Some Observations on the Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching
¿p§J¬ö
¤¤µØ¦ò¾Ç¾Ç³ø²Ä¤Q´Á
1997.7¤ë¥Xª©
¤¤µØ¦ò¾Ç¬ã¨s©Òµo¦æ
¶397¡ã408
¶397
Summary
The text of Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching ¡]¡m²³³\¼¯¶F
«Ò¸g¡n¡^transleted in the later Sung Dynasty¡]A.D.
960¡ã1127¡^by Fa-hsien¡]A.D. 982¡ã1001¡^seems to
have gained some importance in the Yuan Dynasty.
Paszepa or Vaþöpa, the teacher of Kublai Khan¡]
1260¡ã94¡^in his work entitled Chang-suu-chih-lun¡]
Nanjio No.1320¡^explains the name of the king as
given in the title of the sutra as Ta-san-mo-to.
Nanjio takes both the terms 'Chung-Nhsuþõ' given in
the title of the sutra and ' san-Nmo-Nto' to stand
for 'Samadatta'.
It has been shown in the present article that
this restoration of both Chung-Nhsuþõ and
San-Nmo-Nto as Samadatta is wrong.The terms
Chungb-hsuþõ and Ta-san- mo-to should be correctly
restored as Mahaasammata. The name of the
original Indian text should have been
Mahaasammata-mahaaraaja-suutra.
This sutra begins with an account of the origin of
the world and ends with an account of the Buddha's
visit to his father after his enlightenment. It
appears that the traditions that have come down to
us are silent about the Buddhist school to which this
sutra belonged. By comparing and contrasting the
youth legends of the Buddha narrated in this sutra
with the accounts given in other texts belonging to
different Buddhist schools including that of the
Muulasarvaþöstivaþöda, we have come to the
conclusion that the youth legends as given in this
sutra belonged to the Muþölasarvaþöstivaþöda school
and the text of Chung-hus-mo-ho-ti-ching could be
held to have originated within the Muulasarvaastivaada
circle.
Key word: 1.Chung 2.mahaþösammata
3.Muulasarvaastivaada tradition
¶398
The Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching¡]¡m²³³\¼¯¶F«Ò¸g¡n¡^(
1)is one of the late Buddha biography to be
traslated into Chinese. It was translated by
Fa-hsien¡]A.D. 982¡ã1001¡^of the later Sung Dynasty¡]
A.D. 960¡ã1127¡^. The sutra commences with an
account of the origin of the world and a list of the
ancestors of the Buddha beginning with the first
king in the world, and ending with the Buddha's
visit to his father after enlightnment and the story
of a former king of Varaan.sii, Brahmayuas. by
name.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ ¢×
Paszepa¡]Skt. Vaas.pa¡^, the teacher of Kublai
Khan, the emperor of China¡]A.D.1260¡ã94¡^throws
interesting light on the title of the text. In
his work entitled Chang-so-chih-lun ¡]¡m¹ü©Òª¾½×¡n¡^(
2) he states that the ruler was called
Ta-san-mo-to-wang¡]¤j¤T¥½¦h¤ý¡^because he was chosen
to become king by the multitude. It is apparent
that Paszepa reproduces the title of the text in a
slightly different way. Wang ¡]raajaa¡^in the text's
name as given by Paszepa is a substitute for
mo-ho-ti¡]mahaaraaja¡^of the original sutra while
Ta-san-mo-to stands for chung-hsu.
Nanjio thinks that both chung-hsuþõ and
ta-san-mo-to stands for the original name Mahaþö
-samadatta.It is difficult to accept this
interpretation. Phonetically the restoration of
chung-hsu as Mahaa-samadatta and that of san-mo-to as
'samadatta' cannot be supported.
Again the meaning of the Chinese term chung- hsu
is quite different from that of 'samadatta'.
Chung¡]²³¡^means multitude, numerous etc. and
hsu¡]³\¡^means to agree, consent to, permit etc.
Samadatta can be rendered as "equally given". It
should also be noted that there is no detail in
the Chinese text that would justify the name '
samadatta'.
Moreover the tradition preserved in the Indian
texts is not aware of any first ruler in the
world whose name or epithet was Samadatta. The
Buddhist texts in India unanimously hold that the name
of the elected king was Mahaasammata.
¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w
1 B. Nanjio, A Catalogue of the Chinese
Tripitaka,No.859,p.195 ¡]Classical India
Publication, Delhi, 1989¡^.
2. Ibidem, No.1320.
¶399
On the other hand the term chung-hsu¡]²³³\¡^
can be restored as Mahasammata i.e. agreed upon
or elected or accepted by the multitude or people.
The Chinese word 'chung' means, as already noted,
multitude etc. and thus can be used to translate
the Sanskrit word'mahaa while the other word 'hsu' of
the term 'chung-hsu' meaning 'to agree ' etc. can be
equated with "sammata". Moreover the name Mahaþö
sammata is in harmony with the statement of the text
that the first king was elected by the people.
It is to be noted that the word 'mahaa' has been
interpreted in two different ways.Paszepa takes
'mahaa' to mean great.In case of the title of the
sutra the word 'mahaa' is understood in the sense of
'numerous', and has been accordingly rendered as
'chung'¡]²³¡^. The second interpretation is earlier
and tallies with the original Indian tradition. The
original Indian name of the suþötra thus can be
restored as Mahaasammata-mahaaraaja-suutra.ûX
¢×¢×
Nanjio is silent about the position of the
Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching in the Buddhist literature.
We are left in the dark about it's possible
relatioship with the other Buddhist texts, or
concerning the particular Buddhist school to which
it might have belonged.
In order to throw some light on these problems it
is necessary to compare the Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching
with other Buddhist texts. Within the limited
scope of an article it is not possible to make a
comparative study of the entire text of the
Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching. For the sake of
convenience we will confine our study to the youth
legends of the Buddha only.
The youth legends have been mentioned in numerous
texts such as Mahaþövastu,(3) Lalitavistara,(4)
Fu-yao-ching ¡]¡m´¶Â`¸g¡n¡^,(5)
Hsiu-hsing-pen-ch'i-ching ¡]¡mצ楻°_¸g¡n¡^,(6)
T'ai-tzu-sui-ying-pen-ch'i-ching ¡]¡m¤Ó¤l·çÀ³¥»°_¸g¡^,(7)
Kuo-chu-hsien-tsai-yin-kuo-ching ¡]¡m¹L¥h²{¦b¦]ªG¸g¡n
¡^(8),Tibetan translation of the
¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w
3 E. Senart, Mahavastu, Vol.II, pp. 74þû76¡]Paris,
1882þû97¡^.
4 S. Lefmann¡]Halle, 1908¡^, pp. 140¡ã45.
5 Nanjio, No. 60. Tsiaho, 3, pp. 501aþû502a.
P'u-yao-ching was translated in A.D. 308 by
Dharmaraksa of the Western Chin dynasty.
¶400
Muulasarvaastivaada Vinaya,(9) Chinese translation of
the Muulasarvaastivaada Vinaya¡]¡m®Ú¥»»¡¤@¤Á¦³³¡«ß¡n¡^
,(10) Eine Tibetische Lebensbeschreibung Saakyamuni's,(11)
Fo-pen-hsing-ch'i-ching ¡]¡m¦ò»¡¥»°_¸g¡n¡^.(12)
¡@¡@We will next give an account of the relevant
legends as recorded in the Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching in
order to compare it with the accounts of the other
texts.ûY
¢×¢×¢×
Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching ¡]Taisho, Vol.3,,pp.942a14¡ã
943b4¡^
The legend of the elephant
At that time there was a big elephant in the
city of Vais'aalii. He was of noble appearance and
possessed great strength.Suddhodana, the great king of
Kapilaþövastu had a son called Siddhaartha. The
soothsayers saw in him the signs indicating the
position of a raajacakravartin. So the elephant was
sent to him as an offering. Decorated in many
ways with pearls, gems and other precious objects the
elehant came to Kapilaavastu upto the gate of the
king' s palace. At that time Deva-datta came
out of the gate, and seeing the elephant he asked
the gatekeepers: "Wherefrom has this elephant
come?"The gatekeepers answered: "As it has been
predicted that Siddhaartha would be a
raajacakravartin, the inhabitants of Vais'aali have
offered this elephant to him." Having heard this
news Deva-datta grew jealous in
¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w
6 Nanjio, No. 664. This text was translated in
A.D. 197 by an western monk
Mahaabalain collaboration with a monk of
Tibetan descent called Kang Man-sian¡F for the
relevant legends see, Taisho, 3, pp.
