[771] Nanjio, Cat. 1358. See Pelliot, J.A. 1914, II. p. 379.
For the relations of the Chinese translations to the Pali Tripitaka, and to a Sanskrit Canon now preserved only in a fragmentary state, see inter alia, Nanjio, Cat. pp. 127 ff., especially Nos. 542, 543, 545. Anesaki, J.R.A.S. 1901, p. 895; id. "On some problems of the textual history of the Buddhist scriptures," in Trans. A. S. Japan, 1908, p. 81, and more especially his longer article entitled, "The Four Buddhist Agamas in Chinese" in the same year of the Trans.; id. "Traces of Pali Texts in a Mahâyana Treatise," Muséon, 1905. S. Lévi, Le Samyuktâgama Sanskrit, T'oung Pao, 1904, p. 297.
[773] No. 544.
[774] Thus seventy sûtras of the Pali Anguttara are found in the Chinese Madhyama and some of them are repeated in the Chinese Ekottara. The Pali Majjhima contains 125 sûtras, the Chinese Madhyamâgama 222, of which 98 are common to both. Also twenty-two Pali Majjhima dialogues are found in the Chinese Ekottara and Samyukta, seventy Chinese Madhyama dialogues in Pali Anguttara, nine in Digha, seven in Samyutta and five in Khuddaka. Anesaki, Some Problems of the textual history of the Buddhist Scriptures. See also Anesaki in Muséon, 1905, pp. 23 ff. on the Samyutta Nikâya.
[775] Anesaki, "Traces of Pali Texts," Muséon, 1905, shows that the Indian author of the Mahâprajnâpâramitâ Sâstra may have known Pali texts, but the only certain translation from the Pali appears to be Nanjio, No. 1125, which is a translation of the Introduction to Buddhaghosa's Samanta-pâsâdikâ or commentary on the Vinaya. See Takakusu in J.R.A.S. 1896, p. 415. Nanjio's restoration of the title as Sudarśana appears to be incorrect.
[776] See Epigraphia Indica, vol. II. p. 93.
[777] In support of this it may be mentioned that Fa-Hsien says that at the time of his visit to India the Vinaya of the Sarvâstivâdins was preserved orally and not committed to writing.
[778] The idea that an important book ought to be in Sanskrit or deserves to be turned into Sanskrit is not dead in India. See Grierson, J.R.A.S. 1913, p. 133, who in discussing a Sanskrit version of the Râmâyana of Tulsi Das mentions that translations of vernacular works into Sanskrit are not uncommon.