Chapter V: On Sanskrit Texts Discovered in Japan (3)

106 Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 77; on p. 20 a translation of the Lankâvatâra
is mentioned.

107 See _Athenæum_, August 7, 1880; and _infra_, p. 370.

108 A long list of Sanskrit texts translated into Chinese may be found
in the _Journal Asiatique_, 1849, p. 353 _seq._, _s. t._
“Concordance Sinico-Samskrite d’un nombre considérable de titres
d’ouvrages Bouddhiques, recueillie dans un Catalogue Chinois de l’an
1306, par M. Stanislas Julien.”

109 Csoma Körösi, _As. Res._ vol. xx. p. 418. _Journal Asiatique_, 1849,
p. 356.

_ 110 Cf._ Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 66.

111 The modern paper in Nepal is said to date from 500 years ago
(Hodgson, _Essays_).

112 M. M., _History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, p. 516.

113 Burnell, _South Indian Palæography_, 2d ed. p. 84 _seq._

114 See _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i., Upanishads, Introduction,
p. lxxviii.

115 Dr. Bühler (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay,_ 1877, p.
29) has the following interesting remarks: “The Bhûrga MSS. are
written on specially-prepared thin sheets of the inner bark of the
Himalayan birch (_Bœtula Bhojpatr._ Wallich), and invariably in
Sâradâ characters. The lines run always parallel to the narrow side
of the leaf, and the MSS. present, therefore, the appearance of
European books, not of Indian MSS., which owe their form to an
imitation of the Tâlapatras. The Himâlaya seems to contain an
inexhaustible supply of birch bark, which in Kasmîr and other hill
countries is used both instead of paper by the shopkeepers in the
bazaars, and for lining the roofs of houses in order to make them
water-tight. It is also exported to India, where in many places it
is likewise used for wrapping up parcels, and plays an important
part in the manufacture of the flexible pipe-stems used by hukâ
smokers. To give an idea of the quantities which are brought into
Srînagar, I may mention that on one single day I counted fourteen
large barges with birch bark on the river.... The use of birch bark
for literary purposes is attested by the earliest classical Sanskrit
writers. Kâlidâsa mentions it in his dramas and epics; Sustuta,
Varâhamihira (_circa_ 500-550 A. D.) know it likewise. As is the
case with nearly all old customs, the use of birch bark for writing
still survives in India, though the fact is little known. Mantras,
which are worn as amulets, are written on pieces of Bhûrga with
ash_t_au gandbâ_h_, a mixture of eight odoriferous substances—_e.
g._ camphor, sandal, tumeric—which vary according to the deity to
which the writing is dedicated. The custom prevails in Bengal as
well as in Gujarât. Birch-bark MSS. occur in Orissa. The Petersburg
Dictionary refers to a passage in the Kâ_th_aka, the redaction of
the Yajurveda formerly current in Kasmîr, where the word Bhûr_g_a
occurs, though it is not clear if it is mentioned there too as
material for writing on. The Kasmirian Pandits assert, and
apparently with good reason, that in Kasmîr all books were written
on bhûrgapattras from the earliest times until after the conquest of
the Valley by Akbar, about 200-250 years ago. Akbar introduced the
manufacture of paper, and thus created an industry for which Kasmîr
is now famous in India.”

116 Dr. Burnell, _Indian Antiquary_, 1880, p. 234, shows that
Koṅka_n_apura is Koṅka_n_ah_ll_i in the Mysore territory.

117 Beal’s _Travels of Buddhist Pilgrims_, Introd. p. xlvi.

_ 118 Pèterins Buuddhistes_, vol. i. p. 158.

119 Fausböll, _Dasaratha-jā_taka, p. 25.

120 See, also, Albiruni, as quoted by Reinaud, _Memoir sur l’Inde_, p.
305.

121 See Letter to the _Times_, “On the Religions of Japan,” Oct. 20,
1880.

122 “Le Bouddhisme dans l’extrème Orient,” _Revue Scientifique_,
Décembre, 1879.