465b-466c.
7 Nanjio No. 665. Taisho , 3, p.474b. This work was
translated in the Wu dynasty¡]A.D. 222-80¡^
8 Nanjio No.666. Taisho, 3, pp. 628b-629a. This
work was translated by Gun.abhadra of the earlier
Sui Dynasty.
9 Rockhill, The Life of the Buddha,,pp. 19-21.
10 Taisho, 24. pp. 112a-12c.
11 Schiefner, Eine Tibetische Lebensbeschebung
Sakyamuni's,, 237-8.
12 Nanjio, No. 630. Taisho, 3, pp. 710b-12c;
713c-714c. This text was translated by
Jnnaanagupta, A.D. 587, of the Sui dynasty.
¶401
his heart and told the gatekeepers: "How
Siddhaartha could have the kingship?" Then with a
weapon he killed the elephant.Afterwards Nanda saw the
elephant, and came to know that Devadatta had
killed the elephant out of anger.In order to show
his manly strength Nanda, thereupon, with his hand
caught hold of the elephant by the tail, and pulled
it seven paces away from the place where it
originally was.Now Siddhaartha saw the elephant was at
a distance from the place where it originally was.He
knew that Nanda in order to show his strength caught
hold of the elephant's tail with one hand and moved it
away from the original place. Then Siddhaartha
in order to show his extraordinary power with one
hand held the elephant by its tail, tossed it in the
air beyond the seven walls of the city just as one
throws away a lump of earth. Now the people of
Vais'aalii who had offered the elephant saw that
Siddhaartha had great power and strength.
Skill in archery
Once Devadatta taking a bow and arrow in hand
went out of the city of Kapilaþövastu in order to
practise shooting.Having known this the prince
Siddhaartha also went out of the city walls to
practise shooting.
Then Devadatta holding the bow and arrow shot at
a tree from a distance. The arrow hit at the middle
of the tree, resounded like a string, and then
turned upside down.
Siddhaartha also shot at the tree with great
force.Though the tree was cut into two, it remained as
before without showing any movement. Seeing the tree
in this position Devadatta thought that the arrow
had not hit the tree at all.He told the prince: "I
have heard that the prince had learnt rules
about five different arts of shooting.How is it that
you shot at the tree but could not hit it? " Having
heard this Sakra, the king of the gods, thought:
To-day I must reveal the strength of the
supernatural powers of the Bodhisattva. If it
is not done, how the people could know him
to be a Bodhisattva who is capable of
thorough mastery over all matters.
Then he magically created a great storm wshich
blew against the middle of the tree. The tree
which was pierced by the arrow suddenly toppled down
on the
¶402
ground. Now Devadatta became extremely afraid
andheaved a sigh.
Next the prince caused seven palm trees, seven
iron drums and seven iron boars to be set up, and
he asked everybody to shoot at them. Then Devadatta to
show his might seized the bow, advanced and shot
through one palm tree.Next to him Nanda pierced
two palm trees. Following them Siddhartha shot
through the seven palm trees, seven iron drums
and seven iron boars.Having pierced through all of
them his arrow passed through the earth as far as
the palace of the Naþöga king.At that time the Naþö
ga king saw the arrow of the Bodhisattva, and took it
with both hands.At that place where the arrow had
entered the earth, water bubbling gushed upward
and flowed.The brahmins and the elders who were
faithful erected a caitya there and offered
worship.The monks often came there to visit and
worship.Then Siddhaþörtha mounted on a precious
chariot, returned to the palace.The soothsayers
predicted about the prince: a"On the 12th year from
now if he does not enter the houseless state, he
would become a raajacakravarti."
Legends of the tree and the goose
Not far from the city of Kapilavastu there was a
large river called Rohita on the bank of which was a
big tree, born on the same day as the prince.This tree
was known as Saþölakalyaþöa.In a short time it grew
to the height of 100 hands.Subsequently the tree was
overflooded and was immersed in the stream of the
river, and the roots of the tree were destroyed.It
fell across the river whose flow was stopped, and the
land became dry.As the river ceased to flow on
account of the tree and the people of the country
suffered due to the lack of water, the king
Supra-buddha sent a messenger to the king Suddhodana
telling him about the obstruction of the flow of the
water, and the great suffering of the people.He
further expressed the wish that the prince might
remove the tree with his supernatural power and
make the river flow again.Then the king Suddhodana
remained silent without giving his assent,¡]thinking
that¡^if the prince goes, he should go at his own
free will.
