1865.] Report of the Archeological Survey. 239 
the Godavery to Sewet, or Srdvasti, as recorded in the Ceylonese Bud- 
dhist works. This pilgrim, after passing through Mahissati and Ujani, 
or Maheshmati and Ujain, reaches Kosimbi, and from thence passes 
through Sdketa to Sewet ; that is, along the very route followed by 
Hwen Thsang. We have, therefore, two authorities in favour of Sewet 
being to the north of Saket. With regard to the distance, I refer 
again to the Buddhist books of Ceylon, in which it is recorded that 
from Sakespura (or Sangkasyapura, now Sankisa) to Sewet was a jour- 
ney of 30 Yojans. Now, Fa Hian makes the distance from Sankisa 
to Kanoj 7 Yojans, thence to the forest of Holi, on the Ganges, 3 
Yojans, and thence to Shachi 10 Yojans, or altogether only 20 Yojans, 
or 10 less than the Ceylonese books. That Fa Hian’s statement is 
erroneous, is quite clear from the fact that his distance would place 
Shachi in the neighbourhood of Lucknow; whereas the other distance 
would place it close to Ajudhya, or Faizabad, or in the very position 
indicated by Hwen Thsang’s itinerary. Here, again, we have two 
authorities in favour of the longer distance. I have no hesitation, 
therefore, in declaring that Fa Hian’s recorded bearing of She-wer from 
Sha-chi is wrong, and that “north” should be read instead of ‘ south.” 
305. I have now to show that Fa Hian’s Sha-chi is the same as 
Hwen Thsang’s Visdkha, and that both are identical with Sdketa or 
Ajudhya. With respect to Sha-chi, Fa Hian relates that “ on leaving 
the town by the southern gate you find to the east of the road the 
place where Buddha bit a branch of the nettle tree and planted it in 
the ground, where it grew to the height of seven feet, and never in- 
creased or diminished in size.” Now, this is precisely the same legend 
that is related of Visékha by Hwen Thsang, who says that “to the 
south of the capital, and to the left of the road (that is to the east as 
stated by Fa Hian), there was, amongst other holy objects, an extra- 
ordinary tree 6 or 7 feet high, which always remained the same, neither 
growing nor decreasing. This is the celebrated tooth-brush tree of Bud- 
dha, to which I shall have occasion to refer presently. Here I need 
only notice the very precise agreement in the two descriptions of this 
famous tree, as to its origin, its height, and its position. The perfect 
correspondence of these details appears to me to leave no doubt 
of the identity of Fa Hian’s Sha-chv with the Visikha of Hwen 
Thsang. 

