________________ Dr. Vincent A. Smith on Vaisali 361 there for that reason. A council or synod of some sort was doubtless really held at Vaisali, although the accounts which profess to give its date and the details of the proceedings are hopelessly contradictory and incredible. "The fact that the two pilgrims were shown totally irreconcilable sites for the garden of Amrapali and the Council of Vaisali is of importance, and should be borne in mind during discussions of the authenticity of the sites described by them. Pious visitors to the Holy Land of Buddhism, like Christian pilgrims in Palestine, were, of course, completely at the mercy of their guides, and were obliged to accept what they were told, and they were not always told the same thing. I have proved, or believe myself to have proved, that similar discrepancy exists between the statements of Fa-hien and Hiuen Tsiang concerning the site of Kapilavastu. The Kapilavastu of Fa-hien is represented by the ruins at Piprava, 9 miles from the Lumbini Garden, whereas the Kapilavastu shown to Hiuen Tsiang is represented by the walled enclosure of Tilaura Kot and the surrounding ruins, distant about 15 miles from the Lumbini Garden. "In all the three observed cases of clear discrepancy I believe that the earlier pilgrim Fa-hien, is right; that is to say, that the genuine sites were shown to him, whereas when Hiuen Tsiang made his pilgrimage some 230 years later, the legends had been shifted to fictitious sites. I cannot add to the length of this already long essay by discussing the possible or probable cause of the shifting, and content myself with noting that Dr. Stein has recently pointed out that sacred sites can be, and often are, completely forgotten. Sites, the true position of which has been forgotten, can be easily changed. Dr. Burgess also has shown how freely the Burmese priests, in their anxiety to localize sacred legends, have invented a system of fictitious geography."2 Thus the identity of Vaisali with Basadha is conclusively proved : (i) by the survival of the ancient name with only slight modifica tions; (ii) by geographical bearings taking from Patna and other places; and (iii) by topographical details as compared with the descriptions recor ded by the Chinese pilgrims.' 1. Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXX (1901), p. 95. 2. Ibid., p. 387. 46
