FROM KANISHKA TO VASUBANDHU
Tradition, as mentioned above, connects the rise of the Mahayana with
the reign of Kanishka. Materials for forming a picture of Indian life
under his rule are not plentiful but it was clearly an age of fusion.
His hereditary dominions were ample and he had no need to spend his
reign in conquests, but he probably subdued Kashmir as well as Khotan,
Yarkand and Kashgar.[187] Hostages from one of these states were sent
to reside in India and all accounts agree that they were treated with
generosity and that their sojourn improved the relations of Kanishka
with the northern tribes. His capital was Purushapura or Peshawar, and
the locality, like many other features of his reign, indicates a
tendency to amalgamate India with Persia and Central Asia. It was
embellished with masterpieces of Gandharan sculpture and its chief
ornament was a great stupa built by the king for the reception of the
relics of the Buddha which he collected. This building is described by
several Chinese pilgrims[188] and its proportions, though variously
stated, were sufficient to render it celebrated in all the Buddhist
world. It is said to have been several times burnt, and rebuilt, but
so solid a structure can hardly have been totally destroyed by fire
and the greater part of the monument discovered in 1908 probably dates
from the time of Kanishka. The base is a square measuring 285 feet on
each side, with massive towers at the corners, and on each of the four
faces projections bearing staircases. The sides were ornamented with
stucco figures of the Buddha and according to the Chinese pilgrims the
super-structure was crowned with an iron pillar on which were set
twenty-five gilded disks. Inside was found a metal casket, still
containing the sacred bones, and bearing an inscription which presents
two points of great interest. Firstly it mentions "Agisala the
overseer of works at Kanishka's vihara," that is, probably Agesilaus,
a foreigner in the king's service. Secondly it states that the casket
was made "for the acceptance of the teachers of the Sarvastivadin
sect,"[189] and the idea that Kanishka was the special patron of the
Mahayana must be reconsidered in the light of this statement.
Legends ascribe Kanishka's fervour for the Buddhist faith not to
education but to conversion. His coinage, of which abundant specimens
have been preserved, confirms this for it presents images of Greek,
Persian, Indian and perhaps Babylonian deities showing how varied was
the mythology which may have mingled with Gandharan Buddhism. The
coins bearing figures of the Buddha are not numerous and, as he
undoubtedly left behind him the reputation of a pious Buddhist, it is
probable that they were struck late in his reign and represent his
last religious phase.[190] Hsuean Chuang[191] repeats some legends
which relate that he was originally anti-Buddhist, and that after his
conversion he summoned a council and built a stupa.
The substance of these legends is probable. Kanishka as a barbarian
but docile conqueror was likely to adopt Buddhism if he wished to keep
abreast of the thought and civilisation of his subjects, for at that
time it undoubtedly inspired the intellect and art of north-western
India. Both as a statesman and as an enquirer after truth he would
wish to promote harmony and stop sectarian squabbles. His action
resembles that of Constantine who after his conversion to Christianity
proceeded to summon the Council of Nicaea in order to stop the
dissensions of the Church and settle what were the tenets of the
religion which he had embraced, a point about which both he and
Kanishka seem to have felt some uncertainty. Our knowledge of
Kanishka's Council depends chiefly on the traditions reported by Hsuean
Chuang[192] which present many difficulties. He tells us that the
king, acting in consultation with Parsva, issued summonses to all the
learned doctors of his realm. They came in such crowds that a severe
test was imposed and only 499 Arhats were selected. There was some
discussion as to the place of meeting but finally Kashmir[193] was
selected and the king built a monastery for the Brethren. When the
Council met, there arose a question as to whether Vasumitra (who is
not further described) should be admitted seeing that he was not an
Arhat but aspired to the career of a Bodhisattva. But owing to the
interposition of spirits he was not only admitted but made president.
