1

Fa-xian and the Chinese Ógamas Anålayo Abstract: The present article takes the pilgrimage by Fa-xian (法顯) to India and Ceylon as its point of departure and then focuses in particular on the chief purpose of Fa-xian's journey, namely his search for manuscripts to be brought back to China for transla-tion. The subsequent fate of these manuscripts then leads me over to the topic of the reception of Ógama literature in China and to an examination of the nature of the four main Ógamas that have been preserved in Chinese translation. Introduction: The network of paths and routes that connected Northwest India, Central Asia and China during the first millennium of the present era, known as the "Silk Road", played a central role in the spread of Buddhism to China and in the transmission of the Bud-dhist scriptures.1 The early stages of this transmission of Buddhism via the Silk Road took place mainly through the medium of Indians and Central Asians who travelled to China, but soon enough the Chinese responded with a series of pilgrimages to the Central Asian and Indian territories.2 The first among the Chinese pilgrims that undertook the strenuous and hazardous journey via Central Asia to reach the homeland of Buddhism, and whose travel records have been preserved, was Fa-xian (法顯).3 Fa-xian's pilgrimage: According to the records of his journey,4 Fa-xian set out with a group of companions in the year 399 of the present era from Chang-an (長安).5 His pilgrimage took him via Dun-huang (燉煌) to Khotan (于闐).6 Proceeding over difficult mountain paths, he reached TakΣaߥla (竺剎尸羅),7 and eventually Mathurå (摩頭羅).8 By the time of arriv-ing in the Indian 'Middle Country', the Madhyadeßa,9 Fa-xian had already spent sev-

* I am indebted to Rod Bucknell and Ken Su for comments on an earlier draft of this article 1 Neelis (2004: 775) comments that "the transmission of Buddhism from India to Central Asia and China corresponded with the development of the silk routes as channels for intercultural exchanges". 2 Mather (1992: 8), in the context of an examination of the relationship between India and Chinese dur-ing the first centuries of the present era, notes that "the greatest contribution toward mutual understand-ing came from the Indian missionaries in China and from Chinese pilgrims like Fa-hsien". 3 Ch'en (1964: 89 and 90) explains that "the importance of Fa-hsien in the history of Sino-Indian rela-

tions lies in the fact that he was the first Chinese monk actually to arrive in India, study there for a lengthy period, and then return to China with sacred scriptures", "the success of his pilgrimage inaugu-rated a movement in which a considerable number of Chinese monks participated after him". 4 The records of this journey can be found in the 高僧法顯傳, T 2085 at T LI 857a3-866c5. This account has been translated by Beal (1869); Deeg (2005: 505-577); Giles (1923); Legge (1998); and Remusat (1836); for a résumé of the different local legends recorded by Fa-xian cf. Abegg (1947). 5 T 2085 at T LI 857a6. 6 T 2085 at T LI 857a13 and LI 857b3. 7 T 2085 at T LI 858b6. 8 T 2084 at T LI 859a24. 9 Legge (1998: 4) notes that Fa-xian's use of the expression "Middle Country" to refer to the Indian Madhyadeßa, T 2085 at T LI 859b1: 中國, was experienced as offensive by the compilers of an entry on his work in an ancient Chinese catalogue, as from their perspective only China deserved this appella-tion; cf. also Deeg (2005: 41 and 194).

2

eral years on the road. He had crossed deserts and mountains, some of his companions had turned back and two had died along the way. Fa-xian visited the main locations related to the Buddha's life and teaching, such as Śråvast¥ (舍衛城), which he found to be only sparsely populated,10 and Kapilavastu (迦維羅衛城), which at the time of his arrival was in a nearly deserted state.11 Eventually he came to På†aliputra (巴連弗邑) where, after an excursion to Råjag®ha (王舍城) and Gayå (伽耶城),12 he stayed for a period of three years in order to study the Indian lan-guage and script so as to be able to copy and eventually translate Buddhist scrip-tures.13 The scriptures had in fact been the chief motive for Fa-xian's pilgrimage. According to his own account, he had undertaken the long and hazardous journey to India in order to search for Vinaya materials.14 While still in China, Fa-xian had been acutely aware of the incomplete state of the Vinaya material that had so far been translated into Chi-nese, and it was in order to improve this situation that he had decided to set out on his journey.15 Though his chief motivation was to "search for Vinaya", the records of his journey make it clear that Fa-xian was at the same time a "pilgrim" in the proper sense of the word, in that he had a keen interest in visiting sacred places and made sure to record a wealth of anecdotes and hagiographical information related to the Buddha and the chief events in the Buddha's life. In fact, to "search for Vinaya" or even to "search for Dharma" cannot be neatly separated from such interests, as from the perspective of Fa-xian and his contemporaries both would have been experienced as related facets of the same undertaking. For Fa-xian, a "search for Vinaya" would have meant a com-

10 T 2085 at T LI 860b9 indicates that, at the time of Fa-xian's visit, Śråvast¥ was inhabited by only about 200 families, 舍衛城, 城內人民希曠, 都有二百餘家. 11 T 2085 at T LI 861a23 explains that Kapilavastu was only inhabited by ten families and some mem-bers of the Sa∫gha, 只有眾僧, 民戶數十家而已 (adopting the 宋, 元, 明, 宮 variant 只 instead of 止). 12 T 2085 at T LI 862c10 and T LI 863a22. 13 T 2085 at T LI 864b28: 故法顯住此三年, 學梵書梵語. In relation to Fa-xian's use of the expression 梵語, Norman (1978: 39) notes that this simply means 'Indian language' and could thus refer to Sanskrit or a Pråkrit. According to Deeg (2005: 562 note 2464), the transcriptions used by Fa-xian point to Pråkritic elements, while the expression 梵書 could stand for the Brahm¥ script. On 梵 as a possible reference to the Brahm¥ script (against 胡 for KaroΣ†h¥) cf. also Boucher (2000). 14 T 2085 at T LI 857a8: 尋求戒律. Lévy (1995: 61) explains that Fa-xian's principal aim was to bring more complete Vinaya texts ("le but principal qu'il avait assigné à son voyage était de rapporter des textes plus complets sur la discipline monastique"). According to Tsukamoto (1985: 435), "there was, at the time, a large number of voices bewailing the incompleteness of canonical codes, so much so that any member of the foreign saµgha who was proficient in the Vinaya would, upon arrival in China, be-come the object of veneration and expectation simultaneously. Tao-an's efforts, before this time, to se-cure a canonical code ... [and] Hui-yüan's dispatch of Chih Fa-ling and others to Central Asia was ... motivated by the same considerations". Notably, the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 337c4, and the 出三藏記集, T 2154 at T LV 111c12, speak of his quest in terms of seeking both sËtras and the rules of discipline, 經律. Shih (1968: 109 note 2) comments that this formulation may have been influenced by the circum-stance that the material brought back by Fa-xian included several manuscripts with discourse material. 15 T 2085 at T LI 857a6: 慨律藏殘缺. Char (1991: 39) comments that "the lack of Indian texts to trans-late into Chinese ... induced the Chinese monks to travel to India in search of the original texts". Deeg (2005: 37) points out that the search for originals to be translated needs to be considered in the light of the general importance given to scriptures by the Chinese ("das Problem der ... Suche nach indischen Originaltexten und des Bemühen, diese auf authentische Weise in die eigene Muttersprache zu übertra-gen, ist bei einem geradezu schrifthörigen Volk wie dem chinesischen nicht zu unterschätzen").

