The Date of Buddhadasa of Ceylon from a Chinese Source

·期刊原文
The Date of Buddhadasa of Ceylon from a Chinese Source

By Edward R. Ayrton
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
1911, pp.1142-1144

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 1142

The Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hian after leaving Chang'an
took five years to arrive at Mid-India. He resided there
for six years, and it was three years more before he
arrived at Tsing-chow (Beal, Buddhist Records, vol. i,
p. Ixxxiii). Of these last three years he spent two years
in Ceylon (loc.cit., p.lxxix), and about 337 days on his
adventurous voyage home from that island to Tsing-chow
(loc. cit., pp. lxxx seqq.). His arrival in Ceylon may
therefore be placed shortly after 411 A.D., since he left
Chang'an in 399 A.D. (loc.cit., p.xii).

Unfortunately he does not tell us the name of the
reigning king of Ceylon, but we may be able to identify
him satisfactorily from Fa-Hian's description of a few
notable events which took place during his stay

p. 1143

there. He tells us that the "tooth-relic" was always
brought out in the middle of the third month, and after
being carried in procession to the Abhaya-vihara it was
there exhibited to the people for ninety days, after which
time it was replaced in its receptacle in the city (loc.
cit., pp. lxxv-vi).

This is the first point of importance. Fa-Hian was in
the island after the tooth-relic had been brought over
from India, in the ninth year of King Sri Maghavarna
according to the Mahavamsa (Wijesingha, Mahavamsa,
p.154).The pilgrim goes on to tell us that "Forty li to
the east of the Abhaya-vihara is a mountain, on which is
built a chapel called Po-ti (Bodhi); there are about two
thousand priests in it. Amongst them is a very
distinguished Shaman called Ta-mo-kiu-ti. The people of
this country greatly respect and reverence him. He resides
in a cell, where he has lived for about forty years.By the
constant practice of benevolence he has been able to tame
the serpents and mice, so that they stop together in one
cell, and do not hurt one another" (Beal, loc. cit., p.
lxxvi).

This is the second fact, and is of greater importance
than the former, since we read in the Mahavamsa --" In
the reign of this raja [i.e. Buddhadasa] a certain priest
by name Maha Dhammakathi, translated the Suttas (of
the Pitakattaya) into the Sihala language" (Wijesingha,
loc. cit., p.158, with his correction of note 7). It is
very probable that Ta-mo-kiu-ti is to be identified with
Dhammakathi. This identification has already been
noticed by Mr. Wickremasinghe (Ep. Zeyl., vol.i, pt.iii,
p. 83) but he has made no use of it in his note on the
Sinhalese chronology (Ep. Zeyl.).

Lastly, Fa-Hian, talking about the Mahavihara, says
that whilst he was in Ceylon ("at this time") the king
"desired to build a new vihara for this congregation of
priests" and he describes the ploughing of the

p. 1144

boundaries and the presentation of the land to the monks
(Beal, loc. cit., p. Ixxvii). The Mahavamsa (p. 158) says
that Buddhadasa "built at the Mahavihara the parivena
called Mora" and provided for it in every way. We thus see
that Fa-Hian's visit to Ceylon is probably to be placed in
the reign of Buddhadasa; that is, of course, if we find
that the dates of that monarch's reign inclued the years
411-13 A.D. Dr. Fleet has shown (JRAS., 1909, p. 351) that
the accession of Buddhadasa is placed by the author of the
Mahavamsa at 870 years 3 months 10 days after the Nirvana
of Buddha.

If we take the date 544 B.C. as the initial point for
this part of the Mahavamsa, we get the date 328-57 A.D.
for his reign of twenty-nine years. This does not agree
with Fa-Hian's date at all.

On the other hand, if we accept Dr. Fleet's theory
(loc. cit. supra, pp.323 seqq.) that 483 B.C. is the
initial date, we get 389-418 A.D., which suits the date
of the pilgrim. I therefore think that we may assume
on good grounds that the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hian visited
Ceylon during the last years of King Buddhadasa, for
whom we may accept the date of 389-418 A.D. until we
have definite proof to the contrary. More important
still is the additional evidence which we thus obtain
that, for the earlier part of the Mahavamsa, the date
of 483 B.C. is to be regarded as the date of Buddha's
Nirvana.