_ 123 Journal Asiatique_, 1871, p. 386 _seq._

124 Five of these translations were introduced into Japan; the others
seem to have been lost in China. The translations are spoken of as
“the five in existence and the seven missing.”

125 See p. 192.

126 See p. 192.

127 The MSS. vary between Sukhavatî and Sukhâvatî.

128 See, also, _Lotus de la bonne Loi_, p. 267.

_ 129 Journal of the R. A. S._ 1856, p. 319.

130 I owe this information to the kindness of M. Léon Feer at Paris.

131 See _Journal Asiatique_, 3d series, vol. iii. p. 316; vol. iv. p.
296-298.

_ 132 J. R. A. S._ 1866, p. 136.

_ 133 J. R. A. S._ 1866, p. 136.

134 Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 23. _J. R. A. S._ 1856, p. 319. Beal,
_Catalogue_, p. 77, mentions also an
Amitâbha-sûtra-upade_s_a-_s_âstra, by Vasubandhu, translated by
Bodhiru_k_i (Wou-liang-sheu-king-yeou-po-ti-she). There is an
Amitâbha-sûtra, translated by Chi-hien of the Wu period—_i. e._
222-280 A. D.—mentioned in Mr. Beal’s _Catalogue of the Buddhist
Tripitaka_, p. 6. The next Sûtra, which he calls the Sûtra of
measureless years, is no doubt the Amitâyus-sûtra, Amitâyus being
another name for Amitâbha (Fu-shwo-wou-liang-sheu-king, p. 6). See,
also, _Catalogue_, pp. 99, 102. Dr. Edkins also, in his _Notices of
Buddhism in China_, speaks of a translation of “the Sûtra of
boundless age,” by Fa-t’ian-pun, a native of Magadha, who was
assisted in his translation by a native of China familiar with
Sanskrit, about 1000 A. D.

_ 135 S_râvastî, capital of the Northern Ko_s_alas, residence of King
Prasena_g_it. It was in ruins when visited by Fa-hian (init. V.
Sæc.); not far from the modern Fizabad. _Cf._ Burnouf,
_Introduction_, p. 22.

136 Sârdha, with, the Pâli saddhim. Did not the frequent mention of
1,200 and a half (_i. e._ 1,250), 1,300 and a half (_i. e._ 1,350),
persons accompanying Buddha arise from a misunderstanding of sârdha,
meaning originally “with a half”?

137 Abhi_gñ_ânâbhi_gñ_âtai_h_. The Japanese text reads
abhi_gñ_âtâbhâ_gñ_âtai_h_—_i. e._ abhi_gñ_âtâbhi_gñ_âtai_h_. If this
were known to be the correct reading, we should translate it by
“known by known people,” _notus a viris notis_—_i. e._ well-known,
famous. Abhi_gñ_âta in the sense of known, famous, occurs in
Lalita-Vistara, p. 25, and the Chinese translators adopted that
meaning here. Again, if we preferred the reading
abhi_gñ_ânâbhi_gñ_âtai_h_, this, too, would admit of an intelligible
rendering—viz. known or distinguished by the marks or
characteristics, the good qualities, that ought to belong to a
Bhikshu. But the technical meaning is “possessed of a knowledge of
the five abhi_gñ_âs.” It would be better in that case to write
abhi_gñ_âtâbhi_gñ_ânai_h_, but no MSS. seem to support that reading.
The five abhi_gñ_âs or abhi_gñ_ânas which an Arhat ought to possess
are the divine sight, the divine hearing, the knowledge of the
thoughts of others, the remembrance of former existences, and magic
power. See Burnouf, _Lotus_, Appendice, No. xiv. The larger text of
the Sukhavatîvyûha has abhi_gñ_ânâbhi_gñ_aih, and afterwards
abhi_gñ_âtâbhi_gñ_ai_h_. The position of the participle as the
uttara-pada in such compounds as abhi_gñ_ânâbhi_gñ_âtai_h_ is common
in Buddhist Sanskrit. Mr. Bendall has called my attention to the
Pâli abhi_ññ_âta-abhi_ññ_âta (Vinaya-pi_t_aka, ed. Oldenberg, vol.
i. p. 43), which favors the Chinese acceptation of the term.

