^{page 415 note 1} See Milinda, pt. ii, p. xi, note (S.B.E., vol. xxxvi).

^{page 416 note 1} See Julien, , “Méthode pour déchiffrer et transcrire les noms sanscrits,” etc. (1861), p. 2 note; p. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 416 note 2} Saṃghabhadra actually calls the Pāli text “fan-pên,” i.e. “Text of the Brahman (language).”

^{page 416 note 3} 1873; 2nd ed. 1893, p. 63.

^{page 416 note 4} 2nd ed. 1888, p. 144^b.

^{page 417 note 1} Take, for instance, the “Sha-mên”: although it is nearer to Pāli “Samaṇo” than to Skt. “Śramaṇa,” yet we have no right to judge from it that the original was Pāli, for we meet with “Sha-mên” also in those texts whose original is Sanskrit. But when we come across the word “Sha-lo-mo-na” (), we see at once that it can only be from Sanskrit Śramaṇa.

^{page 417 note 2} 1857, vol. i, p. 186 note.

^{page 417 note 3} See “Chinese Buddhism,” ch. xxv, p. 401.

^{page 417 note 4} Compare, however, note 1, p. 419.

^{page 418 note 1} Erman's, “Russisches Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Kunde” (1856), Band xv, pp. 206 and follGoogle Scholar.

^{page 418 note 2} See Oldenberg, , “Vinaya-piṭakam” (1879–1882), vol. i, p. xxxiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 418 note 3} We see with M. Barth the importance of a complete examination of the contents of the Chinese Piṭaka (“Religions of India,” Engl. p. 108 note). One can give two or three quite different accounts from Chinese sources, which are a mixture of various elements. Compare, for instance, Wassilief's “Buddhismus,” in which many pieces of information from the Chinese are identical with the Tibetan, with Palladji's “Historische Skizzen,” which are not very much different from the Siṇhalese chronicle.

^{page 418 note 4} I should be sorry if I have omitted any later authorities who touched these questions, and would welcome any communications about them.

^{page 419 note 1} One from Ceylon, three from Siam, four from S. India, and one Javanese. Nanjio's Catal., App. ii, Nos. 92; 101, 102, 107; 111, 131, 160, 153; 138.

^{page 419 note 2} l.c., Nos. 137, 155.

^{page 419 note 3} e.g. Fâ-hien and nine of those sixty travellers recorded by I-tsing went to Ceylon. See Chavannes, , “Mémoire sur les Religieux Éminents,” par I-tsing (Paris, 1894), §§ 20–2, 24, 28, 29, 32, 49, 52Google Scholar.

^{page 420 note 1} The Pāli is to be found in the Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī (p. 16), in the Samanta-pāsādikā (but not in Oldenberg's text), Buddhavamsa, Dhammapada (Max Müller, §§ 153, 154). Turnour's translation in the J.R.A.S. Bengal, vi, p. 523; Hardy, , “Manual,” p. 180Google Scholar; D'Alwis, , “Nirvāṇa,” p. 78Google Scholar; Oldenberg, , “Buddha,” etc., p. 211 (English, p. 195)Google Scholar; Davids, Rhys, “Buddhist Birth Stories,” pp. 103, 104Google Scholar.

^{page 420 note 2} Mr. Mitra's edition, p. 448; Müller, Max, “Dhammapada,” 39 note (S.B.E., p. 13)Google Scholar.

^{page 421 note 1} Childers, s.v. Aṭṭḥakathā; Davids, Rhys, “Buddhism,” p. 237Google Scholar. A portion of this valuable record was published by ProfOldenberg, in his “Vinayapiṭakam,” vol. iii (the end)Google Scholar.

^{page 422 note 1} This seems to be a translation of “Samanta-pāsādikā” (‘pleasing all”). Samanta-prāsādika (adj.) occurs in the Mahāvastu, p. 3; -tā (‘having complete amiability’) in the Dharmasaṅgraha, §, lxxxiv, p. 57, one of the eighty signs of the Buddha (41); the Chinese being “I-ch'i man-tsu” (I-ch'i=samanta). The Lalita Vistara, vii, p. 122, has this word, the translation of which is “Chien-chê-chieh-shêng-hsi,” ‘all those who look at him obtain joy.’ Asoka is called “Shan-chien” (‘good-appearing’ meant for Priyadarśin). The translator, not finding a suitable word for “pāsādikā,” may hare used “Shan-chien.” “Vibhāṣā in a Buddhistic sense means ‘commentary.’ It ought to be Vinaya-vibhāṣā, not Vibhāṣā-vinaya. Cf. the Chinese Bk. xii, fol. 16a.

