Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v1.c12.s7: Mathurā

On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v1.c12.s7

Language
English

Mathurā

v1.c12.s7.1

From Pāryatra, the pilgrim continues, a journey of above 500 *li* eastwards brought him to the country called *Mo* (or *Mei*)-*t'u-lo* (or Mathurā).

v1.c12.s7.2

This name is translated in some Chinese glossaries by "Peacock", as if Mayūra. It is also said to be derived from *madhu*, honey, as if the spelling of the name were Madhurā. Mr Growse considers that the word is probably connected with the Sanskrit root *math*, "to churn", "the churn forming a prominent feature in all poetical descriptions of the local scenery".¹ In connection with this it is interesting to observe that in a Buddhist scripture a sick bhikshu is represented as unable to obtain milk at Mathurā.² There was also a story of a great giant Madhu from whom the name of the city and district was derived. This also points to the form Madhurā.

v1.c12.s7.3

¹ Growse's Mathurā p. 73 (2d ed.). See below p. 311.

v1.c12.s7.4

² A-yü-wang-ehing, *ch*. 9.

v1.c12.s7.5

Yuan-chuang describes the country of Mathurā as being above 5000 *li* in circuit, its capital being above twenty *li* in circuit. The soil, he says, was very fertile and agriculture was the chief business: mango trees were grown in orchards at the homesteads of the people: there were two kinds of this fruit, one small and becoming yellow when ripe, and the other large and remaining green. The country produced also a fine striped cotton cloth and gold: its climate was hot: the manners and customs of the inhabitants were good: the people believed in the working of karma, and paid respect to moral and intellectual eminence. There were in the district above twenty Buddhist monasteries, and above 2000 Brethren who were diligent students of both "Vehicles". There were also five Deva-Temples and the professed adherents of the different non-Buddhist sects lived pell-mell.

v1.c12.s7.6

When Fa-hsien visited this country he also found 20 monasteries but he estimated the number of Brethren as about 3000.³

v1.c12.s7.7

³ Fo-kuo-chi, *ch*. 16.

v1.c12.s7.8

We now come to a passage which presents some serious difficulties. It seems to be faulty both in form and substance and it has perplexed native scholars. For the present we may render it as follows.

v1.c12.s7.9

There are three topes all built by Asoka: very numerous traces left by the Four Past Buddhas: topes (or a tope) for the relics of the following holy disciples of Sakya Ju-lai, viz. Sāriputra, Mudgalaputra, Pūrṇamaitriyāniputra, Upāli, Ānanda, and Rāhula: topes for Mañjuśrī and the other P'usas. In the "Three Longs" of every year, and on the six Fastdays of every month, the Brethren with mutual rivalry make up parties, and taking materials of worship with many valuables, repair to the images of their special patrons. The Abhidharma Brethren offer worship to Sāriputra, the Samādhists to Mudgalaputra, the Sūtraists to Pūrṇamaitriyāniputra, the Vinayists to Upāli, the bhikshunis to Ānanda, and the śrāmaṇeras to Rāhula: and the Māhāyanists to the various P'usas. On these days the topes vie with each other in worship: banners and sunshades are displayed, the incense makes clouds and the flowers are scattered in showers, sun and moon are obscured and the mountain-ravines convulsed: the king and his state'smen devote themselves to good works.

