Fa Hsien And Buddhist Texts In Ceylon

Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269640/1

Page #1
FA-HSIEN AND BUDDHIST TEXTS IN CEYLON In his Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon (2nd ed., Colombo, 1953, pp.94-5) E.W. Adikaram wrote: When Fa Hien left Ceylon he took with him a copy of the Vinaya Pitaka of the Mahisasaka School, the Dirghagama and the Samyuktagama (sutras) and also the Samyuktasanchaya-pitaka, all written in Sanskrit.' In a recent article K.R. Norman has pointed out that the word fan, as used by Fa-hsien himself, means 'Indian (language)' and that without further evidence there is no way of saying whether the language was Skt, Pkt, or Pali.' The only further evidence available is to be found in the Chinese translations of the Indian texts which Fa-hsien brought back to China. The dates of the birth and death of Fa-hsien are not known; and although he himself wrote an account of his travels, their exact chronology cannot be established (Demieville, 1953, pp. 402-3). According to his account he remained in Ceylon for two years (Legge, p. 111; Giles, 1923, p. 76), probably in the years 410-11. During his stay he obtained copies of the Vinaya of the Mahisasakas, the DTrghagama, the Samyuktagama and the 'Miscellaneous pitaka' (tsa-tsang, T.2085, p.865c24-25). Of these four texts the Tsa-tsang was translated by Fa-hsien himself (1.745). According to the oldest existing catalogue of Chinese translations, the Ch'u san-tsang chi chi (T.2145, p.12a2), compiled by Seng-yu (+ 518) at the beginning of the sixth century, the title is Miscellaneous pitaka' sutra' (tsa-tsang ching). It is published under this title in the Taisho edition of the Chinese canon, but it is probable that ching is a later addition. It is not possible to know the Sanskrit title. Different Sanskrit titles have been reconstructed as Samyuktasancayapitaka (Legge), Samyuktapitaka (Nanjio, no. 676; Kolmas, p. 95) and Ksudrakasutra (Repertoire du canon bouddhique sino-japonais, Paris-Tokyo, 1978, p. 72). Tsa is used to render both samyukta and ksudraka and it is possible that this text is a part of a Ksudrakapitaka.? The Tsa-tsang ching occupies less than four pages in the Taisho edition (vol. 17, pp.557b-560b). The first part tells how Maudgalyayana sees five hundred pretas on the bank of the 105

Page #2
106 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon Ganges. They ask him why they are undergoing such punishment. Seventeen pretas relate their sufferings and to each of them Maudgalyayana explains which sins he has committed in his previous life. Thereupon Maudgalyayana sees a devakanya sitting on a lotus a hundred yojanas long and wide. She tells Maudgalyayana that she was rewarded in this way for honouring a statue of Buddha Kasyapa with flowers. The following story tells how a servant washes Sariputra's clothes in the Mango park (Amrapali. vana?). He dies the same night and is reborn in the heaven of the Thirty-three gods. Indra sees this, goes to Sariputra and honours him with flowers. Sariputra teaches him the dharma and Indra obtains the state of srota-apanna. The next story concerns Maudgalyayana. He sees a divine being whose body is immense. His hands are of golden colour and amata drips from his fingers. He tells Maudgalyayana that he is a great divine being and resides in the capital of the kingdom. In his former life he was a poor woman in the same capital Lo-lou(a). (La-ljiu). A sramanabrahmana who was begging for food asked her how to find the house of a certain rich glhapati. She warned him that noon had passed and that therefore he could no longer ask for food.. The second part of the Tsa-tsang tells the story of king Udayana of the kingdom of Avanti (!). The queen "Light of the moon' (Candraprabha?) enters the religious life and obtains the state of anagamin. She dies in a village and is reborn in the rupadhatu heaven. At night she appears before the king in the form of a raksasa and explains that she is his former wife. She exhorts the king to enter the religious life. The king entrusts himself to Katyayana and enters the religious life. He goes to Rajagsha and has a conversation with king Bimbisara. He preaches the dharma to him and Bimbisara departs. Then the text continues abruptly with a question about the merit of exercising for one day and night, or seven days or one's whole life, the three matters (vastu?) of a bodhisattva. The text does not explain who puts the question or who replies, the reply being that only the Buddha can answer this question. Then somebody tells the story of the king of the kingdom of the Yueh-chih who wanted to build thirty-two stupas. When the king had built thirty-one stupas a bad man touched (insulted?) him. The king thought: 'How.can this bad man be converted?' He gave up samsara and directed himself