The texts of the Tripitaka were collected and the Council "composed
100,000 stanzas of Upadesa Sastras explanatory of the canonical
sutras, 100,000 stanzas of Vinaya-vibhasha Sastras explanatory of the
Vinaya and 100,000 of Abhidharma-vibhasha Sastras explanatory of the
Abhidharma. For this exposition of the Tripitaka all learning from
remote antiquity was thoroughly examined; the general sense and the
terse language (of the Buddhist scriptures) was again and again made
clear and distinct, and learning was widely diffused for the
safe-guiding of disciples. King Kanishka caused the treatises when
finished to be written out on copper plates and enclosed these in
stone boxes which he deposited in a tope made for the purpose. He then
ordered spirits to keep and guard the texts and not to allow any to be
taken out of the country by heretics; those who wished to study them
could do so in the country. When leaving to return to his own country,
Kanishka renewed Asoka's gift of all Kashmir to the Buddhist
Church."[194]
Paramartha (499-569 A.D.) in his _Life of Vasubandhu_[195] gives an
account of a council generally considered to be the same as that
described by Hsuean Chuang, though the differences in the two versions
are considerable. He says that about five hundred years[196] after the
Buddha's death (_i.e._ between 87 B.C. and 13 A.D. if the Buddha died
487 B.C.) an Indian Arhat called Katyayani-putra, who was a monk of
the Sarvastivadin school, went to Kipin or Kashmir. There with 500
other Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas he collected the Abhidharma of the
Sarvastivadins and arranged it in eight books called Ka-lan-ta
(Sanskrit _Grantha_) or Kan-tu (Pali _Gantho_). This compilation was
also called Jnana-prasthana. He then made a proclamation inviting all
who had heard the Buddha preach to communicate what they remembered.
Many spirits responded and contributed their reminiscences which were
examined by the Council and, when they did not contradict the sutras
and the Vinaya, were accepted, but otherwise were rejected. The
selected pieces were grouped according to their subject-matter. Those
about wisdom formed the Prajna Grantha, and those about meditation the
Dhyana Grantha and so on. After finishing the eight books they
proceeded to the composition of a commentary or Vibhasha and invited
the assistance of Asvaghosha. When he came to Kashmir, Katyayani-putra
expounded the eight books to him and Asvaghosha put them into literary
form. At the end of twelve years the composition of the commentary was
finished. It consisted of 1,000,000 verses.... Katyayani-putra set up
a stone inscribed with this proclamation. "Those who hereafter learn
this law must not go out of Kashmir. No sentence of the eight books,
or of the Vibhasha must pass out of the land, lest other schools or
the Mahayana should corrupt the true law." This proclamation was
reported to the king who approved it. The sages of Kashmir had power
over demons and set them to guard the entrance to the country, but we
are told that anyone desirous of learning the law could come to
Kashmir and was in no way interrupted.
There follows a story telling how, despite this prohibition, a native
of Ayodhya succeeded in learning the law in Kashmir and subsequently
teaching it in his native land. Paramartha's account seems
exaggerated, whereas the prohibition described by Hsuean Chuang is
intelligible. It was forbidden to take the official copies of the law
out of Kashmir, lest heretics should tamper with them.
Taranatha[197] gives a singularly confused account of the meeting,
which he expressly calls the third council, but makes some important
statements about it. He says that it put an end to the dissensions
which had been distracting the Buddhist Church _for nearly a century_
and that it recognized all the eighteen sects as holding the true
doctrine: that it put the Vinaya in writing as well as such parts of
the Sutra-pitaka and Abhidharma as were still unwritten and corrected
those which already existed as written texts: that all kinds of
Mahayanist writings appeared at this time but that the Sravakas raised
no opposition.
It is hard to say how much history can be extracted from these vague
and discrepant stories. They seem to refer to one assembly regarded
(at least in Tibet) as the third council of the Church and held under
Kanishka four or five hundred years[198] after the Buddha's death. As
to what happened at the council tradition seems to justify the
following deductions, though as the tradition is certainly jumbled it
may also be incorrect in details.
(_a_) The council is recognized only by the northern Church and is
unknown to the Churches of Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It seems to have
regarded Kashmir as sacred land outside which the true doctrine was
exposed to danger. (_b_) But it was not a specially Mahayanist meeting
but rather a conference of peace and compromise. Taranatha says this
clearly: in Hsuean Chuang's account an assembly of Arhats (which at
this time must have meant Hinayanists) elect a president who was not
an Arhat and according to Paramartha the assembly consisted of 500
Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas who were convened by a leader of the
Sarvastivadin school and ended by requesting Asvaghosha to revise
their work. (_c_) The literary result of the council was the
composition of commentaries on the three Pitakas. One of these, the
Abhidharma-mahavibhasha-sastra, translated into Chinese in 437-9 and
still extant, is said to be a work of encyclopaedic character, hardly a
commentary in the strict sense. Paramartha perhaps made a confusion in
saying that the Jnana-prasthana itself was composed at the council.