138 Mahâsrâvaka, the great disciples; sometimes the eighty principal
disciples.

139 Arhadbhi_h_. I have left the correct Sanskrit form, because the
Japanese text gives the termination adbhi_h_. Hôgŏ’s text has the
more usual form arhantai_h_. The change of the old classical arhat
into the Pâli arahan, and then back into Sanskrit arhanta, arahanta,
and at last arihanta, with the meaning of “destroyer of the
enemies”—_i. e._ the passions—shows very clearly the different
stages through which Sanskrit words passed in the different phases
of Buddhist literature. In Tibet, in Mongolia, and in China, Arhat
is translated by “destroyer of the enemy.” See Burnouf, _Lotus_, p.
287; _Introduction_, p. 295. Arhat is the title of the Bhikshu on
reaching the fourth degree of perfection. _Cf._ Sûtra of the 42
Sections, cap. 2. Clemens of Alexandria (d. 220) speaks of the
Σεμνοι who worshipped a pyramid erected over the relics of a god. Is
this a translation of Arhat, as Lassen (“De nom. Ind. philosoph.” in
_Rhein. Museum_, vol. i. p. 187) and Burnouf (_Introduction_, p.
295) supposed, or a transliteration of Samana? Clemens also speaks
of Σεμναί (_Stromat._ p. 539, Potter).

140 Indra, the old Vedic god, has come to mean simply lord, and in the
_K_anda Paritta (_Journal Asiatique_, 1871, p. 220) we actually find
Asurinda, the Indra or Lord of the Asuras.

141 The numbers in Buddhist literature, if they once exceed a Ko_t_i or
Ko_t_î—_i. e._ ten millions—become very vague, nor is their value
always the same. Ayuta, _i. e._ a hundred Ko_t_is; Niyuta, _i. e._ a
hundred Ayutas; and Nayuta, _i. e._ 1 with 22 zeros, are often
confounded; nor does it matter much so far as any definite idea is
concerned which such numerals convey to our mind.

142 Tish_th_ati dh_riy_ate yâpayati dharma_m_ _k_a desayati. This is
evidently an idiomatic phrase, for it occurs again and again in the
Nepalese text of the Sukhavatîvyûha (MS. 26 _b_, l. 1. 2; 55 _a_, l.
2, etc.). It seems to mean, he stands there, holds himself, supports
himself, and teaches the law. Burnouf translates the same phrase by,
“ils se trouvent, vivent existent” (_Lotus_, p. 354). On yâpeti in
Pâli, see Fausböll, Dasaratha-jâtaka, pp. 26, 28; and yâpana in
Sanskrit.

143 Kiṅki_n_î_g_âla. The texts read kaṅka_n_î_g_alais _k_a and
kaṅka_n_îgalais _k_a, and again later kaṅka_n_îgalunâm (also lû) and
kaṅka_n_î_g_alânâm. Mr. Beal translates from Chinese “seven rows of
exquisite curtains,” and again “gemmous curtains.” First of all, it
seems clear that we must read _g_âla, net, web, instead of _g_ala.
Secondly, kaṅka_n_a, bracelet, gives no sense, for what could be the
meaning of nets or string of bracelets? I prefer to read
kiṅki_n_î_g_âla, nets or strings or rows of bells. Such rows of
bells served for ornamenting a garden, and it may be said of them
that, if moved by the wind, they give forth certain sounds. In the
commentary on Dhammapada 30, p. 191, we meet with kiṅkinika_g_âla,
from which likewise the music proceeds; see Childers, _s. v. g_âla.
In the MSS. of the Nepalese Sukhavatîvyûha (_R. A. S._), p. 39 _a_,
l. 4, I likewise find svarnaratnakiṅki_n_î_g_âlâni, which settles
the matter, and shows how little confidence we can place in the
Japanese texts.

