Chapter V: On Sanskrit Texts Discovered in Japan (1)

Read At The Meeting Of The Royal Asiatic Society, February 16, 1880.

It is probably in the recollection of some of the senior members of this Society how wide and deep an interest was excited in the year 1853 by the publication of Stanislas Julien’s translation of the “Life and Travels of Hiouen-thsang.” The account given by an eye-witness of the religious, social, political, and literary state of India at the beginning of the seventh century of our era was like a rocket, carrying a rope to a whole crew of struggling scholars, on the point of being drowned in the sea of Indian chronology; and the rope was eagerly grasped by all, whether their special object was the history of Indian religion, or the history of Indian literature, architecture, or politics. While many books on Indian literature, published five-and-twenty years ago, are now put aside and forgotten, Julien’s three volumes of Hiouen-thsang still maintain a fresh interest, and supply new subjects for discussion, as may be seen even in the last number of the Journal of your Society.

I had the honor and pleasure of working with Stanislas Julien, when he was compiling those large lists of Sanskrit and Chinese words which formed the foundation of his translation of Hiouen-thsang, and enabled him in his classical work, the “Méthode pour déchiffrer et transcrire les noms Sanskrits” (1861), to solve a riddle which had puzzled Oriental scholars for a long time—viz., how it happened that the original Sanskrit names had been so completely disguised and rendered almost unrecognizable in the Chinese translations of Sanskrit texts, and how they could be restored to their original form.

I had likewise the honor and pleasure of working with your late President, Professor H. H. Wilson, when, after reading Julien’s works, he conceived the idea that some of the original Sanskrit texts of which the Chinese translations had been recovered might still be found in the monasteries of China. His influential position as President of your Society, and his personal relations with Sir John Bowring, then English Resident in China, enabled him to set in motion a powerful machinery for attaining his object; and if you look back some five-and-twenty years, you will find in your Journal a full account of the correspondence that passed between Professor Wilson, Sir J. Bowring, and Dr. Edkins, on the search after Sanskrit MSS. in the temples or monasteries of China.

On February 15, 1854, Professor Wilson writes from Oxford to Sir John Bowring:—

“I send you herewith a list of the Sanskrit works carried to China by Hwen Tsang in the middle of the seventh century, and in great part translated by him, or under his supervision, into Chinese. If any of them, _especially the originals_, should be still in existence, you would do good service to Sanskrit literature and to the history of Buddhism by procuring copies.”

_Chinese Translators of Sanskrit Texts._

It is a well-known fact that, even long before the time of Hiouen-thsang—that is, long before the seventh century of our era—large numbers of Sanskrit MSS. had been exported to China. These literary exportations began as early as the first century A. D. When we read for the first time of commissioners being sent to India by Ming-ti, the Emperor of China, the second sovereign of the Eastern Han dynasty, about 62 or 65 A. D., we are told that they returned to China with a white horse, carrying books and images.(72) And the account proceeds to state that “these books still remain, and are reverenced and worshipped.”

From that time, when Buddhism was first officially recognized in China,(73) there is an almost unbroken succession of importers and translators of Buddhist, in some cases of Brahmanic texts also, till we come to the two famous expeditions, the one undertaken by Fa-hian in 400-415, the other by Hiouen-thsang, 629-645 A. D. Fa-hian’s Travels were translated into French by Abel Rémusat (1836), into English by Mr. Beal (1869). Hiouen-thsang’s Travels are well known through Stanislas Julien’s admirable translation. Of Hiouen-thsang we are told that he brought back from India no less than 520 fasciculi, or 657 separate works, which had to be carried by twenty-two horses.(74) He translated, or had translated, 740 works, forming 1,335 fasciculi.

I say nothing of earlier traces of Buddhism which are supposed to occur in Chinese books. Whatever they may amount to, we look in vain in them for evidence of any Chinese translations of Buddhist books before the time of the Emperor Ming-ti; and what concerns us at present is, not the existence or the spreading of Buddhism towards the north and east long before the beginning of the Christian era, but the existence of Buddhist books, so far as it can be proved at that time by the existence of Chinese translations the date of which can be fixed with sufficient certainty.

