On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v1.c13.s2: Mo-Ti-Pu-Lo (Matipur)
On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v1.c13.s2
- Language
- English
Mo-Ti-Pu-Lo (Matipur)
v1.c13.s2.1
The pilgrim proceeds to narrate that crossing to the east bank of the river (that is, the Ganges) he came to the *Mo-ti-pu-lo* (Matipur) country. This was above 6000 *li*, and its capital above 20 *li* in circuit. It yielded grain, fruits, and flowers, and it had a genial climate. The people were upright in their ways: they esteemed useful learning: were well versed in magical arts: and were equally divided between Buddhism and other religions. The king, who was of the Śūdra stock (that is caste) did not believe in Buddhism, and worshipped the Devas. There were above ten Buddhist monasteries with above 800 Brethren mostly adherents of the Sarvāstivādin school of the Hīnayāna. There were also above fifty Deva-Temples and the sectarians lived pell-mell.
v1.c13.s2.2
The *Mo-ti-pu-lo* or Matipur of this passage has been identified by Saint-Martin and Cunningham with Madāwar or "Mandāwar, a large town in western Rohilkhand, near Bijnor".² But in Cunningham's Map No. X, to which he refers us, Madāwar is to the south-east of Srughna and to the south of Gangādvāra, whereas Matipur was to the east of Srughna and east of the "Source of the Ganges", if we are to regard that as the place at which the pilgrim halted before crossing the river. Then, as usual, the areas of the country and its capital do not agree with Cunningham's requirements.
v1.c13.s2.3
² A. G. I. p. 348.
v1.c13.s2.4
Four or five *li* south from the capital, the pilgrim continues, was the small monastery in which the Śāstra-master Guṇaprabha composed above 100 treatises including the "*Pien-chên-lun*"
v1.c13.s2.5
(辯眞論) or Truth-expounding Treatise. This Guṇaprabha, Yuang-chuang tells us, from being a very clever boy had grown up to be a man of great intellectual abilities, and of wide and varied learning. He had at first been a student of the Mahāyāna system, but before he had thoroughly comprehended the abstruse mysteries of that system, he was converted to the Hīnayāna by the perusal of a Vaibhāsha treatise. After this he composed several tens of treatises in refutation of the Mahāyāna principles, and in defence of the Hīnayāna tenets. He was also the author of some scores (several tens and more) of secular books: he set aside as wrong the standard treatises of his predecessors. But in his comprehensive study of the Buddhist canonical scriptures Guṇaprabha had experienced difficulties on above ten points, and of these his prolonged application did not bring any solution. Now among his contemporaries was an arhat named Devasena, who was in the habit of visiting the Tushita Paradise. This Devasena, by his supernatural powers, on one occasion took Guṇaprabha, at the request of the latter, up to the Tushita Paradise to have an interview with Maitreya Bodhisattva, and obtain from the Bodhisattva the solution of his spiritual difficulties. But when presented to Maitreya Guṇaprabha was too proud and conceited to give the Bodhisattva his due reverence, and accordingly Maitreya would not solve his difficulties. As Guṇaprabha remained stubborn in his self-conceit even after one or two unsuccessful visits, and as he would not be guided by the counsels of Devasena, the latter refused to take him any more into Maitreya's presence. Hereupon Guṇaprabha in angry disgust went into solitude in a forest, practised the "Penetration-developing samādhi", but, not having put away pride, he was unable to attain arhatship.
v1.c13.s2.6
The Tushita Paradise, as is well known, is the Heaven in which the Bodhisattva Maitreya sojourns between his last incarnation on earth and his future advent as Buddha. The Śāstra-master Guṇaprabha in this passage considers himself, as a fully ordained Buddhist bhikshu, to be superior to the Bodhisattva who was enjoying the pleasures of a prolonged residence in Paradise; and accordingly Guṇaprabha persists in his refusal to show to Maitreya the reverence due to a great Bodhisattva, and consequently fails in his career.
v1.c13.s2.7
The last clause in the above passage is given according to the correction of the Ming editors. This makes the text to read *pu-tê-chêng-kuo* (不得證果), that is, “he could not realize the fruit”, viz-of arhatship. The old reading of some texts was *pu-shih* (不實) *chêng-kuo*, meaning “he quickly realized the fruit”. The D text has *pu-chêng tao-kuo*, which also means “he did not attain to arhatship”, and this is doubtles the author’s meaning.