The traditions indicate that the council to some extent sifted and
revised the Tripitaka and perhaps it accepted the seven Abhidharma
books of the Sarvastivadins.[199] But it is not stated or implied that
it composed or sanctioned Mahayanist books. Taranatha merely says that
such books appeared at this time and that the Hinayanists raised no
active objection.
But if the above is the gist of the traditions, the position described
is not clear. The council is recognized by Mahayanists yet it appears
to have resulted in the composition of a Sarvastivadin treatise, and
the tradition connecting the Sarvastivadins with the council is not
likely to be wrong, for they are recognized in the inscription on
Kanishka's casket, and Gandhara and Kashmir were their headquarters.
The decisions of councils are often politic rather than logical and it
may be that the doctors summoned by Kanishka, while compiling
Sarvastivadin treatises, admitted the principle that there is more
than one vehicle which can take mankind to salvation. Perhaps some
compromise based on geography was arranged, such as that Kashmir
should be left to the Sarvastivadin school which had long flourished
there, but that no opposition should be offered to the Mahayanists
elsewhere.
The relations of the Sarvastivadins to Mahayanism are exceedingly
difficult to define and there are hardly sufficient materials for a
connected account of this once important sect, but I will state some
facts about it which seem certain.
It is ancient, for the Kathavatthu alludes to its doctrines.[200] It
flourished in Gandhara, Kashmir and Central Asia, and Kanishka's
casket shows that he patronized it.[201] But it appears to have been
hardly known in Ceylon or Southern India. It was the principal
northern form of Hinayanism, just as the Theravada was the southern
form. I-Ching however says that it prevailed in the Malay Archipelago.
Its doctrines, so far as known, were Hinayanist but it was
distinguished from cognate schools by holding that the external world
can be said to exist and is not merely a continual process of
becoming. It had its own version of the Abhidharma and of the Vinaya.
In the time of Fa-Hsien the latter was still preserved orally and was
not written. The adherents of this school were also called
Vaibhashikas, and Vibhasha was a name given to their exegetical
literature.
But the association of the Sarvastivadins with Mahayanists is clear
from the council of Kanishka onwards. Many eminent Buddhists began by
being Sarvastivadins and became Mahayanists, their earlier belief
being regarded as preliminary rather than erroneous. Hsuean Chuang
translated the Sarvastivadin scriptures in his old age and I-Ching
belonged to the Mulasarvastivadin school;[202] yet both authors write
as if they were devout Mahayanists. The Tibetan Church is generally
regarded as an extreme form of Mahayanism but its Vinaya is that of
the Sarvastivadins.
Though the Sarvastivadins can hardly have accepted idealist
metaphysics, yet the evidence of art and their own version of the
Vinaya make it probable that they tolerated a moderate amount of
mythology, and the Mahayanists, who like all philosophers were obliged
to admit the provisional validity of the external world, may also have
admitted their analysis of the same as provisionally valid. The
strength of the Hinayanist schools lay in the Vinaya. The Mahayanists
showed a tendency to replace it by legends and vague if noble
aspirations. But a code of discipline was necessary for large
monasteries and the code of the Sarvastivadins enjoyed general esteem
in Central Asia and China.
Three stages in the history of Indian Buddhism are marked by the names
of Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna and the two brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu.
It would be easier to give a precise description of its development if
we were sure which of the works ascribed to these worthies are
authentic, but it seems that Asvaghosha represents an ornate and
transitional phase of the older schools leading to Mahayanism, whereas
Nagarjuna is connected with the Prajna-paramita and the nihilistic
philosophy described in the preceding chapter. Asanga was the founder
of the later and more scholastic system called Yogacara and is also
associated with a series of revelations said to have been made by
Maitreya.
As mentioned above, tradition makes Asvaghosha,[203] one of the most
brilliant among Sanskrit writers, live at the court of Kanishka[204]
and according to some accounts he was given to the Kushans as part of
a war indemnity. The tradition[205] is confirmed by the style and
contents of his poems and it has been noted by Foucher that his
treatment of legends is in remarkable accord with their artistic
presentment in the Gandharan sculptures. Also fragmentary manuscripts
of his dramas discovered in Central Asia appear to date from the
Kushan epoch. Asvaghosha's rank as a poet depends chiefly on his
Buddhacarita, or life of the Buddha up to the time of his
enlightenment. It is the earliest example of a Kavya, usually
translated as artificial epic, but here literary skill is subservient
to the theme and does not, as too often in later works, overwhelm it.
