The date of Vasubandhu has also been much discussed and scholars have generally placed him in the fourth or fifth century but Peri[169] appears to have proved that he lived from about 280 to 360 A.D. and I shall adopt this view.  This chronology makes a reasonable setting for the development of Buddhism.  If Kanishka reigned from about 78 to 123 A.D. or even later, there is no difficulty in supposing that Asvaghosha flourished in his reign and was followed by Nagarjuna.  The collapse of the Kushan Empire was probably accompanied by raids from Iranian tribes, for Persian influence appears to have been strong in India during the confused interval between the Kushans and Guptas (225-320).  The latter inaugurated the revival of Hinduism but still showed favour to individual Buddhists, and we know from Fa-Hsien that Buddhism was fairly flourishing during his visit to India (399-415).  There is nothing improbable in supposing that Vasubandhu, who is stated to have lived at Court, was patronized by the early Guptas.  The blank in Buddhist history which follows his career can be explained first by the progress of Hinduism at the expense of Buddhism and secondly by the invasions of the Huns.  The Chinese pilgrim Sung-Yuen has left us an account of India in this distressful period and for the seventh century the works of Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching give copious information.

In investigating the beginnings of the Mahayana we may start from the epoch of Asoka, who is regarded by tradition as the patron and consolidator of the Hinayanist Church.  And the tradition seems on the whole correct:  the united evidence of texts and inscriptions goes to show that the Buddhists of Asoka’s time held the chief doctrines subsequently professed by the Sinhalese Church and did not hold the other set of doctrines known as Mahayanist.  That these latter are posterior in time is practically admitted by the books that teach them, for they are constantly described as the crown and completion of a progressive revelation.  Thus the Lotus[170] illustrates the evolution of doctrine by a story which curiously resembles the parable of the prodigal son except that the returned penitent does not recognize his father, who proceeds to reveal gradually his name and position, keeping back the full truth to the last.  Similarly it is held in the Far East that there were five periods in Sakyamuni’s teaching which after passing through the stage of the Hinayana culminated in the Prajna-paramita and Amitabha sutras shortly before his death.  Such statements admit the historical priority of the Hinayana:  it is rudimentary (that is early) truth which needs completion and expansion.  Many critics demur to the assumption that primitive Buddhism was a system of ethics purged of superstition and mythology.  And in a way they are right.  Could we get hold of a primitive Buddhist, we should probably find that miracles, magic, and superhuman beings played a large part in his mind and that the