English
’ Hindu in Persian and Ind® in Greek were perhaps corrupted from Sindhu, but it is curious that the Chinese should have known both forms of the name. Indu (Yin-tu) as the name of India came to be generally used in China from Hiuen Thsang’s time, while T‘ien-chu and Chiian-tu (both from Sindbu) are probably as old as ‘the introduction of Buddhism into China (a.p. 67). The name for Ceylon is, in the Record, Simhala (Séng-ho-lo) Island (or Shih-tzti-chou, Lion Island), or occasionally Ratnadvipa (Pao-chu, Jewel Isle). As to his travels in India, he may have visited many a place, more than thirty countries in all, according to the Biography (p. xxxvii, note), but nothing certain 626 A.D. the king of Cambodja was fsanavarman, according to M. Aymonier, and in perfect conformity with this, the History of T'ang states that the king of Cambodja, fsana, a Kshatriya, in the beginning of the Chéng-kuan period (627-649) conquered Fu-nan (E. Siam) and tbdk the territory, I-tsing may be referring to this king when he says that a wicked king destroyed Buddhism in Fu-nan (p. 12). See, however, Crawfurd, Journal of the Embassy to the Court of Siam, p. 615; Siam first received Buddhism in 638. . 1 Mr. Beal’s identifications widely differ from ours, and they are not, according to our opinion, tenable when we compare them with the original. Fu-nan, for instance, is transcribed ‘Annam’ (Life, p. xxxiv), Lin-i (=Champa) is Siam (Life, p. 133), and Pi-king, owing to a misprint, is read by him Shang-king, and identified with Saigon. According to Beal, I-tsing. speaks of himself as interpreting the language of Pulo Condore (Life, pp. xv, note, xxxi); it is not I-tsing, but Ta-ts‘in, who is said to have been skilled in the K'un-lun langhage (Malay), Chavannes, p. 159, § 56. I-tsing was thirty-seven years of age, but, according to Beal, he started with thirty-seven priests (Life, p. xv). 8 The tact hee t Met? kT Cerne. Wea, ee eee or a ee & DATE OF I-TSING’S WORK. liii can be gathered from his own writings. The places which he says definitely he visited are very few', i.e. Kapilavastu, Buddhagayd (in Magadha), Varanast (Benares), Sravastt (N. Kosala), Kanyakubga (Kanoj), Ragagrzha (ten years in Nalanda), Vaisalt, Kusinagara, and Tamraliptt (Tamluk). I doubt whether he visited Ceylon; although he often mentions it; his description does not appear to be that of an eye-witness. So itis in the case of L4/a%, Sindhu, Valabhi, Udyana, Khara- kar, Kustana (Khoten), Kasmira, and Nepdla. Besides the above, he mentions Tibet (T'u-fan), Persia (Po-la-ssti), the Tajiks(Ta-shih and To-shih)’, Tukh4ra (T‘u-ho-lo), SAli (Su-li), the Turks (Tii-chiieh), and accidentally Korea (Kau-li, Kukkutesvara), THE DATE oF I-TSING’s WoRK. If I-tsing had expressly stated when he came back to Sribhoga, we should have had no difficulty at all in fixing the date of his work. That point, however, is left entirely blank. We shall try to find out a date which may come nearest the mark, if not quite correct, chiefly resting on the foregoing data of his life and travels, First of all the place where he compiled his work must be in Sribhoga (Palem- bang in Sumatra)‘ as he says towards the end of chap. xxxiv. His return from India to this place must be later than a.p. 685°, when he was still near Nalanda, and, as he says that he already passed four years in Sribhoga before he wrote chap. xxxtv, his Record cannot be in any case earlier than a. D. 689 (685 + 4= 689), even if we suppose that he returned there immediately after his parting with Wu- hing near Nalanda. Further, he uses throughout the new dynastic name * adopted A.D. 690 by the Usurper Queen (reigned a.p. 684-704); this shows clearly that ‘.-The Milasarvastivada-samyuktavastu (Nanjio’s Catal., No. 1121), chap. xxxviii, p. 85 (J.), and‘ chap. xxxvi, p. 76°. 2 See p. 137, note 1, and p. 217. 8 This is generally the name for the Mohammedan Arabs in Chinese. I-tsing says that the Tajiks occupied the way to Kapisa ; Memoirs, vol. i, fol. 4%; Chavannes, p. 25. * Not ‘in Ceylon’ as Messrs. Shimaji and Ikuta suppose in their Short History of Buddhism in the Three Kingdoms (India, China, and Japan), 1890, Tokio. Evidence, if any, is too weak to prove that I-tsing visited Ceylon. 5 This dage is in the Chinese text ‘the first year of the Chui-kung period,’ being the second year of the Usurper Queen, though she still used the dynastic name T'ang, which she changed in A. D. 690 into Chou, Chavannes, p. Io. 5’ Chou, p. 214 below; Chou-yun and Chou-i, p. 7; the Great Chou, p. 118; Chon-yii, p. 148; astly, in his text, not in his notes, the Great Chou, p. 214 (note 3). See the Chinese text, respectivel¥,-yol. i, fol. 3%; vol. iii, fol. 12*;"vol. iv, fols. 2°, 27% liv GENERAL INTRODUCTION. our Record cannot be earlier than a.p. 690. It will be remembered that he sent this Record on the fifteenth day of the fifth month of a.p. 692, and we must there- fore find the date of his whole composition within the period a.p. 690-692. Let us now examine the chapters which we can make use of for our purpose. 