Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v2.c21.s13: Tê-Na-Ka-Che-Ka (Dhanakaṭaka?)

On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v2.c21.s13

Language
English

Contents

Tê-Na-Ka-Che-Ka (Dhanakaṭaka?)

v2.c21.s13.1.1

The narrative in the Records proceeds to relate that from Andhra the pilgrim continued his journey south, through wood and jungle, for over 1000 *li*, and reached the Tê-na-ka-che-ka country. This was above 6000 *li* in circuit, and its capital was above 40 *li* in circuit. The country had a rich soil and yielded abundant crops; there was much waste land and the inhabited towns were few; the climate was warm, and the people were of black complexion, of violent disposition, and fond of the arts. There was a crowd of Buddhist monasteries but most of them were deserted, about twenty being in use, with 1000 Brethren mostly adherents of the Mahāsāṅghika system. There were above 100 Deva-Temples and the followers of the various sects were very numerous. At a hill to the east of the capital was a monastery called *Fu-p'o-shih-lo* (Pūrvaśilā) or "East Mountain", and at a hill to the west of the city was the *A-fa-lo-shih-lo* (Avaraśilā) or "West Mountain" monastery. These had been erected for the Buddha by a former King of the country, who had made a communicating path by the river, and quarrying the rocks had formed high halls with long broad corridors continuous with the steep sides of the hills. The local deities guarded the monasteries, which had been frequented by saints and sages. During the millenium immediately following the Buddha's decease a thousand ordinary Brethren came here every year to spend the Retreat of the rainy season.

v2.c21.s13.1.2

On the day of leaving Retreat these all became arhats, and by their supernormal powers went away through the air. Afterwards common monks and arhats sojourned here together, but for more than 100 years there had not been any Brethren resident in the establishment, and visitors were deterred by the forms of wild animals which the mountain-gods assumed. Not far from the south side of the capital was a mountain-cliff in the Asura's Palace in which the Śāstra-Master Po-p'i-fei-ka waits to see Maitreya when he comes to be Buddha. Then we have the story of this renowned dialectician, who "externally displaying the Saṅkhya garb, internally propagated the learning of Nāgārjuna". Hearing that Hu-fa (Dharmapāla) P'usa was preaching Buddhism in Magadha with some thousands of disciples the Śāstra-Master longing for a discussion, set off, staff in hand, to see him. On arriving at Pāṭaliputra he learned that Hu-fa was at the Bodhi-Tree and thither he sent as messenger a disciple with the following message for the P'usa—"I have long yearned to come under the influence of you as a preacher of Buddhism, and a guide to the erring, but have failed to pay my respects to you through the non-fulfillment of a former prayer. I have vowed not to see the Bodhi-Tree in vain. If I visit it I must become Buddha". Fa-hu sent back a reply that human life was illusory and fleeting, and that he was too much occupied to have a discussion. Messengers and messages went to and fro, but there was no interview.

v2.c21.s13.1.3

Then the Śāstra-Master went back to his home in this country, and after calm reflection concluded that his doubts could be solved only by an interview with Maitreya as Buddha. He thereupon abstained from food, only drinking water, and for three years repeated before an image of Kuan-tzŭ-tsai P'usa the "Sui-hsin Dhāraṇī". After all this that P'usa appeared in his beautiful form, and on hearing the devotee's desire to remain in this world to see Maitreya, he advised him rather to cultivate a higher goodness which would lead to rebirth in the Tushita Heaven and so accelerate an interview with Maitreya. But the Śāstra-Master had made up his mind, and was not to be moved from his resolve. So Kuan-tzŭ-tsai P'usa directed him to go to this country, to the shrine of the god Vajrapāṇi, in the cliff to the south of the capital, and on reciting the "Vajrapāṇi Dhāraṇī" there he would obtain his desire. The Śāstra-Master acted on the advice, and after three years' repetition of the dhāraṇī the god appeared, gave a secret prescription, and told the devotee to make due petition at the Asura's Palace in the cliff; the rock would then open and he was to enter, on the coming of Maitreya the god would let him know. After three more years' constancy the Śāstra-Master with a charmed mustard-seed struck the cliff which thereupon opened. There were at the place many myriads of people who had continued gazing, forgetful of their homes.

v2.c21.s13.1.4

When the Śāstra-Master passed quietly in, he urged the crowd to follow, but only six ventured after him; the others held back through fear, but they lamented their mistake.

