ndicate that the Mahayanist movement had begun about the
time of our era. If it is proved that Kanishka lived considerably
later, we should not argue that Mahayanism is later than was supposed
but rather that his relation towards it has been misunderstood.[168]

The date of Vasubandhu has also been much discussed and scholars have
generally placed him in the fourth or fifth century but Peri[169]
appears to have proved that he lived from about 280 to 360 A.D. and I
shall adopt this view. This chronology makes a reasonable setting for
the development of Buddhism. If Kanishka reigned from about 78 to 123
A.D. or even later, there is no difficulty in supposing that
Asvaghosha flourished in his reign and was followed by Nagarjuna. The
collapse of the Kushan Empire was probably accompanied by raids from
Iranian tribes, for Persian influence appears to have been strong in
India during the confused interval between the Kushans and Guptas
(225-320). The latter inaugurated the revival of Hinduism but still
showed favour to individual Buddhists, and we know from Fa-Hsien that
Buddhism was fairly flourishing during his visit to India (399-415).
There is nothing improbable in supposing that Vasubandhu, who is
stated to have lived at Court, was patronized by the early Guptas. The
blank in Buddhist history which follows his career can be explained
first by the progress of Hinduism at the expense of Buddhism and
secondly by the invasions of the Huns. The Chinese pilgrim Sung-Yuen
has left us an account of India in this distressful period and for the
seventh century the works of Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching give copious
information.

In investigating the beginnings of the Mahayana we may start from the
epoch of Asoka, who is regarded by tradition as the patron and
consolidator of the Hinayanist Church. And the tradition seems on the
whole correct: the united evidence of texts and inscriptions goes to
show that the Buddhists of Asoka's time held the chief doctrines
subsequently professed by the Sinhalese Church and did not hold the
other set of doctrines known as Mahayanist. That these latter are
posterior in time is practically admitted by the books that teach
them, for they are constantly described as the crown and completion of
a progressive revelation. Thus the Lotus[170] illustrates the
evolution of doctrine by a story which curiously resembles the parable
of the prodigal son except that the returned penitent does not
recognize his f