Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 2. Charles Eliot

135

See Burnouf, Introduction, pp. 458 ff. and J.R.A.S. 1905, pp. 831 ff. Rajendralala Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Literature, p. 113. A brief analysis is given in J.A.S.B. June, 1905 according to which the sûtra professes to be the work of a human author, Jina of the clan of Kâtyâyana born at Campâ. An edition of the Sanskrit text published by the Buddhist Text Society is cited but I have not seen it. Chinese translations were made in 443 and 515 but the first is incomplete and does not correspond with our Sanskrit text.

136

Abstract by Rajendralala Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. p. 241.

137

See Nanjio, No. 127 and F.W.K. Muller in Abhandl. der K. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1908. The Uigur text is published in Bibliotheca Buddhica, 1914. Fragments of the Sanskrit text have also been found in Turkestan.

138

Abstract by Raj. Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. pp. 90 ff. The Śikshâsamuccaya cites the Gaṇḍa-vyûha several times and does not mention the Avataṃsaka.

139

The statement was first made on the authority of Takakusu quoted by Winternitz in Ges. Ind. Lit. II. i. p. 242. Watanabe in J.R.A.S. 1911, 663 makes an equally definite statement as to the identity of the two works. The identity is confirmed by Pelliot in J.A. 1914, II. pp. 118-121.

140

Abstract by Raj. Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. pp. 81 ff. Quoted in Śântideva's Bodhicaryâvatâra, VIII. 106.

141

See J.R.A.S. 1911, 663.

142

Abstract by Raj. Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. pp. 81 ff.

143

Translated in part by Beal, Catena of Buddhist Scriptures, pp. 286-369. See also Teitaro Suzuki, Outlines of Mahâyâna, p. 157. For notices of the text see Nanjio, Nos. 399, 446, 1588. Fa-Hsien, chap. XXIX. For the equivalence of Shou-lêng-yen and Śûrangama see Nanjio's note to No. 399 and Julien, Méthode, 1007 and Vasilief, p. 175.

144

See Śikshâs, ed. Bendall, pp. 8,91 and Hoernle, Manuscript remains, I. pp. 125 ff.

145

Mahâyâna-sûtrâlankâra, XIX. 29.

146

E.g. the Râshtra-pâla-paripṛicchâ edited in Sanskrit by Finot, Biblioth. Buddhica, 1901. The Sanskrit text seems to agree with the Chinese version. The real number of sûtras in the Ratnakûṭa seems to be 48, two being practically the same but represented as uttered on different occasions.

147

There is another somewhat similar collection of sûtras in the Chinese Canon called Ta Tsi or Mahâsannipâta but unlike the Ratnakûṭa it seems to contain few well-known or popular works.

148

I know of these works only by Raj. Mitra's abstracts, Nepal. Bud. Lit. pp. 95 and 101. The prose text is said to have been published in Sanskrit at Calcutta, 1873.

149

Raj. Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. pp. 285 ff. The Sanskrit text was published for the Buddhist Text Society, Calcutta, 1898.

150

Avadâna is primarily a great and glorious act: hence an account of such an act.

151

The Avadâna-śataka (Feer, Annales du Musée Guimet, XVIII) seems to be entirely Hinayanist.

152

Edited by Senart, 3 vols. 1882-1897. Windisch, Die Komposition des Mahâvastu, 1909. Article "Mahavâstu" in E.R.E.

153

So too do the words Horâpâthaka (astrologer), Ujjhebhaka (? Uzbek), Peliyaksha (? Felix). The word Yogâcâra (I. 120) may refer simply to the practice of Yoga and not to the school which bore this name.

154

Edited by Cowell and Neil, 1886. See Nanjio, 1344.

155

Edited by Bendall in Bibl. Buddhica.

156

Nanjio, No. 1466. For a learned discussion of this work see Lévi and Chavannes in J.A. 1916, Nos. I and II.

157

It is not likely that the Tathâgata-guhya-sûtra which it quotes is the same as the Tantra with a similar name analysed by Rajendralal Mitra.

158

Watters, J.R.A.S. 1898, p. 331 says there seems to have been an earlier translation.

159

Many works with this title will be found in Nanjio.

160

But the Chinese title seems rather to represent Ratnarâsi.

161

See Nanjio, pp. xiii-xvii.

162

Mahâyâna-sûtrâlankâra. See Lévi's introduction, p. 14. The "Questions" sutra is Brahma-paripṛicchâ.

163

Translated by Schiefner, 1869. Târanâtha informs us (p. 281) that his chief authorities were the history of Kshemendrabhadra, the Buddhapurâna of Indradatta and Bhaṭaghaṭî's history of the succession of the Âcâryas.

164

The Tibetans generally translate instead of transliterating Indian names. It is as if an English history of Greece were to speak of Leader of the People instead of Agesilaus.

165

They place Kanishka, Vâsishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva before Kadphises I and Kadphises II.

166

E.g. Staël Holstein who also thinks that Kanishka's tribe should be called Kusha not Kushan. Vincent Smith in his latest work (Oxford History of India, p. 130) gives 120 A.D. as the most probable date.

167

My chief difficulty in accepting 78-123 A.D. as the reign of Kanishka is that the Chinese Annals record the doings of Pan Ch'ao between 73 and 102 in Central Asia, with which region Kanishka is believed to have had relations, and yet do not mention his name. This silence makes it primâ facie probable that he lived either before or after Pan Ch'ao's career.

The catalogues of the Chinese Tripitaka state that An-Shih-Kao (148-170 A.D.) translated the Mârgabhûmi-sûtra of Sangharaksha, who was the chaplain of Kanishka. But this unfortunately proves nothing except that Kanishka cannot have been very late. The work is not a scripture for whose recognition some lapse of time must be postulated. An-Shih-Kao, who came from the west, may very well have translated a recent and popular treatise.

168

In this connection we may remember Târanâtha's statement that Kanishka's Council put an end to dissentions which had lasted about a century. But he also states that it was after the Council that Mahayanist texts began to appear. If Kanishka flourished about 50 A.D. this would fit in with Târanâtha's statements and what we know of the history of Buddhism.

169

B.E.F.E.O. 1911, 339-390. Satiśchandra Vidyâbhûshana arrived at the same conclusion in J.A.S.B. 1905, p. 227.

170

Chap. IV.

171

Mahâparinib. Sut. III.

172

Majj. Nik. 72.

173

Udâna. VIII. 1-4.

174

Accariyabbhutasuttam. Majj. Nik. 123.

175

Chap. XVI.

176

That of Rudradaman at Girnar, dated 72 in the Saka Era, has hitherto been considered the oldest, but it is now said that one discovered at Isapur near Muttra is older. See J.R.A.S 1912, p. 114.

177

E.g.