v2.c21.s13.2

This passage presents some serious difficulties. The name of the country here transcribed Tê-na-ka-che-ka has been restored as Dhanakacheka and Dhanakaṭaka. In Tibetan books the term Bras-spuns or "Rice-heap" is given as the rendering of the latter word, but this translation, as has been suggested, seems to point to a form like Dānyakaṭaka.¹ A note added to the pilgrim's text tells us that another name for the country was "Great Andhra." and it is possible that the name Dhanakaṭaka was confined to the district of the capital. Cunningham, who in his usual manner alters the Chinese text to suit his own fancies, writes the name "Donakotta" and otherwise, and fixes the position of the capital "at Dhāranikoṭṭa or Amarvāti, on the Kistna."² Fergusson is of opinion that the united testimony of Mr. Boswell's report and certain photographs "prove, almost beyond the shadow of a doubt, Bezwarra (the Bezwada and Bejwāḍa of others) to be the city Hiouen-Thsang describes".³ This identification has been accepted by Mr. Sewell after a careful examination of the district and the texts on the subject.⁴ According to Mr. Burgess the capital of the country at the time of our pilgrim was Bejwāḍa, but he also writes—"The town of Dharaṇikoṭa is the ancient Dhanyakaṭaka or Dhānya-kaṭaka, the capital of Mahā-Andhra, and lies about eighteen miles in a direct line to the westward from Bejwāḍa, on the south or right bank of the Kṛishṇa river, above the bed of which it is well raised."⁵ But the situation and surroundings of Dhāraṇikoṭṭa are against this identification, while the Bejwāḍa site has much in its favour.

v2.c21.s13.3

¹ Tār. s. 142 and note.

v2.c21.s13.4

² A. G. I. p. 530 ff. The spelling is Cunningham's.

v2.c21.s13.5

³ J. R. A. S. 1873 p. 263.

v2.c21.s13.6

⁴ J. R. A. S. Vol. XII, p. 98 ff.

v2.c21.s13.7

⁵ 'Arch. Sur. S. India' p. 9 ff.

v2.c21.s13.8

As to the Buddhist Brethren in this country, we have seen that Yuan-chuang describes them as being “Mahā-saṅghikas”. Julien’s translation here gives “Mahāyānists”, the B text which he used having *ta-shêng* or “Great Vehicle” (*Mahāyāna*). But the other texts, and the Fang-chih, have *ta-chung* or “Great Congregation”; that is, Mahā-saṅgha, which is undoubtedly the correct reading. The Life tells us that during his stay here the pilgrim studied certain Abhidharma treatises of the Mahāsaṅghika school with two local Brethren, whom he in turn instructed in Mahāyāna scriptures.

v2.c21.s13.9

We come next to the Pūrvaśilā and Avaraśilā monasteries. The author’s words seem to indicate clearly that these two formed one establishment, and it was evidently in this sense that the passage was understood by the compilers of the Life and the Fan-chih. The monasteries were apparently built on steep hills, the sides of which were utilized in their construction, and there was an artificial communication, connecting them with the city apparently and with each other. According to the B text the author states that the monasteries “erected by a former King of this country for the Buddha as a *ch'a* (剎)”, a temple or religious sphere. But the other texts, the Life, and the Fang-chih, merely represent them as having been built for the Buddha. Then the C text proceeds—“The King excavated a through path in the river (or valley) and quarried lofty chambers in the cliff; the long corridors and broad cloisters rested on and made continuations of the caves in the steep rock”. For “excavated” the original is *tso* (鑿) which means to chisel, bore out, excavate. But instead of *tso* the other texts have *tien* (奠) which means to determine or settle, and to follow as a guide or boundary. With this reading the clause *tien-ch'uan-t'ung-ching* (奠川通徑) seems to mean “Keeping along the line of the mountain-river he made a pathway of communication”. The Fang-chih also has *tien*, but instead of *ch'uan* it has *shan* that is, *hill*.¹ Further instead of “broad cloisters”

v2.c21.s13.10

¹ A learned native scholar suggests that the *tien* (奠) of the text

v2.c21.s13.11

— *Kuang-wu* (廣 廡)—of the B text, the other texts have *pu-yen* (步 檐) or “walking-eaves”, that is, verandahs or corridors. The Life praises these two Monasteries as “having all the artistic elegance of a great mansion and all the beauty of natural scenery” lit. wood and spring (窮 大 廈 之 規 式 盡 林 泉 之 秀 麗). Instead of the *ta-hsia*, a “great mansion” here, the B text, used by Julien, has *ta hsia* (大 夏),¹ which is a Chinese name for the country called Bactria. But this is evidently a slip of the pen, and the proper reading is that of the other texts which means a “great mansion”.