In the following remarks on the history of these translations I have had the great advantage of being able to use the Annals of the Sui Dynasty (589-618), kindly translated for me by Professor Legge. In China the history of each dynasty was written under the succeeding dynasty from documents which may be supposed to be contemporaneous with the events they relate. The account given in the Sui Chronicles of the introduction of Buddhism and Buddhist works into China is said to be the best general account to be found in early Chinese literature, and the facts here stated may be looked upon as far more trustworthy than the notices hitherto relied upon, and collected from Chinese writers of different dates and different localities. I have also had the assistance of Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, who compared the names of the translators mentioned in the Sui Annals with the names as given in the K’ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu (Catalogue of the Buddhist books compiled in the period K’ai-yuen [A. D. 713-741]); and though there still remain some doubtful points, we may rest assured that the dates assigned to the principal Chinese translators and their works can be depended on as historically trustworthy.

With regard to the period anterior to Ming-ti, the Sui Chronicles tell us that after an investigation of the records, it was known that Buddhism had not been brought to China previously to the Han dynasty (began 206 B. C.), though some say that it had long been spread abroad, but had disappeared again in the time of the _Kh_in(75) (221-206 B. C.). Afterwards, however, when _K_ang-_kh_ien was sent on a mission to the regions of the West (about 130 B. C.), he is supposed to have become acquainted with the religion of Buddha. He was made prisoner by the Hiungnu (Huns),(76) and, being kept by them for ten years, he may well have acquired during his captivity some knowledge of Buddhism, which at a very early time had spread from Cabul(77) towards the north and the east.

In the time of the Emperor Âi (B. C. 6-2) we read that _Kh_in-_k_ing caused I-tsun to teach the Buddhist Sûtras orally, but that the people gave no credence to them. All this seems to rest on semi-historical evidence only.

The first official recognition of Buddhism in China dates from the reign of the Emperor Ming-ti, and the following account, though not altogether free from a legendary coloring, is generally accepted as authentic by Chinese scholars: “The Emperor Ming-ti, of the After Han dynasty (58-75 A. D.), dreamt that a man of metal (or golden color) was flying and walking in a courtyard of the palace. When he told his dream in the Court, Fu-î said that the figure was that of Buddha. On this the Emperor sent the gentleman-usher Tsâi-yin and _Kh_in-_k_ing (who must then have been growing old) both to the country of the great Yueh-_k_i(78) and to India, in order to seek for such an image.”

An earlier account of the same event is to be found in the Annals of the After (or Eastern) Han dynasty (25-120 A. D.). These annals were compiled by Fan-yeh, who was afterwards condemned to death as a rebel (445 A. D.). Here we read(79) (vol. 88, fol. 8 a _seq._): “There is a tradition that the Emperor Ming-ti (58-75 A. D.) dreamt that there was a giant-like man of golden color,(80) whose head was refulgent. The Emperor wanted his retainers to interpret it. Then some said, ‘There is a god (or spirit) in the West who is called Fo, whose height is sixteen feet, and of golden color.’ Having heard this, the Emperor at once sent messengers to Tien-_k_u (_i. e._ India), to inquire after the doctrine of Buddha. Subsequently, copies of the image of Buddha were drawn in the middle country (_i. e._ China).”

The emissaries whom the Emperor Ming-ti had sent to India obtained a Buddhist Sûtra in forty-two sections, and an image of Buddha, with which and the Shâmans Kâ_s_yapa Mâtaṅga and _K_û-fa-lan, they returned to the East. When Tsâi-yin approached (the capital), he caused the book to be borne on a white horse, and on this account the monastery of the White Horse was built on the west of the Yung gate of the city of Lo to lodge it. The classic was tied up and placed in the stone house of the Lan tower, and, moreover, pictures of the image were drawn and kept in the _Kh_ing-yüan tower, and at the top of the Hsien-_k_ieh hill.