v1.c13.s2.8
In a note to the name of Guṇaprabha’s treatise, the “Pien-chên-lun”, mentioned in the above passage Julien restores the Sanskrit original as “Tattvavibhaṅga śāstra”. This seems to show that he had forgotten the restoration of the name, given in translation and in Chinese transcription, which he had made in the Life. There he makes the name to be “Tattvasatya śāstra”, and this restoration has been adopted by subsequent writers although it does not correspond to the translation of the name given by Yuan-chuang and the Chinese annotator. Now the characters which Julien makes to stand for *satya* are *san-ti-sho* (三諦說) for *sandeśa*, and the name of the treatise was evidently Tattvasandeśa or “Exposition of Truth”, Yuan-chuang’s *Pien-chên*, with the word for *śāstra* (*lun*) added.¹ This treatise, which at one time had some fame, expounded the views of the Sarvāstivādin school, but it is unknown to the existing collections.
v1.c13.s2.9
¹ Life *Ch.* 2: J. I. p. 109.
v1.c13.s2.10
The Guṇaprabha of Parvata here mentioned is not to be confounded with the great Vinaya master of the same name mentioned by Tāranātha.² Burnouf was of opinion that our Guṇaprabha might be the Guṇamati, Master of Vasumitra, mentioned in the “Abhidharmakośa-vyākhyā”, but there does not seem to be any ground for this unlikely supposition.³ In the 8th *chuan* of our treatise we find a Guṇamati disputing with a great master of the Saṅkhya system.
v1.c13.s2.11
² Tār. S. 126 et al.: Wass. Bud. S. 84.
v1.c13.s2.12
³ Bur. Int. p. 566: Le Lotus de la bonne Loi p. 358.
v1.c13.s2.13
Three or four *li* north from Guṇaprabha’s monastery, Yuan-chuang’s narrative proceeds, was a monastery with above 200 Brethren, all Hinayānists. It was in this monastery that the Sāstra-Master Sanghabhadra ended his life. This Sanghabhadra, it is added, was a native of Kashmir, and a profound scholar in the Vaibhāsha śāstras of the Sarvāstivādin school.
v1.c13.s2.14
In this passage it is especially important to avoid Julien's rendering. "[Le Traité] Vibhacha çāstra" as the treatise of Sanghabhadra to be presently noticed does not deal with the special work called "Vibhāshā-lun".
v1.c13.s2.15
Contemporary with Sanghabhadra, Yuan-chuang continues, was Vasubandhu Bodhisattva, devoted to mystic doctrine, and seeking to solve what was beyond language. This man in refutation of the Vibhāshā masters composed the "Abhidharma-kośa-śāstra" ingenious in style and refined in principles. Sanghabhadra was moved by the treatise, and devoted twelve years to its study: then he composed a treatise which he called the "Kośa-pao" or "Bud-hail", śāstra. This work he entrusted to three or four of his cleverest disciples, telling them to use his unrecognized learning, and this treatise, to bring down the old man Vasubandhu from the preeminence of fame which he had monopolized. At this time Vasubandhu, at the height of his fame, was in Sākala the capital of Cheika; and thither Sanghabhadra and his chief disciples proceed with the view of meeting him. But Vasubandhu learning that Sanghabhadra was on the way to have a discussion with him, hastily packed up and went off with his disciples. To these he excused his conduct by alleging his age and infirmities, and he added that he wished to allure Sanghabhadra to Mid-India where the Buddhist pundits would shew the charater of his doctrines. Sanghabhadra arrived at the monastery at Matipur the day after Vasubandhu had left it, and here he sickened and died. On his deathbed he wrote a letter of regret and apology to Vasubandhu, and entrusted it, with his treatise, to one of his disciples. When the letter and book were delivered to Vasubandhu with Sanghabhadra's dying request, he was moved and read them through. He then told his disciples that Sanghabhadra's treatise though not perfect in doctrine was well written, that it would be an easy matter for him to refute it, but that out of regard for the dying request of the author, and as the work expounded the views of those whom he (Vasubandhu) followed, he would leave the work as it was only giving it a new name. This name was "Shun-chêng-li-lun", the Śāstra which accords with orthodox principles (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra). The tope erected over Sanghabhadra's relics, in a mango grove to the north-east of the monastery, was still in existence.
v1.c13.s2.16
The above passage has been condensed from Yuan-chuang's text and the reader will observe that; according to Yuan-chuang's information, Sanghabhadra was not, as Tāranātha represents him, the master of Vasubandhu. He is rather the young Doctor in Philosophy who is presumptuous enough to take up arms against the great chief renowned far and wide as peerless in dialectics. There is nothing in the text to shew that he and Vasubandhu were personal acquaintances, or that they ever met. So also in the Life of Vasubandhu the two men are apparently unknown to each other, and never meet.¹ Then as to the "Abhidharma-kośa-śāstra" it will be remembered that according to Yuan-chuang it was composed by Vasubandhu in Purushapur of Gandhāra, and this does not agree with the account in the Life of Vasubandhu. Yuan-chuang also tells us, and the statement has been often repeated, that Vasubandhu composed this treatise in order to refute the Vaibhāshikas. But, as has been stated already, this is not correct.² The original verses were compiled by him as a Sarvāstivādin Vaibhāshika, and the Commentary, still mainly Vaibhāshika, gives a development to certain questions from the Sautrantika point of view.
