^{page 241 note 1} The present writer, possessing no knowledge of Chinese, is much indebted to his Japanese pupil, Mr. Y. Ishizaki, who kindly supplied him with necessary data and wrote the Chinese characters herein.

^{page 241 note 2} In order to avoid tedious repetitions a list of books and papers quoted is here given:—

Beal, S., A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese. London, 1871Google Scholar.

Beal, S., Si-yu-ki, Records of Western Countries, transl. from the Chinese of Hiuen-Tsiang, etc., by. 2 vols., London, 1869Google Scholar.

Beal, S., The Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by the Shaman Hwui-li. London, 1911–1914Google Scholar.

Edkins, J., Chinese Buddhism. London, 1880Google Scholar.

Eitel, E. J., Handbook for the Student of Chinese Buddhism. Hong-Kong, Shanghai, 1870Google Scholar.

SirEliot, Charles, Hinduism and Buddhism. 3 vols., London, 1921Google Scholar.

Grünwedel, A., Mythologie du Buddhisme au Tibet et en Mongolie. Trad. par Goldschmidt, J.. Leipzig, 1900Google Scholar.

Kern, H., The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, etc., transl. by K., H. (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxi.) Oxford, 1909Google Scholar.

Nanjio, B., A Catalogue of the Buddhist Tripiṭaka. Oxford, 1883Google Scholar.

de la Vallée, Poussin L., “Avalokiteśvara,” Hastings' Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, vol. ii, pp. 256 seqqGoogle Scholar.

SP., Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, ed. Kern, H. and Nanjio, B.. (Bibl. Buddh., x.) St. Petersburg, 1912Google Scholar.

^{page 241 note 3} p. 130.

^{page 242 note 1} Cf. de la Vallée Poussīn, loc. cit.

^{page 242 note 2} So Grünwedel, ibid.; the words in square brackets are taken from Eliot, ii, p. 14.

^{page 242 note 3} Eitel, p. 18, s.v. Avalokitêśvara. The transliteration of Chinese characters is taken from Eliot, and verified in Professor Giles' Dictionary. Eliot translates the word “Seeing and self-existent”. He remarks that tzu-tsai serves to translate Skt. īśvara, so Ta-tzu-tsai= Maheśvara (Śiva).

^{page 243 note 1} Beal, , Catena, p. 383Google Scholar. Eliot, ii, p. 14.

^{page 243 note 2} Eitel, ibid.

^{page 243 note 3} Eitel, ibid.

^{page 243 note 4} So Eitel, loc. cit.

^{page 243 note 5} Marked respectively P. 7b6, P. 7b6^a, P. 18^a. They are in many respects similar to (though younger than) the Stein MSS. of SP. described by Poussin, M. de la Vallée, JRAS., 1911, pp. 1067–77Google Scholar.

^{page 244 note 1} Beal, , Catena, pp. 389 seqq.Google Scholar, based apparently on the version of Jñānagupta and Dharmagupta, a.d. 601 (cf. Nanjio, No. 13 f.).

^{page 244 note 2} Kern, p. 406. I have changed the transliteration of Indian words, following that adopted by this Journal.

^{page 245 note 1} Beal, , Catena, p. 390Google Scholar, n. 1: “This explanation ia wanting in the French version” (i.e. in that by E. Burnouf).

^{page 245 note 2} Cf. Böhtlingk, Skt. Wōrterbuch in Kürzerer Fassung, s.v. lok-ava; also “to look graciously”.

^{page 245 note 3} SP., p. 438, n. 6.

^{page 247 note 1} Ed. Müller, M., Oxford, 1883 (Anecd. Oxon., Aryan Ser., v, 1, pt. ii), p. 56Google Scholar.

^{page 247 note 2} Nanjio, No. 27 and p. 386, App. II, No. 14.

^{page 248 note 1} Saṅghavarman's translation is but the third of those now extant. The two older ones by. Lokaraksa (cf. Nanjio, No. 25) and by Chih-Ch'ien (ibid., No. 26) being made from a different original, the comparison with the Skt. text is rather difficult.