Here we seem to be on _terra firma_, for some of the literary works by Kâsyapa Mâtaṅga and _K_û-fa-lan are still in existence. Kâsyapa Mâtaṅga (or, it may be, Kâsya Mâtaṅga(81)) is clearly a Sanskrit name. Mâtaṅga, though the name of a _K_andâla or low-caste man, might well be borne by a Buddhist priest.(82) The name of _K_û-fa-lan, however, is more difficult. Chinese scholars declare that it can only be a Chinese name,(83) yet if _K_û-fa-lan came from India with _K_âsyapa, we should expect that he too bore a Sanskrit name. In that case, _K_û might be taken as the last character of Tien-_k_û, India, which character is prefixed to the names of other Indian priests living in China. His name would be Fâ-lan, _i. e._ Dharma + x, whatever lan may signify, perhaps padma, lotus.(84)

M. Feer,(85) calls him Gobhara_n_a, without, however, giving his authority for such a name. The Sutra of the forty-two sections exists in Chinese, but neither in Sanskrit nor in Pâli, and many difficulties would be removed if we admitted, with M. Feer, that this so-called Sûtra of the forty-two sections was really the work of Kâ_s_yapa and _K_û-fa-lan, who considered such an epitome of Buddhist doctrines, based chiefly on original texts, useful for their new converts in China.

It is curious that the Sui Annals speak here of no other literary work due to Kâ_s_yapa and _K_û-fa-lan, though they afterwards mention the Shih-_k_u _S_ûtra by _K_û-fa-lan as a work almost unintelligible. In the Fan-i-ming-i-tsi (vol. iii. fol. 4 b), mention is made of five Sûtras, translated by _K_û-fa-lan alone, after Kâ_s_yapa’s death. In the K’ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu catalogue of the Buddhist books, compiled in the period K’ai-yuen (713-741 A. D.), vol. i. fol. 6, four Sûtras only are ascribed to _K_û-fa-lan:—

1. The Da_s_abhûmi, called the Sûtra on the destruction of the causes of perplexity in the ten stations; 70 A. D. This is the Shi-_k_û Sûtra.

2. The Sûtra of the treasure of the sea of the law (Dharma-samudra-kosha?).

3. The Sûtra of the original conduct of Buddha (Fo-pen-hing-king); 68 A. D. (taken by Julien for a translation of the Lalita-vistara).

4. The Sûtra of the original birth of Buddha (_G_âtaka).

The compiler of the catalogue adds that these translations have long been lost.

The next patron of Buddhism was Ying, the King of _Kh_û, at the time of the Emperor _K_ang, his father (76-88). Many Shâmans, it is said, came to China then from the Western regions, bringing Buddhist Sûtras. Some of these translations, however, proved unintelligible.

During the reign of the Emperor Hwan (147-167), An-shi-kao (usually called An-shing), a Shâman of An-hsi,(86) brought classical books to Lo, and translated them. This is evidently the same translator of whom Mr. Beal (“J. R. A. S.” 1856, pp. 327, 332) speaks as a native of Eastern Persia or Parthia, and whose name Mr. Wylie wished to identify with Arsak. As An-shi-kao is reported to have been a royal prince, who made himself a mendicant and travelled as far as China, Mr. Wylie supposes that he was the son of one of the Arsacidæ, Kings of Persia. Mr. Beal on the contrary, takes the name to be a corruption of A_s_vaka or Assaka—_i. e._ Ἱππάσιοι.(87)

Under the Emperor Ling, 168-189 A. D., _K_i-_kh_an (or _K_i-tsin), a Shâman from the Yueh-_k_i (called _K_i-lau-kia-_k_uai by Beal), _K_û-fo-soh (Ta-fo-sa), an Indian Shâman, and others, worked together to produce a translation of the Nirvâ_n_a-sûtra, in two sections. The K’ai-yuen-lu ascribes twenty-three works to _K_i-_kh_an, and two Sûtras to _K_û-fo-soh.

Towards the end of the Han dynasty, _K_u-yung, the grand guardian, was a follower of Buddha.

In the time of the Three Kingdoms (220-264) Khang-sang-hui, a Shâman of the Western regions, came to Wû(88) with Sûtras and translated them. Sun-_kh_üan, the sovereign, believed in Buddhism. About the same time Khang-sang-khai translated the longer text of the Sukhavatîvyûha.

