(1—6) are of later growth, if we bear in mind that the order of the chapters down to the Dharanis is the same in all sources. This result is quite in harmony with what we would have guessed upon internal grounds. The last chapter, entitled Dharmaparyaya, must, from its very nature, have been the close, the epilogue of the whole. In the Chinese translation of Kumarajïva it occurs, as the table shows, immediately after chap. xx, by itself a clear indication that xxi-xxvi are later additions. It is somewhat strange that in the older translation of Chu Fa-hu the Dharmaparyaya has already taken its place after the additional matter, but th:s may be explained on the supposition that Kumarajïva, though living in a later time, made use of ancient manuscripts.' However that may be, I think that the following facts may be held lo be established, both from internal andexternal evidence: Ï.The more ancient text of the Saddharma-pundarïka contained 21 chapters and an epilogue, i. e. the matter of chaps. i-xx and of chap. xxvii; 2. The later additions, excepting probably some verses, had been connected with the work, in the way of Parigistas or Addenda, about 250 A. D. or earlier. As the book, along with the Pari^istas, already existed some time before 250 A.D., we may safely conclude that the more ancient text in 21 chapters, the epilogue included, dates some centuries earlier. Greater precision is for the present impossible.
We know that a commentary on the Saddharma-pundarïka was composed by Vasubandhu. 2 The date of that work, not yet recovered, it seems, must fall between 550 and 600 A. D., or at least not much earlier, for Vasubandhu's pupil Gunaprabha became the Guru of the famous £rï-Harsa, alias Qladitya, king of Kanauj, the friend of Hiuen Thsang. 3 The latter often mentions Vasubandhu and some of that great doctor's writings, as well as Gunaprabha. 4 As both worthies at the time of Hiuen Thsang's visiting India had already departed this life, and Vasubandhu must have been at least one generation older than Gunaprabha, we cannot be far amiss in assigning to Vasubandhu's commentary the date above specified.
It appears from the above-mentioned preface to the Chinese translation
1 riie preface to the Chinese translation of Jnanagupta and Dharmagupta says: «The translations of Chu Fa-hu and Kumarajïva are most probably made from two different texts.»
Vassiljev, Buddhismus (1860), p. 222. This was written before the publication of my Cambridge Lectures, «India, what can it teach us?» and affords valuable, because independent, confirmation of the chronologieal system contained in Note G, «Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature», pp. 281—366. — The Editor, F. M. M.
3 Vassiljev, Buddhismus, p. 78; cf. pp. 64 and 219; Taranatha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (transl. Schiefner, 1869), p. 126.
4 See especially Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang (1853), pp. 83, 93, 97, 114; 106.