^{page 249 note 1} Nanjio, p. 391, App. II, No. 23.

^{page 249 note 2} Ibid., p. 406, App. II, No. 59.

^{page 249 note 3} A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, transl. by Legge, J., Oxford, 1886, pp. 46, 112–13Google Scholar.

^{page 249 note 4} Jñānagupta, a native of Gandhāra, born about a.d. 523, died a.d. 600. (Nanjio, pp. 431, 434, App. II, Nos. 125, 129.) Dharmagupta, a native of India, worked a.d. 590–616, died a.d. 619. (Nanjio, p. 434, App. II, No. 131.)

^{page 249 note 6} Edkins, p. 262.

^{page 249 note 6} Nanjio, p. 435, App. II, No. 133.

^{page 249 note 7} Beal, , Si-yu-ki, i, p. 60Google Scholar, n. 210.

^{page 249 note 8} Eliot, ii, p. 14.

^{page 249 note 9} Beal, , Si-yu-ki, i, p. 127Google Scholar, n. 26.

^{page 250 note 1} Beal, , Life, p. 10: “He then resolved to travel to the Western world, in order to ask about doubtful passages.” Cf. also the introduction to the Si-yu-ki, p. 15Google Scholar.

^{page 250 note 2} “Altogether 657 distinct volumas, carried upon twenty horses,” ibid., p. 214.

^{page 250 note 3} “Translated seventy-four distinct works,” ibid., p. 217; Nanjio, p. 435, App. II, No. 133, gives the number as 75.

^{page 250 note 4} Edkins, p. 120; Eliot, iii, pp. 292 seqq.

^{page 250 note 5} Nanjio, p. 442, App. II, No. 150.

^{page 250 note 6} Nanjio, p. 450, App. II, No 159.

^{page 250 note 7} Eitel mentions a curious compromise form Kuan-yin (), meaning “Onlooking lord” [ruler]”, i.e. phonetically almost identical with the old one (Kuan-yin, , only the tone being different) and equal to the new one (Kuan-tzŭ-tsai) in meaning.

^{page 252 note 1} Eliot, iii, p. 123, n. 3. Buddhism, according to Tibetan tradition, was introduced into Java in the fourth century a.d. Perhaps, Lokaraksa's. K'o-hu-kêng had something to do with that form (Lokeśvara); cf supra, p. 248.

^{page 252 note 2} Where Buddhism was introduced in the seventh century a.d.

^{page 252 note 3} The following abbreviations are used:—

^{page 254 note 1} The Nepalese MSS. are now the only Indian ones known to us, save the three quotations of SP. in Śāntideva's Śιkṣā-samuccaya (ed. Bendall, C., BB., i, St. Petersburg, 1897–1902)Google Scholar. Two of them are from ch. xiii: vv. 2–13, pp. 47, 11. 13–49, 1. 4, and vv. 24, 26–9, 32–5 (and a small prose passage); pp. 352, 11. 7–354, 1. 4. The remaining one is from ch. ii (vv. 81–97, pp. 92, 1. 9–94, 1. 13). The material is too scanty to permit any conclusions. The text seems in general to be rather very similar to the Nepalese MSS. Only xiii, vv. 2, 5, show some archaisms (rājaputrebhi, varjeyā) which stand nearer to the Central Asian texts. The late Bendall, C. (JRAS., 1901, p. 1067Google Scholar, n. 2) promised to publish some fragments of a SP. MS. of the fourth or fifth century. We are in the dark whether an Indian or Central Asian MS.was meant.

^{page 254 note 2} The author, possessing no knowledge of Chinese, is indebted for the necessary data which cannot be found in well-known books (like Nanjio's, Beal's, etc.) to his Japanese pupil, Mr. Y. Ishizaki.