The Buddha is its hero, as Rama of the Ramayana, and it sings the
events of his earlier life in a fine flow of elaborate but impassioned
language. Another of his poems,[206] discovered only a few years ago,
treats of the conversion of Nanda, the Buddha's half-brother.
Various other works are ascribed to Asvaghosha and for the history of
Buddhism it is of great interest to decide whether he was really the
author of _The Awakening of Faith_. This skilful exposition of a
difficult theme is worthy of the writer of the Buddhacarita but other
reasons make his authorship doubtful, for the theology of the work may
be described as the full-blown flower of Mahayanism untainted by
Tantrism. It includes the doctrines of Bhuta-tathata, Alaya-vijnana,
Tathagatagarbha and the three bodies of Buddha. It would be dangerous
to say that these ideas did not exist in the time of Kanishka, but
what is known of the development of doctrine leads us to expect their
full expression not then but a century or two later and other
circumstances raise suspicions as to Asvaghosha's authorship. His
undoubted works were translated into Chinese about 400 A.D. but _The
Awakening of Faith_ a century and a half later.[207] Yet if this
concise and authoritative compendium had existed in 400, it is strange
that the earlier translators neglected it. It is also stated that an
old Chinese catalogue of the Tripitaka does not name Asvaghosha as the
author.[208]
The undoubted works of Asvaghosha treat the Buddha with ornate but
grave rhetoric as the hero of an epic. His progress is attended by
miracles such as Indian taste demands, but they hardly exceed the
marvels recounted in the Pali scriptures and there is no sign that the
hero is identified, as in the Ramayana of Tulsi Das or the Gospel
according to St. John, with the divine spirit. The poet clearly feels
personal devotion to a Saviour. He dwells on the duty of teaching
others and not selfishly seeking one's own salvation, but he does not
formulate dogmas.
The name most definitely connected with the early promulgation of
Mahayanism is Nagarjuna.[209] A preponderance of Chinese tradition
makes him the second patriarch after Asvaghosha[210] and this agrees
with the Kashmir chronicle which implies that he lived soon after
Kanishka.[211] He probably flourished in the latter half of the second
century. But his biographies extant in Chinese and Tibetan are almost
wholly mythical, even crediting him with a life of several centuries,
and the most that can be hoped is to extract a few grains of history
from them. He is said to have been by birth a Brahman of Vidarbha
(Berar) and to have had as teacher a Sudra named Saraha or
Rahulabhadra. When the legend states that he visited the Nagas in the
depths of the sea and obtained books from them, it seems to admit that
he preached new doctrines. It is noticeable that he is represented not
only as a philosopher but as a great magician, builder, physician, and
maker of images.
Many works are attributed to him but they have not the same
authenticity as the poems of Asvaghosha. Some schools make him the
author of the Prajna-paramita but it is more usually regarded as a
revelation. The commentary on it known as Maha-prajna-paramita-sastra
is generally accepted as his work. A consensus of tradition makes him
the author of the Madhyamika[212] aphorisms of which some account has
been given above. It is the principal authority of its school and is
provided with a commentary attributed to the author himself and with a
later one by Candrakirti.[213] There is also ascribed to him a work
called the Suhrillekha or friendly letter, a compendium of Buddhist
doctrines, addressed to an Indian king.[214] This work is old for it
was translated into Chinese in 434 A.D. and is a homily for laymen. It
says nothing of the Madhyamika philosophy and most of it deals with
the need of good conduct and the terrors of future punishment, quite
in the manner of the Hinayana. But it also commends the use of images
and incense in worship, it mentions Avalokita and Amitabha and it
holds up the ideal of attaining Buddhahood. Nagarjuna's authorship is
not beyond dispute but these ideas may well represent a type of
popular Buddhism slightly posterior to Asvaghosha.[215]
In most lists of patriarchs Nagarjuna is followed by Deva, also called
Aryadeva, Kanadeva or Nilanetra. I-Ching mentions him among the older
teachers and a commentary on his principal work, the Satasastra, is
attributed to Vasubandhu.[216] Little is known of his special teaching
but he is regarded as an important doctor and his pupil Dharmatrata is
also important if not as an author at least as a compiler, for
Sanskrit collections of verses corresponding to the Pali Dhammapada
are ascribed to him. Aryadeva was a native of southern India.[217]
The next epoch in the history of Buddhism is marked by the names of
Asanga and Vasubandhu. The interval between them and Deva produced no
teacher of importance, but Kumaralabdha, the founder of the
Sautrantika school and perhaps identical with Kumarata the eighteenth
Patriarch of the Chinese lists, may be mentioned. Hsuean Chuang
says[218] that he was carried off in captivity by a king who reigned
somewhere in the east of the Pamirs and that he, Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna
and Deva were styled the four shining suns.