144 Anuparikshipta, inclosed; see parikkhepo in Childers’ Dict.

145 The eight good qualities of water are limpidity and purity,
refreshing coolness, sweetness, softness, fertilizing qualities,
calmness, power of preventing famine, productiveness. See Beal,
_Catena_, p. 379.

146 Kâkâpeya. One text reads Kâkapeya, the other Kâkâpeya. It is
difficult to choose. The more usual word is kâkapeya, which is
explained by Pâ_n_ini, ii. 1, 33. It is uncertain, however, whether
kâkapeya is meant as a laudatory or as a depreciatory term.
Boehtlingk takes it in the latter sense, and translates nadî
kâkapeyâ, by a shallow river that could be drunk up by a crow.
Târânâtha takes it in the former sense, and translates nadî
kâkapeyâ, as a river so full of water that a crow can drink it
without bending its neck (kâkair anatakandharai_h_ pîyate;
pûr_n_odakatvena pra_s_asye kâkai_h_ peye nadyâdau). In our passage
kâkapeya must be a term of praise, and we therefore could only
render it by “ponds so full of water that crows could drink from
them.” But why should so well known a word as kâkapeya have been
spelt kâkâpeya, unless it was done intentionally? And if
intentionally, what was it intended for? We must remember that
Pâ_n_ini, ii. 1, 42 schol., teaches us how to form the word
tîrthakâka, a crow at a tîrtha, which means a person in a wrong
place. It would seem, therefore, that crows were considered out of
place at a tîrtha or bathing-place, either because they were birds
of ill omen, or because they defiled the water. From that point of
view, kâkâpeya would mean a pond not visited by crows, free from
crows. Professor Pischel has called my attention to Mahâparinibbâna
Sutta (_J. R. A. S._ 1875, p. 67, p. 21), where kâkapeyâ clearly
refers to a full river. Samatiṭṭḥika, if this is the right reading,
occurs in the same place as an epithet of a river, by the side of
kâkapeya, and I think it most likely that it means rising to a level
with the tîrthas, the fords or bathing-places. Mr. Rhys Davids
informs me that the commentary explains the two words by samatittikâ
ti samaharitâ, kâkapeyyâ ti yatthatattha_k_i tîre _th_itena kâkena
sakkâ patum ti.

147 Purobhaktena. The text is difficult to read, but it can hardly be
doubtful that purobhaktena corresponds to Pâli purebhatta_m_ (_i.
e._ before the morning meal), opposed to pa_kkh_âbhatta_m_, after
the noonday meal (_i. e._ in the afternoon). See Childers, _s. v._
Pûrvabhaktikâ would be the first repast, as Professor Cowell informs
me.

148 Divâ vihârâya, for the noonday rest, the _siesta_. See Childers, _s.
v._ vihâra.

149 Krau_ñk_â_h_. Snipe, curlew. Is it meant for Kuravîka, or Karavîka,
a fine-voiced bird (according to Kern, the Sk. karâyikâ), or for
Kalaviṅka-Pâli Kalavîka? See Childers, _s. v._ opapâtiko; Burnouf,
_Lotus_, p. 566. I see, however, the same birds mentioned together
elsewhere, as ha_m_sakrau_ñk_amayûra_s_uka_s_âlikakokila, etc. On
mayûra see Mahâv. Introd. p. xxxix.; Rv. I. 191, 14.

150 Indriyabalabodhyaṅgasabda. These are technical terms, but their
meaning is not quite clear. Spence Hardy, in his _Manual_, p. 498,
enumerates the five indrayas, viz. (1) sardhâwa, purity (probably
_s_raddhâ, faith), (2) wiraya, persevering exertion (vîrya), (3)
sati or smirti, the ascertainment of truth (sm_ri_ti), (4) samâdhi,
tranquillity, (5) pragnâwa, wisdom (pra_gñ_â).

The five balayas (bala), he adds, are the same as the five indrayas.