^{page 422 note 2} In his Catalogue of the Chinese Tripiṭaka, No. 1125 (see p. 248).

^{page 424 note 1} See Childers, s.v. Kammavācā.

^{page 424 note 2} Those in italic are translations and not transliterations. “Ts'ang,” ‘store’ stands for “Piṭaka.”

^{page 424 note 3} Saṃghabhadra here used an earlier transliteration from Skt. sūtra, hence “Hsiu-to-lo.”

^{page 425 note 1} From Skt. “Prātimoksha”: see the last note.

^{page 425 note 2} It may be meant here that the Khandhakas with the Parivārā are 23. The Mahāvagga had 10 Khandhakas and Cullavagga 12: see the Vinaya texts, iii, S.B.E. vol. xx, pp. 415–417.

^{page 425 note 3} Āgama is another name of the “Nikāya”: see Childers, s.v.

^{page 426 note 1} “Jak-yo” according to the Japanese pronunciation. It stands for “Cariyā.”

^{page 426 note 2} For all these names see Turnour, , Mahāvaṃsa, p. lxxvGoogle Scholar; Dayids, Rhys, “Buddhism,” pp. 18–21Google Scholar, where an account of these books is given in a clear form; and Childers, s.v. Tipiṭakaṃ.

^{page 427 note 1} Compare Dīpav., vi, 24; Oldenberg, Vinaya, i, p. L.

^{page 428 note 1} Compare Mahāv., p. 42; Dīpav., vii, 40. The Kathāvatthu is very likely Tissa's own compilation. See, however, Childers, s.v. Tipiṭakaṃ (p. 507^b), and Max Müller, Dhammapada, xxvi, xxvii.

^{page 428 note 2} See above, p. 426.

^{page 429 note 1} “Tonaka,” the land of the Greeks, i.e. Baktria. The Chinese is Yü-na, but a Korean text and the new Japanese edition have , Shih-na, and explain it as i.e. China. A scholar said that China received Asoka's mission. His assertion probably rests on this misinterpretation of the Korean text.

^{page 429 note 2} For all these geographical names see Davids, Rhys, ‘Buddhism,” p. 227 noteGoogle Scholar; Dīpav., viii, 4–12; Mahāv., xii (Turnour), pp. 73, 74.

^{page 430 note 1} He reigned 32 years; the Buddha died in his eighth year.

^{page 430 note 2} Ajātasattu and Udāyibhaddaka are omitted in Bk. ii, fol. 18^b, perhaps by the copyist's mistake, but we can see from fol. 18^a that Udāyibhaddaka reigned more than 15 years, and I put here 16 years from the Pãli. [The copyist seems to have jumped from A of Ajātasattu to A of Anuruddha while copying.]

^{page 430 note 3} Not “collectively” as in Turnour's, Mahāvaṃsa, p. xlviiGoogle Scholar. Samantapāṣ. (p. 320) has 18 years (Anuruddho ca muṇḍo ca Aṭṭhārasa).

^{page 430 note 4} Samantapāṣ., 24 years.

^{page 430 note 5} Mei () seems to be a misprint. There is no corresponding sound in the Pāli. It is, I think, a mistake for Chiu () which is sometimes used for another “Chiu” () meaning “nine,” and the “nine nanto” for the Pāli “nava nandā.” In one of my slips from the new Jap. edition of the Chinese Piṭaka I note, “ mei for chin?”; but I do not remember whether it is my conjecture or that of the Japanese Editors. Anyhow, it is pretty certain that it must be “Chiu” nine.

^{page 430 note 6} Not 34 as in the Mahāvaṃsa, which is an error.

^{page 433 note 1} Compare Mahāv., p. 257: “And that he might promulgate the contents of the Dīpavaṃsa, distributing a thousand pieces, he caused it to be read aloud thoroughly.” The fact that the Dīpav. is called here the “Ancient praise-songs” may in a way help ProfOldenberg's, opinion that the work “Porāṇehi kato” mentioned in the Mahāv., i, p. iGoogle Scholar, may refer to the Dīpav. (Oldenberg, , Dipav., p. 9Google Scholar).

^{page 433 note 2} There are similar cases: whenever the Pāli text has “Tambapaṇṇī” or “Laṅkā,” he translates it by the “Island of Lion” = Sīhala, the object being to make it clear to the Chinese readers.

^{page 433 note 3} But it is possible that some Buddhist book may refer to him under another name. No Chinese travellers known to us mention his name. In Fa-hien's time (a.d. 399–414) Buddhaghosa must have been very young and still in India. As the Hīnayāna faith was looked upon as heretical by Hiuen Thsang (a.d. 629–645), Buddhaghosa's fame seems to have escaped his notice. I-tsing (a.d. 671–695), though a follower of the Hīnayāna, says nothing of that great Buddhist writer.