There was a minister called Channa who
knowing the mind of the king planned accordingly,
and told the prince earnestly: "On the bank of the
rivera Rohita there is a garden with pavillions and
terraces etc.We may go there for a walk. "Hearing this
the prince told: "Together with the relatives and
ministers we may go out of
¶403
Kapilavastu to go to that park and enjoysports at
one's will."
At that time Devadatta saw a goose flying
through the sky.He took the bow and looking upward
shot an arrow at the goose which fell down before the
prince.The prince seeing it sighed and thought
about violence.He pulled out the arrow and let the
bird fly away.Devadatta sent a man to fetch the
goose.The prince told:
I have developed bodhicitta, and I have
devoted myself to the exercise of friendliness
towards living beings.I love all beings and do
not like to see injury being done to
others.I took away the arrow from the goose
and let it go so that it may fly away to
safety.You should now change your heart, and
should not cherish anger and hatered.
When Devadatta heard these words, he kept quite
but did not agree with it.
The king Suprabuddha came to know that the prince
had entered the park.Thereupon the king sent the
people of country there.They went to the river and
approached the tree.They made great noise and exerted
their strength.That noise sounded like thunder in the
open space.Having heard the noise the prince asked
his attendants about it.The attending officials
answered that these were the people who were sent by
the king Suprabuddha to go the tree.Having heard this
the prince told: "I shall myself go."
Then the prince went to the bank of the
river.He first allowed Devadatta to approach the
tree.Devadatta exerted his strength to the utmost but
could not lift the tree.Next came Nanda who pulled the
tree away to a little distance on the land.Then the
prince used his supernatural power.With his hand he
caught hold of the tree, broke it into two pieces and
threw them upward in the sky.On each side of the
river fell down a piece.He told the people:
This S'aalakalyaan.a tree is excellent as
medicine.Fire cannot burn it.If you have a
boil or any swelling, you should smear it¡]
with paste made from the tree¡^, and it
will be cured.
Saying this the prince mounted a chariot and went back
to the city.The
¶404
soothsayers told: "If after seven years the prince
does not go forth, he would become a
raajacakravarti."ûZ
¢×¢ä
The Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching like the
Muulasarvaastivaada VinayaT and the Tibetan account
translated by Schiefner has recorded the different
adventures of the Bodhisattva as separate
incidents.Any of these legends excepting the
story of the goose is not connected with any
other legend and none of these is associated with
the marriage of the Bodhisattva.These three texts
also show great similarities concerning the details
of the legends and the sequence in which these legends
are recorded.In all these texts, henceforth
abbreviated as Mu, Chung-hsu and Schiefner
respectively, the adventures of the Bodhisattva
occur in the following sequence:
1) The elephant episode mentioned in
Mu,Chung-hsuþõ,and Schiefner.
1a) The wrestling episode mentioned only in
Schiefner but not in Mu and Chung-hsu.
2) The archery episode mentioned in Mu and
Chung-hsu only.
3) The episodes of the tree and the goose
mentioned in Mu, Chung-hsu, Schiefner In all
three works the goose story is encased in
between the story of the lifting of the tree.
It is obvious that the Chung-hsuþõ and the Mu
have followed an identical sequence of events while
Schiefner has modified the same sequence by the
addition of the legend no.1a and by the omission of
the legend no.2.
When we analyse the stories individually we notice
the same close relationship existing between these
three versions.In the narration of the elephant story
all the three texts hold that the people of Vais'aalii
knowing that the Bodhisattva would become the
raajacakravartþýþö presented this elephant to him.The
part played by Nanda and Devadatta after the elephant
had been killed by Bodhisattva has been omitted
in the Tibetan account of Schiefner.However the Mu
and the Chung-hsuþõ show close similarities in this
portion of the narration also.In both of them Nanda
removes the elephant seven paces.This is similar to
the account in the verse portion of the Tibetan
Muulasarvaastivaada Vinaya but differs from the
Chinese translation of the same Vinaya which states
that the elephant was removed 21 paces.The
¶405
Chung-hsu appears to have recorded a version earlier
than that recorded in the prose portion of the
Mulasarvastivauaada Vinaya.Again both the Chung-hsuþõ
and the Mu note that the Bodhisattva threw the carcass
of the elephant across the seven walls, though the
Mu account is more detailed, as the elephant in
this account was not only tossed across the seven
walls but also across the seven ditches.However the
chung-hsu betrays a later element when it differs
from the Mu Vinaya and other works, and states that
Devadatta killed the elephant with a weapon.