v1.c13.s2.17
¹ Vasubandhu-chuan (No. 1463).
v1.c13.s2.18
² See ch. VI. p.
v1.c13.s2.19
As to the treatise which Sanghabhadra wrote to demolish the Abhidharma-kośa according to Yuan-chuang the original title is given in the text as Kośa-hail-lun. In the name "Abhidharma-kośa-śāstra" the word kośa is used in the sense of a bud, the verses being buds in which were folded the flowers of Buddhist metaphysics awaiting development. So the Kośa-pao-lun, or Bud-hail-treatise, is to be understood as the work which was to spoil all the hope and promise of the Kośa. Vasubandhu, Yuan-chuang tells us, changed the name to "Shun-chêng-li-lun" the "Śāstra which follows Right Principles", and the Life of Vasubandhu gives the title as "Sui-shih-lun" or the "Śāstra which follows the True". These names are probably only different renderings of a name like Nyāyānusāra- or Anusāra-śāstra. But the story about the "Bud-hail" title must be discarded as the work itself shews that the author intended the title to be something like Nyāyānusāra-śāstra. Moreover in his subsequent treatise abridged from this he calls his large work “Shun-chêng-li-lun”.¹ With the wicked title should go the statements about the author writing the book in a spirit of envious hostility against Vasubandhu. Nothing of this appears in the treatise; and on the contrary, as Vasubandhu stated, the work developes the views of Vasubandhu and those whom he followed. In its observations on the verses of the original treatise it sometimes uses the words of Vasubandhu’s own commentary. The work condemns as heterodox certain opinions ascribed to the Sthaviras and the Sūtra-lords (Ching-chu), but Vasubandhu is not mentioned by name. Tāranātha mentions a treatise called “Abhidharmakośabhāṣyaṭīkā-tattva” which he ascribes to Sthiramati. Another name for it is given as the “Thunder-bolt”,² and it is perhaps not impossible that this may be the “Bud-hail” treatise ascribed by Yuanchuang to Sanghabhadra.
v1.c13.s2.20
¹ Abhidharma-tsang-hsien-tsung-lun (No. 1266). The word tsang in this title is evidently a translation of kośa and not of piṭaka. In the name of the original treatise the word kośa has been explained as meaning not only bud but also core, sheath, integument, and other things. Sanghabhadra, however, does not seem to have taken the word in the sense of bud either in the Anusāra-śāstra or in this abstract.
v1.c13.s2.21
² Tār. S. 130 note, and S. 319 and note.
v1.c13.s2.22
The pilgrim’s narrative proceeds to relate that beside the mango plantation which contained Sanghabhadra’s tope was another tope erected over the remains of a Śāstra-Master named Vimala-mitra. This man, who was a native of Kashmir and an adherent of the Sarvata school, having made a profound study of canonical and heterodox scriptures, had travelled in India to learn the mysteries of the Tripiṭaka. Having gained a name, and finished his studies, he was returning to his home, and had to pass Sanghabhadra’s tope on the way. At this place he sighed over the premature death of that great Master under whom he had studied. He lamented also that Vasubandhu’s teaching was still in vogue, and he expressed his determination to write a refutation of the Mahāyana system, and to efface the name of Vasubandhu. But he instantly became delirious, five tongues emerged from his mouth, and his life-blood gushed forth. He had time to repent, and to warn his disciples; but he died and went, according to an arhat, to the Hell which knows no intermission. At the time of his death there was an earthquake, and a cavity was formed in the ground at the spot where he died. His associates cremated the corpse, collected the bones, and erected a memorial (that is, the tope) over them.
v1.c13.s2.23
It is unusual for a tope to be erected in memory of a man reputed to have gone to Hell, and a Chinese annotator has suggested that stupa here is a mistake for ti (地) meaning "place". But the correction is not necessary, as the tope was erected by the personal friends of Vimalamitra, who did not think he had gone to Hell. As this man's dead body was cremated it seems strange that the arhat should have declared he had gone down into the Avichi Hell. It was evidently not the human being Vimalamitra who had so descended, but his alter ego, the embodied karma which had been formed and accumulated in successive births.