Page #3
Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon 107 towards nirvana. He built the thirty-second stupa and became an arhat. The text continues: 'Therefore this monastery is called Pratimoksa (a gloss adds: in Chinese giving up samsara'). Since then not yet two hundred years have passed. This monastery still exists. I also saw it. In all monasteries there are beautiful statues'. The text continues by relating how, after the death of the king, a man obtained the fruit of a mango tree. He wondered how much merit could be obtained by offering the fruit to a statue of the Buddha Sakyamuni. He put this question to three different holy men, who declared themselves incapable of answering his question. He then went to the Tusita heaven and put this question to Maitreya, who told him to wait until he had become a Buddha. Here the text ends abruptly. It is not possible to know whether the Tsa-tsang reproduces faithfully the manuscript brought back by Fa-hsien or if the Chinese translation has been badly preserved in China. The stories told by the seventeen pretas may have been part of a Pretavastu ,and this probably explains the title Ksudrakapitaka. *The story of king Udayana does not seem to occur elsewhere. The remaining part of the text is in a rather chaotic state, but the stories relating to the king of the Yueh-chih kingdom and the visit to Maitreya are quite interesting. In any case, there is no reason to doubt that this text was brought back from Ceylon by Fa-hsien and translated by him. The Tsa-tsang contains only very few transliterations. Since almost all of them were in common use in Chinese translations of the fourth and fifth centuries, it is not possible to determine the language of the manuscript itself. The manuscript of the Dirghagama which was brought back by Fa-hsien was not translated. This was probably due to the fact that in 413 a translation of the DTrghagama of the Dharmaguptakas was published by Buddhayasas, a monk from Kashmir (T.1). Waldschmidt, Bailey and Brough have studied the Chinese transliterations found in this text and pointed out a number of agreements with the language of the Gandhari Dharmapada.* Chinese sources do not give any information about the manuscript of the Dirghagama brought back by Fa-hsien. It probably belonged to another school, but apparently the Chinese did not see any need for yet another Dirghagama translation.

Page #4
108 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon According to the Kao-seng chuan (Shih, p. 150) and the Ch'u san-tsang chi chi (T. 2145, p. 105c) the Samyuktagama (T. 99) was one of the first texts translated by Gunabhadra, a monk from Central India who arrived in Canton in 435. According to the Li-tai san-pao chi, a catalogue compiled by Fei Ch'ang-fang in 597, the manuscript translated by Gunabhadra was brought back by Fa-hsien (T. 2034, p. 91a). Fei Ch'ang-fang's source is the Sung Ch'i lu, a catalogue of translations made during the Sung and Ch'i dynasties (420-502), which was compiled by. Chih Tao-hui (451-481) shortly before his death. The Li-tai san-pao chi refers several times to this catalogue (e.g. pp.85a, 85b, 89b, 89c, 91a, 95b and 95c) and there is no valid reason to doubt the information from it that is given by Fei Ch'ang-fang. The fact that the Ch'u san-tsang chi chi does not say that Gunabhadra translated a manuscript brought back by Fa-hsien does not prove the untruthfulness of the Sung Ch'i lu." In a later article Demieville wrote that the manuscript of the Samyuktagama was brought back either by Fa-hsien or by Gunabhadra himself (Demieville, 1953, p. 418) but he made no mention of the reference to the Sung Ch'i lu (cf. n.5). However, even if the manuscript translated was not the one brought back by Fa-hsien, it is still possible that Gunabhadra brought it back from Ceylon because his biography mentions that he visited Ceylon (Shih, p.149). The Chinese transliterations of Indian words in this version of the Samyuktagama are undoubtedly based upon Sanskrit originals. It is of course not surprising to find in a translation dating from about 440 many transliterations which had been in common use for rendering well-known Indian names. However, it also contains many transliterations of less common names which are not to be found elsewhere. The following examples, to which many others could be added, clearly point to a Sanskrit original: a-ch'ilgʻyi)-ni-tal d'at)-tol ta)(b) = Agnidatta (p. 178a4); a-t'i-mu( miuk)-ta(c) = atimuktal ka) (p. 31729); a-li-sossiet)-cha It'ia)(d) = Arista (p. 206b27); an-chia (gʻjịa)-t'o(da)(e) = Angada (p. 179c5); i-shih(si@p)-polpua)-lo(la)(f) = Isvara (p. 236a23); yulju@t)-ta( tan)-la-t'il dʻiäi)-shelsia)) = Uttaradesa (p. 133b12); chial g'jia)-na-chial g'jia )-mous mou)-ni(h) = Kanakamuni (p.10165); shih(si)-li-shalsia)(i) = Sairisaka (p. 16965); mi-ch'ih (t'i)-lo(la)0) = Mithila (p. 317b20); po( pua)-chal t'ia)-li-fu( pjuot)-ta-lo(la)(k) = Pataliputra (p.59b17).

