2. MS. of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Collection Burnouf), No. 85; sixty-four leaves. It begins, after a preamble of five lines, Eva_m_ mayâ _s_ruta_m_mekasmi samaya Bhagavân Râ_g_ag_ri_he viharati sma G_ri_dhraku_t_e parvvate mahatâ Bhikshusanghena sârddham. Dvâtri_ms_ratâ Bhikshusahasrai_h_. It ends: Bhagavato mitâbhasya gu_n_aparikîrttana_m_ Bodhisattvâmavaivartyabhûmiprave_s_a_h_. Amitâbhavyuhaparivartta_h_. Sukhâvatîvyûha_h_ sampur_n_a_h_. Iti _S_rî Amitâbhasya Sukhâvatîvyuha nâma mahâyânastûra_m_ samâpta_m_.(130) (Devanâgarî alphabet.) 3. MS. of the Société Asiatique at Paris (Collection Hodgson), No. 17; eighty-two leaves. (Nepalese alphabet.)(131) 4. MS. of the University Library at Cambridge, No. 1368; thirty-five leaves. It begins with some lines of prose and verse in praise of Amitâbha and Sukhavatî, and then proceeds: Eva_m_ mayâ _s_rutam ekasmi_m_ samaye Bhagavân Râ_g_ag_ri_he nagare viharati sma, G_ri_dhrakû_t_aparvate mahatâ Bhikshusanghena sârddha, etc. It ends: iti srîmad amitâbhasya tathâgatasya Sukhâvatîvyûha-mahâyânasûtra_m_ samâptam. (Nepalese alphabet, modern.) 5. MS. given by Mr. Hodgson to the Bodleian Library Oxford (Hodgson 3). It begins with: Om namo ratnatrayâya. Om nama_h_ sarvabuddhabodhisattvebhya_h_, etc. Then Eva_m_ mayâ _s_rutam, etc. It ends with sukhavâtîvyûhamahâyânasûtra_m_ samâpta_m_. (Nepalese alphabet, modern.) But when I came to compare these Sanskrit MSS. with the text sent to me from Japan, though the title was the same, I soon perceived that their contents were different. While the text, as given in the ordinary Devanâgari or Nepalese MSS., fills about fifty to sixty leaves, the text of the Sûtra that reached me from Japan would hardly occupy more than eight or ten leaves. I soon convinced myself that this MS. was not a text abbreviated in Japan, for this shorter text, sent to me from Japan, correspond in every respect with the Chinese Sûtra translated by Mr. Beal in his “Catena,” pp. 378-383, and published in your Journal, 1866, p. 136. No doubt the Chinese translation, on which Mr. Beal’s translation is based, is not only free, but displays the misapprehensions peculiar to many Chinese renderings of Sanskrit texts, due to a deficient knowledge either of Sanskrit or of Chinese on the part of the translators, perhaps also to the different genius of those two languages. Yet, such as it is, there can be no doubt that it was meant to be a translation of the text now in my possession. Mr. Beal tells us that the translation he followed is that by Kumâra_g_îva, the contemporary of Fa-hian (400 A. D.), and that this translator omitted repetitions and superfluities in the text.(132) Mr. Edkins knows a translation, _s. t._ Wou-liang-sheu-king, made under the Han dynasty.(133) What is important is that in the Chinese translation of the shorter text the scene is laid, as in the Japanese Sanskrit text, at _S_râvastî, and the principal speakers are Bhagavat and _S_âriputra.