सद्धर्मपुण्डरीक (Lotus Sutra — Kern translation from Sanskrit, 1884)

Whatever the case may be, I think that the following facts may be held to be established, both from internal and external evidence:

1. The more ancient text of the Saddharma-pundarîka Lotus of the True Law contained 21 chapters and an epilogue, that is, the material of chapters 1–20 and chapter 27.
2. The later additions, excepting probably some verses, had been connected with the work, in the manner of Parisishṭas appendixes or addenda, around 250 A.D. or earlier.

As the book, along with the Parisishṭas, 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 at present impossible.

We know that a commentary on the Saddharma-pundarîka was composed by Vasubandhu original: Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 222. The date of that work, which it seems has not yet been recovered, must fall between 550 and 600 A.D., or at least not much earlier, for Vasubandhu’s pupil Guṇaprabha became the teacher of the famous Srî-Harsha, alias Sîlâditya, king of Kanauj, who was a friend of Hiouen Thsang original: Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 78; cf. pp. 64 and 219; Târanâtha, Geschichte des Buddhismus (transl. Schiefner), p. 126. The latter often mentions Vasubandhu and some of that great doctor’s writings, as well as Guṇaprabha original: See especially Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang, pp. 83, 93, 97, 114; 106. As both worthies had already departed this life at the time of Hiouen Thsang’s visit to India, and Vasubandhu must have been at least one generation older than Guṇaprabha, we cannot be far amiss in assigning to Vasubandhu’s commentary the date specified above.

It appears from the aforementioned preface to the Chinese translation of 601 A.D. that the text-differences in the manuscripts current in those days were more significant than those we observe in the Nepalese manuscripts from 1000 A.D. downward, with which the Tibetan versions closely agree. The Chinese preface is so interesting that it is worth while to...

¹ This was written before the publication of my Cambridge Lectures, ‘India, what can it teach us?’ and affords valuable, because independent, confirmation of the chronological system contained in Note G, ‘Renaissance of Sanskrit Literature,’ pp. 281–366.—The Editor, F. M. M.