70 Dr. Waddell — Identity of Upagupta with Moggaliputta Tisso. [Jusu, 



published as Appendix to EpujrajjMa ladica, Vol. V. It is a Tipperah 

 Plate of Harikaladeva Ranavaqkamalla, and the date is : — 



The MS. accordingly contains one date only, viz., the sixth year 

 Mahipala. It is impossible to give the exact European equivalent to 

 this date, without allowing for a limit of about 100 years. There are 

 two Mahipalas known to us from the genealogical lists of Pala Kings, 

 who both were sons and successors of a king by the name of Vigraha- 

 pala. Further, we have in an Inscription fi-om Sarnath* the date 

 [^Vikrama'l-Savivat 1083 for a king of Gauda, Mahipala, but it is 

 impossible to say whether this was the first or second of the two syno- 

 nymous kings in the Pala Lists. However, there is no doubt that the 

 MS. has been written in the eleventh century A.D. 



The following papers were read : — 



1. Identity of Upagupta, the High-priest of A(^oka with Moggaliputta 

 Tisso. — By L. A. Waddell, LL.D. 



In a former article on Upagupta as the High-priest of A^oka.f 

 I suggested that this celebrated monk, who is frequently mentioned 

 in the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan accounts of Buddhism in India, 

 was probably identical with Moggaliputta Tisso, the priest of A^oka 

 according to the Ceylonese Pali tradition, which latter however knows 

 not the name of Upagupta, just as Moggaliputta Tisso is unknown to 

 the others. 



Furtlier examination confirms this view of their identity. Indeed, 

 the fragmentary accounts of these two individuals, as preserved in 

 the leading Sanskrit and Ceylon texts on Agoka, namely, the Sanskritic 

 Agokavaddna and the Pali Mahdvamsa display such a close agreement 

 in their descriptions and especially in respect to the detailed circum- 

 stances of the visit of these monks to A9oka, as to leave little doubt that 

 they refer to one and the same person. This agreement is all the more 

 remarkable as these two books are considered to be derived from 

 entirely independent sources. The A9okavadana appears to have 

 existed in India before 317-420 A.D. when a translation from it seems 

 to have been made into Chinese. J The portion of the Mahavariisa 



* Edited by Hultzsch in Indian Antiquary, Vol. XIV, for 1885, p. 139. 



t J. A. S. B. Vol. LXVI, pt. I, 1897, pp. 76 et seq. 



X Bunyiii Nanjio's Catalogue of Buddhist Tiipitaka, p. 300, No. 134-1. Bat the 

 version qaotod in this article is from the Divyiivadaua as translated by Buruouf 

 in his Introduction a I'histoire du Buddhisme Indien. 



