Mahâyâna 52 in 91 chapters.
Hînayâna 80 in 472 chapters.
Mixed 27 in 46 chapters.
3. _S_âstra. Mahâyâna 35 in 141 chapters.
Hînayâna 41 in 567 chapters.
Mixed 51 in 437 chapters.
Total 1962 in 6,198 chapters.
_Search for Sanskrit MSS. in China._
It was the publication of Hiouen-thsang’s Travels which roused the hopes
of Professor Wilson that some of the old Sanskrit MSS. which had been
carried away from India might still be discovered in China.(108)
But though no pains were spared by Sir John Bowring to carry out Professor
Wilson’s wishes, though he had catalogues sent to him from Buddhist
libraries, and from cities where Buddhist compositions might be expected
to exist, the results were disappointing, at least so far as Sanskrit
texts were concerned. A number of interesting Chinese books, translated
from Sanskrit by Hiouen-thsang and others, works also by native Chinese
Buddhists, were sent to the library of the East India House; but what
Professor Wilson and all Sanskrit scholars with him most desired, Sanskrit
MSS., or copies of Sanskrit MSS., were not forthcoming. Professor Wilson
showed me, indeed, one copy of a Sanskrit MS. that was sent to him from
China, and, so far as I remember, it was the Kâla-_K_akra,(109) which we
know as one of the books translated from Sanskrit into Chinese. That MS.,
however, is no longer to be found in the India Office Library, though it
certainly existed in the old East India House.
The disappointment at the failure of Professor Wilson’s and Sir J.
Bowring’s united efforts was felt all the more keenly because neither
Sanskrit nor Chinese scholars could surrender the conviction that, until a
very short time ago, Indian MSS. had existed in China. They had been seen
by Europeans, such as Dr. Gutzlaff, the hard-working missionary in China,
who in a paper, written shortly before his death, and addressed to Colonel
Sykes (“Journal R. A. S.” 1856, p. 73), stated that he himself had seen
Pâli MSS. preserved by Buddhist priests in China. Whether these MSS. were
in Pâli or Sanskrit would matter little, supposing even that Dr. Gutzlaff
could not distinguish between the two. He speaks with great contempt of
the whole Buddhist literature. There was not a single priest, he says,
capable of explaining the meaning of the Pâli texts, though some were
interlined with Chinese. “A few works,” he writes, “are found in a
character originally used for writing the Pâli, and may be considered as
faithful transcripts of the earliest writings of Buddhism. They are looked
upon as very sacred, full of mysteries and deep significations, and
therefore as the most precious relics of the founder of their creed. With
the letters of this alphabet the priests perform incantations(110) to
expel demons, rescue souls from hell, bring down rain on the earth, remove
calamities, etc. They turn and twist them in every shape, and maintain
that the very demons tremble at the recitation of them.”
Another clear proof of the existence of Sanskrit MSS. in China is found in
the account of a “Trip to Ning-po and T’hëen-t’hae,” by Dr. Edkins. After
he had arrived at Fang-kwang, he ascended the Hwa-ling hill, and at the
top of the hill he describes a small temple with a priest residing in it.
“Scattered over the hill,” he adds, “there are various little temples
where priests reside, but the one at the top is the most celebrated, as
being the place where Che-k’hae spent a portion of his time, worshipping a
Sanskrit manuscript of a Buddhist classic.” On his return he arrived at
the pagoda erected to the memory of Che-k’hae, the founder of the
Thëen-t’hae system of Buddhism, in the Chin dynasty (about 580 A. D.). And
a little farther on, situated in a deep dell on the left, was the
monastery of Kaon-ming-sze. This is particularly celebrated for its
possession of a Sanskrit MS., written on the palm leaf, once read and
explained by Che-k’hae, but now unintelligible to any of the followers of
Buddhism in these parts. The priests seemed to pay uncommon reverence to
this MS., which is the only one of the kind to be found in the East of
China, and thus of great importance in a literary point of view. It is
more than 1,300 years old, but is in a state of perfect preservation, in
consequence of the palm leaves, which are written on both sides, having
been carefully let into slips of wood, which are fitted on the same
central pin, and the whole, amounting to fifty leaves, inclosed in a
rosewood box.