Page #5
Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon : 109 In 1904 Pischel published several Sanskrit fragments of a manuscript of a Samyuktagama and in the same year Sylvain Levi showed that they corresponded to the Chinese translation of the Samyuktagama by Gunabhadra.? Many other Sanskrit fragments of the Samyuktagama have been published since, and in most cases a corresponding text has been found in Gunabhadra's translation.8 Akanuma pointed out that the quotations from the Samyuktagama in the Mahavibhasa, the Abhidharmakosabhasya, the Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa and other texts in general correspond to Gunabhadra's version. As these works usually quote Sarvastivada texts, there is, according to Akanuma, not the slightest reason to doubt that the Samyuktagama translated by Gunabhadra belonged to the Sarvastivadins. The school of the Sarvastivadins was particularly strong in Central Asia and it is therefore not surprising to see that many fragments of Sanskrit manuscripts of the Samyuktagama of the Sarvastivadins were found in Central Asia. Fa-hsien's manuscript of the Mahasasakavinaya was translated in 423 4 by Buddhajiva, a monk from Kashmir, Chih-sheng, a Khotanese sramana, and two Chinese. Tao-sheng and Hui-yen (Shih, p. 119; T. 2145, p. 12b). Both the Kao-seng chuan and the Ch'u san-tsang chi chi (p.21a) state clearly that Buddhajiva translated the manuscript brought back from Ceylon by Fa-hsien. There seems to be general agreement among scholars that the information given by these two works is correct.10 Several sections of the Mahisasakavinaya have been translated. Jean Przyluski translated the narrative of the RajagTha council and Marcel Hofinger that of the Vaisali council. Jean Jaworski translated the sections on food and medicine.11 Hofinger raised the question of whether the original had been written in Pali, and Demieville subsequently took up the problem (Demieville, 1951, p.293). It is necessary to quote the relevant passage in full: 'Un coup d'oeil sur ces transcriptions suffit: l'original du Vinaya des Mahisasaka, trouve a Ceylan, par Fa-hien en 410-412, et traduit apres sa mort survenue en 420, n'etait pas en pali. On sait du reste que, des la fin du IVe siecle, ce Vinaya etait repandu au Cachemire, centre de sanskrit, car les biographes de son traducteur, Buddhajiva, qui etait originaire du Cachemire, nous disent qu'il y avait eu pour maitre en Vinaya, dans sa jeunesse, un moine de l'ecole Mahisasaka

Page #6
110 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon (T.2059, iii, 339a). Voici quelques transcriptions prises au hasard dans le fragment du Vinaya des Mahisasaka traduit par M. Hofinger: p. 23, Vaisali est transcrit P'i-cho-li, sur -s- et non -S-; p. 56, Kausambi = Keou-chan-mi, ou chan <*siam, p. 82, Salha (pali Salha) = Cha-lan, ou cha <*sa; p. 104, Kubjasobhita (pali Khujjasobhita) = Pou-tcho-tsong, transcription abregee ou pou est pour le -b- de kubja; Vrsabha (pali Vasabha) = P'o-cha, avec s cerebral.' Demieville does not say positively that the original was written in Sanskrit but his remarks on Kashmir as a centre of Sanskrit suggests that he assumed that this was the case. However, the fact that Buddhajiva came from Kashmir does not prove that the original must have been written in Sanskrit. Buddhayasas, the translator of the Dirghagama, was also a Kashmirian but the original of this text was certainly not written in Sanskrit. Edouard Chavannes who translated seven stories from the Mahisasakavinaya drew attention to the fact that Chih-sheng, who translated the original (recited by Buddhajiva) into Chinese, was a sramana from Khotan.12 Sylvain Levi remarked that the Theras, the Dharmaguptas and the Mahisasakas used Prakrit as their canonical language whereas the Sarvastivadins and the Mulasarvastivadins had a canon written in Sanskrit.13 However, as far as I know, Demieville is the only scholar to have examined some of the transliterations used by the translators of the Mahasasakavinaya. Of the five transliterations listed by Demieville the first two were in common use. The remaining three (Salha, Kubjasobhita and Visabha) are transliterations of names of monks who are mentioned in connection with the council in Vaisali. An account of this council is found not only in the Vinaya of the Mahisasakas but also in the Vinayas of the Sarvastivadins, the Dharmaguptakas and the Mahasamghikas. All three of them were translated into Chinese before the translation of the Mahibasakavina ya was undertaken. In this respect it is especially necessary to pay attention to the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas because it is closely related to that of the Mahisasakas. The transliterations of these three names in the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas are not exactly the same as those used in the Mahisasakavinaya but they are very similar (cf. Hofinger, p. 105: P'o-cheou-ts'uen, Cha-lieou and Pou-tcho-sou-mo). For instance, both Vinayas transliterate Kubja- in exactly the same way; both omitting the

