[Footnote 139: The statement was first made on the authority of Takakusu quoted by Winternitz in _Ges. Ind. Lit_. II. i. p. 242. Watanabe in _J.R.A.S._ 1911, 663 makes an equally definite statement as to the identity of the two works. The identity is confirmed by Pelliot in _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 118-121.] [Footnote 140: Abstract by Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit._ pp. 81 ff. Quoted in Śântideva's Bodhicaryâvatâra, VIII. 106.] [Footnote 141: See _J.R.A.S._ 1911, 663.] [Footnote 142: Abstract by Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit._ pp. 81 ff.] [Footnote 143: Translated in part by Beal, _Catena of Buddhist Scriptures_, pp. 286-369. See also Teitaro Suzuki, _Outlines of Mahâyâna_, p. 157. For notices of the text see Nanjio, Nos. 399, 446, 1588. Fa-Hsien, Chap. XXIX. For the equivalence of Shou-lêng-yen and Śûrangama see Nanjio's note to No. 399 and Julien, _Méthode_, 1007 and Vasilief, p. 175.] [Footnote 144: See Śikshâs, ed. Bendall, pp. 8,91 and _Hoernle, Manuscript remains_, I. pp. 125 ff.] [Footnote 145: Mahâyâna-sûtrâlankâra, XIX. 29.] [Footnote 146: _E.g._ the Râshtra-pâla-paripṛicchâ edited in Sanskrit by Finot, _Biblioth. Buddhica_, 1901. The Sanskrit text seems to agree with the Chinese version. The real number of sûtras in the Ratnakûṭa seems to be 48, two being practically the same but represented as uttered on different occasions.] [Footnote 147: There is another somewhat similar collection of sûtras in the Chinese Canon called Ta Tsi or Mahâsannipâta but unlike the Ratnakûṭa it seems to contain few well-known or popular works.] [Footnote 148: I know of these works only by Raj. Mitra's abstracts, _Nepal. Bud. Lit._ pp. 95 and 101. The prose text is said to have been published in Sanskrit at Calcutta, 1873.] [Footnote 149: Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit_. pp. 285 ff. The Sanskrit text was published for the Buddhist Text Society, Calcutta, 1898.] [Footnote 150: Avadâna is primarily a great and glorious act: hence an account of such an act.] [Footnote 151: The Avadâna-śataka (Feer, _Annales du Musée Guimet_, XVIII) seems to be entirely Hinayanist.] [Footnote 152: Edited by Senart, 3 vols. 1882-1897. Windisch, _Die Komposition des Mahâvastu_, 1909. Article "Mahavâstu" in _E.R.E._] [Footnote 153: So too do the words Horâpâthaka (astrologer), Ujjhebhaka (? Uzbek), Peliyaksha (? Felix). The word Yogâcâra (I. 120) may refer simply to the practice of Yoga and not to the school which bore this name.] [Footnote 154: Edited by Cowell and Neil, 1886. See Nanjio, 1344.] [Footnote 155: Edited by Bendall in _Bibl. Buddhica._] [Footnote 156: Nanjio, No. 1466. For a learned discussion of this work see Lévi and Chavannes in _J.A._ 1916, Nos. I and II.] [Footnote 157: It is not likely that the Tathâgata-guhya-sûtra which it quotes is the same as the Tantra with a similar name analysed by Rajendralal Mitra.] [Footnote 158: Watters, _J.R.A.S._ 1898, p. 331 says there seems to have been an earlier translation.]