Asanga and Vasubandhu were brothers, sons of a Brahman who lived at
Peshawar. They were both converted from the Sarvastivadin school to
Mahayanism, but the third brother Virincivatsa never changed his
convictions. Tradition connects their career with Ayodhya as well as
with Peshawar and Vasubandhu enjoyed the confidence of the reigning
monarch, who was probably Candragupta I. This identification depends
on the hypothesis that Vasubandhu lived from about 280 to 360 A.D.
which, as already mentioned, seems to me to have been proved by M.
Peri.[219] The earlier Gupta kings though not Buddhists were tolerant,
as is shown by the fact that the king of Ceylon[220] was allowed to
erect a magnificent monastery at Nalanda in the reign of Samudragupta
(_c_. 330-375 A.D.).
Asanga founded the school known as Yogacara and many authorities
ascribe to him the introduction of magical practices and Tantrism. But
though he is a considerable figure in the history of Buddhism, I doubt
if his importance or culpability is so great as this. For if tradition
can be trusted, earlier teachers especially Nagarjuna dealt in spells
and invocations and the works of Asanga[221] known to us are
characterized by a somewhat scholastic piety and are chiefly occupied
in defining and describing the various stages in the spiritual
development of a Bodhisattva. It is true that he admits the use of
magical formulae[222] as an aid in this evolution but they form only a
slight part of his system and it does not appear that the Chen-yen or
Shingon sect of the Far East (the Sanskrit Mantrayana) traced its
lineage back to him.
Our estimate of his position in the history of Buddhism must depend on
our opinion as to the authorship of _The Awakening of Faith_. If this
treatise was composed by Asvaghosha then doctrines respecting the
three bodies of Buddha, the Tathagatagarbha and the Alaya-vijnana
were not only known but scientifically formulated considerably before
Asanga. The conclusion cannot be rejected as absurd--for Asvaghosha
might speak differently in poems and in philosophical treatises--but
it is surprising, and it is probable that the treatise is not his. If
so, Asanga may have been the first to elaborate systematically (though
not to originate) the idea that thought is the one and only reality.
Nagarjuna's nihilism was probably the older theory. It sounds late and
elaborate but still it follows easily if the dialectic of Gotama is
applied uncompromisingly not only to our mental processes but to the
external world. Yet even in India the result was felt to be fantastic
and sophistical and it is not surprising if after the lapse of a few
generations a new system of idealism became fashionable which,
although none too intelligible, was abstruse rather than paradoxical.
Asanga was alleged to have received revelations from Maitreya and five
of his works are attributed to this Bodhisattva who enjoyed
considerable honour at this period. It may be that the veneration for
the Buddha of the future, the Messiah who would reign over his saints
in a pure land, owed something to Persian influence which was strong
in India during the decadence of the Kushans.[223] Both Mithraism and
Manichaeism classified their adepts in various ranks, and the Yogacara
doctors who delight in grading the progress of the Bodhisattva may
have borrowed something from them.[224] Asanga's doctrine of
defilement (klesa) and purification may also owe something to Mani, as
suggested by S. Levi.