Page #7
Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon 111 syllable ku-. Demieville mentions another interesting example (1951, p. 290): to Pali Sabbakami corresponds in the Sarvastivadavinaya sa-p'o-chia-mo (Sarvakama) but in the Vinayas of the Dharmaguptakas and the Mahisasakas we find i-ch'ieh-ch'u (Sarvagama or Sarvagamin). Another example is the transliteration of the name of the Malla Roja (Roca in Sanskrit, cf. Edgerton's dictionary). Both Vinayas have Lu-i(1) (luo-zi),14 Skt. Roci (?), cf. T. 1421, p. 151025; T. 1428, p. 873c17. However, in other instances different translations are found in both Vinayas. The Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas has po-po (pp.86167 and 873c13) which transliterates Skt. Papa (Pali Pava) but the Mahisasakavinaya uses the transliteration po-hsun(m) (pua-ziuan) which is already found in earlier Chinese translations.15 E. Mayeda listed the various translations and transliterations of the nine and twelve angas. According to his list the Mahtsasakavinaya is the only text to transliterate it yuktaka with yu( iuk)-to( tâ)-chia(gʻjia)(n) which corresponds to (it)yuktaka. In the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas we find hsiang-ying ching, (o) a translation of (it)yuktaka. 16 In both Vinayas some transliterations are clearly based upon Sanskrit originals, others on Prakrit originals. For instance both Vinayas transliterate Visvabhu with suil zwie)yeh(siap)(p) which corresponds to (2)Visyapa.17 Sy for sva is found also in other transliterations. In the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas the name Asvajit is transliterated a-shih(si@p)-pil pjie).(9) In the Mahisasakavinaya we find ofat)-pil pjie) (I) which is even more difficult to explain. The name of the nagaraja Supassa (Mahavagga VI.23.12) is translated in both Vinayas. The Dharmaguptakavinaya has shan-hsien(s) 'well-visible' which probably translated Supasya. The Mahasasakavinaya has shan-tzu-tsai(t) which Jaworski renders with 'Bon-souverain'.18 However, tzutsai is also used to translate vasitva, etc. Probably shan-tzu-tsai corresponds to Skt. Suvasya. The transliterations used by the translators of the Vinayas of the Dharmaguptakas and the Mahisasakas do not allow us to draw a definite conclusion as to the language in which the originals were written. In the case of the Chinese translation of the Samyuktagama the picture is quite clear, but the situation is entirely different with regard to the two Vinayas. It will be necessary to undertake a much more thorough study of the transliterations