v1.c12.s7.10

The difficulties of this passage begin with the first sentence, and a native scholar took from the paragraph a very different meaning from that here given. He understood the author to state that there were three Asoka topes, viz. one for the numerous traces left by the Four Past Buddhas, one for the holy disciples of the Buddha, and one for the P'usas. There is something to be said in favour of this interpretation, but it does not quite suit either the construction or the context. With the present interpretation we have the bald statement that there were three Asoka topes. The Fang-chih places these within the capital; but our text does not give any information as to their situation, or structure, or the purposes for which they were erected. So also the next clause—"very many traces of the Four Past Buddhas"—seems to require at its head either the — "viz. a tope for" of the Chinese scholar, or the "On montre" which Julien prefixes. Then as to the topes for the relics of the great disciples the term for relics is *i-shên* (遺身) lit. "left bodies", and Julien translates *i-shên stūpa* by "Divers stoūpas renfermant les corps". But *i-shên* here, as in other passages, means only the ashes, bones or other relics left after cremation, *shên* being used as the equivalent of the Sanskrit word for *body*, *Śarīra*, which is also used in the sense of a "bodily relic". Then we have this difficulty, that not only was no one of the great disciples here named buried at Mathura, but also there is no authority for stating that the relics of any one of them were conveyed to this district. Moreover, as the Fang-chih points out, Rāhula was supposed not to have tasted death. This treatise, accordingly suggests that the word for *body* (*shên*) should not be taken here in its ordinary sense, but should be understood as meaning a visible symbol, such as an image or other likeness. The reader will observe that our pilgrim represents the worshippers as paying reverence, not to the topes, but to images or pictures apparently set up for the occasion. Fa-hsien in his general survey of "Mid-India" including the Mathurā district, tells us that at the Buddhist vihāras there were topes to Śāriputra, Madgalyāyana (Yuan-chuang's Mudgalaputra), Ananda, and to the Sūtras, the Vinaya, and the Abhidharma. To some of these topes services were offered, but he describes the Śrāmaṇeras as making offerings to Rāhula not to his tope, and he describes the Mahāyānists as offering worship to "Prajñāparamitā, Mañjuśrī, and Kuan-shi-yin".¹

v1.c12.s7.11

¹ Fo-kuo-chi.

v1.c12.s7.12

Then our pilgrim is perhaps wrong in representing the Abhidharmists as worshipping Śāriputra, the Samādhists as worshipping Mudgalaputra, and the Sūtra Brethren as worshipping Pūrṇa-Maitriyāniputra. Śāriputra was distinguished among the disciples for his great spiritual wisdom or *prajñā*, but he had nothing to do with the Abhidharma, which did not come into existence until after his death. So Mahāmaudgalyāyana was great in magic, in his superhuman powers, but not in *samādhi*. Maitriyāniputra is sometimes praised as a good expounder of the Master's teaching but he is not specially associated with the sūtras.

v1.c12.s7.13

Julien takes Manjuśrī to be one of the holy disciples of the Buddha, and the author of Fang-chih; and others have taken the same meaning out of the text. But Manjuśrī was not a human being: he was one of the great Bodhisattvas, often figuring as first or chief of all these Mahāyāna creations.

v1.c12.s7.14

This passage tells us that the Brethren went in parties to offer worship to their respective patrons in the "Three Longs" of the year and the Six Fast-days of each month. By the "Three Longs" we are probably to understand the first, fifth, and ninth months of each year which were called the "Three Long Months" and the "Three Long Fasts". The Six Fast-days were the 8th, 14th, 15th, 23rd, 29th, 30th of each month. This has been made known to us by Julien who obtained his information from a late Chinese Buddhist compilation. In this work under the heading "Nine Fast Days" we find the above three month-fasts and six monthly day-fasts given as making up the "Nine Fast-days". This seems to be rather a peculiar way of reckoning, and Julien gets over the difficulty by changing month into "in the month", and making the "nine Fast-days" literally nine days. But then, what is to be done with the Fasts called the "Three long months" or "Three long Fasts"? The reason for the religious observance of these periods by the Buddhist clergy and laity is given in several books. In the three months specified Indra (or according to some Visvamitra, or according to others the four Devarājas) by means of secret emissaries made a careful examination into the conduct and modes of life of the inhabitants of Jambudvīpa (India). So all the people of that continent were on their best behaviour in these months, they abstained from flesh and wine, and even from food lawful in ordinary times, and they offered worship and practised good works. They also kept holiday and visited the shrines of their divinities to pray for earthly blessings. In these months there were no executions of criminals and no slaughter of animals was allowed.¹ Thus the "Three Long Fasts" were evidently in their origin a popular rather than a Buddhistic institution, and Buddhism may have adopted them to a certain extent as a matter of expediency. They are never mentioned, however, in the canonical treatises.

v1.c12.s7.15

¹ Fo-shuo-chai-ching (No. 577): Shih-shih-yao-lan, ch. 3: Fo-tsu-t'ung-chi, ch. 33 (No. 1661).

