Does not the accomplishing of such service arise from
forgetting (and disregarding) what is (generally) considered as
important, and attaching importance to what is (generally) forgotten?
NOTES
[1] No. 1122 in Nanjio's Catalogue, translated into Chinese by
Buddhajiva and a Chinese Sramana about A.D. 425. Mahisasakah means
"the school of the transformed earth," or "the sphere within which the
Law of Buddha is influential." The school is one of the subdivisions
of the Sarvastivadah.
[2] Nanjio's 545 and 504. The Agamas are Sutras of the hinayana,
divided, according to Eitel, pp. 4, 5, into four classes, the first or
Dirghagamas (long Agamas) being treatises on right conduct, while the
third class contains the Samyuktagamas (mixed Agamas).
[3] Meaning "Miscellaneous Collections;" a sort of fourth Pitaka. See
Nanjio's fourth division of the Canon, containing Indian and Chinese
miscellaneous works. But Dr. Davids says that no work of this name is
known either in Sanskrit or Pali literature.
[4] We have in the text a phonetisation of the Sanskrit Kundika, which
is explained in Eitel by the two characters that follow, as="washing
basin," but two things evidently are intended.
[5] See chap. xvi, note 23.
[6] At his novitiate Fa-hien had sought the refuge of the "three
Precious Ones" (the three Refuges {.} {.} of last chapter), of which
the congregation or body of the monks was one; and here his thoughts
turn naturally to the branch of it in China. His words in his heart
were not exactly words of prayer, but very nearly so.
[7] In the text {.} {.}, ta-fung, "the great wind,"=the typhoon.
[8] They had got to the south of the Shan-tung promontory, and the
foot of mount Lao, which still rises under the same name on the
extreme south of the peninsula, east from Keao Chow, and having the
district of Tsieh-mih on the east of it. All the country there is
included in the present Phing-too Chow of the department Lae-chow. The
name Phing-too dates from the Han dynasty, but under the dynasty of
the After Ch'e {.} {.}, (A.D. 479-501), it was changed into Ch'ang-
kwang. Fa-hien may have lived, and composed the narrative of his
travels, after the change of name was adopted. See the Topographical
Tables of the different Dynasties ({.} {.} {.} {.} {.}), published in
1815.
[9] What these vegetables exactly were it is difficult to say; and
there are different readings of the characters for them. Williams'
Dictionary, under kwoh, brings the two names together in a phrase, but
the rendering of it is simply "a soup of simples." For two or three
columns here, however, the text appears to me confused and imperfect.
[10] I suppose these men were really hunters; and, when brought before
Fa-hien, because he was a Sramana, they thought they would please him
by saying they were disciples of Buddha. But what had disciples of
Buddha to do with hunting and taking life? They were caught in their
own trap, and said they were looking for peaches.
[11] The Chinese character here has occurred twice before, but in a
different meaning and connexion. Remusat, Beal, and Giles take it as
equivalent to "to sacrifice." But his followers do not "sacrifice" to
Buddha. That is a priestly term, and should not be employed of
anything done at Buddhistic services.
[12] Probably the present department of Yang-chow in Keang-soo; but as
I have said in a previous note, the narrative does not go on so
clearly as it generally does.
[13] Was, or could, this prefect be Le E?
[14] Probably not Ch'ang-gan, but Nan-king, which was the capital of
the Eastern Tsin dynasty under another name.
[15] The whole of this paragraph is probably Fa-hien's own conclusion
of his narrative. The second half of the second sentence, both in
sentiment and style in the Chinese text, seems to necessitate our
ascribing it to him, writing on the impulse of his own thoughts, in
the same indirect form which he adopted for his whole narrative. There
are, however, two peculiar phraseologies in it which might suggest the
work of another hand. For the name India, where the first [15] is
placed, a character is employed which is similarly applied nowhere
else; and again, "the three Honoured Ones," at which the second [15]
is placed, must be the same as "the three Precious Ones," which we
have met with so often; unless we suppose that {.} {.} is printed in
all the revisions for {.} {.}, "the World-honoured one," which has
often occurred. On the whole, while I accept this paragraph as
Fa-hien's own, I do it with some hesitation. That the following and
concluding paragraph is from another hand, there can be no doubt. And
it is as different as possible in style from the simple and
straightforward narrative of Fa-hien.
[16] There is an error of date here, for which it is difficult to
account. The year Keah-yin was A.D. 414; but that was the tenth year
of the period E-he, and not the twelfth, the cyclical designation of
which was Ping-shin. According to the preceding paragraph, Fa-hien's
travels had occupied him fifteen years, so that counting from A.D.
399, the year Ke-hae, as that in which he set out, the year of his
getting to Ts'ing-chow would have been Kwei-chow, the ninth year of
the period E-he; and we might join on "This year Keah-yin" to that
paragraph, as the date at which the narrative was written out for the
bamboo-tablets and the silk, and then begins the Envoy, "In the
twelfth year of E-he." This would remove the error as it stands at
present, but unfortunately there is a particle at the end of the
second date ({.}), which seems to tie the twelfth year of E-he to
Keah-yin, as another designation of it.