1, I-tsing’s Znfroduction, as is usual with us, must be the latest, i.e, when all the chapters were ready, for he says in it that he sends home this very Record in " forty chapters *. 2. Chap. xviii. He accidentally says that he toiled during two decades of years, This chapter must therefore have been written in about 691 (671~691=20; A.D, 671, having only one month left). 3- Chap. xxviii, He was ‘more than twenty years abroad.’ This brings us again to a.p. 691. To be quite safe, we will put down a.p. 691-692, because it is ‘more’ than twenty years*, 4. His Memoirs must be later than the contents of our Record (except the Introduction), for the former quotes the latter twice by name‘, But the conclusion of the Memoirs must be at about the same time as the Introduction of the Record, for both mention the Memoirs in two vols. and the Record in four vols. (forty chapters) °, one by the other. In other words, the finishing up of the two works must be at about the same time. Now it will not be very difficult to see that about seven folios of a Supplement ® to the Memoirs have been written about the same time, for it is not likely that he would write a Supplement before the text. May it be an addition at a later date? According to my opinion, it cannot be later than a.p. 692, because he must have sent it with the texts. We see in the Supplement that a priest, Tao- hung, who was ordained in his twentieth year, soon after met I-tsing in Kwang- tung, and followed the party to Sribhoga, a.p. 689, was twenty-three years of age? (a.p. 689-692 =3) when our author wrote the supplementary portion. From this it is clear that he wrote it, or at any rate, he sent it at the same 1 Page 18 below. ? Page 95 below; for the impossibility of taking it as ‘ two dozen,’ see note at the end, p. 220, * Page 135 below. Compare p. 176, note 4. * Chavannes, p. 88, note 1; p. 92, note 1, chap. 30 of our Record is quoted. 5 Page 13 below; Chavannes, p. 160. * Chavannes, p. 161 ; about twenty-four pages in French. ™ Chavannes, pp. 185,187. Sce p. xxxvi above. * It is true that there is a portion which I-tsing might have added afterwards, but this part can be clearly seen in the text, as it is a general remark, not coming under any name; see a Oe ea et ei ge 4 - mt ms TABLES OF LITERARY MEN. lv time with the other texts. Thus the Jnfroduction to the Record, the Memoirs and its Supplemenf will have to be referred to about the same time, the last mentioned being the last composed. Observe that I-tsing reckons three years from the latter half of a.p. 689 till the fifth month of a.p. 692. 4 5- Now, towards the end of chap. xxxiv—the most important of all chapters— he says that he remained over four years in Srtbhoga, since his return from India, the date of which we do not know. Only one year added to the period which I-tsing reckons as three years (a.p. 689-692) will give us the year of his second visit to Sribhoga, i.e. a.p. 6887 (he was in Bhoga a.p. 689 as we have seen). Thus the date of chap, xxxiv must fall in 691 or 692; the safest limit will be A.D. 691-692, the result being the same as that of chap. xxviii, &c. All the evidence that can be adduced from the text points thus to the correctness of the date a.p. 691-692, strictly speaking a.p. 691 to the fifth month of a.p. 692, as the time when I-tsing wrote his Record. Resting on this result we can place with certainty the death of GayAditya*, joint author with VArnana of the Kasikavrdtti, in a.p. 661-662, and that of Bhartrzhari’, contemporary of Dharmapala, in a.p. 651-652. TABLES OF SEVERAL LITERARY MEN AND BUDDHIST TEACHERS OF INDIA, WITH THEIR DATES AND SUCCESSIONS, MADE FROM THE : RECORD OF BUDDHIST PRACTICES (A.D. 691-692) OF I-TSING + (A.D. 671-695 ABROAD ; 673-687 1N INDIA). (Those in Italics are not given in I-tsing’s text.) I. (Chap. xxxii, pp. 156-157.) The Sardhasataka-Buddhastotra (10 verses, Nanjio’s Catal., No. 1456). 1, Composed by Matrizéta. Jn Térandtha’s Geschichte des Buddhismus, p. 89, Métriketa is said to have lived about the time of Bindusdra, son of Kandragupta. 2. Admired by Asaiga , 3. and by. Vasubandhu, | Brothers and contemporaries. 4. Some verses were added by Gina. Two of his works have been translated by Paramértha, who worked in China a,b. 557-569 (Nanjio's Catal., Nos. 1172, 1255). + The time of the arrival of the ship was the first or second month of the year, see above, p. xxxiv. We shall not here speak of three months’ stay in China after his chance return, for-we are not sure as to whether he reckoned the period ; it will not, I think, make any difference in the vear. Ivi GENERAL INTRODUCTION. §- A further addition by Sakyadeva of the Deer Park (at Benares), 6.