________________
328
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(DECEMBER, 1883.
distance is over 50 miles, I would suggest 300 li, or 50 miles, as the true reading."
But, where are we? Fa-hian says nothing about Pataliputra; and I had thought General Cunningham was satisfied, without doubt, that three yojanas must be substituted for 3 li, in the Chinese text. This note certainly adds to the previous confusion.
Then, again, with reference to the "three. peaked hill;" in 1861 the Surveyor-General remarks that "there is no three-peaked hill in the neighbourhood of Kurkihar, but there are three bare and rugged hills which rise boldly out of the plain about half a mile to the north of the village." (Reports, vol. I, p. 16.) These he identifies with the Cock's foot mountain of Hiuen Thsiang. In the Ancient Geography, p. 460, this is repeated. But in vol. XV, p. 5, we read :"Hwen Tsiang describes the hill as lofty and scarped, with three bold peaks that spring into the air. These peaks I have already identified with the three peaks of the Murali mountain, which stands three miles to the north-north-east of the town of Kurkihar."
Are these "three peaks of the Murali mountain three miles to the N.N.E. of the town," the same as the "three bare and rugged hills about half a mile to the north of the village" P Here the confusion is as great as ever. And I am unable to find the reference to the Murali mountain. There is, indeed, allusion in the firat volof the Reports to a distinct peak of the Barabar group of hills which is called Murali (p. 42), but the Barûbar district is 16 miles north of Gaya. Possibly the right reference has escaped me; but yet it is confusing, for the three peaks of a mountain either half a mile to the north of the village, or three miles to the N.N.E., would seem to correspond with the description of the Cock's. foot mount given by Hiuen Tsiang, and yet we are told, “There is no three-peaked hill in the neighbourhood of Kurkihär." (Ancient Geography of India, p. 460).
But once more: General Cunningham on p. 4 of his Reports, vol. XV, says, that Fa-hian's account is as follows:-"The great Chia-yeh (KAkyapa) is at present in this mountain." It is plain, therefore, that when Fa-hian wrote he was supposed to be in the Kukkyta-pâda-giri. He was there, as Hinen Tsiang's account plainly says, awaiting the coming of Maitreya Buddha, to whom he was to deliver the golden robe presented to Sakya Buddha by his aunt Prajâ pati. Accord ingly Fa-hian tells us a little lower down that in a fastness within the mount, the entire body,"
that is, the human body of Kåsyapa, is enshrined. But General Cunningham, quoting from a wrong translation of the Chinese text would resolve all this into " a full length image of Chia-yeh placed in a niche.” Of course anyone has a right to translate a Chinese text. But I should have thought that some small acquaintance with Bud. dhist legend was desirable in the case of a person undertaking to translate a Buddhist book. But in any case I shall be borne out by all acquainted with the subject and by none, I believe, more than by General Cunningham, after consideration) that the legend of Kaśyapa requires the translation I have given of his "entire, or, uncorrupted body," being still preserved in the Cock's-foot mount, awaiting the advent of Mai. trôya.
This is manifest from Hiuen Tsiang's account, which General Cunningham refers to on p. 5 of the same volume. Here we are distinctly told that Kasyapa ascended the north side of the mount, and passed to the S.W. side. There, being balked by the opposing rock, he opened a way for him. self, and passed through the mount to the northeast summit; there he sat down with the robe of gold tissue in his hand; then by his spiritual power he caused the three peaks to unite as a sierral over him, he being underneath the middle one. There he will await the coming of Maitreya, who will receive from him the saintly robe, then Kaśyapa will ascend into the air, exhibit miracles, and his body will be consumed by self-produced fire, and thus men will be led to believe in Maitreya.
This is the account of Hiuen Tsiang. Unfor. tunately Stas. Julien has missed the key to the interpretation, and translated it as though Maitreya had come. But the Chinese is plain enough, and the mere fact that Kasyapa was still supposed to be in the mountain when Fa-hian wrote his account, taken together with the fact that Maitrởya, the lord of the world, has not yet come, would be sufficient to show that this is the true version if there were any doubt about it; but there is none, for as I said before the Chinese is plain enough.
I have made the foregoing remarks not with any desire to find fault, much less to accuse, any one, but I have thought it right to explain myself, and to point out what I conceive to be errors of translation, and other inadvertencies, which gain authority by appearing without remark in the pages of such valuable works as the Reports of the Archæological Survey of India. Wark, Northumberland.
S. BEAL.
* Julion given it "dévent en dsme," Mém. vol. II, p. 8.