3

bination of first-hand experience of Vinaya practice and religious customs in India with a quest for written materials that could be taken back to China for translation.16 The importance of his primary motivation to serve the progress of Buddhism in his home country came to the fore with particular clarity when the last of his original travel companions, Dao-zheng (道整), decided to stay in India. The favourable condi-tions in India and the good Vinaya standards of the Indian monks had left such a strong impression on Dao-zheng that he decided to stay in India instead of returning to China, in fact he even formulated the aspiration to never be reborn in a border country (like China) until his eventual attainment of Buddha-hood.17 For Fa-xian, however, the call of his original motivation to bring the Vinaya to his home country was a strong motivating force, which made him decide that he would continue his journey alone.18 Until his arrival in På†aliputra, the chief purpose of Fa-xian's pilgrimage had not found fulfilment, as he had been unable to obtain manuscripts that could be taken back to China for translation. A central reason for his difficulties was that oral trans-mission still continued alongside writing.19 In the case of his search for Vinaya manu-scripts in particular, another contributing factor may have been that it was apparently considered inappropriate to divulge Vinaya material to outsiders, making it even less likely that a foreigner would easily come across Vinaya manuscripts that he could copy.20 16 Ampere (1837: 349) notes that Fa-xian wanted to visit holy places, collect legends as well as manu-scripts, and get a first-hand impression of the condition of his religion ("er will Orte besuchen, die durch heilige Reliquien in Ruf gekommen sind, will Sagen, Legenden, geistliche Bücher sammeln und von der Verbreitung, dem Gedeihen oder dem Verfalle seines Glaubens ... sich überzeugen"). Demié-ville in Renou (2001: 402) explains that Fa-xian's central motivation of searching for Vinaya included study of the rules in situ together with procuring the texts ("son but principal était, dit-il, d'aller en Inde 'chercher le Vinaya', c'est-à-dire étudier les règles disciplinaires de la communauté monastique et s'en procurer le textes originaux"). Landresse in Rémusat (1836: LI) remarks that to search for manuscripts, to learn their language and understand their content, as well as visiting sacred places, were the motives for his pilgrimage ("la recherche de ces livres, l'étude des différent idiomes dans lesquels ils étaient rédigés, la connaissance des doctrines et des faits qu'ils contenaient, tels étaient, avec la visite des lieux saints, les motifs du long pèlerinage entrepris par notre voyageur"). According to Mayer (2004: 283), "Faxian ... conceived of his travel to India as a 'search for the dharma', which involved venerating holy sites, studying with Indian masters, and collecting texts". Meisig (2000: 106) clarifies that Fa-xian's search for the Vinaya combined a search for written material with a study of the actual ways of life of the monks in India ("die Formulierung 求戒律 ... verrät, daß Fa-hien, neben dem Sammeln von schriftli-chen Zeugnissen über den Vinaya, auch an dem alltäglichen Leben der Mönche im fernen Indien inte-ressiert war"). 17 T 2085 at T LI 864c2. 18 T 2085 at T LI 864c3: "Fa-xian's original intention had been to transmit the rules of discipline and the Vinaya to China, so that he returned [to China] alone", 法顯本心欲令戒律流通漢地, 於是獨還. 19 T 2085 at T LI 864b17: "in the North-Indian countries the teachers were still [following the method of] oral transmission, [hence] there were no written texts that could be copied", 而北天竺諸國, 皆師師口傳, 無本可寫. Bechert (1992: 53) notes that "oral tradition continued to exist side by side with written scriptures for many centuries". According to de Jong (1979: 141), for centuries manuscripts must have been rare and oral transmission was held in high esteem, ("pendant des siècles, les manuscrits on dû être très rares ... la récitation de textes religieux jouissait d'un prestige sacré qui faisait défaut aux textes écrits"), cf. also Demiéville in Renou (2001: 403). Sander (1991: 142) suggests that the continuity of oral transmission may be responsible for the dearth "of H¥nayåna Vinaya and SËtra texts before the fifth century" AD among the fragments found in Central Asia. On recently discovered sËtra fragments that, however, appear to date to the first century AD, cf. Salomon (1997). 20 Demiéville (1951: 246 note 1) explains that Vinaya material was not be divulged or shown to outsid-ers ("on ne devait pas tenir à divulguer le Vinaya, ni même à le montrer aux profanes ou aux étran-gers"), noting that the 大毘盧遮那成佛經疏, T 1796 at T XXXIX 609c4 even reckons the Vinaya to be a secret collection, 以毘尼為祕藏.

4

On arriving in På†aliputra, however, Fa-xian finally found what he had been searching for, as in a local monastery he was able to procure several texts that he could copy. According to the listing given in his travel records, among these texts were two Vi-nayas, namely a Mahåså∫ghika Vinaya and a Sarvåstivåda Vinaya,21 the second of which was still transmitted by way of oral recitation. In addition to these two Vinayas, he also obtained a Sarvåstivåda ßåstra text, an unnamed sËtra, part of a version of the Mahåyåna Mahåparinirvåˆa-sËtra, and a Mahåså∫ghika Abhidharma text.22 After his three-year period of study and copying of texts in På†aliputra, Fa-xian con-tinued to the east coast to Tåmralipti (多摩梨帝國) at the mouth of the Ganges,23 where he stayed another two years to copy sËtras and draw pictures of statues. From Tåmra-lipti he embarked for Ceylon, the Siµhaladv¥pa (師子國). In Ceylon, Fa-xian re-mained for another two years, apparently staying at the Abhayagiri monastery (無畏山精舍). During his stay, Fa-xian was able to further extend his manuscript collection, as he obtained a Mah¥ßåsaka Vinaya, a D¥rgha-ågama, a Saµyukta-ågama, and what ap-pears to be an extract from a KΣudraka collection.24 With his collection of manuscripts, Fa-xian finally embarked for China by boat. His return proved to be as adventurous as his earlier journey overland, since he twice faced near shipwreck.25 On the first of these two occasions the other passengers, most of whom were merchants, threw all kinds of goods into the sea in order to prevent the ship from sinking. Thus Fa-xian faced the dire prospect of having to throw his pre-cious manuscripts as well into the water. Fortunately, however, the ship reached an is-land where it could be repaired, so that the manuscripts that Fa-xian had collected with so much effort were saved from being thrown into the sea. To complete his journey he embarked on another ship, which went off course during a storm. Brahmin passengers believed the presence of a Buddhist monk on board to be inauspicious and, had it not been for the timely intervention of another passenger, Fa-xian would have been marooned on some desert island along the way, together with

21 T 2085 at T LI 864b19: "in that Mahåyåna monastery [of På†aliputra] he obtained one Vinaya, this was a Vinaya of the *Mahåså∫ghika community", 於此摩訶衍僧伽藍得一部律, 是摩訶僧祇眾律. T 2085 at T LI 864b23: "he also obtained a transcription of one Vinaya that had seven-thousand verses, this was a *Sarvåstivåda Vinaya. This is the Vinaya which now is already being followed by the Chinese monastic community. [This Vinaya] was still transmitted orally from teacher to teacher and was not written down in script", 復得一部抄律, 可七千偈, 是薩婆多眾律, 即此秦地眾僧所行者也, 亦皆師師口相傳授, 不書之於文字. 22 T 2085 at T LI 864b25: "Moreover he obtained from this community a *Saµyukta-abhidharma-h®da-ya-(ßåstra) that had six-thousand verses, one discourse that had two-thousand-five-hundred verses, one part of a *Vaipulya-Mahåparinirvåˆa-sËtra that had five-thousand verses, and a *Mahåså∫ghika Abhi-dharma", 復於此眾中得雜阿毘曇心, 可六千偈, 又得一部綖經, 二千五百偈, 又得一卷方等般泥洹經, 可五千偈, 又得摩訶僧祇阿毘曇 (adopting the 宋, 元, 明, 宮 variant that adds 綖 to 一部經; and following Deeg (2005: 562 note 2463) who explains that the 故 that ends this sentence in the TaishØ edition belongs to the next sentence, cf. above note 13 quotation T LI 864b28). 23 T 2085 at T LI 864c6, adopting the 宋, 元, 明, 宮 variant that adds 多 to 摩梨帝國. Weller (1922: 565-566) explains that 國, literally "country", can also render *nagara, "city". 24 T 2085 at T LI 865c24: "he obtained a *Mah¥ßåsaka Vinayapi†aka, he obtained a *D¥rgha-ågama [and] a *Saµyukta-ågama, and he also obtained one *KΣudrakapi†aka, all these were not found in China", 得彌沙塞律藏本, 得長阿含雜阿含, 復得一部雜藏, 此悉漢土所無者; in relation to 雜藏, de Jong (1981: 105) comments that 雜 "is used to render both saµyukta and kΣudraka and it is possible that this text is a part of a KΣudrakapi†aka". 25 For an examination of the route taking by Fa-xian for his return to China via sea cf. Grimes (1941).

5

his manuscripts. When, after all these adventures, Fa-xian finally arrived in China, to-gether with his precious manuscripts, he had been away for fifteen years.26 Fa-xian's manuscripts: From the perspective of his principal quest for Vinaya manuscripts, Fa-xian's journey had been quite successful, since he brought copies of altogether three Vinayas to China. Fa-xian himself translated the Mahåså∫ghika Vinaya he had obtained in På†ali-putra, a translation undertaken in collaboration with the dhyåna master Buddhabhadra (佛陀跋陀羅) during the period 416-418 AD.27 The Mah¥ßåsaka Vinaya he had brought from Ceylon was translated after he had passed away, during the period 423-424 AD. Buddhaj¥va (佛馱什), a Mah¥ßåsaka monk from Kashmir, read out the text, and Zhi-sheng (智勝), a Khotanese monk, translated it.28 The manuscript of the Sarvåstivåda Vinaya that Fa-xian had also brought from På†ali-putra was not translated. The simple reason for this was that during the period 404 to 409 AD a translation of this work had already been undertaken in China.29 The famous Kumåraj¥va (鳩摩羅什) had begun to translate this Vinaya, based on a text recited from memory by Puˆyatara (弗若多羅). But when the translation was still far from being completed, Puˆyatara suddenly passed away. After this unexpected interruption, Kumåraj¥va was able to take up the translation again when a written copy of the Sar-våstivåda Vinaya was brought to China by Dharmaruci (曇摩流支). Before the re-vision of the translation had been completed, however, Kumåraj¥va also passed away. During the time of the rather eventful undertaking of the Chinese translation of the Sarvåstivåda Vinaya, Fa-xian was still on his pilgrimage, so that he could not have known that the Vinaya he was busily copying in På†aliputra was already being trans-lated in China. In addition to translating the Mahåså∫ghika Vinaya, Fa-xian also translated two Mahåparinirvåˆa-sËtras,30 and the ßåstra text that he had brought from På†aliputra.31 Out of the material that Fa-xian had acquired in Ceylon, he himself translated a rela-tively brief text that appears to be an extract from a KΣudraka collection.32 Regarding 26 According to T 2085 at T LI 866b17, it took him six years to reach the Indian 'Middle Country', where he stayed another six years, and the return via Sri Lanka took him three years. 27 This is the 摩訶僧祇律, T 1425, with the information about its origin and translation given at T XXII 548b7; for an English translation of the section concerning the bhikΣuˆ¥s cf. Hirakawa (1982). The Mahåså∫ghika-bhikΣuˆ¥-pråtimokΣa, 摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本, appears to have also been translated by Fa-xian and Buddhabhadra, cf. T 1427 at T XXII 556a25; while the Mahåså∫ghika-bhikΣu-pråtimokΣa, 摩訶僧祇律大比丘戒本, may have been translated without Fa-xian's collaboration, cf. T 1426 at T XXII 549a9 and also Roth (1970: I). 28 This is the 彌沙塞部和醯五分律, T 1421, with the information about its translators given at T XXII 1a5. A more detail account of the translation can be found in the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 339a9. Deeg (2005: 137 note 644) comments that the similarity between T 1421 and Fa-xian's travel records (T 2085) suggests the possibility that Fa-xian may have already started working on the translation, which was then completed by Zhi-sheng and Buddhaj¥va. 29 This is the 十誦律, T 1435, with Puˆyatara and Kumåraj¥va listed as translators at T XXIII 1a7; cf. also the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 333a21 and T L 333b13, and Zürcher (1972: 248 and 409 note 89). 30 These are the 大般涅槃經, T 7, with the information given about its translator at T I 191b4, and the 佛說大般泥洹經, T 376, with the information about its translator given at T XII 853a5. T 7 is a parallel to the Mahåparinibbåna-sutta, DN 16 at DN II 72-168; for a comparative study of the different versions, together with abstracts from T 7, cf. Waldschmidt (1944) and (1948). On the significance of T 376 cf. Demiéville (1973: 380). 31 This translation was subsequently lost, cf. the 出三藏記集, T 2145 at T LV 12a1. Bagchi (1927: 348) notes yet another translation by Fa-xian that was also subsequently lost.