^{page 254 note 3} Cf. Bendall, C., Catalogue of Buddhist Skt. MSS. in the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1883), pp. 172–3Google Scholar. The comparison of the colophons printed both in BBEd. (pp. 488–90) and this catalogue shows that the above Nos. are correct, while the designations of the Preliminary Notice of BBEd. are wrong (Ca. = Add. 1682, Cb. = 1683). Professor H. Kern had used the last-named MSS. (Add. 1682, 1683) for his translation (in Bendall's Catalogue wrongly “edition”).

^{page 255 note 1} Coll. 44–6.

^{page 255 note 2} The date attributed to this lost translation seems to have been ignored by many scholars; e.g. Winternitz, ii, pp. 236–7, mentions that made between a.d. 265–316 (i.e. by DharmarakṢa) as the oldest one. It is hardly necessary to dwell upon the importance of this date (a.d. 223) for determining; that of the Indian original.

^{page 255 note 3} Nanjio, Catalogue, No. 136.

^{page 255 note 4} Ibid., No. 137. It has been translated into English by Beal, , Catena etc., pp. 389–96Google Scholar.

^{page 256 note 1} Nanjio, Catalogue, col. 391, App. II, No. 23.

^{page 256 note 2} Ibid., col. 406, App. II, No. 59. B. Nanjio considers him to have been a native of Karashahr, but cf. Levi, S., JA., 1913, pp. 211–380Google Scholar. Cf. infra, n. 11.

^{page 256 note 3} Nanjio, Pref., p. ii.

^{page 256 note 4} Catalogue, col. 45.

^{page 256 note 5} Lotus, Intro., p. xxiii.

^{page 256 note 6} So Giles, Chin.-Engl. Dict., No.6421, “Kuchah,” Nanjio, “Kharacar” (= Karashahr).

^{page 257 note 1} Hoernle, , Three Coll., p. 258Google Scholar. Cf. Lüders, , Bruchstücke buddh. Dramen, p. 1Google Scholar. The Chinese text of the preface been compared with Nanjio's translation by Mr. Ishizaki.

^{page 257 note 2} Hoernle, , MR., Gener. Intro., p. xxxiGoogle Scholar. All MBS. in Tokharian (A, B) show only this type.

^{page 258 note 1} A view shared by modern scholars: so Johnston, , Buddhist China (London, 1913), p. 272Google Scholar, n. 2, remarks that Chinese versions of SP. were apparently made from at least two different Skt. texts.

^{page 258 note 2} JRAS., 1911, pp. 1067–77 (with a plate). It had been first determined by Professor L. D. Barnett (cf. ibid., p. 759).

^{page 258 note 3} This description is taken from L. de la Vallée Poussin's paper just quoted. As ch. xiv ends on f. 37, the fragments of ff. 38–9 must contain the beginning of ch. xv.

^{page 259 note 1} MR., Miscellaneous fragments, published by F. W. T., pp. 132–8 and pl. xx, No. 2.

^{page 259 note 2} Chs. according to Nep. (BBEd).

^{page 260 note 1} BBEd., p. v, H. Kern's remark (ibid., p. x) about the likeness between the script of O and that of a Kuchean fragment of Dharmapada, published by the present writer, written in the Slanting Gupta Script, is puzzling.

^{page 260 note 2} Miscell, . fragments, i, SP., pp. 139–62Google Scholar, and pi. xviii, No. 1. Another fragment of SP., ibid., pp. 162–6 and pi. xviii, No. 2. Cf. Hoernle, , JRAS., 1906, p. 695Google Scholar.

^{page 260 note 3} An early text of SP., JRAS., 1916, pp. 269–77.

^{page 260 note 4} Unfortunately the late founder of Central Asian palæography did not specify the script. Some data make the present writer suppose that the second set is written in the Call. Upright, though he is not so certain as to the first set.

^{page 261 note 1} Bühler, 22, p. 48; Hoernle, , The Weber MSS., p. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 2} MR., p. 178.

^{page 262 note 1} Bühler, pi. iv, col. iv, 1. 25, a.d. 414.

^{page 262 note 2} Hoernle, Report.

^{page 262 note 3} Hoernle, , The Weber MSS., p. 21Google Scholar, and pi. i.