v1.c12.s7.16

The "Six Fast-days of every Month" were also popular religious holidays before the time of the Buddha. According to some accounts these days, like the three months, were devoted by Indra's messengers to a roving inspection of the moral and religious conduct of the people of India¹. The people on their part were careful on these days to fast, and offer worship, and do good works, in the hope of receiving material recompense such as fine weather and good crops. This sort of observance was called the "Cowherd's Fast". But the Parivrājakas of the Tīrthikas devoted these six days to the public reading of their scriptures, and the Buddha followed their example. He ordained that on these days the Pratimoksha should be recited in a select congregation of the Brethren; and he seems also to have appointed the reading of the Dharma on these days, the Uposatha days, to the people²

v1.c12.s7.17

¹ Ssŭ-t'ien-wang-ching (No. 722): Tsêng-yi-a-han-ching, ch. 16

v1.c12.s7.18

² 'Vinaya Texts' (S. B. E.) Vol. 1. pp. 239, 240.

v1.c12.s7.19

Our pilgrim is apparently wrong in representing the Buddhist Brethren as spending the first, fifth, and ninth months in the manner here indicated. The fifth month was part of the Retreat from the rains, and the Brethren could not break up Retreat for a whole month and go away to a tope or a monastery to pay respect to their special patrons and enjoy themselves with their companions. Fa-hsien makes the festival of Patron-worship occur once a year after Retreat, each set having its own day, and this is more likely to be correct than Yuan-chuang's account. According to Fa-hsien also it was the people who provided the illuminations and flowers for the topes while the clergy preached. These topes, moreover, in his narrative throughout the region of which he is writing were apparently attached to or near monasteries, but the topes of our pilgrim's account do not seem to have been connected with any Buddhist establishment.

v1.c12.s7.20

Returning to our pilgrim's description of this district we read that—

v1.c12.s7.21

going east from the capital five or six *li* one comes to a "hill-monastery" the chamber of which was quarried in a steep bank, a narrow defile being used to form its entrance. This monastery had been made by the venerable Upagupta and it enclosed a tope with a finger-nail relic of the Buddha. Through the north rock-wall of the monastery was a cave above 20 feet high by 30 feet wide, within which were piled up fine four-inch slips of wood (that is, tallies). When the Venerable Upagupta was preaching and converting, every married couple which attained arhatship put down a tally here, but for single members of families although they became arhats no record of the fact was kept.

v1.c12.s7.22

The words for "a hill-monastery" in this passage are *yi-shan-ka-lan* and Julien translates them "un *kia-lan* situé sur une montagne". As has been seen a "hill-ka-lan" was a rural non-descript vihāra not attached to any superior establishment. Then Julien makes the pilgrim locate the Tally-cave "dans une caverne qui est au nord de ce *kia-lan*". The text has *ka-lan-pei-yen-hsien-yu-shih-shih* (伽藍北巖有石室) that is, in the steep rock on the north of the ka-lan is a cave. The word *yen* does not mean *une caverne* but a steep wall of rock, and the entrance to the Tally-cave was through the rock which formed the north side of the Vihāra-Cave. This interpretation of the text will be found to agree with descriptions given in other treatises.

v1.c12.s7.23

The site of the Upagupta monastery, as we may call the Hill *ka-lan*, of our author's narrative was apparently the place called the Urumuṇḍa (or Urumaṇḍa or Ruru-maṇḍa) Hill, and the Rimurunda of Mr. Rockhill's Tibetan text. The name Urumuṇḍa is rendered in Chinese by "Great Cream" (大醍醐), its literal signification¹, and near the hill there was a "Great Cream" town or village. To describe or indicate this hill various forms of expression are used. Thus seen from a distance it was "an azure streak"; it was also a "line of green forest", and a "wood of green trees". On or at this hill, according to some authorities, the brothers Naṭa and Baṭa constructed the Naṭabaṭa-vihāra, to which they afterwards invited Upagupta when he came to live at Mathurā. This is supposed to be the "Hill ka-lan" of our pilgrim but it may have been a separate establishment. This "Hill ka-lan" was evidently the house or vihāra of Upagupta on the Urumaṇḍa hill, and it was probably a large natural cave improved by art to constitute a monastery. Connected with the monastery was the cave in which the disciples converted by Upagupta’s teaching, on their attainment of arhatship deposited each a slip of wood or bamboo.¹ This cave is also represented as a "made house" but this is evidently a mistake.² Its dimensions vary in different books, one authority making it 18 *chou* long, by 12 *chou* wide, and 7 *chou* high.³ In our pilgrim’s description we should probably regard "above 20 feet high" as a mistake for "above 20 feet long" other writers giving the length as 24 or 27 feet, the height being about 9 or 10 feet. Then Yuan-chuang’s statement, that tallies were kept only of married couples attaining arhatship is very silly and does not agree with the accounts in other Chinese books. According to these every one who through Upagupta’s teaching and guiding became an arhat added his tally to the pile. Upagupta had marvellous success as a Buddhist missionary at Mathurā: he converted many thousands of lay people, and through him 18 000 disciples attained arhatship. When he died all the tallies deposited by these arhats were taken away and used at his cremation.⁴ Yet Yuan-chuang would have us believe that he saw them still filling up the cave.