^{page 434 note 1} Turnour, , Mahāv., p. 251Google Scholar.

^{page 434 note 2} l.c., p. 252. Compare Kern, , “Buddhismus,” p. 477Google Scholar; Müller, Max, “Dhammapada” (S.B.E.), p. xiiGoogle Scholar; Lassen, Ind. Alt. iv, p. 285.

^{page 434 note 3} Davids, Rhys, “Buddhism,” p. 236Google Scholar; “Buddhist Birth Stories,” p. lxiv.

^{page 434 note 4} Davids, Rhys, “Buddhism,” p. 236Google Scholar; Lassen, and Burnouf, , “Esaai sur le Pāli,” also quoted by Turnour, , Mahāv., p. xxxGoogle Scholar. Compare also Bigandet, Bishop, “Life of Gaudama” (1866), p. 392Google Scholar.

^{page 434 note 5} This is confirmed by I-tsing (a.d. 671–695), who says that Campā mostly belonged to the Sammitīya school, while there were a few adherents of the Sarvāstivāda school.

^{page 435 note 1} Davids, Rhys “Buddhism,” p. 238Google Scholar, quoted from Crawfurd, , “Journal of the Embassy to Siam,” p. 615Google Scholar.

^{page 435 note 2} Three priests from Siam came to China between a.d. 503–589. See above note 1, p. 419. I-tsing says there was no Buddhism in his time, but there was before a wicked king of that country persecuted the Buddhist priests.

^{page 435 note 3} But Buddhism may have been established in Asoka's time in Burma (two missionaries went to Suvaṇṇa-bhūmi).

^{page 435 note 4} See Nanjio, Catalogue, App. ii, 96.

^{page 436 note 1} The following fact may perhaps help us. When the Pāli has various readings, as noted in Oldenberg's Samantapās., the Chinese has the same readings as the Burmese MS. (E.). Whether this tendency is found throughout the commentary, I am not at present able to state. If this be proved to be the case, we can see at least that the Burmese MS. keeps the readings of 489 a.d., not long after Buddhaghosa.

^{page 436 note 2} It seems from this as if the Vinaya existed in book. But we need not understand it literally. Compare Turnour, , Mahāv., p. 207Google Scholar: the Vinaya was not in writing till the time of King Vaṭṭa Gāmani, i.e. 88–76 b.c. But some seem to believe that it was written down in book in the first council.—Bigandet, “Life of Gaudama,” p. 350. Has the custom of marking the sacred years ever existed in Ceylon or in Burma?

^{page 437 note 1} The Siṇhalese date of the Buddha's death, 543 b.c., wants a curtailment of at least about 60 years, as pointed out by Turnour, which would bring us to 483 b.c., not to speak about a further curtailment made by Max Müller, Rhys Davids, and others. The anachronism seems to have been introduced after Saṃghabhadra's time.

^{page 437 note 2} 486 b.c. + 535 a.d. = 1021; perhaps the year 535 was not marked.

^{page 438 note 1} Above note 3, p. 418. First I thought that Palladji might have drawn his materials from Pāli sources. There was in his time Turnour's, “Epitome of the Pāli Annals” (1837)Google Scholar. But the names which Palladji gives, e.g. Ribata for Revata (p. 212), Kāmadeva for Devānampiya (p. 220, Oh. T'ien-ai, “Heaven-love”; he translated this into Skt. Kāmadeva), made me think that his account was from Chinese sources.

^{page 438 note 2} A comparative study of the Sanskrit and Chinese texts is also very important. Without this even the interpretation of a Chinese text becomes impossible or unsuccessful. We often run the risk of thoroughly misunderstanding the Chinese translators. Compare, for instance, Beal's Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king (S.B.E., vol. xix), §§ 564–568 (=Ch. Bk. ii, fol. 11^a), and my rendering in Heinrich Lüders's paper, “Zu Asvaghoṣa's Buddha-carita,” p. 2, note 2, and Tokiwai's in Leumann's note, p. 8 (Göttingen, Phil.-histor. Klasse i, 1896).

^{page 439 note 1} The whole Vinaya edited by Oldenberg; many texts from the other Piṭakas in the Pāli Text Society's publication. We have also the whole Piṭaka of a Siamese edition.

^{page 439 note 2} See Oldenberg, Vinaya, p. xl; the Vinaya of different schools is based upon the same fundamental redaction. (Compare Wassilief, , “Buddhismus,” p. 38Google Scholar; the Vinaya was the same in all schools.)

^{page 439 note 3} l.c., p. xliii.