v2.c21.s13.12

¹ Life ch. 4; Julien I, p. 188.

v2.c21.s13.13

We must observe that neither in the passage now under notice, nor in the Life, is there any mention of a tope as existing in this district. Yet in the “Archæological Survey of South India” we find Mr. Burgess writing—“We now pass to the mention of the great Amarāvatī monument by Hiuen Thsang”, that is, its great tope. He identifies this tope with the Pūrvaśilā monastery of our pilgrim, while Fergusson identified it with the Avaraśilā monastery. It is hard to understand how any one could propose to identify a large monastery among hills and streams, and having spacious chambers and great corridors, with a building which is only a remarkable tope situated on a plain. Mr. Burgess, because the tope and its surroundings do not suit the account of the monastery, writes of the pilgrim as not having personally visited the place, forgetting the statement in the Life that he spent several months here visiting the sacred sights of the district in company with native Brethren. Mr. Sewell’s conscientious examination of the district gives results which seem to be in general agreement with the pilgrim’s description. He has found something which he thinks confirms the statement

v2.c21.s13.14

is a copyist’s or printer’s mistake for *tien* (填) which means to raise or fill up. The meaning, with this reading, would be that the king formed a path of communication between the two monasteries, or between them and the capital, by raising an embankment in the valley.

v2.c21.s13.15

that the King (in Beal’s translation made for Mr. Sewell) “bored out the river-course, constructing a road through it”, and writes—“Now the path from the town of Bezwāḍa that leads up to the level of the platforms on the escarpment of the mountain to the west of the town, passes up a gully caused by centuries of mountain torrents, and when it comes to the steepest part of the ascent, is conducted by steps through an almost perpendicular cliff, which has been cut into for the purpose, to the more level portion of the hill-side above it: so that the visitor at that part stands on steps with walls of rock artificially cut on each side of him. This is the “river-course” that has been bored into to construct a path”. But all this seems to be rather against the text rendered “bored out the river-course”, although it may be in agreement with the old reading interpreted as meaning “proceeding according to the line of the mountain-river”. The “river-course” was not “bored out” by the king, for it had been there for centuries, but the king may have cut his path in the rocks along its line. Mr. Sewell, it will be seen, changes “bored out” into “bored into”, which is not the same thing. But the *tso-ch’uan* of the B text should be set aside, and the *tien-ch’uan* of the other texts adopted. The passage is evidently corrupt and we can only guess at what may have been the form of the clause in the original manuscript. It is perhaps not impossible that the pilgrim wrote—“these monasteries were erected and cut out by a former king who made a path (or paths) to them along the mountain-river course (or courses). The text would read 此國先王爲佛建鑿 奠川通徑

v2.c21.s13.16

To these monasteries, according to the legend here related by the pilgrim, for 1000 years after the Buddha’s decease *Ch’ien-fan-fu-sêng* (千凡夫僧), that is “1000 ordinary Brethren”, came together to pass the Rain-season Retreat. Julien spoils the meaning of the passage by translating these four characters “mille laïques et autant de religieux”. Here, as in many other passages, the *fan-fu-sêng*, or “common monk”, is clearly distinguished from the shêng-sêng or "holy monk" who has attained arhatship, and the Fang-chih uses the recognized contraction fan-sêng, our "common monk". Farther on where our author states that after the above millenium "the common and holy" (fan-sêng 凡聖), that is the ordinary Brethren and the arhats, lodged together in the monasteries Julien as usual mistranslates fan-sêng by "les hommes vulgaires et les saints". It is very plain from this story about the 1000 Buddhist Brethren coming yearly to these monasteries to spend the Rain-season Retreat in them, that the establishment was at a convenient distance from a town. If the capital did not lie between the two monasteries at this period, these must at least have been near a town or village. The bhikshus were not allowed to go into Retreat at places distant from the residences of the lay-believers who supplied them with food.