6

the Saµyukta-ågama he had also brought from Ceylon, it seem quite possible that this was the very manuscript on which the extant Chinese translation of the Saµyukta-åga-ma was based.33 This translation was undertaken by Bao-yun (寶雲) between 435 and 436 AD, based on a recitation of the original manuscript by Guˆabhadra (求那跋陀羅).34 The translator of the Saµyukta-ågama, Bao-yun, had been a co-traveller of Fa-xian during part of the latter's pilgrimage to India. He had joined Fa-xian shortly after the latter had set out from China.35 When the group had left TakΣaߥla and before reaching the Indian 'Middle Country', Bao-yun decided to return to China.36 His earlier close relation with Fa-xian would make it only natural for him to get involved in translating a manuscript that Fa-xian had brought back from his travels.37 Guˆabhadra had come from India to China via Ceylon, following a route similar to the one Fa-xian had taken to return home about twenty years earlier. If he had heard of Fa-xian, which seems highly probable, it would not be surprising if soon after his

arrival in China he should be willing to collaborate in translating a manuscript brought

by Fa-xian. The extant Chinese translation of the Saµyukta-ågama is generally taken to be from a Sarvåstivåda, or more specifically from the so-called (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda tradition.38 At first sight this proposed school affiliation of the Saµyukta-ågama may seem to conflict with the assumption that the source manuscript for the translation could stem from Ceylon. However, Fa-xian lived at the Abhayagiri monastery during his stay in Ceylon, a monastery which at that time provided a platform for various schools and tenets that did not necessarily agree with the orthodox position taken at the Mahåvi-håra monastery.39 An inscription from the Abhayagiri monastery mentions "four prin-cipal schools", cåtur-mahå-nikåya. According to some scholars, this reference may be a record of the temporary presence in Ceylon of monks from the Sautråntika, the Sar- 32 This is the 佛說雜藏經, T 745, with the information about its translator given at T XVII 557b14. A survey of this text can be found in de Jong (1981: 105-107). 33 Cf. the 歷代三寶紀, T 2034 at T XLIX 91a24, and the discussion in de Jong (1981: 108), though the出三藏記集, T 2145 at T LV 12a5, suggests that this Saµyukta-ågama manuscript was not translated (a statement that the same work T 2145 at T LV 12c6 also makes about the Mah¥ßåsaka Vinaya, even though this Vinaya was translated during 423-424 AD, well before the time Seng-you (僧祐) compiled T 2145). 34 This it the 雜阿含經, T 99, which at T II 1a5 mentions only Guˆabhadra as the translator; but a more detailed account of the translation procedure can be found in the 出三藏記集, T 2145 at T LV 13a6; cf. also the 歷代三寶紀, T 2034 at T XLIX 92a18, the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 344b2, the 大唐內典錄, T 2149 at T LV 259c14, and the 開元釋教錄, T 2154 at T LV 529a22. On the date of the translation cf. Glass (2006: 21). Forte (1984: 316) explains that every translation was "registered under the name of a single person, usually the actual guarantor of the text ... This need to make one person responsible often meant that the actual contribution of other members of the team tended to be unacknowledged". 35 T 2085 at T LI 857a11. 36 T 2085 at T LI 858c6. 37 For a more detailed discussion of reasons in support of the hypothesis that T 99 was translated based on the manuscript brought by Fa-xian cf. Glass (2006: 21-25). 38 Choong (2000: 6 note 18); Enomoto (1986: 23); Harrison (2002: 1); Hiraoka (2000); Lü (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 99); Schmithausen (1987: 306); Waldschmidt (1980: 136) and Yin-shun (1983: 696). 39 Dhammavisuddhi (1991: 210) explains that "at the time of his visit, the Abhayagiri monastery was in its hey-day"; cf. also Yin-shun (1988: 212). According to Anesaki (1905: 24), when Fa-xian's arrived in Ceylon the Abhayagiri was prospering more than the Mahåvihåra, which would explain why he ob-tained texts that differ from the Påli canon, ("au temps de Få-hien le monastère hétérodoxe d'Abhaya-giri était plus florissant à Ceylan que l'orthodoxe Mahåvihåra. Ce fait pourrait expliquer pourquoi le texte de Få-hien diverge du canon påli actuel").

7

våstivåda and the Mah¥ßåsaka traditions, in addition to the local Theravådins.40 If this should indeed be the case, then it would be less surprising if Fa-xian obtained a (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda Saµyukta-ågama collection during his stay in Ceylon. Fa-xian's D¥rgha-ågama manuscript In addition to this Saµyukta-ågama collection, Fa-xian had also brought a D¥rgha-ågama manuscript from Ceylon. The way he refers to these two is noteworthy, since whereas he mentions each of the other works he had collected in India and Ceylon singly, in the case of these two Ógamas he lists them together as if they were a single work.41 The circumstance that Fa-xian would bring these two Ógamas and that he would refer to them as if they were a single work can be better appreciated in the light of the situa-tion in China before his pilgrimage. During the years that preceded the departure of Fa-xian and his companions for India, a Madhyama-ågama and an Ekottarika-ågama had already been translated. These two translations were undertaken during the period 384-385 AD by Zhu Fo-nian (竺佛念),42 based on originals recited from memory by the Tocharian Dharmanandin (曇摩難提), who had come to China in order to further the spread of the Dharma. Of these two translations, the Madhyama-ågama translation by Zhu Fo-nian was sub-sequently replaced by another translation undertaken by the Kashmiri Gautama Sa∫-ghadeva during the period 397-398 AD from a written original read out to him by Sa∫gharakΣa, another Kashmiri monk.43 The extant Chinese translation of this original appears to stem from a Sarvåstivåda tradition.44 But the Ekottarika-ågama translation by Zhu Fo-nian may well be the version that is still extant in Chinese. There is some uncertainty in the records of Chinese translation activities about whether Sa∫ghadeva did only a revision of this Ekottarika-ågama translation or whether he actually retranslated it.45 A close inspection of the two col-lections shows, however, that the translation vocabulary found in the Madhyama-åga-ma rendered into Chinese by Sa∫ghadeva differs considerably from the translation ter-minology employed in the extant Ekottarika-ågama. These differences make it highly improbable that the two could stem from the same translator.46 Be that as it may, before his departure for India, Fa-xian would certainly have known that the Madhyama-ågama and the Ekottarika-ågama had already been translated.

40 Kalupahana (1970: 190); cf. also Gunawardana (1966: 66) and Witanachchi (2005: 578). 41 Cf. above note 24 quote T LI 865c24. 42 On these two translations cf. the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 328b29, or the 出三藏記集, T 2145 at T LV 10b25 and 71b29. The introduction to the Ekottarika-ågama by Dao-an (道安) notes that Dharmanandin was a reciter of two Ógamas, T II 549a11: 誦二阿含. 43 This it the 中阿含, T 26, which names its translators at T I 809b26. 44 Enomoto (1984); Lü (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 98); Minh Chau (1991: 27); Waldschmidt (1980: 136) and Yin-shun (1983: 703). 45 The introduction to the 增壹阿含, T 125 at T II 549b11, and the 歷代三寶紀, T 2034 at T XLIX 70c5, attribute the whole translation to Sa∫ghadeva, while the 出三藏記集, T 2145 at T LV 71b29, the 眾經目錄, T 2146 at T LV 127c29, the 大周刊定眾經目錄, T 2153 at T LV 422b6, and the 開元釋教錄, T 2154 at T LV 511b15, attribute the translation to Dharmanandin (and his collaborators). 46 Nattier (2007: 195 note 48) concludes that "the differences between the two texts are too great to be

explained simply by positing that the translator changed his mind over the course of time, or even that the differences are due to the input of different translation committees". For arguments in favour of attributing T 125 to Sa∫ghadeva, however, cf. Demiéville 1954: 374.

8

This would have made it only natural for him to undertake the work of copying only the other two Ógamas that he thought still needed to be translated: the D¥rgha-ågama and the Saµyukta-ågama. Thus the two Ógamas he brought from Ceylon were proba-bly selected by him on purpose from what would have been a complete Ógama set available at the time of his visit in Ceylon. If this is correct, then from the above it would follow that the D¥rgha-ågama brought by Fa-xian from Ceylon belonged to the same school as the Saµyukta-ågama, that is, this D¥rgha-ågama would also have been a (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda collection. This as-sumption is not verifiable, however, as the D¥rgha-ågama brought by Fa-xian was not translated into Chinese and thus is no longer extant. The reason why the D¥rgha-ågama brought by Fa-xian was not translated into Chinese would be that not long before his return, during the period 412-413 AD, another D¥r-gha-ågama collection was translated into Chinese by Zhu Fo-nian, based on a text re-cited by the Kashmiri Buddhayaßas (佛陀耶舍).47 This D¥rgha-ågama collection ap-pears to stem from a Dharmaguptaka tradition.48 Though the affiliation of the D¥rgha-ågama manuscript brought by Fa-xian remains hypothetical, it seems quite certain that it was not identical with the D¥rgha-ågama translated by Zhu Fo-nian, as in the records of his journey, compiled after his return, Fa-xian explicitly notes that the D¥rgha-ågama he had brought was not known in China.49 Thus the D¥rgha-ågama he had brought must have been different from the one that had already been translated into Chinese. If the D¥rgha-ågama manuscript brought by Fa-xian should indeed have been from a (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda tradition, as suggested by its Saµyukta-ågama counterpart, this collection of long discourses must have been substantially different from the Dharma-guptaka version. Thanks to recent Sanskrit fragment findings it has been possible to develop a relatively clear idea of the contents of the (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda D¥rgha-ågama. Based on the reconstruction undertaken with the help of these fragments, it seems that the (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda D¥rgha-ågama contained close to fifty discourses. Of these, only about twenty discourses have counterparts in the D¥rgha-ågama collec-tion that has been preserved in Chinese translation.50 That is, more than half of the dis-courses in the (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda D¥rgha-ågama collection are not found at all in the Dharmaguptaka D¥rgha-ågama translated into Chinese by Zhu Fo-nian. Thus if the D¥rgha-ågama brought back by Fa-xian was indeed from the (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda school, the fact that it was not translated into Chinese caused a considerable loss of material for the Chinese. In view of the dearth of manuscripts available for translation, which in the case of Vinaya material had even motivated Fa-xian and his companions to set out on the arduous journey to the homeland of Buddhism, it is surprising that the D¥rgha-ågama manuscript brought back by Fa-xian was never translated.51

47 This is the 長阿含, T 1, with the information about its translators given at T I 16b16; on this transla-tion cf. also the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 334b20. 48 Bareau (1966); Brough (2001: 50); Demiéville (1951: 252-253); Lü (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 97); Waldschmidt (1980: 136) and Yin-shun (1983: 720). 49 Cf. above note 24 quotation T LI 865c24. 50 Cf. the survey given in Hartmann (2004: 125-128). 51 De Jong (1981: 107) remarks that "the manuscript of the D¥rghågama brought back by Fa-hsien ... probably belonged to another school, but apparently the Chinese did not see any need for yet another D¥rghågama translation."

9

This is all the more puzzling when compared with the case of translations of Vinaya material, as the Vinayas of a range of different schools were translated separately. If the differences between the Vinayas of the early schools were sufficient to merit sepa-rate translation, the same would have been true of their respective Ógama collec-tions.52 According to the travel records of Yi-jing (義淨), the four Ógamas were still part of the general curriculum of monks in the seventh century and as such had to be studied in their entirety,53 which makes it highly probable that the different Buddhist school were still handing down complete sets of four Ógamas in their respective re-censions. Thus the fact that no complete set of four Ógamas of any school was ren-dered into Chinese must be related to the circumstances of the Chinese translation ef-forts. This disparity in treatment of Ógama and Vinaya material gives the impression as if awareness of the differences among the Ógama collections of the Indian Buddhist schools was not well established among the Chinese at the time of Fa-xian. In fact, the extant Ógama translations provide no explicit indication of their school affiliation, whereas translations of other texts often specify the school to which they belong. Per-haps the Chinese Buddhists of the fifth century considered the issue of school affilia-tion to be of relevance mainly in relation to the different Vinayas.54 Another aspect that needs to be taken into account is that the Chinese received the texts one after another in piecemeal fashion.55 This must have contributed to a situa-tion where, alongside translations of a range of Vinayas from different school, not a single complete set of the four Ógamas of any school has been preserved, and instead we have four Ógamas that stem from several different schools and were translated sin-gly.56 Notably, though the Chinese appear to have been unaware of the differences among the Ógama collections of the Indian Buddhist schools, the school affiliation of the Ógamas does seem to have influenced to some degree the choice of Ógamas that were actually translated. To investigate this possibility requires a closer look at the four Ógamas and their Påli Nikåya counterparts. The characteristics of the four Ógamas/Nikåyas

52 Hartmann (1999: 125) comments: "surprisingly, the D¥rghågama of the Sarvåstivådins was never translated into Chinese ... although the SËtrapi†aka versions vary no less in contents, structure and wording than do the Vinayapi†akas, these differences seem to have been of minor importance to Chi-nese eyes". 53 According to the 南海寄歸內法傳, T 2125 at T LIV 230a8, "when studying the *Ógamas, one is to completely investigate all four collections", 學阿笈摩經, 乃全探四部. 54 Wang (1994: 168) reflects that "it seems that before the 5th century the Chinese Buddhists, though having heard of the nikåyas, possessed very limited knowledge of them", adding (p. 174) that "the Chi-nese Buddhists in the 5th and 6th century spoke of the question of nikåyas from the point of view of vinaya". 55 Lancaster (1993: 519). 56 In addition to the four main Ógamas preserved in Chinese, partial translations of Saµyukta-ågama collections can be found: the 別譯雜阿含, T 100 at T II 374a-492c, on which cf. also Bingenheimer (2006) and (2007); and the 雜阿含, T 101 at T II 493a-499b, on which cf. also Bucknell (2006: 685). A group of discourses from an Ekottarika-ågama collection appears to have been translated already dur-ing the 2nd century by An Shi-gao (安世高), the 佛說七處三觀經, T 150a at T II 875b-883a, on which cf. also Harrison (1997). Since these collections are not preserved in full and their school affiliation is even more difficult to ascertain than in the case of the four main Ógamas, these partial Ógama translations are not of direct relevance to my present examination.

10

Regarding these four Ógamas translated from different schools, further inspection brings to light intriguing relationships between some of these Ógamas and the role these collections apparently played in the respective schools by which they were transmitted. In the case of the D¥rgha-ågama and its Påli counterpart, the D¥gha-nikåya, both collections can be seen to place particular emphasis on the personality of the Buddha. Though the Buddha is obviously prominent throughout all four collections, the long discourses collected in the D¥rgha-ågama and the D¥gha-nikåya have a particularly strong tendency to highlight the superiority of the Buddha's personality and his mar-vellous qualities in contrast to contemporary Brahmins, recluses and gods. This emphasis on the Buddha's personality and marvellous qualities appears to be re-lated to the particular purpose of the collection of long discourses. Comparison of the D¥gha-nikåya with other Påli Nikåyas, especially with the Majjhima-nikåya, suggests the purpose of the D¥gha-nikåya to have been predominantly propagandistic.57 Due to this purpose, the collections of long discourses naturally emphasize topics important for conversion, especially the outstanding nature of the Buddha. An emphasis on the Buddha's outstanding qualities and a tendency to enhancing his status appears to have been also characteristic for the Dharmaguptaka tradition.58 From this perspective, it is intriguing that the D¥rgha-ågama translated into Chinese, a collection that emphasizes the outstanding nature of the Buddha, stems from a school for which such an emphasis was characteristic.59 The Madhyama-ågama and the Saµyukta-ågama, together with their Påli counter-parts, show a particular emphasis on doctrinal expositions. Now the account of the compilation of the Buddhist canon in the KΣudrakavastu of the (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda Vinaya puts the Saµyukta-ågama first in its list of the Ógamas and presents it in a manner that gives the distinct impression that the Saµyukta-ågama is the most im-portant of these four.60 This suggests that the (MËla-)Sarvåstivådins may have had a particular interest in, or a predilection for, the Saµyukta-ågama from among the four Ógamas. The Divyåvadåna, a Vinaya work that appears to belong to the same school, also puts the Saµyukta-ågama first in a listing of the four Ógamas, followed by the Madhyama-ågama.61 It is also noteworthy that the majority of Ógama quotations in the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya stem from the Saµyukta-ågama, followed by quotations from the Madhyama-ågama.62 Though this would be related to some degree to the subject-matter of the AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya, it nevertheless seems quite possible that within the Sarvåstivåda and/or (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda traditions the Saµyukta-åga- 57 Manné (1990: 79) maintains that the D¥gha-nikåya was "for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts and lay-supporters to the new religion and to spread its message", while the Majjhima-nikåya was for "the integration of new monks into the community and into the practice". 58 This can be deduced from their tenet that a gift to the Buddha is superior to a gift to the Sa∫gha, and from their emphasis on stËpa worship, cf. Bareau (1955: 192). 59 Here it could also be noted that the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 968b19, mentions the D¥rgha-ågama first in its list of the Ógamas recited at the so-called first council, though it is uncertain how far this is an expression of preference for the D¥rgha collection (cf. Mayeda (1985: 96), according to whom placing the D¥rgha/D¥gha collection at the beginning may reflect the oldest tradition). 60 This account is found in the 根本說一切有部毘奈耶雜事, T 1451 at T XXIV 407b21. 61 Cowell (1886: 333,10): saµyuktakam ... madhyamam ... d¥rghågamam ... evaikottarikåµ. 62 According to the index in Påsådika (1989: 135-136), the majority of sËtra-quotations in the Abhi-dharmakoßabhåΣya stem from the Saµyukta-ågama, followed by about half as many quotations from the Madhyama-ågama, while quotations from the D¥rgha-ågama and Ekottarika-ågama counted to-gether are fewer than those from the Madhyama-ågama alone.

11

ma played a particularly prominent role, perhaps followed in importance by the Madhyama-ågama. A similar importance appears to have been accorded to the Ekottarika-ågama by the school that transmitted the version of the Ekottarika-ågama collection that has been preserved in Chinese translation. This can be seen in the introductory section to the Ekottarika-ågama, according to which Ónanda extolled the Ekottarika-ågama as the source of all other teachings.63 In a similar vein the Puˆyavibha∫ga-ßåstra, a work that comments on the Ekottarika-ågama, places the Ekottarika-ågama first in a listing of the four Ógamas.64 The school from which the Ekottarika-ågama stems is still a matter of discussion among scholars. What can safely be said, however, is that this collection shows the re-current influence of early Mahåyåna thought,65 and that it contains a number of popu-lar tales and stories of comparatively late origin. The beginnings of the Mahåyåna are another topic of continuing discussion among scholars. Though by now it has become clear that its origins cannot be exclusively attributed to the laity, there can be little doubt that it accorded considerable importance to the laity.66 An emphasis on the laity can to some extent also be discerned in the A∫guttara-ni-kåya, the Påli counterpart to the Ekottarika-ågama. Compared with the other Påli Nikåyas, the A∫guttara-nikåya shows a higher percentage of discourses concerned with teachings given to the laity. Or, to put it differently, discourses addressed to the laity appear to have been predominantly assigned to the A∫guttara collection. This can be seen particularly well in the case of the famous lay-disciple Anåthapiˆ∂ika, the do-nor of the Jeta Grove. The A∫guttara-nikåya contains almost three times as many dis-courses related to Anåthapiˆ∂ika as the other three Nikåyas taken together.67 This emphasis on the laity in the A∫guttara-nikåya and the presence of popular tales in the Ekottarika-ågama suggests a function of these collections that would fit well with the circumstance that the Ekottarika-ågama preserved in Chinese was accorded spe-cial importance by the school that transmitted it, a school that shows signs of the in-fluence of early Mahåyåna thought and would thus have shared an emphasis on the laity. The somewhat distinctive character of each of the four Ógamas/Nikåyas noted so far is confirmed by the Sarvåstivåda VinayavibhåΣå. This work explains that each of the four Ógamas has a distinctive purpose: the D¥rgha collection is to confront outsiders; the Madhyama collection offers profound doctrines for intelligent people and is there-

63 T 125 at T II 550c29. 64 This listing is found in the 分別功德論, T 1507 at T XXV 32a25. 65 Passages in the Ekottarika-ågama that show such influence have been noted by Huyen-Vi and Påså-dika (1998a: 65 note 4); (1998a: 69 note 15); (1998b: 206 note 3); (1998b: 208 note 8); (2001: 224 note 17); (2002: 49 note 4 and 5); (2002: 188 note 22); and by Påsådika (2006: 397); cf. also Bareau (1987: 34) and Lamotte (1967: 106). A particularly telling passage, noted by Deeg (2006: 112), is EÓ 26.9 at T II 640a5, which describes qualities of the Buddha that "the *H¥nayånists cannot understand", 非小乘所能知. 66 Williams (1991: 21) explains that "a number of the early Mahåyåna sËtras stress the importance of the laity". 67 Discourses related to Anåthapiˆ∂ika in the first three Nikåyas are: MN 143; SN 2:20; SN 10:8; SN 12:41 (= SN 55:28); SN 55:26; SN 55:27; while discourses in the A∫guttara-nikåya are AN 2:4:4; AN 3:105; AN 3:106; AN 4:58; AN 4:60; AN 4:61; AN 4:62; AN 5:41; AN 5:43; AN 5:174; AN 5:176; AN 5:179; AN 7:59; AN 9:20; AN 9:27; AN 10:91; AN 10:92; AN 10:93.

12

fore employed by those under training; the Saµyukta collection sets forth various meditations and is therefore made use of by meditators; and the Ekottarika collection is for the sake of gods and men and is therefore used by preachers.68 A related type of presentation can be found in the Påli commentarial tradition, which associates each of the four Påli Nikåyas with one of the Buddha's chief disciples. Ac-cording to the commentarial account, each discourse collection was handed down by the followers of one particular chief disciple of the Buddha. Thus the disciples of Ónanda took up the D¥gha-nikåya for recitation, while the disciples of Såriputta, Mahåkassapa and Anuruddha were responsible for memorizing the Majjhima-nikåya, the Saµyutta-nikåya and the A∫guttara-nikåya respectively.69 Independent of its his-torical value, this presentation clearly shows that the commentators felt each of the four Nikåyas to have enough affinity with the character of these four disciples to allow such an association. Examining this commentarial presentation further in the light of the proposition made in the Sarvåstivåda VinayavibhåΣå, it could be noted that Ónanda was the Buddha's personal attendant and several discourses indicate that he had a particular interest in, or awareness of, the outstanding qualities of his teacher.70 Hence to associate him and his disciples with the D¥gha-nikåya can be seen to express the emphasis in this collec-tion on the outstanding personality of the Buddha, which would make it a collection particularly apt for the conversion of outsiders. Såriputta was, according to the early discourses, responsible for training disciples in their progress towards the attainment of stream-entry.71 Thus to relate him and his disciples to the Majjhima-nikåya points indeed to an emphasis on profound doctrines for those under training. Mahåkassapa was famous for his emphasis on the forest life and the undertaking of ascetic practices.72 For his disciples to be responsible for the transmission of the Saµ-yutta-nikåya would fit an interest in topics related to meditation practices catered for in this collection.73 Finally Anuruddha appears in several discourses as a preacher to the laity, and through his exercise of the "divine eye" he would also have been well conversant with

68 The 薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙, T 1440 at T XXIII 503c27, explains: 為諸天世人隨時說法, 集為增一, 是勸化人所習, 為利根眾生說諸深義, 名中阿含, 是學問者所習, 說種種隨禪法, 是雜阿含, 是坐禪人所習, 破諸外道, 是長阿含; which Nakamura (1999: 32) translates as: "the sermons which were delivered according to occasion for the sake of gods and people were compiled in the Ekottarågama. This is what preachers esteem. For intelligent persons profound doctrines were set forth. They were compiled in the Madhya-makågama. This is what scholars (lit. 'those who learn') esteem. Various kinds of meditation were set forth. They were compiled in the Saµyuktågama. This is what meditation-practitioners esteem. To re-fute various heterodoxies is the purpose of the D¥rghågama". 69 Sv I 15. 70 Cf. e.g. the Acchariya-abbhËta-sutta, MN 123 at MN III 118-124, and its parallel, the 未曾有法經, MÓ 32 at T I 469c-471c. 71 This is stated in the Saccavibha∫ga-sutta, MN 141 at MN III 248,25, and in its parallel, the 分別聖諦經, MÓ 31 at T I 467b17; cf. also EÓ 27.1 at T II 643b11. 72 Cf. e.g. his description of what makes a monk praiseworthy in the Mahågosi∫ga-sutta, MN 32 at MN I 214,2, and its parallels, the 牛角娑羅林經, MÓ 184 at T I 727c2, and EÓ 37.3 at T II 711a7. On the re-lationship of Mahåkåßyapa to the Saµyukta collection cf. also Lévi (1929: 46-47). 73 Somaratne (2006: 690) suggests that the Saµyutta-nikåya "may have served the needs of two types of disciples within the monastic order: the doctrinal specialists and the insight meditators".

13

matters related to the heavenly spheres.74 Hence to associate him and his disciples with the A∫guttara-nikåya would fit with an emphasis in this collection on teaching gods and laity. The influence of the bhåˆaka-tradition Not only would the particular character of an Ógama/Nikåya collection attract differ-ent types of disciples, but studying and memorizing a particular collection might also lead to a corresponding perspective on the teaching as a whole. This can be seen in those passages in the Påli commentaries that record differences of opinion between the reciters of different Nikåyas.75 Such differences of opinion seem to be an outcome of the specialisation of different groups of reciters or bhåˆakas on particular collec-tions of discourses, a development that had its origin in the practical measure of divid-ing the labour of memorization.76 The commentarial tradition records that such specialisation went so far as to cause some bhåˆakas to identify with the particular collection that they were memorizing.77 Apparently such identification could at times be a rather touchy issue. This can be seen in a passage in the Parivåra that describes the proper behaviour to be adopted when a case is to be settled. In such a situation, this Vinaya passage recommends to avoid asking certain questions that might lead to the arising of affection or aversion, such as inquiring after another monk's teacher, caste, clan, and native district, or else the Nikåya or Ógama that the other monk had specialized on.78 The distinctions that evolved out of the bhåˆaka system appear to have been well known among the laity as well. A commentarial passage records that lay people on making offerings to particular groups of monks might specify that a gift should go to the reciters of the Majjhima collection, etc.79 Archaeological evidence indicates that the bhåˆaka system was flourishing already at a very early stage of the history of the Buddhist order.80 Taking into account that this degree of specialization would have been present during the very early stages of the

74 Cf. e.g. the Anuruddha-sutta, MN 127 at MN III 144-152, and its parallel the 有勝天經, MÓ 79 at T I 549b-551c. 75 Cf. e.g. Sv I 15, which records disagreements between the D¥ghabhåˆakas and the Majjhimabhåˆa-kas on the very structure of the canon, namely on the nature of the Khuddaka collection. On this par-ticular issue cf. also Baba (2005: 993); a survey of various disagreements between bhåˆakas of the four Nikåyas can be found in Adikaram (1994: 27-32); cf. also Goonesekera (1967: 342 note 98). 76 Goonesekera (1968: 689) explains that "in course of time the bhåˆakas of the different divisions of the Canon seem to have developed into distinct schools of opinion". Mori (1990: 127) notes that "the Bhåˆakas who were originally responsible for the memorization and transmission of particular Nikåyas or scriptures became gradually the exponents of views and opinions concerning the interpretation of the teaching embodied in them"; cf. also Dutt (1978: 42). 77 According to Ps II 9, some monks were prone to developing a worldly type of affection, gehasitape-ma, towards the Nikåya they were memorizing, speaking of it as "our D¥gha-nikåya" or "our Majjhima-nikåya" etc. (this and the following examples are taken from Adikaram (1994: 32)). 78 Vin V 163: na ågama pucchitabbo, which the commentary explains to refer to an inquiry if the other monk is a reciter of the D¥gha or the Majjhima collection, 'd¥ghabhåˆakosi tvaµ majjhimabhåˆako'ti evaµ ågamo na pucchitabbo. 79 Sp VI 1254: sa∫ghato uddisitvå ... majjhimabhåˆakådayo detha. 80 Norman (1978: 31) observes that "an inscription of the second century B.C. includes a reference to a majhimabaˆaka". These Ceylonese inscriptions, collected in Paranavitana (1970), refer to different majhima-baˆakas (no. 330 p. 26, no. 708 p. 53 and no. 852 p. 66), to a ßayutaka-baˆaka (no. 666 p. 50), and to an eka-utirika-baˆaka (no. 407 p. 32). Indian inscriptional references to a saµyuktabhanaka can be found in Sivaramamurti (1956: 279); and a reference to D¥gha-Majhima-nikåya-dharena in Vogel (1929: 17).

14

transmission of the discourses, it would not be surprising if eventually a predilection for a particular Ógama or Nikåya should have influenced those Indians and Central Asians who were active in the transmission and translation of the Ógamas in China. That is, even though the Chinese at the time of Fa-xian appear to have lacked awareness of the differences among the Ógama collections of the Indian Buddhist schools, an emphasis or predilection for a particular Ógama or Nikåya by the different foreign translators appears to have influenced the situation at the background of the transmission of the Ógamas. Revisiting the history of the Chinese Ógama translations chronologically from this perspective, that Buddhayåßas would be active in the translation of a D¥rgha-ågama that probably stems from a Dharmaguptaka tradition could well be related to his own affiliation with the Dharmaguptaka school, a school whose Vinaya he had memorized and subsequently translated.81 And that the Ógama collection translated with his help should be the collection that places particular emphasis on the personality of the Bud-dha, the D¥rgha-ågama, would fit with tendencies discernible in the Dharmaguptaka tradition. Gautama Sa∫ghadeva had started his translation activities in China by rendering the first work of the Sarvåstivåda Abhidharma, the Jñånaprasthåna, into Chinese.82 From this perspective, it would be in line with his earlier activities that he should co-operate in a translation of a Sarvåstivåda Madhyama-ågama collection that would eventually replace the earlier translation undertaken on the basis of Dharmanandin's oral recita-tion. For Guˆabhadra to cooperate in translating a (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda Saµyukta-ågama manuscript would be in line with the fact that his conversion to Buddhism apparently took place after reading a Sarvåstivåda Abhidharma treatise,83 and with the apparent importance given to this particular Ógama within the (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda tradition. Finally, that Dharmanandin had memorized an Ekottarika-ågama out of what would have been a set of four Ógamas concords with the importance that was accorded to the Ekottarika collection in the school within which this Ógama was transmitted.84 Thus, though chance certainly played a significant role, the affiliation of the four main Ógamas translated into Chinese seems to be at least in part related to an affinity bet-ween the character of each Ógama and the character of the early Buddhist schools that had transmitted the original that was translated into Chinese. Such an affinity would have expressed itself through the medium of the Central Asians and Indians that par-ticipated in the transmission of the Ógamas to China and collaborated in their transla-tion. They would naturally have promoted the type of Ógama that represented their personal interests and accorded with their respective school affiliation.

81 The 四分律, T 1428 at T XXII 567a25, explicitly qualifies him as a follower of the Dharmaguptaka tradition, 會遇曇無德部, 體大乘三藏, 沙門佛陀耶舍; cf. also Nishimura (1997: 257). 82 This is the 阿毘曇八犍度論, T 1543 at T XXVI 771a-917b, which according to the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 329a6, was one of the first two works translated by him. 83 Cf. the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 344a8. 84 According to the 高僧傳, T 2059 at T L 328b23, Dharmanandin had come to China with the particular purpose of preaching. From this perspective, for him to memorize the Ekottarika-ågama and another collection for teaching monks, the Madhyama-ågama, would have been obvious choices.

15

The emphasis provided in this way by the Central Asian and Indian influence, together with the piecemeal manner in which the scriptures were transmitted to China and the lack of awareness among the Chinese of the differences among the Ógama collections of different schools, could well be the main factors responsible for the choice of Óga-mas that have been preserved in Chinese. Though unfortunately a complete set of four Ógamas of any school has not been rendered into Chinese, the four individual Ógamas that have been translated seem to form a rather representative selection, with a Dhar-maguptaka D¥rgha-ågama, a Madhyama-ågama and a Saµyukta-ågama from the Sar-våstivåda and (MËla-)Sarvåstivåda traditions, and an Ekottarika-ågama that stems from a school with Mahåyåna tendencies. In a way, if one had to make a conscious choice of single Ógamas for separate translation while keeping in mind the character of each Ógama and of the Buddhist schools, one could hardly have made a better choice than those four Ógamas that were indeed translated. In this way, the formidable translation enterprise undertaken by the Chinese, which has yielded what appears to be the most extensive corpus of translated literature in the history of humankind, also affords us a glimpse into aspects of Indian Buddhism. In the present case, the translation of single Ógamas from particular Buddhist schoolsreflects to some degree the role that these Ógamas seem to have played in dif-ferent early Buddhist schools. By indirectly highlighting this role, the Chinese transla-tions of the Ógamas reveal an intriguing aspect of the transmission of Buddhism via the Silk Road, which involved the adventurous journeys of Indians, Central-Asians and Chinese for the sake of the spread and propagation of the Dharma. Among these undertakings, the pilgrimage by Fa-xian is perhaps one of the most remarkable tes-timonies to the difficulties and at the same time the success that accompanied the transmission of Buddhism from India to China.

Across the Gobi's plains of burning sand They crept unmindful of the stifling air Until at length they saw the temples fair And thronging marts of stately Samarcand.

Not there they stopped, but on their little band Pursued its way o'er wind-swept passes bare And Parmir's icy heights, their only care To reach at last the long-sought promised land.

And now beneath the sacred Bo-tree's shade By fragrant winds of Magadha caressed They humbly bowed themselves and ever prayed That, like their noble teacher, Buddha blessed, When death their bodies to oblivion laid They too might gain Nirvana's endless rest.85

Abbreviations: AN: A∫guttara-nikåya DN: D¥gha-nikåya

85 M.A. Potter in Lanman (1896: 136).

16

EÓ: Ekottarika-ågama MÓ: Madhyama-ågama MN: Majjhima-nikåya Ps: PapañcasËdan¥ SN: Saµyutta-nikåya Sp: Samantapåsådikå Sv: Suma∫galavilåsin¥ T: TaishØ Ud: Udåna Vin: Vinaya References: Abegg, Emil 1947: "Chinesische Buddhapilger in Indien I, Fa-hien", in Asiatische Studien, vol. 3/4 pp.

