________________
846
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[SEPTEMBER, 1903.
Matricita and Maticitra. Considering how frequently tr and are confused, we need have little hesitation in everywhere restoring the true name Matriceța. But we may concede the possibility that a Prakrit form Maticita may have been known in India or Tibet.
The person whose history is by Taranatha most completely interwoven with that of Matriceṭa is certainly Durdharsa-Kala. The accounts of parentage, birth-place, and biography are in fact identical, and if any part of Taranatha's statements is to be allowed as well-founded, it must be this, and we must admit that the poet in his youth really bore the name of Kāla. If we could accept these reports, and admit further the account of the poet's conversion by Aryadeva, we should be obliged to place him along with the latter and Candrakirti in the generation following Nagarjuna. We find however in the life of Dignaga (Taranatha, pp. 130-3) a very similar account of the conversion of a Brahman Sudurjaya, and the likeness of the incident and the name withdraws from us the possibility of accepting any chronological conclusion. That Matriceṭa, however, was at least not later than Dignaga must be admitted. For in the Miśrakastotra we have additions by the latter to the Stotra in 150 verses by Matriceta.
Have we then any grounds for accepting the identity of this poet with Sura or Alvaghosa? As concerns the former the evidence appears to be non-existent. I have elsewhere collected the names of six works attributed to Sura. None of these appears to be anywhere ascribed to Matriceța or to Aávaghosa, and the Chinese tradition (if we may judge from Nanjio's Catalogue) distinguishes between the three.
In the case of Asvaghosa, the facts are as follows. The Chinese writers, so far as we may judge from the accounts at present accessible, appear to narrate no particulars concerning Matriceța, except in one instance. I-tsing mentions both him and Asvaghosa, and apparently without identifying them. The various Chinese accounts collected by M. Sylvain Lévi (Journal Asiatique, 1896-7, Ser. IX. Vol. VIII. pp. 444-89, IX., pp. 1-42) appear to agree in making Aávaghosa a contemporary of King Kanishka and a predecessor of Nagarjuna,5
Under these circumstances only an examination of the existing works of the two poets and of their commentaries can establish the facts of their mutual relations. Accordingly, I have made a beginning with Matriceta by transcribing and translating a work entitled Maharajakanikalekha Epistle to king Kanika,' which in the volumes of the Tanjur where it occurs (Mdo. XXXIII. foll. 78-82, XCIV. 295-9) and in the history of Taranatha is ascribed to that author. But before giving an account of this epistle it will be worth while to cite the names of all the works which are given as his in the Tanjur, and to add a few slight remarks. We find the following:
1. Varpanarhavarnana: bhagavato Buddhasya Stotratraya. Bstod I. foll. 93-111. [Slob. dpon Matricita (sic). Indian teacher Sarvajñadeva: Zu chen translator Dpal-brtsegs rakeita (Srikitarakita)].
Taranatha, trans. pp. 84, 85:-'At that time the Brahman Durdharsa-Kala, born in the east, in the country ' of Nalina and the town of Khorta, visited every land as an opponent of the Buddhist doctrine and effected its 'overthrow. He having come to Sri-Nalanda, the believers, unable to contend with him, wrote a letter to invite Aryadeva. Aryadeva confuted him and shut him up in a Vihara, where he studied the Buddhist scriptures, repented of his former deeds, and composed many hymns. The name of the Vihara is given as Kusumalakära in the city of Kusamapura (p. 89). According to both Taranatha (p. 85) and I-tsing (trans. p. 157) his conversion was occasioned by the knowledge of Buddha's prediction.
To these items of uncertainty we must add the fact that Durdharya is sometimes described as a King of Kansambi, see Taranatha, trans. p. 308, and Rockhill, 'Life of the Buddha,' pp. 946-7, In the latter account, we must note that the Bhikgu Sirsaka is probably Aryadeva, whose father is said to have been named Pañoadriga, This agrees with the narrative of Taranatha, where he makes Aryadeva the opponent of Dardhara. Dignaga is brought into collision not only with Sudurjays, but also with an apparently different Brahman Nag⚫ po Kala or Krisna.
4 Album Kern, pp. 405-8. Prof. Speijer is not inclined to accept the identity of the two poets: see the introduction to his translation of the Jatakamälä. M. Lévi assigns the work at any rate to the school of Aávaghops (Journal Asiatique, 1896, VIII. p. 456 n.). The Paramitasamasa, ascribed by Taranatha to Matriceta (p. 98), is by Sara. Is it possible that the Ki-ye-to named in these accounts (VIII. pp. 462-73)= Ceta?