v2.c21.s13.17

The next item in the pilgrim's account of this district is the "Mountain-cliff (ta-shan-yen 大山巖) near the south of the city", in a cave in which Śāstra-Master Po-p'i-fei-ka stays waiting to have an interview with Maitreya when the latter comes to be Buddha. The term ta-shan-yen is rendered by Julien "une grande caverne de montagne", but yen, although it has the meaning of a natural cavity or recess in a rock, is properly a steep cliff, a sheer wall of rock. That the latter is the sense in which the word is used here is clear from the context, for the wall of rock opens to receive the Śāstra-Master and closes again until Maitreya comes. This rock is the door, and there is a cave inside into which the Śāstra-Master passes, but the cave is not visible to spectators. In the translation of this passage which Beal made for Mr. Sewell he translated ta-shan-yen by "a large terraced mountain", a rendering which is quite inadmissible, but in his "Buddhist Records" he adopts Julien's rendering. Yet in an article published in the J. R. A. S. for January 1890 Mr. Rea goes back to the "large terraced mountain", and finds a site which exactly answers to the wrong translation. He accordingly thinks that—"Amarāvatī might be the monastery of the Avaraśilā school; Vaikunthapuram that of the Purvaśilās; and Pedda Madūr, the “terraced, mountain” at a “little distance to the south of the town”.¹ Neither Amarāvatī nor Vaikunthapur can be said to have any claim to represent either of the two monasteries. Pedda Madūr, according to Mr. Rea, is a village four miles south-east from Amarāvatī and so not near the site of the capital, and the “series of extensive brick remains, built on terraces rising one above the other” on the hill above the village is incompatible with the pilgrim’s description. So also is the location, and our pilgrim’s “mountain cliff” is more likely the isolated steep mountain to the south of Bezwāḍa, as has been suggested by others. Mr. Sewell boldly identifies the cliff with the “Rock-cut temple at Uṇḍavilli”; but his theory und Mr. Fergusson’s objection to it seem to be founded on Julien’s translation—“une grande caverne de montagne”. In the Life the “mountain cliff” is merely a *ta-shih-shan*, or “great rock hill”, and the Fang-chih uses the pilgrim’s expression.

v2.c21.s13.18

¹ J. R. A. S. Vol. XXII, p. 198 ff.

