[Footnote 201: Its connection with Gandhara and Kashmir is plainly indicated in its own scriptures. See Przyluski's article on "Le Nord-Ouest de l'Inde dans le Vinaya des Mûla-sarvâstivâdins," _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 493 ft. This Vinaya must have received considerable additions as time went on and in its present form is posterior to Kanishka.] [Footnote 202: The distinction between Sarvâstivâdin and Mûlasarvâstivâdin is not clear to me. I can only suggest that when a section of the school accepted the Mahâvibhâshâ and were known as Vaibhâshikas others who approved of the school chiefly on account of its excellent Vinaya called themselves Primitive Sarvâstivâdins.] [Footnote 203: See Sylvain Lévi, _J.A._ 1908, XII. 57 ff., and Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 201 ff.] [Footnote 204: The only reason for doubting it is that two stories (Nos. 14 and 31) in the Sûtrâlankâra (which appears to be a genuine work) refer to Kanishka as if he had reigned in the past. This may be a poetic artifice or it may be that the stories are interpolations. See for the traditions Watters on _Yüan Chwang_, II. 102-4 and Takakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1905, p. 53 who quotes the Chinese Samyukta-ratna-piṭaka-sûtra and the Record of Indian Patriarchs. The Chinese list of Patriarchs is compatible with the view that Aśvaghosha was alive about 125 A.D. for he was the twelfth Patriarch and Bodhidharma the twenty-eighth visited China in 520. This gives about 400 years for sixteen Patriarchs, which is possible, for these worthies were long-lived. But the list has little authority.] [Footnote 205: The traditions are conveniently collected in the introduction to Teitaro Suzuki's translation of _The Awakening of Faith._] [Footnote 206: The Saundarânandakâvya.] [Footnote 207: See Nanjio, Nos. 1182, 1351, 1250, 1299. It is noticeable that the translator Paramârtha shows a special interest in the life and works of Asanga and Vasubandhu.] [Footnote 208: See Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 211. It is also noticeable that _The Awakening of Faith_ appears to quote the Lankâvatâra sûtra which is not generally regarded as an early Mahayanist work.] [Footnote 209: Nâgârjuna cannot have been the founder of the Mahayana for in his Mahâ-prajñâ-pâramitâ-śâstra (Nanjio, 1169, translation by Kumârajiva) he cites _inter alia_ the Lotus, the Vimalakirti-sûtra, and a work called Mahâyâna-śâstra. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p. 453. For Nâgârjuna see especially Grünwedel, _Mythologie_, pp. 29 ff. and the bibliography given in the notes. _Jour. Budd. Text. Soc._ V. part iv. pp. 7 ff. Watters, _Yüan Chwang_, pp. 200 ff. Târanâtha, chap. XV and Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 250 ff.] [Footnote 210: He is omitted from the list of Buddhabhadra, giving the succession according to the Sarvâstivâdins, to which school he did not belong. I-Ching classes him with Aśvaghosha and Aryadeva as belonging to the early period.] [Footnote 211: Râjataranginî, i. 173, 177.]