The Divyavadana[154] is a collection of legends, part of which is known as the Asokavadana and gives an edifying life of that pious monarch.  This portion was translated into Chinese A.D. 317-420 and the work probably dates from the third century of our era.  It is loosely constructed:  considerable portions of it seem to be identical with the Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins and others with passages in the works of Asvaghosha.

The Avadanas lie on the borderland between scripture and pious literature which uses human argument and refers to scripture for its authority.  Of this literature the Mahayanist church has a goodly collection and the works ascribed to such doctors as Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu hold a high place in general esteem.  The Chinese Canon places many of them in the Pitakas (especially in the Abhidharma Pitaka) and not among the works of miscellaneous writers.

The Mahayanist scriptures are still a living force.  In Nepal the nine Dharmas receive superstitious homage rather than intelligent study, but in Tibet and the Far East the Prajna-paramita, the Lotus and the sutras about Amitabha are in daily use for public worship and private reading.  I have heard the first-named work as well as the Leng-yen-ching expounded, that is, read aloud with an extempore paraphrase, to lay congregations in China, and the section of it called the Diamond Cutter is the book which is most commonly in the hands of religious Tibetans.  The Lotus is the special scripture of the Nichiren sect in Japan but is universally respected.  The twenty-fourth chapter which contains the praises of Avalokita is often printed separately.  The Amitabha sutras take the place of the New Testament for the Jodo and Shin sects and copies of them may also be found in almost every monastery throughout China and Annam.  The Suvarna-prabhasa is said to be specially popular among the Mongols.  I know Chinese Buddhists who read the Hua-yen (Avatamsaka) every day.  Modern Japanese writers quote frequently from the Lankavatara and Kasyapa-parivarta but I have not met with any instance of these works being in popular use.

I have mentioned already the obscurity surrounding the history of the Mahayanist Canon in India and it may seem to throw doubt on the authenticity of these scriptures.  Unauthentic they certainly are in the sense that European criticism is not likely to accept as historical the discourses which they attribute to the Buddha and others, but there is no reason to doubt that they are treatises composed in India early in our era and representing the doctrines then prevalent.  The religious public of India has never felt any difficulty in accepting works of merit—­and often only very moderate merit—­as revelations, whether called Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras or what not.  Only rarely have such works received any formal approbation, such as recognition by a council.  Indeed it is rather in Ceylon, Burma, Tibet and China than in India itself that authoritative lists of scriptures have been compiled.  The natural instinct of the Hindus was not to close the Canon but to leave it open for any additions which might be vouchsafed.