190 ann heirman
during or just after the reign of the Sinhalese king Mahnma, who
was maybe more favourably disposed towards the Abhayagirivihra
than to the Mahvihra,^157 it is not impossible that when the Chinese
came into contact with the Sinhalese monasteries, these monasteries
were mainly connected with the Abhayagirivihra.
4.3. The Pli VinayaAs mentioned in Faxian’s travel account, it was not easy to obtain
vinaya texts. Still, he nally succeeded in obtaining three vinayas. One of
these, the Mah
sakavinaya, he found in Sri Lanka. Since at that time,
vinaya matters were a prominent issue for the Sinhalese Theravda
masters, and since Faxian spent two years on the island, it is striking
that he never obtained a Pli Vinaya text, nor even mentioned the
existence of any vinaya discussions. Still, he was well acquainted with
both the Abhayagirivihra and the Mahvihra, the two most impor-
tant Theravda monasteries. The fact that Faxian did not acquire
any Pli Vinaya text in Sri Lanka, does not imply that the Pli Vinaya
never reached China. The Chu sanzang jiji,^158 the catalogue compiled by
Sengyou around 518, mentions that during the reign of Emperor Wu
(483–493) of the Qi dynasty, a certain monk called Mahy na
translated two texts in Guangzhou: one is entitled Wubai bensheng jing
(S tra of the Five Hundred Jtakas), and the other is a
Theravda vinaya text, entitled Tapili.^159 Sengyou further men-
tions that the two texts were never presented to the emperor,^160 and
were subsequently lost. This explains why the two texts translated by
Mahyna were never widely known in the Chinese monasteries. A
new text had to be presented to the imperial court before it could
be diffused. If this presentation did not take place, a text could easily
disappear.^161
(^157) Adikaram 1953, p. 93.
(^158) Sengyou, T.2145.55.13b16–19.
(^159) According to the Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu (T.2153.55.434a10–12), the
translation of the Tapili took place in the “Bamboo-grove Monastery” (Zhulin si
, Ve uvana Monastery). This information is said to be based on Fei Changfang’s
catalogue. In the extant version of the latter catalogue (T.2034), however, this informa-
tion is not included. 160
The wording (“they did not reach the capital”), indicates that the
texts were not refuted by the imperial court, but for some reason never made it to
the capital Jiankang.
(^161) Kuo 2000, pp. 682–687. Some texts, however, did become popular even without