This may account for the unwillingness of the priests to part with their
old MSS., whether Sanskrit or Pâli, but it proves at the same time that
they still exist, and naturally keeps up the hope that some day or other
we may still get a sight of them.
_Materials on which Sanskrit MSS. were written._
Of course, it might be said that if MSS. did not last very long in India,
neither would they do so in China. But even then, we might expect at least
that as in India the old MSS. were copied whenever they showed signs of
decay, so they would have been in China. Besides, the climate of China is
not so destructive as the heat and moisture of the climate of India. In
India, MSS. seldom last over a thousand years. Long before that time paper
made of vegetable substances decays, palm-leaves and birch-bark become
brittle, and white ants often destroy what might have escaped the ravages
of the climate. It was the duty, therefore, of Indian Rajahs to keep a
staff of librarians, who had to copy the old MSS. whenever they began to
seem unsafe, a fact which accounts both for the modern date of most of our
Sanskrit MSS. and for the large number of copies of the same text often
met with in the same library.
The MSS. carried off to China were in all likelihood not written on paper,
or whatever we like to call the material which Nearchus describes “as
cotton well beaten together,”(111) but on the bark of the birch tree or on
palm leaves. The bark of trees is mentioned as a writing material used in
India by Curtius;(112) and in Buddhist Sûtras, such as the Kara_nd_a-vyûha
(p. 69), we actually read of bhûr_g_a, birch, mâsi, ink, and karama
(kalam), as the common requisites for writing. MSS. written on that
material have long been known in Europe, chiefly as curiosities (I had to
write many years ago about one of them, preserved in the Library at All
Souls’ College). Of late,(113) however, they have attracted more serious
attention, particularly since Dr. Bühler discovered in Kashmir old MSS.
containing independent rescensions of Vedic texts, written on birch bark.
One of these, containing the whole text of the Rig-Veda Sa_m_hitâ(114)
with accents, was sent to me, and though it had suffered a good deal,
particularly on the margins, it shows that there was no difficulty in
producing from the bark of the birch tree thousands and thousands of pages
of the largest quarto or even folio size, perfectly smooth and pure,
except for the small dark lines peculiar to the bark of that tree.(115)
At the time of Hiouen-thsang, in the seventh century, palm leaves seem to
have been the chief material for writing. He mentions a forest of
palm-trees (_Borassus flabelliformis_) near Konka_n_apura (the Western
coast of the Dekhan),(116) which was much prized on account of its
supplying material for writing (vol. i. p. 202, and vol. iii. p. 148). At
a later time, too, in 965, we read of Buddhist priests returning to China
with Sanskrit copies of Buddhist books written on palm leaves
(peito).(117) If we could believe Hiouen-thsang, the palm leaf would have
been used even so early as the first Buddhist Council,(118) for he says
that Kâsyapa then wrote the Pi_t_akas on palm leaves (tâla), and spread
them over the whole of India. In the Pâli _G_âtakas, pa_nn_a is used in
the sense of letter, but originally par_n_a meant a wing, then a leaf of a
tree, then a leaf for writing. Pa_tt_a, also, which is used in the sense
of a sheet, was originally pattra, a wing, a leaf of a tree.
Suva_nn_a-pa_tt_a, a golden leaf to write on, still shows that the
original writing material had been the leaves of trees, most likely of
palm-trees.(119) Potthaka, _i. e._ pustaka, book, likewise occurs in the
Pâli _G_âtakas.(120)
Such MSS., written on palm leaves, if preserved carefully and almost
worshipped, as they seem to have been in China, might well have survived
to the present day, and they would certainly prove of immense value to the
students of Buddhism, if they could still be recovered, whether in the
original or even in later copies.