^{page 262 note 4} In general, of the sixteen characters given in Hoernle's Report (Table II) only three show an affinity to Macartney, i, 7 (seventh century); the rest are like the Weber and Bower MSS.

^{page 262 note 5} For more details see the edition of the Count Otani fragments of SP., now ready for print.

^{page 262 note 6} The ductus of LP. and Ot. B., C. shows, by its roundness, a certain affinity to the Slanting Gupta Script, while T. and Ot. A. have more of the stiffness of the Cursive Gupta restricted to the Southern area (cf. Hoernle, , JRAS., 1911, p. 448)Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 1} Such an attempt at dating MSS. is, of course, very problematic: MSS. ought to be compared with MSS. only, inscriptions being more conservative, so as to make a correction of at least fifty years possible (cf. Hoernle, , Three Coll., p. 215)Google Scholar. At any rate, the dates given above are rather too low, as all the discussed MSS. seem to be older than the Horiuzi MS. (a.d. 500–50).

^{page 263 note 2} Report, p. 15.

^{page 263 note 3} The colophon of ch. iii (the plate in BBEd.) reads: deyadharmo (')yaṃ dānapati-Suviprabhasya.

^{page 263 note 4} MR., Hoernle, , Gener. Intro., p. xivGoogle Scholar.

^{page 263 note 5} Preface, p. vi.

^{page 263 note 6} Cf. infra.

^{page 264 note 1} Ibid., p. ix.

^{page 264 note 2} MR., pp. 161–2.

^{page 265 note 1} I give a scheme of comparison between LP. and 0. (chs. xi–xii), so far as we can ascertain the various readings from the footnotes of BBEd. (pp. 250, 1. 15–255, 1. 1; 271, 1. 7–274, 1. 10):—

^{page 265 note 2} E.g. LP. (like O.) has stūpa, while Ot. A., B., C. always read sthūpa, i.e. a Sanskritized Pkt. (and Pāli) thūpa. Concerning the forms of puṇḍarīka cf. infra.

^{page 266 note 1} The verses have also been readjusted so as to fit the norms of Skt. grammar, though not to the same extent as the prose. This is obvious from n. 39. Let us give another example which shows that this question has not only a linguistical interest, since the change of the language (Sanskritization) has involved several alterations of the text influencing our interpretation of the Sūtra. So x, v. 3, reads in Nep. (BBBd., p. 228, 1. 8): preṣito lokanāthena…sūtraṃ yo vācayed idam…, which Kern translates (Lotus, p. 217): “He has been sent by the Lord of the world, etc.,” and remarks (ibid., n. 2): “From such a passage as this one might be tempted to believe that it had been the intention of the author of this verse to represent Buddha as eternal.” Ot. B. reads: preṣito lolcanāthebhi, i.e. the original instr. pl. has been by a purist changed metri causa into instr. sg.

^{page 266 note 2} Franke, O., Pali und Sanskrit (Strassburg, 1902), p. 64Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 3} Pischel, , Grammatik d. Plct.-Sprachen, 364Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 4} So Pāli and Pkt.: cf. Geiger, , Pāli-Orammatik, 171Google Scholar, Pischel, op. eit., 518 (inly pl.).

^{page 267 note 1} So BBEd. p. 212, 1. 4, abhāṣanta, 0. (ibid., n. 2), babhāṣuḥ; Ot. B., No. 19, 68, bhāṣi; BBEd., p. 29, 1. 2, āmantrayate sma, O. (ibid., n. 2), °yām āsa. From the frequent use of the periphrastic perfect in H. Set II, I infer it was written in the Calligraphic Upright Gupta.

^{page 267 note 2} Cf. Lüders, , MR., p. 161Google Scholar.

^{page 267 note 3} It is not impossible that the original text was written in the Kharoṣṭhl script.

^{page 267 note 4} Cf. BBEd., pi. (chs. iii, x), pp. 28, n. 10 (ch. 1), 59, n. 3 (ch. ii), etc.