Again both the chung-hsuþõ and the Mu Vinaya
omit the wrestling episode.The account of the
archery contest in the Chung-hsu actually consists
of two different episodes.The first story narrates
how the Bodhisattva cut a tree into two parts with
an arrow while the second episode relates the
other shooting contest where the Bodhisattva
pierced different targets of palm trees etc.The
second episode, as we shall see, is narrated
in a slightly different way in the Mu Vinaya; the
first episode, however, occurs in a slightly
different version only in the work of Schiefner which
represents a later version.In the narration of the
first event the Tiebtan text of Schiefner states that
the tree was cut by the Bodhisattva with a
'sheermesser' and not with an arrow, as it has been
described in the Chung-hsu.Again Devadatta is
not at all mentioned in the work of
Schiefner.On the other hand both in Schiefner and
the chung-hsu we find that the tree stood as
before even though it was cut into two by the
Bodhisattva, and the people thought that the tree
was not hit at all.Moreover in both the accounts a
god¡]Sakra in the Chung-hsu or the God of wind in
Schiefner¡^revealed to the people that the tree was
really cut into two parts.
The second story, as already pointed out, is that
of the archery contest, and in this case the Mu Vinaya
has preserved a similar account.In both the Chung- hsu
and the Mu the targets placed are seven palm
trees, seven drums and seven boars.According to the
Mu Vinaya Devadatta pierced one of each of these
targets, while Nanda two from each group and
the Bodhisattva all of them.Further the arrow of
the Bodhisattva entered the earth, and was received by
the Naga king.A caitya was built at the place where
the arrow entered the earth.Again in both the
Chung-hsu and the Mu Vinaya a prophecy is made that
after twelve years the prince will become a
rajacakravartþýþö, if he remains a householder.
An analysis of the last two events as given in
the Mu Vinaya, Chung-hsu, and the Tibetan work
translated by Schiefner provides us with the
following sequence of events:
¶406
¢z¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢s¢w¢w¢w¢w¢s¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢{
¢x Mu Vinaya ¢x Chung-¢xSchiefner ¢x
¢x ¢x hsu ¢x ¢x
¢u¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢t
¢x1) Description and location ¢x 1)Same¢x 1)Same ¢x
¢x of the tree which has the¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x same birthhday as the ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x Bodhisattva ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢u¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢t
¢x 2) Suprabuddha asked for ¢x 2)Same¢x 2)Same ¢x
¢x the Bodhisattva to ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x remove the tree and ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x Chandaka brought the ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x prince to the right ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x place ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢u¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢t
¢x 3) The people raised ¢x 4)Same¢x 4)Same ¢x
¢x a hue and cry which ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x attracted the attention ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢x of the Bodhisattva ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢u¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢t
¢x 4) The story of the goose ¢x 3)Same¢x 3)Same ¢x
¢u¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢q¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢t
¢x 5) The Bodhisattva lifts ¢x 5)Same¢x 5)Same ¢x
¢x the tree ¢x ¢x ¢x
¢|¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢r¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢w¢}
¡@So we find that the three works are very
close to each other.Moreover the chung-hsu and
Schiefner have recorded the same sequence of
events.Both these texts mention that the
Bodhisattva first asked Devadatta to lift the tree,
and only when the latter failed, himself removed the
tree.This detail is not found in the Mu Vinaya.On
the other hand we may point out the following
traditions which are common to these three texts
but different from the traditions mentioned in the
other works:
1) The Chung-hsu, like the Mu Vinaya and the
account given by Schiefner, has recorded the differen
episodes as separate incidents unconnected with the
marriage of the Bodhisattva.On the other hand, the
Mahaavastu, Laslitavistara and the
Hsiu-hsing-pen-ch'i-ching narrate them in connection
with the marriage of the Bodhisattva.
2) In the T'ai-tzu-sui-ying-pen-ch'i-ching also
these stories occur as independent events, but here
the sequence of events¡]archery-wrestling the story of
the elephant¡^is quite different from that recorded
in the three texts.