It is true, no doubt, that, like all other religions, Buddhism too had its
periods of trial and persecution in China. We know that during such
periods—as, for instance, in 845, under the Emperor Wu-tsung—monasteries
were destroyed, images broken, and books burnt. But these persecutions
seem never to have lasted long, and when they were over, monasteries,
temples, and pagodas soon sprang up again, images were restored, and books
collected in greater abundance than ever. Dr. Edkins tells us that “in an
account of the Ko-t’sing monastery in the History of T’ian-t’ai-shan it is
said that a single work was saved from a fire there several centuries ago,
which was written on the Pei-to (Pe-ta) or palm leaf of India.” He also
states that great pagodas were built on purpose as safe repositories of
Sanskrit MSS., one being erected by the Emperor for the preservation of
the newly arrived Sanskrit books at the request of Hiouen-thsang, lest
they should be injured for want of care. It was 180 feet high, had five
stories with grains of She-li (relics) in the centre of each, and
contained monuments inscribed with the prefaces written by the Emperor or
Prince Royal to Hiouen-thsang’s translations.
_Search for Sanskrit MSS. in Japan._
Being myself convinced of the existence of old Indian MSS. in China, I
lost no opportunity, during the last five-and-twenty years, of asking any
friends of mine who went to China to look out for these treasures,
but—with no result!
Some years ago, however, Dr. Edkins, who had taken an active part in the
search instituted by Professor Wilson and Sir J. Bowring, showed me a book
which he had brought from Japan, and which contained a Chinese vocabulary
with Sanskrit equivalents and a transliteration in Japanese. The Sanskrit
is written in that peculiar alphabet which we find in the old MSS. of
Nepâl, and which in China has been further modified, so as to give it an
almost Chinese appearance.
That MS. revived my hopes. If such a book was published in Japan, I
concluded that there must have been a time when such a book was useful
there—that is to say, when the Buddhists in Japan studied Sanskrit. Dr.
Edkins kindly left the book with me, and though the Sanskrit portion was
full of blunders, yet it enabled me to become accustomed to that peculiar
alphabet in which the Sanskrit words are written.
While I was looking forward to more information from Japan, good luck
would have it that a young Buddhist priest, Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, came to me
from Japan, in order to learn Sanskrit and Pâli, and thus to be able in
time to read the sacred writings of the Buddhists in their original
language, and to compare them with the Chinese and Japanese translations
now current in his country. After a time, another Buddhist priest, Mr.
Kasawara, came to me for the same purpose, and both are now working very
hard at learning Sanskrit. Japan is supposed to contain 34,388,504
inhabitants, all of whom, with the exception of about 1 or 200,000
followers of the Shintô religion,(121) are Buddhists, divided into ten
principal sects, the sect to which Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio belongs being that of
the Shinshiu. One of the first questions which I asked Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio,
when he came to read Sanskrit with me, was about Sanskrit MSS. in Japan. I
showed him the Chinese-Sanskrit-Japanese Vocabulary which Dr. Edkins had
left with me, and he soon admitted that Sanskrit texts in the same
alphabet might be found in Japan, or at all events in China. He wrote home
to his friends, and after waiting for some time, he brought me in December
last a book which a Japanese scholar, Shuntai Ishikawa, had sent to me,
and which he wished me to correct, and then to send back to him to Japan.
I did not see at once the importance of the book. But when I came to read
the introductory formula, Evam mayâ srutam, “Thus by me it has been
heard,” the typical beginning of the Buddhist Sûtras, my eyes were opened.
Here, then, was what I had so long been looking forward to—a Sanskrit
text, carried from India to China, from China to Japan, written in the
peculiar Nepalese alphabet, with a Chinese translation, and a
transliteration in Japanese. Of course, it is a copy only, not an original
MS.; but copies presuppose originals at some time or other, and, such as
it is, it is a first instalment, which tells us that we ought not to
despair, for where one of the long-sought-for literary treasures that were
taken from India to China, and afterwards from China to Japan, has been
discovered, others are sure to come to light.