v1.c13.s2.24
From the Life we learn that the pilgrim remained several months in this district studying Guṇaprabha's Pien-chên-lun or "Tattvasandeśa śāstra", already mentioned, and other Abhidharma commentaries. He also met here the Bhadanta Mi-to-se-na, that is Mitasena (or Mitrasena), ninety years old who had been a disciple of Guṇaprabha and was a profound scholar in Buddhist learning.
v1.c13.s2.25
In the north-west of Matipur, Yuan-chuang proceeds to relate, on the east side of the Ganges was the city Mo-yü-lo (or Mayūra) above twenty li in circuit. It had a large population and streams of clear water: it produced bell-metal (t'u-shih), rock-crystal, and articles of jewelry. Near the city and close to the Ganges was a large Deva-Temple of many miracles, and in its inclosure was a tank the banks of which were faced with stone slabs, the tank being fed by an artificial passage from the Ganges. This was called the Ganges-Gate and it was a place for making religious merit and extinguishing guilt: there were constantly many thousands of people from distant regions assembled here bathing. Pious kings erected Puṇyaśālās in the district for the free distribution of dainty food and medical requisites to the kinless and friendless.
v1.c13.s2.26
The “Ganges-Gate” of this passage is said to be the Gaṅgādvāra of Indian writers, the modern Hardwar (or Haridvār), the “Source of the Ganges” already mentioned. As Yuan-chuang apparently did not go to Mayūra, we should perhaps regard him as writing about Gaṅgādvāra only from information given to him by others. Cunningham thinks that this Mayūra “must be the present ruined site of Māyāpura, at the head of the Ganges canal”.¹ But Mo-yü-lo cannot be taken as a transcription of Māyāpura, and this town was on the west side of the Ganges whereas Mo-yü-lo (Mayūra) was on the east side of that river.
v1.c13.s2.27
¹ A. G. I. p. 351.
v1.c13.s2.28
Our pilgrim proceeds to relate that going north “from this” above 300 *li* he came to the P'o-lo-hih-mo-pu-lo country. This was more than 4000 *li* in circuit, with mountains on all sides, its capital being above twenty *li* in circuit. It had a rich flourishing population, and a fertile soil with regular crops: it yielded bell-metal (tu-shih) and rock-crystal: the climate was coldish: the people had rough ways: they cared little for learning and pursued gain. There were five Buddhist monasteries, but there were very few Brethren: there were above ten Deva-Temples and the sectarians lived pell-mell.
v1.c13.s2.29
The P'o-lo-hih-mo-pu-lo of this passage has been restored by Julien, who here transliterates P'o-lo-hi-mo, as Brahmapura; and the restoration, said by Cunningham to be correct, has been generally accepted. Although P'o-lo-hih-mo is not the usual transcription for Brahma, we may perhaps regard these sounds as standing here for this word. Brahmapura is the name of a city which is in the north-east division of the Brihat Samhitā², but in our author it is the name of a country. Cunningham, who treats the *north* of our text as a mistake for *north-east*, finds the country in “the districts of Garhwāl and Kumaon”.³ It is not very clear whether the pilgrim meant us to understand that he started on his journey to this country from Mayūra, or from Matipura. The Fang-Chih took the former as the starting-place, but it is perhaps better to regard Matipur as the "this" of the text from which the pilgrim goes north 300 *li*. This construction is in agreement with the Life which has no mention of Mayūra.
v1.c13.s2.30
² Ind. Ant. Vol. XXII. p. 172.
v1.c13.s2.31
³ A. G. I. p. 355.
v1.c13.s2.32
To the north of this country (Brahmapura), and in the Great Snow Mountains, was the Suvarṇagotra country. The superior gold which it produced gave the country its name. This was the "Eastern Woman's Country" (that is, of the Chinese) so called because it was ruled by a succession of women. The husband of the queen was king, but he did not administer the government. The men attended only to the suppression of revolts and the cultivation of the fields. This country reached on the east to T'u-fan (Tibet), on the north to Khoten, and on the west to San-p'o-ha (Malasa).
v1.c13.s2.33
The Suvarṇagotra country of this passage is perhaps the Suvarṇabhū or Gold-region in the north-east division of the Bṛihat-Saṃhitā, which Kern regards as "in all likelihood a mythical land".¹ Our pilgrim was taught to identify this district with the "Eastern Woman's-Country" of his countrymen, which is undoubtedly a mythical region. Further the situation of the Eastern Woman's Country is far away from the region in which Yuan-chuang places his Suvarṇagotra. This name is translated properly in a note to the text by "the Golds" that is, the Gold family, but the author evidently regarded the name as meaning "the land of gold".
v1.c13.s2.34
¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XXII. p. 190.
Linked texts (2)
- Bṛhatsaṃhitā — Varāhamihira, Sanskrit
- Abhidharmakośa — Vasubandhu, Sanskrit