[Footnote 133:  Edited by Rajendralala Mitra in the Bibliotheca Indica and partially translated in the same series.  A later critical edition by Lefmann, 1902-8.]

[Footnote 134:  The early Chinese translations seem doubtful.  One said to have been made under the later Han has been lost.  See Nanjio, No. 159.]

[Footnote 135:  See Burnouf, Introduction, pp. 458 ff. and J.R.A.S. 1905, pp. 831 ff.  Rajendralala Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Literature, p. 113.  A brief analysis is given in J.A.S.B. June, 1905 according to which the sutra professes to be the work of a human author, Jina of the clan of Katyayana born at Campa.  An edition of the Sanskrit text published by the Buddhist Text Society is cited but I have not seen it.  Chinese translations were made in 443 and 515 but the first is incomplete and does not correspond with our Sanskrit text.]

[Footnote 136:  Abstract by Rajendralala Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. p. 241.]

[Footnote 137:  See Nanjio, No. 127 and F.W.K.  Muller in Abhandl. der K. Preuss.  Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1908.  The Uigur text is published in Bibliotheca Buddhica, 1914.  Fragments of the Sanskrit text have also been found in Turkestan.]

[Footnote 138:  Abstract by Raj.  Mitra, Nepalese Buddhist Lit. pp. 90 ff.  The Sikshasamuccaya cites the Ganda-vyuha several times and does not mention the Avatamsaka.]

[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 Santideva’s Bodhicaryavatara, 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 Mahayana, p. 157.  For notices of the text see Nanjio, Nos. 399, 446, 1588.  Fa-Hsien, Chap.  XXIX.  For the equivalence of Shou-leng-yen and Surangama see Nanjio’s note to No. 399 and Julien, Methode, 1007 and Vasilief, p. 175.]

[Footnote 144:  See Sikshas, ed.  Bendall, pp. 8,91 and Hoernle, Manuscript remains, I. pp. 125 ff.]

[Footnote 145:  Mahayana-sutralankara, XIX. 29.]

[Footnote 146:  E.g. the Rashtra-pala-paripriccha edited in Sanskrit by Finot, Biblioth.  Buddhica, 1901.  The Sanskrit text seems to agree with the Chinese version.  The real number of sutras in the Ratnakuta seems to be 48, two being practically the same but represented as uttered on different occasions.]