The seven bowdyânga (bodhyaṅga) are, according to him: (1) sihi or
smirti, the ascertainment of the truth by mental application, (2)
dharmmawicha, the investigation of causes. (3) wîraya, persevering
exertion, (4) prîti, joy, (5) passadhi, or prasrabdhi, tranquillity,
(6) samâdhi, tranquillity in a higher degree, including freedom from
all that disturbs either body or mind, (7) upekshâ, equanimity.

It will be seen from this that some of these qualities or
excellences occur both as indriyas and bodhyaṅgas, while balas are
throughout identical with indriyas.

Burnouf, however, in his _Lotus_, gives a list of five balas (from
the _Vocabulaire Pentaglotte_) which correspond with the five
indriyas of Spence Hardy: viz. _s_raddhâ-bala, power of faith,
vîrya-bala, power of vigor, sm_ri_ti-bala, power of memory,
samâdhi-bala, power of meditation, pra_gñ_â-bala, power of
knowledge. They precede the seven bodhyaṅgas both in the _Lotus_,
the _Vocabulaire Pentaglotte_, and the Lalita-Vistara.

To these seven bodhyaṅgas Burnouf has assigned a special treatise
(Appendix xii. p. 796). They occur both in Sanskrit and Pâli.

151 Niraya, the hells, also called Naraka. Yamaloka, the realm of Yama,
the judge of the dead, is explained as the four Apâyas—_i. e._
Naraka, hell, Tiryagyoni, birth as animals, Pretaloka, realm of the
dead, Asuraloka, realm of evil spirits. The three terms which are
here used together occur likewise in a passage translated by
Burnouf, _Introduction_, p. 544.

152 Iti sankhyâ_m_ ga_kkh_anti, they are called; _cf._ Childers, _s. v._
sankhyâ. Asankhyeya, even more than aprameya, is the recognized term
for infinity. Burnouf, _Lotus_, p. 852.

153 Avaramâtraka. This is the Pâli oramattako, “belonging merely to the
present life,” and the intention of the writer seems to be to
inculcate the doctrine of the Mahâyâna, that salvation can be
obtained by mere repetitions of the name of Amitâbha, in direct
opposition to the original doctrine of Buddha, that as a man soweth,
so he reapeth. Buddha would have taught that the ku_s_alamûla, the
root or the stock of good works performed in this world
(avaramâtraka), will bear fruit in the next, while here “vain
repetitions” seems all that is enjoined. The Chinese translators
take a different view of this passage, and I am not myself quite
certain that I have understood it rightly. But from the end of this
section, where we read kulaputre_n_a vâ kuladuhitrâ vâ tatra
buddhakshetre _k_ittaprâ_n_idhâna_m_ kartavyam, it seems clear that
the locative (buddhakshetre) forms the object of the pra_n_idhâna,
the fervent prayer or longing. The Satpurushas already in the
Buddhakshetra would be the innumerable men (manushyâs) and
Boddhisattvas mentioned before.

154 Arthavasa, lit. the power of the thing; _cf._ Dhammapada, p. 388,
_v._ 289.

155 I am not quite certain as to the meaning of this passage, but if we
enter into the bold metaphor of the text, viz., that the Buddhas
cover the Buddha-countries with the organ of their tongue and then
unroll it, what is intended can hardly be anything but that they
first try to find words for the excellences of those countries, and
then reveal or proclaim them. Burnouf, however (_Lotus_, p. 417),
takes the expression in a literal sense, though he is shocked by its
grotesqueness. On these Buddhas and their countries, see Burnouf,
_Lotus_, p. 113.

156 It should be remarked that the Tathâgatas here assigned to the ten
quarters differ entirely from those assigned to them in the
Lalita-vistara, book xx. Not even Amitâbha is mentioned there.