v1.c12.s7.24

¹ A-yü-wang-ching, ch. 9.

v1.c12.s7.25

¹ Sar. Vin. Yao-shih, *ch*. 9.

v1.c12.s7.26

² A-yü-wang-chuan, *ch*. 5.

v1.c12.s7.27

³ Sar. Vin. l. c. The *sh'ou* (尺) was about 1 1/2 foot. See also A-yü-wang-ching, *ch*. 6.

v1.c12.s7.28

⁴ Sar. Vin. l. c.: Tār. S. 14 f.

v1.c12.s7.29

In some books the hill on which was the Naṭabaṭa-vihāra occupied by Upagupta is called Śira or Uśira, although we also have mention of the Uśira hill without any reference to a cave or monastery¹. This Uśira hill was at the side of the "Urumaṇḍa Hill" and the latter name may have included the two hills and the wood or forest adjoining.

v1.c12.s7.30

¹ Tār. l. c.: Ta-pei-ching (No. 117).

v1.c12.s7.31

General Cunningham considered the site of Upagupta’s monastery to be that of the Id-gah or Katra of the present Muttra, and this opinion has been adopted by others. But it is undoubtedly wrong. A later investigator, Mr Growse, writes: "General Cunningham, in his Archæological Report, has identified the Upagupta monastery with the Yasa vihāra inside the Katra: but in all probability he would not now adhere to this theory; for, at the time when he advanced it, he had never visited the Kaṅkālī Ṭīlā, and was also under the impression that the Fort always had been, as it now is, the centre of the city. Even then, to maintain his theory, he was obliged to have recourse to a very violent expedient, and in the text of the Chinese pilgrim to alter the word ‘east’ to ‘west’, because, he writes, “a mile to the east would take us to the low ground on the opposite bank of the Jamunā, where no ruins exist”, forgetting apparently Fa Hian’s distinct statement that in his time there were monasteries on both sides of the river, and being also unaware that there are heights on the left bank at Isapur and Mahāban, where Buddhist remains have been found. The topographical descriptions of the two pilgrims may be reconciled with existing facts without any tampering with the text of the narrative. Taking the Katra, or the adjoining shrine of Bhūtesvar, as the omphalos of the ancient city and the probable site of the great stupa of Śāriputra, a short distance to the east will bring us to the Kaṅkālī Ṭīlā, i. e. the monastery of Upagupta"². This is very positive but not quite convincing, and where did Mr Growse get his “great stupa of Śāriputra”?

v1.c12.s7.32

² Growse op. c. p. 112.

v1.c12.s7.33

This Upagupta monastery is apparently the “Cream-village” vihāra of a Vinaya treatise, one of the many Buddhist establishments mentioned as being in the Mathurā district.¹ It may also perhaps be the Guha vihāra of the Lion Pillar inscriptions.² We find it called the Naṭika saṅghārāma, and the Naṭabaṭa (or Naṭibaṭi)-vihāra, as already stated, and the Naṭabhaṭikāraṇyāyatana of the Divyāvadāna.³ It was evidently in a hill among trees and not far from the city of Mathurā, but Yuan-chuang seems to be the only authority for placing it about a mile to the east of the city. This would apparently put the Urumaṇḍa hill on the east side of the Jumna, and the situation assigned to the Monkey Tope in the next paragraph agrees with this supposition.

