________________
346
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1886.
I shall allude to this subject in my preface to the Life of Hiuen Tsiang.
S. BEAL. 5th August 1886.
(5) Stan. Julien always translates the word sien, 'previous' or 'former,' by 'first,'—which is #mistake. Sakraditya could not have lived shortly after the nirvana; because the theory of the "One Vehicle” is the last and latest form of the Buddhist development, and must come after the “Great Vehicle."
(6) With respect to Buddhagupta, and Budhagupta, I was misled ....... I quite accept your correction.
And now, having alluded to your " rubrics," let me add that I can only account for the introduction of Simha's death (for an account of his death, or martyrdom, by Mi-lo.kiu is found not only in the notes on Wong-puh, but also in the Fun-fa-tsong-yin-un-chuen; B. Nanjio's No. 1310 [Kiuen, vi. p. 11 b.]) into a book dating 472 A.D., by the supposition that it was an addendum, after the former part was written, with a view to com. plete the succession down to Bodbidharma, who certainly left India for China 528 A.D. It is certainly singular that, according to a wellauthenticated tradition (vide Elkins, Chinese Buddhism, Trübner's Oriental Series, pp. 81, 85), the Buddhist succession ended with Simha; (and therefore that Basiasita, Putnomita, and Prajñatara, are fictitious names). If so then your date for Sithu and Mihirakula, vir. circ. 520, would be amply confirmed.
The term Mi-lo-kiu, is not necessarily a corruption of Mihirakula.--but a phonetio equivalent for Mlochchha; hence it is likely that this king Mirhqul (or whatever his real name was) belonged to the Mlôchcha invaders.
That these were Mongols or Hans, appears very likely, first, from the fact of their excessive cruelty, and then, second, from the narrative of Sung Yun, who speaks of this king of the barbarians (Mléchchhns) having invaded Gandhåra and set up another king of cruel disposition (exactly as you quote from the Rdjatarangint), and, third, from the fact of Cosmas calling this king Gollas (a Greek form of Gula),—(vide my introduction to Records of the Western World, p. xvi.)
On all hands your date seems to be confirmed. I do not yet quite get at the origin of the Chinese date for Vasubandhu; but I think it highly probable that Mihirakula was & Mongol or Turkish Mlêchchha, who had invaded India and Kasmir, and extended his power over Gandhara according to Sung-Yun, and Hinen Taiang's account.
A NOTE ON THE DATE OF MIHIRAKCLA. I have no time to enter fully at present into intricate archæological discussions. But I venture to offer some brief criticisms on Mr. Fleet's valuable paper, "On the History and Date of Mihirakula," in order to show that there is something to be said in favour of views other than those adopted by him.
The discovery that Mihirakula was the son of a Toramana, and the conqueror of Pasupati, as well as the opponent of a king Baladitya, will undoubtedly in time settle his date. But I am not yet fully convinced that the problem is solved.
To enforce conviction that Mr. Fleet's view is correct, it will be necessary to harmonize his theory with the history of Kaśmir; and that harmony remains to be demonstrated. Dr. Hoernle's notes on the Kasmir coins, seem to me opposed strongly to Mr. Fleet's new theory of the attribution of these coins.
I can see no warrant for the conjecture that either Hiuen Tsiang or his translators must have made a mistake in asserting that Mihirakula, the conqueror of Baláditya, flourished "some centu. ries" before Hiuen Tsiang's pilgrimage (A.D. 629-645). It seems to me very rash to tamper with the text, and boldly say that we ought to read" more than a century before."
The statement on p. 252 above, that Gen. Cunningham adopts the date of 500 A.D. for the erection of Baladitya's temple at Nalanda, and of the boathi-tree temple at Bodh-Gaya, is erroneous. The General did at one time adopt that date, being misled by a forged inscription; but he soon recanted his error. His final view as to the date of Biladitya, the builder of the great temple at Nalanda, will be found in Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. III. p. 95. Gen. Cunningham there accepts "the pilgrim's statement, that the Nalanda monastery was built seven hundred years before his time, as a plain fact, which he must have obtained from the annals of the monastery itself. BAAdityn must, therefore, be placed towards the end of the first century before Christ, or early in the first century after Christ." In the footnote, the latter alteration is indicated as the more probable.
See p. 245 ff. above. * (When I wrote my paper, I was not aware of this second opinion, having looked in vain for any departure of Gen. Cunningham from the view quoted by me. I
would add that it does not alter my opinion regarding the date of Mihirakula; though I am quite ready to give up the idea that it was his antagonist who built the temple in question at Nilanda.-J.F.F.)