In spite of his literary merits Asanga remains a doctor rather than a
saint or poet.[225] His speculations have little to do with either
Gotama or Amitabha and he was thus not in living touch with either the
old or new schools. His brother Vasubandhu had perhaps a greater
position. He is reckoned as the twentieth Patriarch and Tibetan
tradition connects him with the worship of Amitabha.[226]
Paramartha's life of Vasubandhu represents him as having frequented
the court of Vikramaditya (to be identified with Candragupta I), who
at first favoured the Sankhya philosophy but accorded some patronage
to Buddhism. During this period Vasubandhu was a Sarvastivadin but of
liberal views[227] and while in this phase wrote the Abhidharma-kosa,
a general exposition of the Abhidharma, mainly according to the views
of the Vaibhashikas but not without criticism. This celebrated work is
not well known in Europe[228] but is still a text-book amongst
Japanese Buddhist students. It gained the esteem of all schools and we
are given to understand that it presupposed the philosophy of the
Vibhasha and of the Jnana-prasthana. According to Paramartha the
original work consisted of 600 aphorisms in verse which were sent by
the author to the monks of Kashmir. They approved of the composition
but, as the aphorisms were concise, asked for fuller explanations.
Vasubandhu then expanded his verses into a prose commentary, but
meanwhile his views had undergone a change and when he disapproved of
any Vaibhashika doctrine, he criticized it. This enlarged edition by
no means pleased the brethren of Kashmir and called forth polemics. He
also wrote a controversial work against the Sankhya philosophy.
Late in life Vasubandhu, moved by the entreaties of his brother
Asanga, became a devout Mahayanist and wrote in his old age
Mahayanist treatises and commentaries.[229]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 187: The uncertainty as to the date of Kanishka naturally
makes it uncertain whether he was the hero of these conquests. Kashmir
was certainly included in the dominions of the Kushans and was a
favourite residence of Kanishka. About 90 A.D. a Kushan king attacked
Central Asia but was repulsed by the Chinese general Pan-Ch'ao. Later,
after the death of Pan-Ch'ao (perhaps about 103 A.D.), he renewed the
attempt and conquered Kashgar, Yarkand and Khotan. See Vincent Smith,
_Early History of India_, 3rd ed. pp. 253 ff.]
[Footnote 188: See Fa-Hsien, ed. Legge, p. 33, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903 (Sung
Yuen), pp. 420 ff. Watters, _Yuean Chwang_, I. pp. 204 ff. _J.R.A.S._
1909, p. 1056, 1912, p. 114. For the general structure of these stupas
see Foucher, _L'art Greco-Bouddhique du Gandhara_, pp. 45 ff.]
[Footnote 189: _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 1058. "Acaryanam Sarvastivadinam
pratigrahe."]
[Footnote 190: Similarly Harsha became a Buddhist late in life.]
[Footnote 191: Watters, vol. I. p. 203. He places Kanishka's accession
400 years after the death of the Buddha, which is one of the arguments
for supposing Kanishka to have reigned about 50 B.C., but in another
passage (Watters, I. 222, 224) he appears to place it 500 years after
the death.]
[Footnote 192: Watters, vol. I. 270-1.]
[Footnote 193: But Taranatha says some authorities held that it met at
Jalandhara. Some Chinese works say it was held at Kandahar.]
[Footnote 194: Walters, _l.c._]
[Footnote 195: Translated by Takakusu in _T'oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 269
ff. Paramartha was a native of Ujjain who arrived at Nanking in 548
and made many translations, but it is quite possible that this life of
Vasubandhu is not a translation but original notes of his own.]
[Footnote 196: Chinese expressions like "in the five hundred years
after the Buddha's death" probably mean the period 400-500 of the era
commencing with the Buddha's death and not the period 500-600. The
period 1-100 is "the one hundred years," 101-200 "the two hundred
years" and so on. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, 356. But it must be
remembered that the date of the Buddha's death is not yet certain. The
latest theory (Vincent Smith, 1919) places it in 554 B.C.]
[Footnote 197: Chap. XII.]
[Footnote 198: See Watters, I. pp. 222, 224 and 270. It is worth
noting that Hsuean Chuang says Asoka lived one hundred years after the
Buddha's death. See Watters, I. p. 267. See also the note of S. Levi
in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 1016-1019, citing traditions to the effect
that there were 300 years between Upagupta, the teacher of Asoka, and
Kanishka, who is thus made to reign about 31 A.D. On the other hand
Kanishka's chaplain Sangharaksha is said to have lived 700 years after
the Buddha.]
[Footnote 199: See Takakusu in _J.P.T.S._ 1905, pp. 67 ff. For the
Sarvastivadin Canon, see my chapter on the Chinese Tripitaka.]
[Footnote 200: See above, vol. I. p. 262. For an account of the
doctrines see also Vasilief, 245 ff. Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_,
pp. 190 ff.]
