1865.] Report of the Archceological Survey. 253 



by Buddhists, the prediction was of course fulfilled, and upwards of 11 

 centuries afterwards, the tank in which the King had sought to avoid 

 the flames was pointed out to the credulous Hwen Thsang. 



330. We hear nothing more of Sravasti until one century after 

 Kanishka, or five centuries after Buddha, when, according to Hwen 

 Thsang, Vikramaclitya, King of Sravasti, became a persecutor of Bud- 

 dhists, and the famous Manorhita, author of the Vibhdsha Sdstra, being 

 worsted in argument by the Brahmans, put himself to death. During 

 the reign of his successor, whose name is not given, the Brahmans 

 were overcome by Vasubandhu, the eminent disciple of Manorhita. 

 The probable date of these two Kings may be set down as ranging 

 from A. D. 79 to 120. For the next two centuries Sravasti would 

 seem to have been under the rule of its own Kings, as we find Khira- 

 dhdra and his nephew mentioned as Rajas between A. D. 275 and 319. 

 But there can be little doubt that during the whole of this time Sra- 

 vasti was only a dependency of the powerful Gupta Dynasty of Ma- 

 gadha, as the neighbouring city of Saketa is specially said to have 

 belonged to them. " Princes of the Crupta race," says the Vayu 

 Purana, " will possess all those countries ; the banks of the Granges to 

 Prayaga, and Saketa, and Magadha," From this time Si - avasti 

 gradually declined. In A. D. 400 it contained only 200 families ; in 

 A. D. 632 it was completely deserted : and at the present clay the 

 whole area of the city, excepting only a few clearances near the gate- 

 ways, is a mass of almost impenetrable jungle. 



331. Before attempting to identify the existing remains of Sdhet- 

 Mdhet with the famous monuments of Sravasti, it will be as well to 

 compare and reconcile the few discrepant statements of the Chinese 

 pilgrims, so that the description of the holy places may not be inter- 

 rupted by discussion. Of these discrepancies perhaps the most notable 

 is the difference in the name of the city itself, which Fa Hian gives as 

 She-ivei, while Hwen Thsang writes it, as correctly as it is possible to 

 do in Chinese syllables, She-lo-fa-siti, or Sravasti. But this difference 

 is more apparent than real, as there can be little doubt that She-wei 

 is only a slight alteration of the abbreviated Pali form of Seivet for 

 Sdwatthi, which is found in most of the Ceylonese books. Similarly 

 the modern name of Sdhet is evidently only a variation of the Pali Sdiuet. 

 The other name of Mdhet I am unable to explain, but it is perhaps 