3) Again in case of the
Kuo-ch'u-hsien-tsai-yin-Kuo-ching though these
stories are not connected with the marriage,they
are connected with each other in-as-much as all of
them occur in an unbroken sequence, and seem to
take place on the same day in connection with the
display of martial arts.In the three texts, on the
other hand, each of them is happening as an
independent incident, each being separated from the
other by a gap of several years.
4) Moreover the story of the wonderful tree and
that of the goose find mention only in the
Chung-hsu, Mu Vinaya and the Tibetan work of
Schiefner but not in any
¶407
other text.
From the above discussion it isquite clear that
all these three works, as far as the youth legends of
the Bodhisattva are concerned, belonged to the same
stream of tradition, and that the Chung-hsu has
recorded with some additions and alterations a later
version of the same tradition whose earlier version
has been preserved in the Mu Vinaya.Moreover the
Chung-hsu version of the legends shows quite a
marked difference from the other accounts recorded in
the works not belonging to the Muulasarvaastivaada.
The Chung-hsu, so far we can judge from the
legends studied here, belonged to the
Mulasarvastivaadins.The later additions and
alterations found for the first time in the
chung-hsu, afterword find mention in the work of
Schiefner, and therefore the influence of the former
on the latter can be reasonably suggested.
¶408
´£n
¥Ñªk½å¡]A.D. 982¡ã1001¡^Ķ©ó§º´Â¡]A.D. 960¡ã1127¡^
ªº¡m²³³\¼¯¶F«Ò¸g¡n¡A¦ü¥G¦b¤¸´ÂÀò±o¤F¬YºØ«µø¡C©¿¥²¯P¦½
¡]Kublai Khan 1260¡ã94¡^ªº«Ò®v¤Ú«ä¤K¡]Pazzepa ©Î
Vaas.pa¡^¦b¥L©ÒµÛªº¡m¹ü©Òª¾½×¡n¡]Nanjio No. 1320¡^¤¤¡A
±N¸gÃD¤¤ªº¤ý¦W¸Ñ¬°¡u¤j¤T¥½¦h¡v¡A«n±ø¤å¶¯§Y¥H¡u²³³\¡v¥[
¤W¡u¤T¥½¦h¡v¦@¦P¨Óªí¥Ü"Samadatta"¡C
¥»¤å»{¬°¥H¡u²³³\¡v©M¡u¤T¥½¦h¡v¦@¦P¨ÓÁÙì
"Samadatta"¬O¦³°ÝÃDªº¡C¡u²³³\¡v©M¡u¤j¤T¥½¦h¡v³£À³ÁÙì
¬° "Mahaasammata" ¡A¦L«×쥻ªº¸gÃDÀ³¬° Mahaasammata-
mahaaraaja-suutra¡C¦¹¸g¤º®e©l©ó¹ï¥@¬É°_·½ªº»¡©ú¡A¸g©ó
¦òªûÃÒ®©«á¥h¨£³X¥Lªº¤÷¿Ë¡C¸g¤å¤¤¨Ã¥¼§i¶D¥LÌ¥»¸gªº³¡¬£
©ÒÄÝ¡C³z¹L¤ñ¸û¥»¸g¤¤©Òz¦òªû«C¦~®É´Áªº¶Ç»¡»P¨ä¥L¤ÀÄݤ£
¦P¦ò±Ð³¡¬£¤§¨åÄyªº¬ÛÃö¤º®e¡A¨ä¤¤¥]¬A®Ú¥»»¡¤@¤Á¦³¡]
Muulasarvaastivaada¡^¡A§ÚÌ©Ò±oªºµ²½×§P©w¨£©ó¥»¸g¤¤ªº
«C¦~®É´Á¶Ç»¡ÄÝ©ó®Ú¥»»¡¤@¤Á¦³¡A¦]¦Ó¡m²³³\¼¯¶F«Ò¸g¡n¥iµø
¬°µo·½©ó®Ú¥»»¡¤@¤Á¦³³¡¶Ç©Ó¡C
¡@¡@¡@¡@ÃöÁäµü¡J1.²³ 2.²³³\¡]¤j¤T¥½¦h¡^ 3.®Ú¥»»¡¤@¤Áªº³¡¶Ç©Ó