[Footnote 201: Its connection with Gandhara and Kashmir is plainly
indicated in its own scriptures. See Przyluski's article on "Le
Nord-Ouest de l'Inde dans le Vinaya des Mula-sarvastivadins," _J.A._
1914, II. pp. 493 ft. This Vinaya must have received considerable
additions as time went on and in its present form is posterior to
Kanishka.]
[Footnote 202: The distinction between Sarvastivadin and
Mulasarvastivadin is not clear to me. I can only suggest that when a
section of the school accepted the Mahavibhasha and were known as
Vaibhashikas others who approved of the school chiefly on account of
its excellent Vinaya called themselves Primitive Sarvastivadins.]
[Footnote 203: See Sylvain Levi, _J.A._ 1908, XII. 57 ff., and
Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 201 ff.]
[Footnote 204: The only reason for doubting it is that two stories
(Nos. 14 and 31) in the Sutralankara (which appears to be a genuine
work) refer to Kanishka as if he had reigned in the past. This may be
a poetic artifice or it may be that the stories are interpolations.
See for the traditions Watters on _Yuean Chwang_, II. 102-4 and
Takakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1905, p. 53 who quotes the Chinese
Samyukta-ratna-pitaka-sutra and the Record of Indian Patriarchs. The
Chinese list of Patriarchs is compatible with the view that Asvaghosha
was alive about 125 A.D. for he was the twelfth Patriarch and
Bodhidharma the twenty-eighth visited China in 520. This gives about
400 years for sixteen Patriarchs, which is possible, for these
worthies were long-lived. But the list has little authority.]
[Footnote 205: The traditions are conveniently collected in the
introduction to Teitaro Suzuki's translation of _The Awakening of
Faith._]
[Footnote 206: The Saundaranandakavya.]
[Footnote 207: See Nanjio, Nos. 1182, 1351, 1250, 1299. It is
noticeable that the translator Paramartha shows a special interest in
the life and works of Asanga and Vasubandhu.]
[Footnote 208: See Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 211. It is
also noticeable that _The Awakening of Faith_ appears to quote the
Lankavatara sutra which is not generally regarded as an early
Mahayanist work.]
[Footnote 209: Nagarjuna cannot have been the founder of the Mahayana
for in his Maha-prajna-paramita-sastra (Nanjio, 1169, translation by
Kumarajiva) he cites _inter alia_ the Lotus, the Vimalakirti-sutra,
and a work called Mahayana-sastra. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p. 453. For
Nagarjuna see especially Gruenwedel, _Mythologie_, pp. 29 ff. and the
bibliography given in the notes. _Jour. Budd. Text. Soc._ V. part iv.
pp. 7 ff. Watters, _Yuean Chwang_, pp. 200 ff. Taranatha, chap. XV and
Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 250 ff.]
[Footnote 210: He is omitted from the list of Buddhabhadra, giving the
succession according to the Sarvastivadins, to which school he did not
belong. I-Ching classes him with Asvaghosha and Aryadeva as belonging
to the early period.]
[Footnote 211: Rajatarangini, i. 173, 177.]
[Footnote 212: Edited in the _Bibliotheca Buddhica_ by De la Vallee
Poussin and (in part) in the _Journal of the Buddhist Text Soc._ See
too Walleser, _Die Mittlere Lehre des Nagarjuna nach der Tibetischen
Version uebertragen_, 1911: _nach der Chinesischen Version uebertragen_,
1912.]
[Footnote 213: The ascription of these works to Nagarjuna is probably
correct for they were translated by Kumarajiva who was sufficiently
near him in date to be in touch with good tradition.]
[Footnote 214: The name of this king, variously given as Udayana,
Jetaka and Satavahana, has not been identified with certainty from the
various transcriptions and translations in the Chinese and Tibetan
versions. See _J. Pali Text Soc._ for 1886 and I-Ching _Records of the
Buddhist Religion_ (trans. Takakusu), pp. 158 ff. The Andhra kings who
reigned from about 240 B.C. to 225 A.D. all claimed to belong to the
Satavahana dynasty. The stupa of Amaravati in the Andhra territory is
surrounded by a stone railing ascribed to the period 160-200 A.D. and
Nagarjuna may have addressed a pious king living about that time.]
