hinese A.D. 317-420 and the
work probably dates from the third century of our era. It is loosely
constructed: considerable portions of it seem to be identical with the
Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins and others with passages in the works of
Asvaghosha.

The Avadanas lie on the borderland between scripture and pious
literature which uses human argument and refers to scripture for its
authority. Of this literature the Mahayanist church has a goodly
collection and the works ascribed to such doctors as Asvaghosha,
Nagarjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu hold a high place in general esteem.
The Chinese Canon places many of them in the Pitakas (especially in
the Abhidharma Pitaka) and not among the works of miscellaneous
writers.

The Mahayanist scriptures are still a living force. In Nepal the nine
Dharmas receive superstitious homage rather than intelligent study,
but in Tibet and the Far East the Prajna-paramita, the Lotus and the
sutras about Amitabha are in daily use for public worship and private
reading. I have heard the first-named work as well as the
Leng-yen-ching expounded, that is, read aloud with an extempore
paraphrase, to lay congregations in China, and the section of it
called the Diamond Cutter is the book which is most commonly in the
hands of religious Tibetans. The Lotus is the special scripture of the
Nichiren sect in Japan but is universally respected. The twenty-fourth
chapter which contains the praises of Avalokita is often printed
separately. The Amitabha sutras take the place of the New Testament
for the Jodo and Shin sects and copies of them may also be found in
almost every monastery throughout China and Annam. The Suvarna-prabhasa
is said to be specially popular among the Mongols. I know Chinese
Buddhists who read the Hua-yen (Avatamsaka) every day. Modern Japanese
writers quote frequently from the Lankavatara and Kasyapa-parivarta
but I have not met with any instance of these works being in popular
use.

I have mentioned already the obscurity surrounding the history of the
Mahayanist Canon in India and it may seem to throw doubt on the
authenticity of these scriptures. Unauthentic they certainly are in
the sense that European criticism is not likely to accept as
historical the discourses which they attribute to the Buddha and
others, but there is no reason to doubt that they are treatises
composed in India early in our era and representing the doctrines then
prevalent. The religious public of India ha