^{page 267 note 5} Professor L. de la Vallée Poussin says (p. 1067): “Le sūtra est nommé dans nos colophons Saddharmapaundarīka…,” but the colophons printed pp. 1074 (ch. xi) and 1077 (ch. xii) read °ponṇḍarīlce, which the editor considers to be a clerical error (cf. p. 1069).

^{page 267 note 6} Cf. Geiger, op. cit., 10, 2; Pischel, op. cit., 119, 125 (where this word ponṇḍarīya =Skt. puṇḍarīka is given).

^{page 268 note 1} Pāli has puṇḍarika (cf. Pali Text Soc. P. Diet., s.v.); Jaina-Māhārāṣṭripuṇḍarīya (Pischel, loc. cit.). Seth, H. T. in his Pkt. Dictionary (Pāiasaddamahaṇṇava, p. 762) gives poṇḍṇḍarīa, paṇḍarīya as equivalents of Skt. puṇḍarīka, and poṇḍarīka, °rīka as corresponding to Skt. pauṇḍarikaGoogle Scholar.

^{page 268 note 2} pauṇḍarīkaoccurs in the later Vedic literature (Sūtras, cf. Petersb. Diet., s.v.), but the process referred to is more admissible, as the redactors of Central Asian SP.-MSS. had a rather vague notion of Skt.

^{page 268 note 3} Winternitz, ii, p. 230.

^{page 268 note 4} Preface, p. ix.

^{page 268 note 5} Cf. p. 28, n. 10 (eh. i), p. 59, n. 3 (ch. ii); also the plate for chs. iii and x. Mahā-vaipulya occurs at the very end of SP., cf. p. 487, n. 7.

^{page 268 note 6} mahā-vuulya-sūtra-ratnai (sic), p. 1074 (ch. xi), and mahā-vetulya-sūtraratne, p. 1077 (ch. xii).

^{page 268 note 7} Vaitulya, Vetulla, Vetulyaka, Versl. en Med. d. K. Ak. van Wetenschappen, Letterkl., 4te K.D. viii, pp. 312–19. Amsterdam, 1907, reviewed (or, rather, retold in English) by de Poussin, L. la Vallee, JRAS., 1907, pp. 432 seqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 268 note 8} Kern, , Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 124Google Scholar.

^{page 269 note 1} The principal traits are docetism (Buddha, a supernatural being, dwelt in the Tusita heaven, while the law was preached by Ānanda) and the theory of voidness (mahā-suññatā-vādin). Cf. Kern, loc. cit., n. 3, and Keith, , Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon, pp. 155–7Google Scholar.

^{page 269 note 2} Keith, op. cit., p. 157, n. 1.

^{page 269 note 3} Ed. F. W. Thomas, MR., p. 95 (reverse, 1. 3).

^{page 269 note 4} Śikṣā-samuccaya, ed. Bendall, C. (BB., i, St. Petersburg, 1897–1902), p. 354Google Scholar, 1. 6: prathamarṃ vāca bhāṣeyā n=âharṃ Vaitulya-śṣiksitaḥ. In the corresponding footnote (4) the editor says: “Cf. the Vetulyaka sect' [quoting the Index to the Kathā-vatthu, Journ. Pāli Text Soc, 1889, p. 222], “The Tibetan term rab-rgyas-dag-gis-bslabs taught by those greatly increased (?)…seems to suggest the reading Vaipulya.” The English translation (by Bendall and Bouse), p. 312, renders the passage thus: “… first say unto them, I am not taught in the greater scripture.” [The above Skt. passage is mentioned by Thomas, F. W., MR., p. 97, n. 29.]Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 5} Handbook of Chinese Buddhism, 1st ed. (1870), p. 160.

^{page 269 note 6} Catalogue, col. 391, s.v. Dharmaraksa (App. II, No. 23).

^{page 269 note 7} E.g. p. 19, 1. 12. It is worthy of notice that the introductory verse of SP. (ch. i, p. 1, 1. 3), Vaipulya-sūtra-rājaṃ…vakṣye, is left out by all the Chinese translators. This seems to speak against H. Kern's arguments (Lotus, intro., p. xxxii), and to support the view of Burnouf, who ascribed it to some copyist.