In Wei,(89) during the period Hwang-_kh_u (220-226) the Chinese first observed the Buddhist precepts, shaved their heads, and became Sang—_i. e._ monks.

Even before this, a Shâman of the Western regions had come here and translated the Hsiâo-pin Sûtra—_i. e._ the Sûtra of Smaller Matters (Khudda-kanikâya?)—but the head and tail of it were contradictory, so that it could not be understood.

In the period Kan-lû (256-259), _K_û-shi-hsing (Chu-shuh-lan, in Beal’s “Catalogue”) went to the West as far as Khoten, and obtained a Sûtra in ninety sections, with which he came back to Yéh, in the Tsin period of Yüen-khang (291-299), and translated it (with Dharmaraksha) under the title of “Light-emitting Pra_gn_â-pâramitâ Sûtra.”(90)

In the period Thai-shi (265-274), under the Western Tsin (265-316), Kû-fâ-hu(91) (Dharmaraksha), a Shâman of the Yüeh-_k_i, travelled through the various kingdoms of the West, and brought a large collection of books home to Lo, where he translated them. It is stated in the Catalogue of the Great _K_au, an interlude in the dynasty of Thang (690-705 A. D.), that in the seventh year of the period Thai-khang (286) he translated _K_ing-fa-hwa—_i. e._ the Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 14).(92)

About 300 A. D. _K_i-kung-ming translated the Wei-ma (Vimala-kîrtti) and Fa-hwa (Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka).(93)

In 335 the prince of the _Kh_au kingdom (during the Tsin dynasty) permitted his subjects to become Shâmans, influenced chiefly by Buddhasi_m_ha.(94)

In the time of the rebel Shih-leh, 330-333, during the Tsin dynasty, a Shâman Wei-tao-an, or Tao-an, of _Kh_ang-shan, studied Buddhist literature under Buddhasi_m_ha. He produced a more correct translation of the Vimala-kîrtti-sûtra (and Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka), and taught it widely; but as he was not an original translator, his name is not mentioned in the K’ai-yuen-lu. On account of political troubles, Tâo-an led his disciples southward, to Hsin-ye, and dispatched them to different quarters—Fâ-shang to Yang-_k_âu, Fâ-hwa to Shû—while he himself, with Wei-yüan, went to Hsiang-yang and _Kh_ang-an. Here Fu-_kh_ien, the sovereign of the Fûs, who about 350 had got possession of _Kh_ang-an, resisting the authority of the Tsin, and establishing the dynasty of the Former _Kh_in, received him with distinction. It was at the wish of Tâo-an that Fu-_kh_ien invited Kumâra_g_îva to _Kh_ang-an; but when, after a long delay, Kumâra_g_îva arrived there, in the second year of the period Hung-shi (400 A. D.), under Yâo-hsing, who, in 394, had succeeded Yâo-_kh_ang,(95) the founder of the After _Kh_in dynasty, Tâo-an had been dead already twenty years. His corrected translations, however, were approved by Kumâra_g_îva.

This Kumâra_g_îva marks a new period of great activity in the translation of Buddhist texts. He is said to have come from Ku-tsi, in Tibet, where the Emperor Yâo-hsing (397-415) sent for him. Among his translations are mentioned the Wei-ma or Vima-la-kîrtti-sûtra (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 17); the Saddharma-pu_nd_arîka (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 15); the Satyasiddha-vyâkara_n_a _s_âstra (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 80). He was a contemporary of the great traveller, Fa-hian, who went from _Kh_ang-an to India, travelled through more than thirty states, and came back to Nanking in 414, to find the Emperor Yâo-hsing overturned by the Eastern Tsin dynasty. He was accompanied by the Indian contemplationist, Buddha-bhadra.(96) Buddhabhadra translated the Fa-yan-king, the Buddhâvata_m_saka-vaipulya-sûtra (Beal’s “Catalogue,” p. 9), and he and Fa-hian together, the Mo-ho-sang-_k_i-liu—_i. e._ the Vinaya of the Mahâsaṅghika school (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 68).

