Two sketches of an elastic Mahayanist Canon of this kind are preserved, one in the Sikshasamuccaya[155] attributed to Santideva, who probably flourished in the seventh century, and the other in a little work called the Duration of the Law, reporting a discourse by an otherwise unknown Nandimitra, said to have lived in Ceylon 800 years after the Buddha’s death.[156] The former is a compendium of doctrine illustrated by quotations from what the author regarded as scripture.  He cites about a hundred Mahayanist sutras, refers to the Vinaya and Divyavadana but not apparently to the Abhidharma.  He mentions no Tantras[157] and not many Dharanis.

The second work was translated by Hsuean Chuang and was therefore probably written before 600 A.D.[158] Otherwise there is no external evidence for fixing its date.  It represents Nandimitra as explaining on his deathbed the steps taken by the Buddha to protect the True Law and in what works that Law is to be found.  Like the Chinese Tripitaka it recognizes both Mahayanist and Hinayanist works, but evidently prefers the former and styles them collectively Bodhisattva-Pitaka.  It enumerates about fifty sutras by name, beginning with the Prajna-paramita, the Lotus and other well-known texts.  Then comes a list of works with titles ending in Samadhi, followed by others called Paripriccha[159] or questions.  A new category seems to be formed by the Buddhavatamsaka-sutra with which the sutras about Amitabha’s Paradise are associated.  Then comes the Mahasannipata-sutra associated with works which may correspond to the Ratnakuta division of the Chinese Canon.[160] The writer adds that there are “hundreds of myriads of similar sutras classified in groups and categories.”  He mentions the Vinaya and Abhidharma without further particulars, whereas in describing the Hinayanist versions of these two Pitakas he gives many details.

The importance of this list lies in the fact that it is Indian rather than in its date, for the earliest catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka compiled about[161] 510 is perhaps older and certainly ampler.  But if the catalogue stood alone, it might be hard to say how far the selection of works in it was due to Chinese taste.  But taking the Indian and Chinese evidence together, it is clear that in the sixth century Indian Mahayanists (a) tolerated Hinayanist scriptures while preferring their own, (b) made little use of the Vinaya or Abhidharma for argument or edification, though the former was very important as a code, (c) recognized extremely numerous sutras, grouped in various classes such as Mahasannipata and Buddhavatamsaka, (d) and did not use works called Tantras.  Probably much the same is true of the fourth century and even earlier, for Asanga in one work[162] quotes both Maha-and Hinayanist scriptures and among the former cites by name seventeen sutras, including one called Paripriccha or questions.

FOOTNOTES: