Probably he himself would not
and could not have spoken definitely on the point. So far as our use
of language is concerned, apart from any assured faith in and hope of
immortality, his pari-nirvana was his death.
[4] Kanishka appeared, and began to reign, early in our first century,
about A.D. 10. He was the last of three brothers, whose original seat
was in Yueh-she, immediately mentioned, or Tukhara. Converted by the
sudden appearance of a saint, he became a zealous Buddhist, and
patronised the system as liberally as Asoka had done. The finest topes
in the north-west of India are ascribed to him; he was certainly a
great man and a magnificent sovereign.
[5] Jambudvipa is one of the four great continents of the universe,
representing the inhabited world as fancied by the Buddhists, and so
called because it resembles in shape the leaves of the jambu tree. It
is south of mount Meru, and divided among four fabulous kings (E. H.,
p. 36). It is often used, as here perhaps, merely as the Buddhist name
for India.
[6] This king was perhaps Kanishka himself, Fa-hien mixing up, in an
inartistic way, different legends about him. Eitel suggests that a
relic of the old name of the country may still exist in that of the
Jats or Juts of the present day. A more common name for it is Tukhara,
and he observes that the people were the Indo-Scythians of the Greeks,
and the Tartars of Chinese writers, who, driven on by the Huns (180
B.C.), conquered Transoxiana, destroyed the Bactrian kingdom (126
B.C.), and finally conquered the Punjab, Cashmere, and great part of
India, their greatest king being Kanishak (E. H., p. 152).
[7] Watters, clearly understanding the thought of the author in this
sentence, renders - "his destiny did not extend to a connexion with the
bowl;" but the term "destiny" suggests a controlling or directing
power without. The king thought that his virtue in the past was not
yet sufficient to give him possession of the bowl.
[8] The text is simply "those in white clothes." This may mean "the
laity," or the "upasakas;" but it is better to take the characters in
their common Chinese acceptation, as meaning "commoners," "men who
have no rank." See in Williams' Dictionary under {.}.
[9] I do not wonder that Remusat should give for this - "et s'en
retournent apres." But Fa-hien's use of {.} in the sense of "in the
same way" is uniform throughout the narrative.
[10] Hardy's M. B., p. 183, says: - "The alms-bowl, given by
Mahabrahma, having vanished (about the time that Gotama became
Buddha), each of the four guardian deities brought him an alms-bowl of
emerald, but he did not accept them.