Page #8
112 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon and translations of names in both Vinayas. Perhaps even then it will be difficult to determine the language in which their originals were written, One has to keep in mind the methods used in translating Indian texts. According to, the Kao-seng chuan the Mahisasakavinaya was translated by four persons: Buddhajiva tint le texte indien, un sramane khotanais Tche-cheng servit de traducteur; Tao-cheng du Long-kouang (sseu) et Houei-yen du Tong-ngan (sseu) y participerent en tenant le pinceau et reviserent (la traduction)' (Shih, p. 119). Buddhajiva undertook this translation four months after having arrived at Yang-chou. His knowledge of Chinese must have been practically nil. His task must have been to read aloud the text in its original wording. Chih-sheng then translated the text orally sentence by sentence and the two Chinese monks noted the translation and later revised it. The transliteration of names which were not wellknown must have posed a particular problem. It is probable that in revising the translation other translations, especially those of Vinaya texts, were consulted. It is therefore always necessary to examine whether a certain transliteration or translation is found in previous translations or not. This has often been overlooked in the study of transliterations of Indian names in Chinese translations. A systematic and historical study of the transliterations used by different translators and in different periods is an urgent desideratum. At the time of Fa-hsien it was difficult to find manuscripts of the Vinayas. According to Fa-hsien's account of his travels in Northern India the Vinayas were handed down orally from one Patriarch to another (Giles, p.64). His main reason for going to Ceylon was probably to obtain a copy of the Mahisasakavinaya. Indian Buddhist monks also visited Ceylon-for instance, Gunavarman (367-431) left his native Kashmir and went to. Ceylon shortly after his thirtieth birthday (Shih, p.126)-while Ceylonese monks travelled to India and even to China. In the year 269 of an unspecified era the Ceylonese monk Mahanaman describes the disciples of Mahakasyapa as Samyuktagaminah.19 Sylvain Levi remarked: 'Ainsi les disciples de Mahakasyapa etablis a Ceylan se reclament du Samyuktagama; le trait n'est pas assez caracteristique pour preciser leur ecole: les Mahasamghika, les Sarvastivadin, les MulaSarvastivadin sont d'accord pour placer en tete des

Page #9
Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon 113 Agama le Samyukta, que les Sthavira classent seulement en troisieme ligne. Il y a la toutefois un indice de plus pour nous empecher de ranger sommairement Mahanaman parmi les Theravadin.' As mentioned above, it is quite probable that Fa-hsien obtained a copy of a manuscript of the Samyuktagama of the Sarvastivadins in Ceylon. Therefore the possibility is not excluded that Mahanaman belonged to the same school. In 434 Samghavarman arrived in Nanking. His biography relates that about the same time T'ie-sa-lo (Tissala?) and other Ceylonese nuns arrived in the Chinese capital and that Samghavarman was appointed as their religious teacher (Shih, p. 138).20 The Chinese sources show that in the first half of the fifth century contacts between Buddhist communities in India, Ceylon and China were very close. It is therefore quite probable that Buddhist texts composed in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit were available in Ceylon and were brought from there to China. CANBERRA J. W. DE JONG Notes 1 'The role of Pali in early Sinhalese Buddhism', in Heinz Bechert (ed.), Buddhism in Ceylon and Studies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries, Gottingen, 1978, p.39. On the meaning of fan and hu see Shih, p. 173. According to Sylvain Levi Tsa-tsang corresponds to Ksudrakagama, cf. Sylvain Levi and Edouard Chavannes, 'Les seize arhats protecteurs de la loi', JA, 1916 (II), p. 37, n. 1. However, Jean Przyluski has shown that in Tsa-tsang tsang renders pitaka, cf. Le concile de Rajagrha, Paris, 1926-8, p.90. Et. Lamotte uses both Ksudrakagama and Ksudrakapitaka, cf. Histoire du Bouddhisme indien, I, Louvain, 1958, pp. 174-5. 3 The reconstructed Ancient Chinese pronunciation given in parentheses is based on the works by Bernhard Karlgren: 'Prononciation ancienne de caracteres chinois figurant dans les transcriptions bouddhiques', T'oung Pao, 19, 1918-9, pp. 104-21; Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese, Paris, 1923; 'Grammata Serica. Script and Phonetics in Chinese and Sino-Japanese', BMFEA, 12, 1940, pp. 1-471; 'Grammata serica recensa', BMFEA, 29, 1957, pp. 1-332. 4 Cf. John Brough, The Gandhari Dharmapada, London, 1962, pp.50-4. 5 Cf. Paul Demieville, 'Les versions chinoises du Milind apanha', BEFEO,