We do not possess yet very authentic information on the ancient history of
Japan, and on the introduction of Buddhism into that island. M. Léon de
Rosny(122) and the Marquis D’Hervey de Saint-Denys(123) have given us some
information on the subject, and I hope that Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio will soon
give us a trustworthy account of the ancient history of his country, drawn
from native authorities. What is told us about the conversion of Japan to
Buddhism has a somewhat legendary aspect, and I shall only select a few of
the more important facts, as they have been communicated to me by my
Sanskrit pupil. Buddhism first reached Japan, not directly from China, but
from Corea, which had been converted to Buddhism in the fourth century A.
D. In the year 200 A. D. Corea had been conquered by the Japanese Empress
Zingu, and the intercourse thus established between the two countries led
to the importation of Buddhist doctrines from Corea to Japan. In the year
552 A. D. one of the Corean kings sent a bronze statue of Buddha and many
sacred books to the Court of Japan, and after various vicissitudes,
Buddhism became the established religion of the island about 600 A. D.
Japanese students were sent to China to study Buddhism, and they brought
back with them large numbers of Buddhist books, chiefly translations from
Sanskrit. In the year 640 A. D. we hear of a translation of the
Sukhavatîvyûhama-hâyâna-sûtra being read in Japan. This is the title of
the Sanskrit text now sent to me from Japan. The translation had been made
by Kô-sô-gai (in Chinese, Khang-sang-khai), a native of Tibet, though
living in India, 252 A. D., and we are told that there had been eleven
other translations of the same text.(124)
Among the teachers of these Japanese students we find our old friend
Hiouen-thsang, whom the Japanese call Genziô. In the year 653 a Japanese
priest, Dosho by name, studied under Genziô, adopted the views of the sect
founded by him,—the Hossô sect,—and brought back with him to Japan a
compilation of commentaries on the thirty verses of Vasubandhu, written by
Dharmapâla, and translated by Genziô. Two other priests, Chitsû and
Chitatsu, likewise became his pupils, and introduced the famous
Abhidharma-kosha-sâstra into Japan, which had been composed by Vasubandhu,
and translated by Genziô. They seem to have favored the Hînayâna, or the
views of the Small Vehicle (Kushashiu).
In the year 736 we hear of a translation of the
Buddhâvata_m_saka-vaipulya-sûtra, by Buddhabhadra and others(125) (317-419
A. D.), being received in Japan, likewise of a translation of the
Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka by Kumara_g_îva.(126)
And, what is more important still, in the ninth century we are told that
Kukai (died 835), the founder of the Shingon sect in Japan, was not only a
good Chinese, but a good Sanskrit scholar also. Nay, one of his disciples,
Shinnyo, in order to perfect his knowledge of Buddhist literature,
undertook a journey, not only to China, but to India, but died before he
reached that country.
These short notices, which I owe chiefly to Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, make it
quite clear that we have every right to expect Sanskrit MSS., or, at all
events, Sanskrit texts, in Japan, and the specimen which I have received
encourages me to hope that some of these Sanskrit texts may be older than
any which exist at present in any part of India.
_The Sukhavatî-vyûha._
The text which was sent to me bears the title of
Sukhâvatî-vyûha-mahâyâna-sûtra.(127) This is a title well known to all
students of Buddhist literature. Burnouf, in his “Introduction à
l’Histoire du Buddhisme” (pp. 99-102),(128) gave a short account of this
Sûtra, which enables us to see that the scene of the dialogue was laid at
Râ_g_ag_ri_ha, and that the two speakers were Bhagavat and Ânanda.
We saw before, in the historical account of Buddhism in Japan, that no
less than twelve Chinese translations of a work bearing the same title
were mentioned. The Chinese tell us at least of five translations which
are still in existence.(129)
Those of the Han and Wu dynasties (25-280 A. D.), we are told, were too
diffuse, and those of the later periods, the T’ang and Sung dynasties, too
literal. The best is said to be that by Kô-sô-gai, a priest of Tibetan
descent, which was made during the early Wei dynasty, about 252 A. D. This
may be the same which was read in Japan in 640 A. D.
The same Sûtra exists also in a Tibetan translation, for there can be
little doubt that the Sûtra quoted by Csoma Körösi (“As. Res.” vol. xx. p.
408) under the name of Amitâbha-vyûha is the same work. It occupies, as M.