105-128. Adikaram, E.W. 1994 (1946): Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon, or 'State of Buddhism in Ceylon as

Revealed by the Påli Commentaries of the 5th Century A.D.', Sri Lanka, Dehiwela: Buddhist Cultural Centre.

Ampere, J. J. 1837: "Zur Geschichte des Buddhismus. Aus der Reise des Chinesischen Priesters Fa-hian", in Magazin für Literatur des Auslands, vol. 11-12 no. 88 pp. 349-350.

Anesaki, Masaharu 1905: "Le Sagåtha-vagga du Sa�yutta-nikåya et ses Versions Chinoises", in Le Muséon Nouvelle, vol. 24 pp. 23-37.

Baba, Norihisa 2005: "On the Order of the Compilation of the Abhidhammapi†aka and the Khuddaka-nikåya", in Indogaku BukkyØgaku KenkyË / Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, vol. 53 no. 2 pp. 994-991.

Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra 1927: Le Canon Bouddhique en Chine, Les Traducteurs et les Traductions, (Sino-Indica, Publications de l'Université de Calcutta, Tome 1er), Paris: Paul Geuthner, vol. 1.

Bareau, André 1955: Les Sectes Bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule, (Publications de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient, Volume XXXVIII), Paris: École Française d'Extrême-Orient.

Bareau, André 1966: "L'Origine du D¥rgha-ågama Traduit en Chinois par Buddhayaßas", in Essays Of-fered to G.H. Luce by his Colleagues and Friends in Honour of his Seventy-fifth Birthday, (Pa-pers on Asian History, Religion, Languages, Literature, Music Folklore and Anthropology, Vol-ume I), B. Shin et al. (ed.), Switzerland, Ascona: Artibus Asiae, pp. 49-58.

Bareau, André 1987: "La Fin de la Vie du Buddha selon l'Ekottara-ågama", in Hinduismus und Bud-dhismus, Festschrift für Ulrich Schneider, H. Falk (ed.), Freiburg: Falk, pp. 13-37.

Beal, Samuel 1869: Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun, Buddhist Pilgrims from China to India (400 A.D. and 518 A.D.), London: Trübner.

Bechert, Heinz 1992: "The Writing Down of the Tripi†aka in Påli", in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, vol. 36 pp. 45-53.

Bingenheimer, Marcus 2006: "The Shorter Chinese Saµyukta Ógama - Preliminary Findings and Translation of Fascicle 1 of the Bieyi za ahan jing 別譯雜阿含經 (T. 100)", in Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 23 no. 1 pp. 19-58.

Bingenheimer, Marcus 2007: "Måra in the Chinese Saµyuktågamas, with a Translation of the Måra Saµyukta of the Bieyi za ahan jing (T.100)", in Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 24 no. 1 pp. 46-74.

Boucher, Daniel 2000: "On Hu and Fan Again: The Transmission of 'Barbarian' Manuscripts to China", in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 23 pp. 7-28.

Brough, John 2001 (1962): The Gåndhår¥ Dharmapada, Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, (Buddhist Tradition Series, Volume 43), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Bucknell, Roderick S. 2006: "Samyukta-ågama", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, W.G. Weeraratne (ed.), Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 7 no. 4 pp. 684-687.

Char, S.V.R. 1991: "Methods and Principles Used in Translating the Buddhist Tripi�aka into Chinese", in Chinese Culture, Taipei, vol. 32 no. 3 pp. 37-47.

Ch'en, Kenneth K.S. 1964: Buddhism in China - A Historical Survey, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Choong, Mun-keat 2000: The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, A comparative study based on the SËtrå∫ga portion of the Påli Saµyutta-Nikåya and the Chinese Saµyuktågama, (Beiträge zur Indologie, Band 32), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Cowell, E.B. et al. 1886: The Divyåvadåna, a Collection of Early Buddhist Legends, Now First Edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit Mss. in Cambridge and Paris, Cambridge: University Press.

17

Deeg, Max 2005: Das Gaoseng-Faxian-Zhuan als religionsgeschichtliche Quelle. Der älteste Bericht eines chinesischen buddhistischen Pilgermönchs über seine Reise nach Indien mit Übersetzung des Textes, (Studies in Oriental Religions, Volume 52), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Deeg, Max 2006: "Unwirkliche Gegner, Chinesische Polemik gegen den H¥nayåna-Buddhismus", in Jaini-Itihåsa-Ratna, Festschrift für Gustav Roth zum 90. Geburtstag, (Indica et Tibetica, 47), U. Hüsken et al. (ed.), Marburg: Indica et Tibetica, pp. 103-125.

de Jong, J.W. 1979: "A propos du Nidånasamyukta", in Buddhist Studies by J.W. de Jong, G. Schopen (ed.), Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, pp. 137-149.

de Jong, J. W. 1981: "Fa-Hsien and Buddhist Texts in Ceylon", in Journal of the Pali Text Society, vol. 9 pp. 105-116.

Demiéville, Paul 1951: "A propos du Concile de Vaißål¥", in T'oung Pao, vol. 40 pp. 239-296. Demiéville, Paul 1951: "La YogåcårabhËmi de Sa∫gharakΣa", in Bulletin de l'École Française d'Ex-

trême Orient, vol. 44 no. 2 pp. 339-436. Demiéville, Paul 1973: "Le Bouddhisme Chinois", in Choix d'Études Bouddhiques par Paul Demié-

ville, Leiden: Brill, pp. 365-435. Dhammavisuddhi Thera, Y. 1991: "Fa-Hsien", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, W.G. Weeraratne (ed.),

Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 5 no. 2 pp. 203-211. Dutt, Nalinaksha 1978: Buddhist Sects in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Enomoto, Fumio 1984: "The Formation and Development of the Sarvåstivåda Scriptures", in Proceed-

ings of the Thirty-First International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, To-kyo-Kyoto 31st August - 7th September 1983, Yamamoto Tatsuro (ed.), Tokyo: TØhØ Gakkai, pp. 197-198.

Enomoto, Fumio 1986: "On the Formation of the Original Texts of the Chinese Ógamas", in Buddhist Studies Review, vol. 3 pp. 19-30.

Forte, Antonio 1984: "The Activities in China of the Tantric Master Manicintana (Pao-ssu-wei 寶思惟: ? - 721 A.D.) from Kashmir and of his Northern Indian Collaborators", in East and West, vol. 34 pp. 301-345.

Giles, H. A. 1923: The Travels of Fa-hsien (399-414 A.D.), or Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms, Cambridge University Press.

Glass, Andrew 2006: Connected Discourses in Gandhåra: A Study, Edition, and Translation of Four Saµyuktågama-Type SËtras from the Senior Collection, Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, published at http://www.andrewglass.org/phd.php (accessed on 04.08.2006).

Goonesekera, Lakshmi R. 1967: "A††hakathå", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, G.P. Malalasekera (ed.), Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 2 no. 2 pp. 335-352.

Goonesekera, Lakshmi R. 1968: "Bhåˆaka", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, G.P. Malalasekera (ed.), Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 2 no. 4 pp. 688-690.

Grimes, A. 1941: "The Journey of Fa-Hsien from Ceylon to Canton", in Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 19 no. 1 pp. 76-92.

Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1966: "Buddhist Nikåyas in Mediaeval Ceylon", in The Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies, vol. 9 pp. 55-66.

Harrison, Paul 1997: "The Ekottarikågama Translations of An Shigao", in Bauddhavidyåsudhåkara˙: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of his 65th birthday, (Indica et Tibetica, Monographien zu den Sprachen und Literaturen des indo-tibetischen Kulturraumes, Band 30), J.U. Hartmann et al. (ed.), Swisstal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, pp. 261-284.

Harrison, Paul 2002: "Another Addition to the An Shigao Corpus? Preliminary Notes on an Early Chi-nese Saµyuktågama Translation", in Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: in Honor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh birthday, 2002, 20 May, Kyoto: Heirakuji sho-ten, pp. 1-32.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 1999: "Buddhist Sanskrit Texts from Northern Turkestan and their relation to the Chinese Tripi†aka", Buddhism Across Boundaries - Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions, Taiwan: Foguang Cultural Enterprise, pp. 107-136.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe 2004: "Contents and Structure of the D¥rghågama of the (MËla-)Sarvåstivådins", in Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka Uni-versity, Tokyo: Soka University, vol. 7 pp. 119-137.

Hirakawa, Akira 1982: Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns: An English Translation of the Chi-nese Text of the Mahåsåµghika-BhikΣuˆi-Vinaya, Patna: Jayaswal Research Institute.

Hiraoka, Satoshi 2000: "The Sectarian Affiliation of Two Chinese Saµyuktågamas", in Indogaku Buk-kyØgaku KenkyË / Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, vol. 49 no. 1 pp. 506-500.

Huyen-Vi and Påsådika 1998-2002: "Ekottarågama XXIII", "Ekottarågama XXIV", "Ekottarågama XXVIII", "Ekottarågama XXX", in Buddhist Studies Review, (1998a) vol. 15 no. 1 pp. 65-70; (1998b) vol. 15 no. 2 pp. 205-212; (2001) vol. 18 no. 2 pp. 219-228; (2002) vol. 19 no. 2 pp. 183-188.

18

Kalupahana, David J. 1970: "Schools of Buddhism in Ceylon", in Ceylon Journal of the Humanities, vol. 1 no. 2. pp. 159-190.