Page #10
114 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon 24, 1924, p. 11. On the Sung Ch'i lu see P.C. Bagchi, Le canon bouddhique en Chine, I, Paris, 1927, p.xxxviii. 6 Akanuma attributes too much importance to the argumentum ex silentio, cf. Akanuma Chizen, Bukkyo kyoten shiron, Nagoya, 1940, p.51, n.8. 7 Cf. Sylvain Levi, 'Le Samyuk tagama sanscrit et les Feuillets Grunwedel', T'oung Pao, 5, 1904, pp.297-309. 8 Cf. Yainada Ryuja, Bongo butten no shobunken, Kyoto, 1959, pp.33-9, 47 and 187. 9 Op. cit., pp.46-8: 'Zoagongyo' in Ono Gemmyo (ed.), Bussho. kaisetsu daijiten, vol.7, Tokyo, 1934, pp.61-2. Cf. also Et. Lamotte, Le traite de la grande vertu de sagesse, III, Louvain, 1970, p. xv: 'L'etude comparee des textes montre que l'auteur du Traite utilisait le Madhyagama et le Samyuktagama dont les Taisho 26 et 99 sont la traduction.' 10 Cf. P. Dernieville, 1951, p.293; Hirakawa Akira, Ritsuzo no kenkyu, Tokyo, 1960, p. 142. In an article that I have not been able to consult Tachibana Shundo seems to have tried to prove that Buddhajiva's translation is not made from a manuscript brought back from Ceylon by Fa-hsien, cf. Bibliographie bouddhique, VII-VIII, Paris, 1937, p. 107, no.357. 11 Jean Przyluski, Le concile de Rajagrha, Paris, 1926-8, pp. 134-68; Marcel Hofinger, Etude sur le concile de Vaisati, Louvain, 1946, pp. 22-124; Jean Jaworski, 'La section des Remedes dans le Vinaya des Mahisasaka et dans le Vinaya pali', RO, 5, 1928, pp.92-101; 'La section de la Nourriture dans le Vinaya des Mahisasak a', RO, 7, 1931, pp.53-124. 12 Cinq cents contes et apologues, II (Paris, 1911), p. 336, no. 1. 13 'Sur la recitation primitive des textes bouddhiques', JA, 1915(I), p.446. 14 For -_- = Z see H.W. Bailey, 'Gandhari', BSOAS, 11, 1946, p.777. 15 Cf. P. Pelliot, 'Papiyan > Po-siun', T'oung Pao, 30, 1933, p.91. 16 Mayeda Egaku, Genshi bukkyo seiten no seiritsu-shi kenkyu, Tokyo, 1964, pp.348 foll. 17 For sui (zwie) see P. Pelliot, op. cit., pp.95 foll.; H. W. Bailey, 'Hvatanica IV', BSOAS, 10, 1942, p.909, n.2. 18 RO, 7, 1931, p.65. 19 'L'inscription de Mahanaman a Bodh Gaya', Indian Studies in honor of Ch.R. Lanman, Cambridge, Mass., 1929, pp.35-47 = Memorial Sylvain Levi, Paris, 1937, pp. 343-54. 20 It is quite possible that the nuns arrived with the official mission sent from Ceylon to China in the year 435. It is recorded in the Chinese histories that in the first half of the fifth century four such official missions from Ceylon arrived in China, cf. Sylvain Levi, 'Les missions de Wang Hiuen-Ts'e dans l'Inde', JA, 1900 (I), pp.411-15.

Page #11
115 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon Bibliography Demieville, P., 'A propos du concile de Vaisals', T'oung Pao, 40, 1951, pp. 239-96. .. Demieville, P., 'Le bouddhisme. Les sources chinoises', in L. Renou et J. Filliozat (et al.), L'Inde classique, II. Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1953, pp. 398-463. Giles, H. A. (tr.), The Travels of Fa-hsien (399-414 A.D.), or Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1923. Kolmas, J. (tr.), Fa-sien. Zapisky o buddhistickych zemich. Praha, Odcon, 1972 (see pp. 131-2 for a list of previous translations). Legge, James (tr.), A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1886. Nanjio, B., A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripitaka. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1883. Shih, R. (tr.), Biographies des moines eminents (Kao seng tchouan) de Houei-kiao. Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1968.

Page #12
116 Fa-hsien and Buddhist texts in Ceylon CHINESE CHARACTERS a. 羅样, b. 阿耆尼过多 c. 阿提目多 d. 阿梨影地 e. 安伽陀 f. 竹濕波羅 g. 多羅提金 h. 那年尼 i. 尸梨沙 j. 彌婦羅 k,波比利弗多羅 1. 遙衷 m. 波句 n. 有多加 0.相應經 p. 隨葉 9. 阿濕早 I. 預算, s. 善現 t. 善自在