^{page 270 note 1} Cf. Pāli Text Soc, P.D., s.v. vetulla (vetulya). The etymology and meaning of the word are not clear. Vetulla (°lya) is probably a proper name (of a person or place): Vitula (v. 1. Vipula) appears in the Mahā-bhārata as the name of a prince; Vaitula occurs in the Gaṇa-pāṭha (gaādi). Cf. Pet. Diet., s.vv.

^{page 270 note 2} Unless this term is to be understood as a synonym of Mahāyāna-sūtra, its application to such short works as No. 93 of Nanjio's Catalogue (Tathāgataguṇa-jnānācintya-viṣayāvatāra-nirdeśa) in Fascicle 1 is puzzling.

^{page 271 note 1} Kern, , Lotus, p. xxiGoogle Scholar, supposes that Kumārajīva, though living at a. later time than Dharmaraksa, made use of ancient MSS.

^{page 271 note 2} Ibid., pp. xix, xxii.

^{page 272 note 1} BBEd., preface, p. vi. Cf. Winternitz, ii, p. 377.

^{page 272 note 2} JRAS., 1916, pp. 273, 277.

^{page 272 note 3} MR., p. 157.

^{page 272 note 4} Concerning ch. viii, cf. the Chinese preface to Jñānagupta's translation; concerning ch. x, ibid., and BBEd., p. 224, n. 1.

^{page 272 note 5} BBEd., p. 256, n. 5. The remark of Professor L. de la Vallée Poussin (p. 1067, bottom) is, unless a misprint, due to some misunderstanding.

^{page 273 note 1} Though there is no corresponding footnote concerning O., it is very likely for it, too, as ehs. xii, xiii, xiv of Nep. appear in O., as xiii, xiv, xv. The same might be true with respect to Cb. (Nep. xv = xvi, and so on).

^{page 273 note 2} Nanjio, , Cat., Nos. 137, 129Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 3} Lotus, p. xxi. Unfortunately it is impossible to ascertain whether the gāthāswere extant in 0., as there is a gap at that place.

^{page 273 note 4} Col. 46.

^{page 273 note 5} Lotus, p. xxi; it does not agree with Nanjio's list. Mr. Ishizaki has kindly compared the latter with the Chinese versions.

^{page 273 note 6} The beginning only preserved; no colophon or number.

^{page 274 note 1} Cf. supra about the script. Concerning Avalokiteṡvara and Avalokitasvara cf. “Buddhist Miscellanea,” I. Avalokiteśvara-Kuan-yin.

^{page 274 note 2} The following abbreviations are used: —

^{page 275 note 1} pp. 59–60, § 197.

^{page 275 note 2} p. 140, § 215.

^{page 275 note 3} Speyer, p. 73, § 237.

^{page 276 note 1} Lotus, p. 73.

^{page 276 note 2} Cf. Kern'a n. 6 (SP., p. 73).

^{page 276 note 3} Lotus, p. 104.

^{page 276 note 4} Ibid., p. 106.

^{page 277 note 1} Whitney, § 938.

^{page 277 note 2} Only two pi. mid. (like bhaviṣyadhvam, etc.), ibid., and Speyer, p. 58, § 192.

^{page 277 note 3} § 941.

^{page 277 note 4} Speyer, p. 60, § 198; Apte, pp. 140–1, § 216.

^{page 277 note 5} Apte, ibid., note (“N.B.”).

^{page 277 note 6} Speyer, loo. cit.

^{page 278 note 1} pp. 176–95 (pages refer to MR., f. and 1. designate the sheets and the lines of the manuscript).

^{page 279 note 1} § 941 (cf. supra, n. 10).

^{page 279 note 2} Lotus, p. xvi.

^{page 279 note 3} Geiger, , Pāli Literatur u. Sprache (Enc. I., Ar. Res., i, 7), Strassburg, 1916, § 157Google Scholar.

^{page 279 note 4} Pisohel, , Grammatik d. Prahrit-Sprachen,§ 452Google Scholar.