as thought perfectly in harmony with the
Pali Canon. Whence comes this difference of tone in works accepted by
the same school? One difficulty of the historian who essays to account
for the later phases of Buddhism is to apportion duly the influence of
Indian and foreign elements. On the one hand, the Mahayana, whether we
call it a development or perversion, is a product of Indian thought.
To explain its trinities, its saviours, its doctrine of self sacrifice
it is not necessary to seek abroad. New schools, anxious to claim
continuity and antiquity, gladly retained as much of the old doctrine
as they could. But on the other hand, Indian Buddhism came into
contact with foreign, especially Iranian, ideas and undoubtedly
assimilated some of them. From time to time I have drawn attention to
such cases in this work, but as a rule the foreign ideas are so
thoroughly mastered and indianized that they cease to be obvious. They
merely open up to Indian thought a new path wherein it can move in its
own way.

In the period following Asoka's death Buddhism suffered a temporary
eclipse. Pushyamitra who in 184 B.C. overthrew the Mauryas and
established the Sunga dynasty was a patron of the Brahmans. Taranatha
describes him[175] as a ferocious persecutor, and the Divyavadana
supports the story. But the persecution, if it really occurred, was
probably local and did not seriously check the spread of Buddhism,
which before the time of Kanishka had extended northwards to Bactria
and Kashmir. The latter territory became the special home of the
Sarvastivadins. It was in the reign of Pushyamitra that the
Graeco-Bactrian king Menander or Milinda invaded India (155-3 B.C.) and
there were many other invasions and settlements of tribes coming from
the north-west and variously described as Sakas, Pahlavas, Parthians
and Yavanas, culminating in the conquests of the Kushans. The whole
period was disturbed and confused but some general statements can be
made with considerable confidence.

From about 300 B.C. to 100 A.D. we find inscriptions, buildings and
statues testifying to the piety of Buddhist and Jain donors but hardly
any indications of a similar liberality to Brahmans. In the second and
third centuries A.D. grants of land to Brahmans and their temples
begin to be recorded and in the fourth century (that is with the rise
of the Gupta Dynasty) such grants become frequent. These facts can
hardly be interpreted otherwise than as meaning that