Lamotte, Étienne 1967: "Un SËtra Composite del'Ekottarågama", in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 30 pp. 105-116.

Lancaster, Lewis 1999: "The Movement of Buddhist Texts from India to China and the Construction of the Chinese Buddhist Canon", in Buddhism Across Boundaries - Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions, Collection of Essays 1993, Taiwan: Foguang Cultural Enterprise, pp. 517-544.

Lanman, C.R. 1894: "An incident in the life of the illustrious Chinese Buddhist monk Fa-hien", in Journal of the American Oriental Society, pp. 135-139

Legge, James 1998 (1886): A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hein of Travels in India and Ceylon (AD 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Disci-pline, Translated and Annotated with a Corean Recension of the Chinese Text, Delhi: Munshi-ram Manoharlal.

Lévi, Sylvain 1929: "L'Inscription de Mahanaman à Bodh-Gaya, Essai d'Exégèse appliquée à l'Épigra-phie Bouddhique", in Indian Studies in Honor of Charles Rockwell Lanman, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 35-47.

Lévy, André 1995: Les pèlerins bouddhistes de la Chine aux Indes, Paris: Jean-Claude Lattès. Lü, Cheng 1963: "Ógama", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, G.P. Malalasekera (ed.), Sri Lanka: Depart-

ment of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 1 no. 2 pp. 241-244. Manné, Joy 1990: "Categories of Sutta in the Påli Nikåyas and their Implications for our Appreciation

of the Buddhist Teaching and Literature", in Journal of the Pali Text Society, vol. 15 pp. 30-87. Mather, Richard B. 1992: "Chinese and Indian Perceptions of Each Other Between the First and Sev-

enth Centuries", in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 112 no. 1 pp. 1-8. Mayeda [=Maeda], Egaku 1985: "Japanese Studies on the Schools of the Chinese Ógamas", in Zur

Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der H¥nayåna-Literatur, Erster Teil, (Symposien zur Buddhis-musforschung, III,1, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philolo-gisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge Nr. 149), H. Bechert (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, vol. 1 pp. 94-103.

Mayer, Alexander L. 2004: "Faxian", in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, R.E. Buswell, (ed.), New York: Macmillan, vol. 1 pp. 282-283.

Meisig, Marion 2002: "Auf den Spuren des Dharma. Einblicke in die Psyche des Pilgers Fah-hien", in Mitteilungen für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, vol. 15 pp 103-123.

Minh Chau, Thich 1991: The Chinese Madhyama Ógama and the Påli Majjhima Nikåya, (Buddhist Tradition Series, Volume XV), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Mori, Sodo 1990: "The Origin and History of the Bhåˆaka Tradition", in Ónanda: Papers on Buddhism and Indology, A Felicitation Volume Presented to Ónanda Weihena Palliya Guruge on his Sixti-eth Birthday, Y. Karunadasa (ed.), Colombo: Felicitation Volume Editorial Committee, pp. 123-129.

Nakamura, Hajime 1999 (1980): Indian Buddhism, A Survey with Bibliographical Notes, (Buddist Tra-dition Series, Volume I), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Nattier, Jan 2007: "'One Vehicle' (一乘) in the Chinese Ógamas: New Light on an Old Problem in Påli", in Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka Uni-versity, vol. 10 pp. 181-200.

Neelis, Jason 2004: "Silk Road", in Encyclopedia of Buddhism, R.E. Buswell, (ed.), New York: Mac-millan, vol. 2 pp. 775-777.

Nishimura, Minori 1997: "Die Sprache der Dharmaguptaka", in Untersuchungen zur Buddhistischen Literatur II, (Sanskrit Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 8), H. Bechert (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 255-265.

Norman, K.R. 1978: "The role of Påli in early Sinhalese Buddhism", in Buddhism in Ceylon and Stud-ies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries, (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, I), (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klas-se, Dritte Folge, Nr. 108), H. Bechert (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 28-47.

Paranavitana, S. 1970: Inscriptions of Ceylon, Volume 1, Containing Cave Inscriptions from 3rd Cen-tury B.C. to 1st Century A.C. and other Inscriptions in the Early Bråhm¥ Script, (Archeological Survey of Ceylon), Colombo: Department of Archeology.

Påsådika, Bhikkhu 1989: Kanonische Zitate im AbhidharmakoßabhåΣya des Vasubandhu, (Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 1), Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht.

Påsådika, Bhikkhu 2006: "The Ekottarågama (EÓ) Parallel to A∫guttaranikåya III, 57-61 (V.50) Trans-lated from the Chinese Version", in Jaini-Itihåsa-ratna, Festschrift für Gustav Roth zu seinem 90. Geburtstag, (Indica et Tibetica, Monographien zu den Sprachen und Literaturen des indo-ti-betischen Kulturraumes, 47) U. Hüsken et al. (ed.), Marburg: Indica et Tibetica, pp. 397-406.

19

Prasad, Chandra Shekhar 1993: "The Chinese Ógamas vis-à-vis the Sarvåstivåda Tradition", in Bud-dhist Studies Review, vol. 10. pp. 45-56.

Rémusat, M. Abel 1836: 佛國記, Foe Koue Ki, ou Relations des Royaumes Bouddhiques: Voyage dans la Tatarie, dans l'Afghanistan et dans l'Inde, Exécuté a la Fin due IVe Siècle, par Chy Fa Hian, M. Klaproth et al. (ed.), Paris: Imprimerie Royale.

Renou, Louis et al. 2001 (1996): L'Inde Classique, Manuel des études indiennes, Paris: Publications de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient, vol. 2.

Roth, Gustav 1970: BhikΣuˆ¥-Vinaya, Including BhikΣuˆ¥-Prak¥rˆaka and a Summary of the BhikΣu-Prak¥rˆaka of the Órya-Mahåsåµghika-Lokottaravådin, Edited and annotated for the first time, with Introduction and two Indexes, (Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series Vol. XII), Patna: K.P. Jayas-wal Research Institute.

Salomon, Richard 1997: "A Preliminary Survey of Some Early Buddhist Manuscripts Recently Ac-quired by the British Library", in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 117 pp. 353-358.

Sander, Lore 1991: "The Earliest Manuscripts from Central Asia and the Sarvåstivåda Mission", in Co-rolla Iranica, Papers in honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie on the occasion of his 65th birthday on April 8th, 1991, R.E. Emmerick et al. (ed.), Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 133-150.

Schmithausen, Lambert 1987: "Beiträge zur Schulzugehörigkeit und Textgeschichte kanonischer und postkanonischer buddhistischer Materialien", in Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der H¥na-yåna-Literatur, Zweiter Teil, (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, III,2, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge Nr. 154), H. Bechert (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, vol. 2 pp. 304-406.

Shih, Robert 1968: Biographies des Moines Éminents (Kao Sen Tchouan) de Houei-Kiao, Traduites et Annotées, (Bibliothèque du Muséon, Volume 54), Louvain: Institut Orientaliste.

Sivaramamurti, C. 1956: Amaråvat¥ Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum, (Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum, vol. IV), Madras: Thompson.

Somaratne, G.A. 2006: "Saµyutta Nikåya", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, W.G. Weeraratne (ed.), Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 7 no. 4 pp. 687-690.

Tsukamoto, ZenryË 1985: A History of Early Chinese Buddhism, From its Introduction to the Death of Hui-yüan, L. Hurwitz (trsl.), Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Vogel, J.Ph. 1929: "Pråkrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Någårjunikoˆ∂a", in Epigraphia Indica, vol. 20 pp. 1-37.

Waldschmidt, Ernst 1944/vol. 1, 1948/vol. 2: Die Überlieferung vom Lebensende des Buddha, Eine vergleichende Analyse des MahåparinirvåˆasËtra und seiner Textentsprechungen, (Abhandlun-gen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge Nr. 29 & 30), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Waldschmidt, Ernst 1980: "Central Asian SËtra Fragments and their Relation to the Chinese Ógamas", in H. Bechert (ed.) The Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition, (Symposien zur Buddhis-musforschung, II, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 117), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 136-174.

Wang, Bangwei 1994: "Buddhist Nikåyas through Ancient Chinese Eyes", in Untersuchungen zur Bud-dhistischen Literatur, (Sanskrit Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfanfunden, Beiheft 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 165-203.

Weller, Friedrich 1922: "Kleine Beiträge zur Erklärung Fa Hsiens", in Asia Major, Introductory Vol-ume, Hirth Anniversary Volume, London, pp. 560-574.

Williams, Paul 1991: Mahåyåna Buddhism, The doctrinal foundations, (The Library of Religious Be-liefs and Practices), London: Routledge.

Witanachchi, C. 2005: "Sabbatthivåda", in Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, W.G. Weeraratne (ed.), Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, vol. 7 no. 3 pp. 570-580.

Yin-shun 1983 (1962): 原始佛教聖典之集成 [The Compilation of the Early Buddhist Canon], Taipei: 正聞出版社. Yin-shun 1988: 印度佛教思想史 [History of Indian Buddhist Thought], Taipei: 正聞出版社. Zürcher, Erik 1972 (1959): The Buddhist Conquest of China, The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism

in Early Medieval China, (Sinica Leidensia Vol. XI), Leiden: E.J. Brill.