Léon Feer informs me, fifty-four leaves, places the scene of the dialogue
at Râ_g_ag_ri_ha, on the mountain Gr_i_dhra-kû_t_a, and introduces
Bhagavat and Ânanda as the principal speakers.
There are Sanskrit MSS. of the Sukhavatî-vyûha in your own Library, in
Paris, at Cambridge, and at Oxford.
The following is a list of the MSS. of the Sukhavatî-vyûha, hitherto
known:—
1. MS. of the Royal Asiatic Society, London (Hodgson Collection), No. 20.
Sukhavatîvyûha-mahâyânasûtra, sixty-five leaves. Dated Samvat 934 = A. D.
1814. It begins: Namo
da_s_adiganantâparyantalokadhâtupratish_t_itebhya_h_, etc. Eva_m_ mayâ
_s_rutam ekasmi_m_ samaye Bhagavân Râ_g_ag_ri_he viharati sma. It ends:
Sukhâvatîvyûha-mahâyânasûtra_m_ samâpta_m_. Sa_m_vat 934, kârttika_s_udi
4, sa_m_pûr_n_am abhût. _S_rîsuvar_n_apa_n_ârimabânagare
Maitrîpûrimahâvihâre _S_rîvâkva_g_radâsa va_g_râ_k_âryasya _G_ayânandasya
_k_a sarvârthasiddhe_h_. (Nepalese alphabet.)
2. MS. of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Collection Burnouf), No. 85;
sixty-four leaves. It begins, after a preamble of five lines, Eva_m_ mayâ
_s_ruta_m_mekasmi samaya Bhagavân Râ_g_ag_ri_he viharati sma
G_ri_dhraku_t_e parvvate mahatâ Bhikshusanghena sârddham. Dvâtri_ms_ratâ
Bhikshusahasrai_h_. It ends: Bhagavato mitâbhasya gu_n_aparikîrttana_m_
Bodhisattvâmavaivartyabhûmiprave_s_a_h_. Amitâbhavyuhaparivartta_h_.
Sukhâvatîvyûha_h_ sampur_n_a_h_. Iti _S_rî Amitâbhasya Sukhâvatîvyuha nâma
mahâyânastûra_m_ samâpta_m_.(130) (Devanâgarî alphabet.)
3. MS. of the Société Asiatique at Paris (Collection Hodgson), No. 17;
eighty-two leaves. (Nepalese alphabet.)(131)
4. MS. of the University Library at Cambridge, No. 1368; thirty-five
leaves. It begins with some lines of prose and verse in praise of Amitâbha
and Sukhavatî, and then proceeds: Eva_m_ mayâ _s_rutam ekasmi_m_ samaye
Bhagavân Râ_g_ag_ri_he nagare viharati sma, G_ri_dhrakû_t_aparvate mahatâ
Bhikshusanghena sârddha, etc. It ends: iti srîmad amitâbhasya tathâgatasya
Sukhâvatîvyûha-mahâyânasûtra_m_ samâptam. (Nepalese alphabet, modern.)
5. MS. given by Mr. Hodgson to the Bodleian Library Oxford (Hodgson 3). It
begins with: Om namo ratnatrayâya. Om nama_h_
sarvabuddhabodhisattvebhya_h_, etc. Then Eva_m_ mayâ _s_rutam, etc. It
ends with sukhavâtîvyûhamahâyânasûtra_m_ samâpta_m_. (Nepalese alphabet,
modern.)
But when I came to compare these Sanskrit MSS. with the text sent to me
from Japan, though the title was the same, I soon perceived that their
contents were different. While the text, as given in the ordinary
Devanâgari or Nepalese MSS., fills about fifty to sixty leaves, the text
of the Sûtra that reached me from Japan would hardly occupy more than
eight or ten leaves.
I soon convinced myself that this MS. was not a text abbreviated in Japan,
for this shorter text, sent to me from Japan, correspond in every respect
with the Chinese Sûtra translated by Mr. Beal in his “Catena,” pp.