Another Shâman who travelled to India about the same time was _K_i-mang, of Hsin-fang, a district city of Kâo-_kh_ang. In 419, in the period Yüan-hsi, he went as far as Pâ_t_ali-putra, where he obtained the Nirva_n_a-sûtra, and the Saṅghika, a book of discipline.(97) After his return to Kâo-_kh_ang he translated the Nirvâ_n_a-sûtra in twenty sections.

Afterwards the Indian Shâman Dharmaraksha II.(98) brought other copies of the foreign MSS. to the West of the Ho. And Tsü-_kh_ü Mung-sun, the king of North Liang, sent messengers to Kâo-_kh_ang for the copy which _K_i-mang had brought, wishing to compare the two.(99)

When _K_i-mang’s copy arrived,(100) a translation was made of it in thirty sections. Dharmaraksha II. translated the Suvar_n_a-prabhâsa and the Nirvâ_n_a-Sutrâ, 416-423 A. D. The K’ai-yuen-lu ascribes nineteen works to Dharmalatsin in 131 fascicles.

Buddhism from that time spread very rapidly in China, and the translations became too numerous to be all mentioned.

The Mahâyâna school was represented at that time chiefly by the following translations:—

Translated by Kumâra_g_îva:
The Vimalakîrtti-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 17.
The Saddharmapun_nd_arika-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 15)
The Satyasiddhavyâkara_n_a-_s_âstra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 80)

Translated by Dharmalatsin, or Dharmaraksha II.:
The Suvar_n_aprabhâsa-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue,” p. 15)
The Nirvâ_n_a-sûtra (Beal, “Catalogue.” p. 12)

The Hînayâna school was represented by—

The Sarvâstivâda-vinaya by Kumâra_g_îva (Beal, “Catalogue,” pp.
67, 68).

The Dîrghâgama-sûtra, by Buddhaya_s_as, 410 A. D. (Beal,
“Catalogue,” p. 36).

The Vinaya of the four Parts, by Buddhaya_s_as.(101)

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.

TRANSLATION.

_Adoration to the Omniscient._

This is what I have heard. At one time the Blessed (Bhagavat, _i. e._ Buddha) dwelt at _S_râvastî,(135) in the _G_eta-grove, in the garden of Anâthapi_nd_aka, together with(136) a large company of Bhikshus (mendicant friars), viz. with thirteen hundred Bhikshus, all of them acquainted with the five kinds of knowledge,(137) elders, great disciples,(138) and Arhats,(139) such as _S_âriputra, the elder, Mahâmaudgalyâyana, Mahâkâ_s_yapa, Mahâkapphi_n_a, Mahâkâtyâyana, Mahâkaush_th_ila, Revata, _S_uddhipanthaka, Nanda, Ânanda, Râhula, Gavâmpati, Bharadvâ_g_a, Kâlodayin, Vakkula, and Aniruddha. He dwelt together with these and many other great disciples, and together with many noble-minded Bodhisattvas, such as Ma_ñg_usrî, the prince, the Bodhisattva A_g_ita, the Bodhisattva Gandhahastin, the Bodhisattva Nityodyukta, the Bodhisattva Anikshiptadhura. He dwelt together with them and many other noble-minded Bodhisattvas, and with _S_akra, the Indra or King(140) of the Devas, and with Brahman Sahâmpati. With these and many other hundred thousands of Nayutas(141) of sons of the gods, Bhagavat dwelt at _S_râvastî.

Then Bhagavat addressed the honored _S_âriputra and said: O _S_âriputra, after you have passed from here over a hundred thousand Ko_t_is of Buddha-countries there is in the Western part of a Buddha-country, a world called Sukhavatî (the happy country). And there a Tathâgata, called Amitâyus, an Arhat, fully enlightened, dwells now, and remains, and supports himself, and teaches the Law.(142)

Now what do you think, _S_riputra, for what reason is that world called Sukhavatî (the happy)? In that world Sukhavatî, O _S_riputra, there is neither bodily nor mental pain for living beings. The sources of happiness are innumerable there. For that reason is that world called Sukhavatî (the happy).

And again, O _S_âriputra, that world Sukhavatî is adorned with seven terraces, with seven rows of palm-trees, and with strings of bells.(143) It is inclosed on every side,(144) beautiful, brilliant with the four gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, and crystal. With such arrays of excellences peculiar to a Buddha-country is that Buddha-country adorned.