[Footnote 215: For other works attributed to Nagarjuna see Nanjio,
Nos. 1169, 1179, 1180, 1186 and Walleser's introduction to _Mittlere
Lehre nach der Chinesischen Version_ The Dharmasangraha, a Sanskrit
theological glossary, is also attributed to Nagarjuna as well as the
tantric work Pancakrama. But it is not likely that the latter dates
from his epoch.]
[Footnote 216: Nanjio, No. 1188.]
[Footnote 217: The very confused legends about him suggest a
comparison with the Dravidian legend of a devotee who tore out one of
his eyes and offered it to Siva. See Gruenwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 34
and notes. Polemics against various Hinayanist sects are ascribed to
him. See Nanjio, Nos. 1259, 1260.]
[Footnote 218: Watters, _Yuean Chwang_, II. p. 286. Hsuean Chuang does
not say that the four were contemporary but that in the time of
Kumaralabdha they were called the four Suns.]
[Footnote 219: For Asanga and Vasubandhu see Peri in _B.E.F.E.O._
1911, pp. 339-390. Vincent Smith in _Early History of India_, third
edition, pp. 328-334. Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 256.
Watters, _Yuean Chwang_, I. pp. 210, 355-359. Taranatha, chap. XXII.
Gruenwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 35.]
[Footnote 220: Meghavarman. See V. Smith, _l.c._ 287.]
[Footnote 221: Two have been preserved in Sanskrit: the
Mahayana-sutralankara (Ed. V. Transl., S. Levi, 1907-1911) and the
Bodhisattva-bhumi (English summary in _Museon_, 1905-6). A brief
analysis of the literature of the Yogacara school according to Tibetan
authorities is given by Stcherbatskoi in _Museon_, 1905, pp. 144-155.]
[Footnote 222: Mahayana-sutral. XVIII. 71-73. The ominous word
_maithuna_ also occurs in this work, XVIII. 46.]
[Footnote 223: Vincent Smith, _l.c._ p. 275.]
[Footnote 224: But there are of course abundant Indian precedents,
Brahmanical as well as Buddhist, for describing various degrees of
sanctity or knowledge.]
[Footnote 225: The wooden statues of Asanga and Vasubandhu preserved
in the Kofukaji at Nara are masterpieces of art but can hardly claim
to be other than works of imagination. They date from about 800 A.D.
See for an excellent reproduction Tajima's _Select Relics_, II. X.]
[Footnote 226: See Eitel and Gruenwedel, but I do not know in what
texts this tradition is found. It is remarkable that Paramartha's life
(_T'oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 269-296) does not say either that he was
twentieth patriarch or that he worshipped Amida.]
[Footnote 227: On receiving a large donation he built three
monasteries, one for Hinayanists, one for Mahayanists and one for
nuns.]
[Footnote 228: The work consists of 600 verses (Karika) with a lengthy
prose commentary (Bhashya) by the author. The Sanskrit original is
lost but translations have been preserved in Chinese (Nanjio, Nos.
1267, 1269, 1270) and Tibetan (see Cordier, _Cat. du Fonds tibetain de
la Bib. Nat._ 1914, pp. 394, 499). But the commentary on the Bhashya
called Abhidharma-kosa-vyakhya, or Sphutartha, by Yasomitra has been
preserved in Sanskrit in Nepal and frequently cites the verses as well
as the Bhashya in the original Sanskrit. A number of European savants
are at present occupied with this literature and Sir Denison Ross (to
whom I am indebted for much information) contemplates the publication
of an Uigur text of Book I found in Central Asia. At present (1920),
so far as I know, the only portion of the Abhidharma-kosa in print is
De la Vallee Poussin's edition and translation of Book III, containing
the Tibetan and Sanskrit texts but not the Chinese (De la Vallee
Poussin--_Vasubandhu et Yasomitra_, London, 1914-18). This chapter
deals with such topics as the structure of the universe, the manner
and place of rebirth, the chain of causation, the geography of the
world, the duration and characteristics of Kalpas, and the appearance
of Buddhas and Cakravartins.]
[Footnote 229: See Nanjio, pp. 371-2, for a list of his works
translated into Chinese. Hsuean Chuang's account differs from the above
(which is taken from Paramartha) in details. He also tells a curious
story that Vasubandhu promised to appear to his friends after death
and ultimately did so, though he forgot his promise until people began
to say he had gone to hell.]