378-383, and published in your Journal, 1866, p. 136. No doubt the Chinese
translation, on which Mr. Beal’s translation is based, is not only free,
but displays the misapprehensions peculiar to many Chinese renderings of
Sanskrit texts, due to a deficient knowledge either of Sanskrit or of
Chinese on the part of the translators, perhaps also to the different
genius of those two languages.
Yet, such as it is, there can be no doubt that it was meant to be a
translation of the text now in my possession. Mr. Beal tells us that the
translation he followed is that by Kumâra_g_îva, the contemporary of
Fa-hian (400 A. D.), and that this translator omitted repetitions and
superfluities in the text.(132) Mr. Edkins knows a translation, _s. t._
Wou-liang-sheu-king, made under the Han dynasty.(133) What is important is
that in the Chinese translation of the shorter text the scene is laid, as
in the Japanese Sanskrit text, at _S_râvastî, and the principal speakers
are Bhagavat and _S_âriputra.
There is also a Tibetan translation of the short text, described by Csoma
Körösi (“As. Res.” vol. xx. p. 439). Here, though the name of the scene is
not mentioned, the speakers are Bhagavat and _S_âriputra. The whole work
occupies seven leaves only, and the names of the sixteen principal
disciples agree with the Japanese text. The translators were
Pra_g_nâvarman, Sûrendra, and the Tibetan Lotsava Ya-shes-sde.
M. Feer informs me that there is at the National Library a Chinese text
called O-mi-to-king, _i. e._ Amitâbha-sûtra.(134) The scene is at
_S_râvastî; the speakers are Bhagavat _S_âriputra.
Another text at the National Library is called Ta-o-mi-to-king, _i. e._
Mahâ Amitâbha-sûtra, and here the scene is at Râ_g_ag_ri_ha.
There is, besides, a third work, called Kwan-wou-liang-sheu-king by
Kiang-ling-ye-she, _i. e._ Kâlaya_s_as, a foreigner of the West, who lived
in China about 424 A. D.
We have, therefore, historical evidence of the existence of three Sûtras,
describing Sukhavatî, or the Paradise of Amitâbha. We know two of them in
Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan—one long, the other short. The third is
known as yet in Chinese only.
Of the two Sanskrit texts, the one from Nepal, the other from Japan, the
latter seems certainly the earlier. But even the fuller text must have
existed at a very early time, because it was translated by
_K_i-lau-kia-_kh_ai, under the Eastern Han dynasty (25-220 A. D.)—_i. e._
at all events before 220 A. D.
The shorter text is first authenticated through the translation of
Kumâra_g_îva, about 400 A. D.; but if the views generally entertained as
to the relative position of the longer and shorter Sûtras be correct, we
may safely claim for our short Sûtra a date within the second century of
our era.
What Japan has sent us is, therefore, a Sanskrit text, of which we had no
trace before, which must have left India at least before 400 A. D., but
probably before 200 A. D., and which gives us the original of that
description of Amitâbha’s Paradise, which formerly we knew in a Chinese
translation only, which was neither complete nor correct.
The book sent to me was first published in Japan in 1773, by Ziômiô, a
Buddhist priest. The Sanskrit text is intelligible, but full of
inaccuracies, showing clearly that the editor did not understand Sanskrit,
but simply copied what he saw before him. The same words occurring in the
same line are written differently, and the Japanese transliteration simply
repeats the blunders of the Sanskrit transcript.
There are two other editions of the same text, published in 1794 A. D. by
another Japanese priest, named Hôgŏ. These are in the possession of Mr.
Bunyiu Nanjio, and offered some help in correcting the text. One of them
contains the text and three Chinese translations, one being merely a
literal rendering, while the other two have more of a literary character
and are ascribed to Kumâra_g_îva (400 A. D.), and Hiouen-thsang (648 A.
D.).
Lastly, there is another book by the same Hôgŏ, in four volumes, in which
an attempt is made to give a grammatical analysis of the text. This,
however, as Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio informs me, is very imperfect.
I have to-day brought with me the Japanese Sanskrit text, critically
restored, and a literal translation into English, to which I have added a
few notes.