[Footnote 771:  Nanjio, Cat. 1358.  See Pelliot, J.A. 1914, II. p. 379.]

[Footnote 772:  [Chinese:  ] 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 Mahayana Treatise,” Museon, 1905.  S. Levi, Le Samyuktagama Sanskrit, T’oung Pao, 1904, p. 297.]

[Footnote 773:  No. 544.]

[Footnote 774:  Thus seventy sutras 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 sutras, the Chinese Madhyamagama 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 Museon, 1905, pp. 23 ff. on the Samyutta Nikaya.]

[Footnote 775:  Anesaki, “Traces of Pali Texts,” Museon, 1905, shows that the Indian author of the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra 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-pasadika or commentary on the Vinaya.  See Takakusu in J.R.A.S. 1896, p. 415.  Nanjio’s restoration of the title as Sudarsana appears to be incorrect.]

[Footnote 776:  See Epigraphia Indica, vol.  II. p. 93.]

[Footnote 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 Sarvastivadins was preserved orally and not committed to writing.]

[Footnote 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 Ramayana of Tulsi Das mentions that translations of vernacular works into Sanskrit are not uncommon.]

[Footnote 779:  J.R.A.S. 1916, p. 709.  Also, the division into five Nikayas is ancient.  See Buhler in Epig.  Indica, II. p. 93.  Anesaki says (Trans.  A.S.  Japan, 1908, p. 9) that Nanjio, No. 714, Pen Shih is the Itivuttakam, which could not have been guessed from Nanjio’s entry.  Portions of the works composing the fifth Nikaya (e.g. the Sutta Nipata) occur in the Chinese Tripitaka in the other Nikayas.  For mentions of the fifth Nikaya in Chinese, see J.A.