v1.c12.s7.34

¹ Sêng-chi-lü, *ch.* 8.

v1.c12.s7.35

² J. R. A. S. for 1894 p. 526.

v1.c12.s7.36

³ Divyāv ch. XXVI and p. 385: Bur. Int. p. 378: Ta-pei-ching.

v1.c12.s7.37

The pilgrim's narrative proceeds to state that to the south-east of the cave (that is, the Cave monastery) and 24 or 25 *li* (about five miles) from it was a large dried up pond beside which was a tope. This was the place, Yuan-chuang tells us, at which when the Buddha was once walking up and down a monkey offered him some honey. The Buddha caused the honey to be mixed with water and then distributed among his disciples. Hereupon the monkey gambolled with delight, fell into the pit (or ditch) and died, and the religious merit of this offering was born as a human being.

v1.c12.s7.38

The story of a monkey or a flock of monkeys (or apes) presenting wild honey to the Buddha is told with variations in several Buddhist scriptures. In some the scene of the story is laid near Vaiśālī⁴ (and our pilgrim, it will be seen, tells of a troop of monkeys offering honey to the Buddha at this place), in some at Śrāvastī⁵, and in some at the Natika village¹. The following account of the whole matter is taken chiefly from the "Hsien-yü-ching". The Buddha was once visited at Śrāvastī by a Brahmin householder who was son-less and wished to know whether he was to die so. Buddha consoled him with promise of a son who should become a distinguished member of the church. In due time the son was born, and because it was observed that about the time of his birth the honey-vessels in the house became full of honey, he received the name "Honey-prevailing". In Chinese the name is Mi-shêng (蜜勝) and the Sanskrit original is written Mo-t'ou-lo-se-chih, that is, Madhuraśachi or "Sweet Influence", viz. born with the good omen of honey. This boy in time became a disciple of the Buddha who explained to Ananda that Mi-shêng in a long-past previous existence had been a bhikshu, that he had then once been disrespectful to a senior Brother. The senior rebuked him gently and Mi-shêng was penitent, but he had to suffer punishment for his thoughtless rude language by 500 births as a monkey. It was in the last of these births that the incident of the honey-offering occurred. The Buddha and his disciples had halted for rest one day under some trees by a tank not far from Śrāvastī. Here a monkey came and took Buddha's bowl and soon after returned with it full of honey and offered it to the Buddha. The latter sent the monkey back first to remove the insects from the honey and afterwards to add water to it. When the honey was thus "pure", that is, fit for bhikshus' use Buddha accepted it and distributed it among his disciples. The monkey was now up a tree again, and seeing his honey accepted and distributed he frisked about with delight until he fell and was drowned in the pit below. But by the merit of the gift of honey he was immediately born again as a human creature and became the disciple Mi-shêng. In another treatise the name of the bhikshu is given as Madhu-Vasisṭha, his family name being Vasisṭha¹, and in another work he is called Mi-hsing or “Honey-nature”.² In one book the monkey skips with delight but does not fall into the water³, and in another he dies and is born again in Paradise.⁴

v1.c12.s7.39

⁴ Chung-a-han-ching, *ch.* 8: Sar. Vin. Yao-shih, *ch.* 18. Cf. Records, *ch.* 7.

v1.c12.s7.40

⁵ Hsien-yü-ching, *ch.* 12: Der Weise u. d. T. S. 347.

v1.c12.s7.41

¹ Sar. Vin. P'o-sêng-shih, ch. 12. This may be the Naṭika of Urumaṇḍa, the village and the monastery having the same name.

v1.c12.s7.42

¹ Sar. Vin. P‘o-sêng-shih, *ch.* 12.

v1.c12.s7.43

² Sar. Vin. Yao-shih, *ch.* 18.

v1.c12.s7.44

³ Chung-a-han-ching, *ch.* 8.

v1.c12.s7.45

⁴ Sêng-chi-lü, *ch.* 29.