v2.c21.s13.19

We come next to the Śāstra-Master whom our pilgrim here calls *P‘o-p‘i-fei-ka*. Julien restores this name as Bhāva-viveka and the restoration has of course been adopted by all. The authority for this name is found in Burnouf’s description of a Sanskrit treatise known by the name Vinaya-sūtra (but properly the “Madhyamaka-vṛitti”), composed by the Āchārya Chandra-kīrti as a commentary on the axioms of Nāgārjuna. This treatise, Burnouf tells us, quotes certain Buddhist Brethren or commentators otherwise unknown to us, and among the eminent Buddhists whom it mentions are Buddhapālita, Āryadeva, and the Āchārya Bhavaviveka.² But the name which is transcribed *P‘o-p‘i-fei-ka* in the present passage, in the Life, and the Fang-chih, is evidently Bhāviveka. It is translated by *Ch‘ing-pien* (清辯) or “Clearness-discriminating” and in the “Fang-chih by *Ming*(明)-pien or “Light (or Clearness)- discriminating. These renderings also point to Bhāviveka as the original. Besides, the word bhāva is rendered usually by shên (身), “body” or yu (有) “existing”. In the Tibetan books we find a Master whose name has been retranslated into Sanskrit as Bhāvaviveka (or Bhavya apparently), but his Tibetan name Legs-ldan-hlyed-pa means “Clear analysing” and seems to correspond to the Chinese Ch’ing-pien and Bhāviveka.² The Śāstra-master in question was a native of South India, and apparently of the Malayagiri country. His disciples, according to I-ching, lived in the middle period between Nāgārjuna and Diṅnāga,² but according to our pilgrim he was a junior contemporary of Dharmapāla. In the Chinese collection of Buddhist scriptures we have one treatise ascribed to Ch’ing-pien, viz-the “Ta-shêng-chang-chên-lun” or “Mahāyāna Pearl-in-hand Śāstra” (No. 1237), translated by our pilgrim in A. D. 648. This work shows great learning and subtle reasoning: the author quotes not only from various Buddhist sects and schools, but also from the teachings of other sects, including the Sāṅkhyas. In the Chinese collection we have also a remarkable work called” Prajñā-lamp-śāstra-exposition” (or simply “Prajñā-lamp-śāstra”). This work is a commentary on the “Chung-lun” of Nāgārjuna, already mentioned, together with the Chinese text of that treatise. The commentary is ascribed on the title-page to F’en-pie-ming (分別明) or “Discriminating light” P’usa. Mr. Nanjio (No 1185) makes this name indicate Ārya-Deva, but it is a translation of Bhāviveka. In a well known Chinese treatise the book is ascribed to “the Śāstra-Master of South India by name Pi-ka (毘迦)”, that is, the Bhāviveka of our pilgrim.³ One of the epithets of this Śāstra- Master, we know, was "Lord of the Prajñā-lamp-śāstra",¹ and his treatise with this name evidently became very famous. In it also we find a great knowledge of Buddhist and other scriptures, and a frequent quotation from the Sāṅkhya texts. We understand from it, and the "Ta-shêng-chang-chên-lun", what our pilgrim meant by his statement that Bhāviveka showed the garb of Sāṅkhya while propagating the system of Nāgārjuna. In these two works we find the author making much use of Sāṅkhya terminology in stating and defending the theories of Nāgārjuna. In the "Prajñā-lamp-śāstra" also we find the author referring to *Fo-hu*, that is the Dharmapālita mentioned in Burnouf's text. But this śāstra is not in any degree a treatise on the Pāramitās, and *Prajñā* is evidently used in it in a sense corresponding to our *Pure Reason* or *Transcendental Wisdom*. This śāstra may be the Tibetan work the title of which is restored by Schiefner as "Prajñā-pradīpa-mūla-madhyamika-vṛtti".² But there is another treatise in Tibetan translation also ascribed to this Master as author, and the title of this treatise is restored by Wassiljew as "Tarka-jvālā" or "Flame of Speculation". Wassiljew states that this work does not exist in a Chinese translation, but it seems to be a treatise very like the "Prajñā-pradīpa-śāstra".³

v2.c21.s13.20

² ‘Introduction’ p. 559 ff.

v2.c21.s13.21

¹ Tār. p. 136 and note.

v2.c21.s13.22

² Nan-hai-ch’i-kuei, ch. 34; Takakusu (p. 181) translates the passage as intimating that Ch’ing-pien lived in this period.

v2.c21.s13.23

³ Ch’êng-tao-chi p. 37. The characters for pi and ka are the second and fourth of those used to transcribe the full name, and their order is reversed by mistake in some texts.

v2.c21.s13.24

¹ Fang-chih, ch. 2.

v2.c21.s13.25

² Tār. l. c.

v2.c21.s13.26

³ Wass. Bud. s. 287.

v2.c21.s13.27

It will be noticed that Bhāviveka, carrying out the prescription given to him, strikes the rock with charmed mustard-seed; and this causes the rock to open and let him in. This procedure is in accordance with the teachings of the Dhāraṇi sūtras in which we find white mustard-seed often used and prescribed as a charm. This seed when duly parched, and rendered efficacious by the repetition of magical formulæ, could bring rain, cleave a rock, or even rend the earth. The "Vajra-holding god" of this passage is evidently the Vajrapāṇi (or Vajrasattva) who figures largely in several of the Dhāraṇī sūtras. In these he is sometimes a Bodhisattva, sometimes a god and chief of the Yakshas, and sometimes plain Vajrapāṇi.

v2.c21.s13.28

The pilgrim, it will be observed, makes the determined and devoted Śāstra-Master recite for three years, before Kuan-tzŭ-tsai's image, the "Sui-hsin-dhāraṇī". This very curious book (No. 325), the full title of which is "Kuan-tzŭ-tsai-sui-hsin-t'o-lo-ni (or with ch'ou instead of t'o-lo-ni), was one of the sacred texts which our pilgrim carried home to China, and there it was translated by Chih-t'ung (智 通).

v2.c21.s13.29

Our pilgrim's statement about Vajrapāṇi and his magical spells seems to agree with another authority which tells us that Dhanakaṭaka became a centre of production for spells and exorcisms.¹

v2.c21.s13.30

¹ See Tār. s. 277.

Cites (3)