English
We cannot place Vasubandhu and Asahga much later than 500, for the translations of their works date from 509 and 531 respectively. In ¢, Gina must be much earlier than the rest, see above, I. 4. d. Cfanakandra must have lived from a period earlier than 650, for he was known by Hiuen ‘Thsang; the same is the case with Ratnasimha, It is difficult to draw a line between ¢ and @; many of them must have been contemporaries. I-tsing seems to distinguish those dead (¢) from’ those still living (@). For Sakyakirti, see Nanjio’s Catal., App. i, 54, p. 378 (not Sakyayasas ; I-tsing has translated his teacher's work). ix GENERAL INTRODUCTION. THE TEXT. The text of our Record is very corrupt, as Mr. Kasawara told us in 1882}, but we must remember that since then the new edition of the Chinese Buddhist books has been completed, and a copy of it was sent to the Bodleian Library for the use of European scholars. This Japanese edition is excellent, being based on a careful collation of the five different editions brought out in China, Korea, and Japan. Its arrangement is more convenient for the reader than that of the older ; the print is clear, as it was executed by the modern movable type. Above all, the sentences are accurately punctuated, and the various readings are found in the notes, It may safely be regarded as the standard edition of the Chinese Pisaka, and Japanese Buddhists may be proud of the service they have rendered in this field of Chinese literature. Our Record, in particular, gives evidence of a careful study and collation, shedding light on several passages hitherto unin- telligible. I-tsing’s works as well as the-whole canon were preserved in MS. only, and not printed till a.p. 972°. Thus we may safely say that our Record, which is now found with the Pisaka, existed in MS. for about 280 years before it came down to us as a printed text. This fact may account for several minor points of difference in the existing editions. But there are some passages missing which we cannot well ascribe to the copyist’s mistakes. They may have been struck out by I-tsing himself afier his return home ; it is cettain, however, that the original copy which was sent home from abroad contained them all. Among others, there is a passage relating to the Sanskrit alphabet quoted in some early works. In the Siddha-tzii-chi, ‘Record of the Siddha-letters,’ compiled by a Chinese priest, Chi-kwang (a.p. 800), the author says: ‘I-tsing said that among the twelve finals (a 4, i, u@; e ai, o au, am ad) the first three of the former three pairs (a, i, u) are short, while the second three of the same (4, 3, G) are long, and that, of the latter three pairs (e ai, o au, am ah), the first three (e, 0, am) are - long (sic), while the second three (ai, au, a4) are short (sic).’ A Japanese book called ‘ Sittan-26,’ or ‘ Siddha-kosa’ (a. p. 880), gives the above quotation in its full form, and shows that it once formed a part of I-tsing’s Record. (See Bodl. Jap. 15, vol. v, fol. 6.) PAHs Ww cA tos Be, 1 Max Miiller, ‘India, what can it teach us?’ 1882. p. 249. THE TEXT. lxi 2M (“FRR (EF). a UB. Ug RYE. HH; WAR By. WL fd, fl oo eR; aH apagh EWE Coho HUA che Us; a, w fi, = FB 4 1, 7 ; ow ww A, a ps, wR. pn Ie eat eZee ck we KEI FRANM BStAKERBAG BeEME LEE HERS WE MRR-FELAPLEEADHER WHS —F+EPUMPA-S MAHET=ET AMR aaah RtN deo Oy lb eg LE +OoRS Bsa (LM TH AH (BR: EMT ®) 348 a4 Lene % HE, Sat hE D4); VHS (LE PDs Ath wh (it EAs oe mp 1&3 + = AE AG ih ste Ko FRM RPS HA fee GP aE ii WIG th (D)- “It is said in the Record sent home by I-tsing: a, 4, i, f, u, fi, rz, 77, drt, ri, e, ai, 0, au; am, ah. Ka, kha, ga, gha, ha; 4a, kha, ga, gha, fia; fa, tha, da, dha, na; ta, tha, da, dha, na; pa, pha, ba, bha, ma. Ya, ra, la, va, sa, sha, sa, ha; Ilaz, ksha. (The last two are not included in the number of “he alphabet.) The first sixteen, a to ah, are final sounds [meaning vowels], and these are to be distributed among the other letters [consonants]. Each letter of ‘he alphabet [consonant], therefore, produces sixteen different sowzds when combined, just as in Chinese a character has four different tones, even (p'ing), rising (shang), sinking fch't), and entering (ju). - Ixii GENERAL INTRODUCTION. ‘The twenty-five letters, ka to ma, and the last eight, ya to ha, thirty-three in all, are called the “ first composition ;” all these must be pronounced according to the Chinese “ rising” (shang) tone, in spite of the Chinese equivalents being other tones, such as “even,” “sinking,” or “entering.” Further, what are called the “twelve sounds” [probably “ Dvadasa-aksharami”] are ka, kA (the first short, the second long); ki, kt (the first short, the second long); ku, kfi (the first short, the second long); ke, kai (the first long, the second short); ko, kau (the first long, the second short); kam, kak (both are short); ka# is obtained by pronouncing the Chinese ka emphatically. The “twelve sounds” of kha, &c., are pronounced after the above manner. These twelve letters [meaning syllables] are to be pro- nounced two by two in succession [ka, k4; ki, ki; &c.], and of these pairs one should distinguish a short from a long, guiding oneself by the note I have given under each pair (quoted).’ The Chinese characters here given well accord with those used in the Record, with the exception of a very few, and the quotation contains nothing whatever contrary to the passages in the existing Record. In chap. xxxiv, under the Si-t'an-chang, he says (p. 171): ‘There are forty-nine letters’ (of the alphabet), which are combined together and arranged into eighteen sections.’ After this, very likely he added the above by way of notes, as he generally did in other cases, to explain what the forty-nine were and how they were to be pronounced, and at the same time to show his friends at home a correct transliteration of the Sanskrit alphabet. That the above quotation once formed a part of our author’s Record is confirmed by a much later work, a commentary on the Siddha-tzii-chi (published A.D. 1669)* The commentator, Y(-kwai, says that whether I-tsing’s pronunciation was that of C. India or of S. India is a question discussed from olden times. ‘ But why is it, he asks, ‘that the citation of the text of the Siddha-tzti-chi* is somewhat different from the actual words of I-tsing found in the Record, according to which . am, ah are both short?’ He himself answers this question, attributing the difference to the careless citation on the part of the author of the Siddha-tzit-chi, From this we see that the original Record with the above quotation existed as late as 1669. Another commentator (a.p. 1696)‘ of the same work seems to have still 1 K&syapa adds : ‘ The number of the letters of the alphabet is severally recorded in Buddhist books, e. g. as fifty in the Mah4vairoZanabhisambodhi (No. 530), Maf#gusripariprzzérd (No. 442), Vagrasekhara-siitra (Nos. 1033, 1036), and Mahdparinirvaza-stitra ; as forty-six in the Lalita- vistara (Chinese, No. 159; forty-four in the Sanskrit text (Calcutta), p. 146); as forty-seven in THE TEXT. Ixiii possessed a text different from ours; for he quotes a passage from our Record, which we have not in the existing text. While discussing the Nirvava aspiration [Visarga], he says: ‘Among the twelve mata’ (=miétr7k4), given in I-tsing’s Record, af is transcribed by “a-han?” in Chinese, which is against the pronuncia- tion in C. India, where ah is read by the Chinese “entering ” tone. He may have introduced the pronunciation of S. India. He was, however, in Nalanda for years, and it is but natural that he should represent C, India in reading. Thus we see in his translations that whenever a Nirvi#a aspiration comes, he notes it as an “entering” tone. There are some in C. India, it may be noticed, who read a& like the Chinese a or o (in an “even” tone) *.” This quotation again shows us that the Record had once contained something more about the alphabet. Later in the year 1758 Kasyapa Ji-un wrote a commentary on the very Record of I-tsing. He had the same text as we have now. As this priest was one of the best Siddha scholars in Japan, well versed in the canon, and very curious about any book relating to Sanskrit, and yet did not come across any text but ours, the original text which contained all the quotations above referred to seems to have wellnigh disappeared in Japan as well as in China. He says: ‘ There seem to have been several texts of the Record. Many quotations found in the works of Tsang-ning (a. p. 988) of the Sung dynasty, Shou-kwang of the Ming dynasty (a. p. 1368~1628), and Annen of Japan (a.p. 880), are not found in the existing text. I request the learned antiquaries of later times to seek and discover the original text in a stone depository of some famous temples of China and Japan. My commentary has been written only on the current edition, and awaits correction or addition by a later hand,’ In my present translation I have used the India Office copy (a.p. 1681), Prof. Legge’s (a.p. 1714), Mr. Nanjio’s (text with commentary in MS., a.p. 1758), and the new Japanese edition in the Bodleian Library (1883), all based on one and the same older text without the quotations in question. There is, besides these, another elaborate commentary on our Record, written by a Japanese. I am sorry to say that I failed to get it copied in time to be used for our translation. 1 must now fulfil the pleasant duty of acknowledging the kind help severally rendered. First of all I thank the Delegates of the University Press for under- ! Here we have mata, but not mota.. For matr7k4, see Prof. Biihler’s note in the ‘ Ancient Ixiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION. taking the publication on the recommendation of Prof.