157 Pratîyatha. The texts give again and again pattîyatha, evidently the
Pâli form, instead of pratîyata. I have left tha, the Pâli
termination of the 2 p. pl. in the imperative, instead of ta,
because that form was clearly intended, while pa for pra may be an
accident. Yet I have little doubt that patîyatha was in the original
text. That it is meant for the imperative, we see from
_s_raddadhâdhvam, etc., farther on. Other traces of the influence of
Pâli or Prakrit on the Sanskrit of our Sûtra appear in arhantai_h_,
the various reading for arhadbhi_h_, which I preferred; sambahula
for bahula; dh_ri_yate yâpayati; purobhaktena; anyatra; saṅkhyâm
ga_kkh_anti; avaramâtraka; ve_th_ana instead of vesh_t_ana, in
nirve_th_ana; dharmaparyâya (_Corp. Inscript._ plate XV.), etc.

158 The Sukhavatîvyûha, even in its shortest text, is called a
Mahâyâna-sûtra, nor is there any reason why a Mahâyâna-sûtra should
not be short. The meaning of Mahâyâna-sûtra is simply a Sûtra
belonging to the Mahâyâna school, the school of the Great Boat. It
was Burnouf who, in his _Introduction to the History of Buddhism_,
tried very hard to establish a distinction between the Vaipulya or
developed Sûtras, and what he calls the simple Sûtras. Now, the
Vaipulya Sûtras may all belong to the Mahâyâna school, but that
would not prove that all the Sûtras of the Mahâyâna school are
Vaipulya or developed Sûtras. The name of simple Sûtra, in
opposition to the Vaipulya or developed Sûtras, is not recognized by
the Buddhists themselves; it is really an invention of Burnouf’s. No
doubt there is a great difference between a Vaipulya Sûtra, such as
the Lotus of the Good Law, translated by Burnouf, and the Sûtras
which Burnouf translated from the Divyâvadâna. But what Burnouf
considers as the distinguishing mark of a Vaipulya Sûtra, viz. the
occurrence of Bodhisattvas, as followers of the Buddha _S_âkyamuni,
would no longer seem to be tenable (“Les présence des Bodhisattûvas
ou leur absence intéresse done le fonds même des livres où on la
remarque, et il est bien évident que ce seul point trace une ligno
de démarcation profonde entre les Sûtras ordinaires et les Sûtras
développés.” Burnouf. _Introduction_, p. 112.), unless we classed
our short Sukhavatî-vyûha as a Vaipulya or developed Sûtra. For this
there is no authority. Our Sûtra is called a Mahâyâna Sutra, never a
Vaipulya Sûtra, and yet among the followers of Buddha, the
Bodhisattvas constitute a very considerable portion. But more than
that, Amitâbha, the Buddha of Sukhavatî, another personage whom
Burnouf looks upon as peculiar to the Vaipulya Sûtras, who is, in
fact, one of the Dhyâni-buddhas, though not called by that name in
our Sûtra, forms the chief object of its teaching, and is
represented as coeval with Buddha _S_âkyamuni. (“L’idée d’un ou de
plusieurs Buddhas surhumains, celle de Bodhisattvas créés par eux,
sont des conceptions aussi étrangères á ces livres (les Sûtras
simples) que celle d’un Adibuddha ou d’un Dieu.”—Burnouf,
_Introduction_, p. 120.) The larger text of the Sukhavatîvyûha would
certainly, according to Burnouf’s definition, seem to fall into the
category of the Vaipulya Sûtras. But it is not so called in the MSS.
which I have seen, and Burnouf himself gives an analysis of that
Sûtra (_Introduction_, p. 99) as a specimen of a Mahâyâna, but not
of a Vaipulya Sûtra.

159 See H. Yule, _Marco Polo_, 2d ed. vol. i. pp. 441-443.

160 In China, as Dr. Edkins states, the doctrine of Amitâbha is
represented by the so-called Lotus school (Lian-tsung) or Pure Land
(Tsing-tu). The founder of this school in China was Hwei-yuan of the
Tsin dynasty (fourth century). The second patriarch (tsu) of this
school was Kwang-ming (seventh century).

161 See page 191.