And again, O _S_âriputra, in that world Sukhavatî there are lotus lakes, adorned with the seven gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, crystal, red pearls, diamonds, and corals as the seventh. They are full of water which possesses the eight good qualities,(145) their waters rise as high as the fords and bathing-places, so that even crows(146) may drink there; they are full of golden sand, and of vast extent. And in these lotus lakes there are all around on the four sides four stairs, beautiful and brilliant with the four gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, crystal. And on every side of these lotus lakes gem trees are growing, beautiful and brilliant with the seven gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, crystal, red pearls, diamonds, and corals as the seventh. And in those lotus lakes lotus flowers are growing, blue, blue-colored, of blue splendor, blue to behold; yellow, yellow-colored, of yellow splendor, yellow to behold; red, red-colored, of red splendor, red to behold; white, white-colored, of white splendor, white to behold; beautiful, beautifully-colored, of beautiful splendor, beautiful to behold, and in circumference as large as the wheel of a chariot.

And again, O _S_âriputra, in that Buddha-country there are heavenly musical instruments always played on and the earth is lovely and of golden color. And in that Buddha-country a flower-rain of heavenly Mândârava blossoms pours down three times every day, and three times every night. And the beings who are born there worship before their morning meal(147) a hundred thousand Ko_t_is of Buddhas by going to other worlds; and having showered a hundred thousand of Ko_t_is of flowers upon each Tathâgata, they return to their own world in time for the afternoon rest.(148) With such arrays of excellences peculiar to a Buddha-country is that Buddha-country adorned.

And again, O _S_âriputra, there are in that Buddha-country swans, curlews,(149) and peacocks. Three times every night, and three times every day, they come together and perform a concert, each uttering his own note. And from them thus uttering proceeds a sound proclaiming the five virtues, the five powers, and the seven steps leading towards the highest knowledge.(150) When the men there hear that sound, remembrance of Buddha, remembrance of the Law, remembrance of the Assembly, rises in their mind.

Now, do you think, O _S_âriputra, that these are beings who have entered into the nature of animals (birds, etc.)? This is not to be thought of. The very name of hells is unknown in that Buddha-country, and likewise that of (descent into) animal natures and of the realm of Yama (the four apâyas).(151) No, these tribes of birds have been made on purpose by the Tathâgata Amitâyus, and they utter the sound of the Law. With such arrays of excellences, etc.

And again, O _S_âriputra, when those rows of palm-trees and strings of bells in that Buddha-country are moved by the wind, a sweet and enrapturing sound proceeds from them. Yes, O _S_âriputra, as from a heavenly musical instrument consisting of a hundred thousand Ko_t_is of sounds, when played by Âryas, a sweet and enrapturing sound proceeds, a sweet and enrapturing sound proceeds from those rows of palm-trees and strings of bells moved by the wind. And when the men hear that sound, reflection on Buddha arises in their body, reflection on the Law, reflection on the Assembly. With such arrays of excellences, etc.

Now what do you think, O _S_âriputra, for what reason is that Tathâgata called Amitâyus? The length of life (âyus), O _S_âriputra, of that Tathâgata and of those men there is immeasurable (amita). Therefore is that Tathâgata called Amitâyus. And ten Kalpas have passed, O _S_âriputra, since that Tathâgata awoke to perfect knowledge.

And what do you think, O _S_âriputra, for what reason is that Tathâgata called Amitâbhâs? The splendor (âbhâs), O _S_âriputra, of that Tathâgata is unimpeded over all Buddha-countries. Therefore is that Tathâgata called Amitâbhâs.

And there is, O _S_âriputra, an innumerable assembly of disciples with that Tathâgata, purified and venerable persons, whose number it is not easy to count. With such arrays of excellences, etc.

And again, O _S_âriputra, of those beings also who are born in the Buddha-country of the Tathâgata Amitâyus as purified Bodhisattvas, never to return again and bound by one birth only, of those Bodhisattvas also, O _S_âriputra, the number is not easy to count, except they are reckoned as infinite in number.(152)