v1.c12.s7.46

The story of the monkey and the honey, here repeated by the pilgrim, being told of Mathurā as an explanation of the name, must have arisen at a time when the form used was Madhurā. There is also another monkey or ape story connected with Mathurā. In a previous existence, the Buddha once explained, Upagupta was born as a monkey (or ape) and became the chief of a troop of monkeys living at Urumaṇḍa. As such he made offerings and shewed much kindness to 500 Pratyeka Buddhas who were living on another part of Urumaṇḍa. The merit of his conduct to these worthies brought the monkey birth as a human being in his next existence, and in it, as the bhikshu Upagupta, he rose to be a most successful preacher, a peerless saint, and a Buddha in all but the bodily signs.⁵

v1.c12.s7.47

⁵ Fu-fa-tsang-yin-yuan-ching, *ch.* 3: Sar. Vin. Yao-shih, *ch.* 9: Divyāv. Ch. XXVI.

v1.c12.s7.48

The pilgrim goes on to narrate that to the north of the dried-up pond, and not far from it, was a large wood in which were footsteps of the Four Past Buddhas, left by them as they walked up and down. Hard by these were topes to mark the places at which Śāriputra and the others of the Buddha’s 1250 great disciples had practised absorbed meditation. There were also memorials of the Buddha’s frequent visits to this district for the purpose of preaching.

v1.c12.s7.49

The “large wood” of this passage, which lay between the Upagupta Monastery and the Dried-up Pond, may be the forest generally mentioned in connection with Urumaṇḍa. But it is at least doubtful whether any of the 1250 disciples ever practised samādhi in this neighbourhood. The Urumuṇḍa district was a great resort of ascetics devoted to serenity of mind and prolonged meditation, but this was after the time of Upagupta. Then the Buddha's visits to the Mathurā district do not seem to have been numerous, even if we accept records of doubtful authenticity. We are told that he expressed a dislike to the country which had, he said, five defects. The ground was uneven, it was covered with stones and brick-bats, it abounded with prickly shrubs, the people took solitary meals, and there were too many women.¹ We find mention of the Buddha visiting the country on one occasion and lodging in a mango-tope near the Bhadra river.² On another occasion he lodged with his disciples in Ass Yaksha's palace (or the monastery of Ass Yaksha) which was apparently outside the capital.³ He also passed through this country with Ananda when returning from his mission to "North-India", going among the yung-chün-jen (勇軍人) or Sūrasenas until he reached Mathurā city.

v1.c12.s7.50

¹ Sar. Vin. Yao-shih, ch. 10.

v1.c12.s7.51

² Tsa-a-han-ching, ch. 2 and 24. The mango topes seem to have all disappeared from the Mathurā district.

v1.c12.s7.52

³ Sar. Vin. Yao-shih, ch. 10. This building was properly not a monastery, but a hall or temple. It was apparently on the occasion of the Buddha's returning from the north that he made the stay at Mathurā, converting the wicked Yakshinīs, and preaching his religion.

v1.c12.s7.53

It is worthy of notice that in his account of Mathurā and the surrounding district the pilgrim does not give the name of any hill, or river, or town, or Buddhist establishment in the country. His information about the district is meagre and his remarks about the Buddhist objects of interest in it seem to be confused and to a certain extent second-hand. He apparently did not visit the capital, and made only a hurried journey across a part of the country. It seems very strange that he does not mention by name the famous Urumuṇḍa (or Urumuṇḍa) Hill, so intimately connected, as we have seen, with the introduction of Buddhism into the district, and evidently an old place of resort for contemplative ascetics of other religious systems. Nor does he mention the great river which flowed past the east side of Mathurā city. Fa-hsien mentions this river which he calls *Pu-na* (捕那) short for the *Yao* (搖)-*pu-na* (*Yabuna*) of his translations. Our pilgrim in his translations and in this *chuan* transcribes the name *Yen-mou-na* (*Yamuna*). Then he does not seem to have heard of such wellknown Buddhist establishments as the vihara of the *Hsien-jen* (仙人)-*chü-lao* or Rishi village (or town), or the vihara of the Grove the *Tsung-lin* (叢林)-*ssü*. The former was on the east and the latter on the west side of the Jumna.¹ *Tsung-lin* is supposed to be for the Sanskrit Piṇḍa-vana: it could not have been Krishna's Vṛindā-vana, which was on the opposite side of the river.

v1.c12.s7.54

¹ Sêng-chi-lü, *ch.* 8.

Cites (11)