VINAYA: from india to china 191
The question remains, however, why the two texts, and especially
the Pli Vinaya, never reached the imperial court. Was it because of
a lack of interest in this vinaya? At the time that the Pli Vinaya was
translated, the Sarvstivdavinaya was rmly established in the south of
China, mainly as a result of the efforts of the monk Huiyuan
(334–417).^162 The monasteries no longer felt that there was a lack of
disciplinary texts, and this feeling might have prevented the spread of
yet another vinaya. Still, in the fth century, there was quite an eclectic
interest in vinaya traditions, and many masters certainly studied more
that one text (see further). Moreover, contrary to the Pli Vinaya itself,
the partial translation of the commentary on this vinaya, did gain some
popularity and attracted the attention of the famous vinaya master
Daoxuan. So, why not the Pli Vinaya? Could there be any connection
with the fact that the text was clearly a Hnayna text? This does not
seem plausible since also all the other Chinese vinayas used for ordina-
tion in the Chinese monasteries are of Hnayna origin. Yet, at the
time that the vinayas were translated into Chinese, the Sinhalese monks
and nuns were almost exclusively Hnayna followers,^163 while monks
and nuns ordained by means of another vinaya, were often closer to
the Mahyna movement.^164 Moreover, the Pli Hnayna tradition as
a whole was not very popular despite travellers such as Faxian who
visited Sri Lanka. And even Faxian did not bring Theravda texts
with him. Instead, during his stay in Sri Lanka, he obtained copies of
the Drghgama,^165 of the Sayuktgama,^166 of a “Miscellaneous pi aka”^167
(zazang ), and of the vinaya of the Mah sakas.^168 Not one of these
having been approved by the emperor. These are mainly devotionals texts, or texts
related to miracles (Kuo 2000, pp. 687, 690ff.). See also Drège 1991, pp. 195–208.
(^162) Zürcher 1972, vol. 1, pp. 229–230; Tsukamoto 1985, vol. 2, pp. 889–892.
(^163) Although Sri Lanka was a Theravda (and thus, traditionally, Hnayna) country,
some monks also made use of Mahyna texts, particularly the monks belonging to
the Abhayagirivihra. See, for instance, Bechert, 1976; 1993a, pp. 12–13; Wang 1994,
p. 178; Kieffer-Pülz 2000, p. 300. 164
Wang 1994, p. 178; Kieffer-Pülz 2000, pp. 303–308.
(^165) The manuscript of the Drghgama brought back by Faxian was not translated,
maybe because in 413 Buddhaya as and Zhu Fonian already had translated another
Drgh 166 gama manuscript (T.1).
The Sayuktgama translated by the Central Indian monk Guabhadra between
435 and 443 (T.99) is probably the manuscript brought back by Faxian (de Jong 1981,
p. 108).
(^167) This text has been translated into Chinese by Faxian himself (T.745) and is pos-
sibly a part of a Kudrakapi aka (de Jong 1981, p. 105).
(^168) T.2085.51.865c24–25.