Yet the substance of Hsuean Chuang’s account is that though Buddhism was prospering in the Far East it was decaying in India.  Against this can be set instances of royal piety like those described, the fame enjoyed by the shrines and schools of Magadha and the conversion of the king of Tibet in 638 A.D.  This event was due to Chinese as well as Indian influence, but would hardly have occurred unless in north-eastern India Buddhism had been esteemed the religion of civilization.  Still Hsuean Chuang’s long catalogue of deserted monasteries[249] has an unmistakable significance.  The decay was most pronounced in the north-west and south.  In Gandhara there were only a few Buddhists:  more than a thousand monasteries stood untenanted and the Buddha’s sacred bowl had vanished.  In Takshasila the monasteries were numerous but desolate:  in Kashmir the people followed a mixed faith.  Only in Udyana was Buddhism held in high esteem.  In Sind the monks were numerous but indolent.

No doubt this desolation was largely due to the depredations of Mihiragula.  In the Deccan and the extreme south there was also a special cause, namely the prevalence of Jainism, which somewhat later became the state religion in several kingdoms.  In Kalinga, Andhra and the kingdom of the Colas the pilgrim reports that Jains were very numerous but counts Buddhist monasteries only by tens and twenties.  In Dravida there were also 10,000 monks of the Sthavira school but in Malakuta among many ruined monasteries only a few were still inhabited and here again Jains were numerous.

For all Central India and Bengal the pilgrim’s statistics tell the same tale, namely that though Buddhism was represented both by monasteries and monks, the Deva-temples and unbelievers were also numerous.  The most favourable accounts are those given of Kanauj, Ayodhya and Magadha where the sacred sites naturally caused the devout to congregate.

The statistics which he gives as to sects are interesting.[250] The total number of monks amounted to about 183,000.  Of these only 32,000 belonged definitely to the Mahayana:  more than 96,000 to the Hinayana, and 54,500 studied both systems or at any rate resided in monasteries which tolerated either course of study.  Some writers speak as if after our era Mahayanism was predominant in India and the Hinayana banished to its extreme confines such as Ceylon and Kashmir.  Yet about A.D. 640 this zealous Mahayanist[251] states that half the monks of India were definitely Hinayanist while less than a fifth had equally definite Mahayanist convictions.  The Mahayana laid less stress on monasticism than the Hinayana and therefore its strength may have lain among the laity, but even so the admitted strength of the Hinayana is remarkable.  Three Hinayanist schools are frequently mentioned, the Sthaviras, Sarvastivadins and Sammitiyas.  The first are the well-known Sinhalese sect and were found chiefly in the south (Conjeevaram) and in East Bengal, besides