Again, the first book of Dirghagama, (Digha Nikaya), that describes the line of Buddhas who appeared before Shakya Muni, adopts the whole legend of Gotama’s life as a common mode of all Buddhas appearing on earth; while the second book narrates the death of Gotama and the distribution of his relies, and refers to Pataliputra, the new capital of Acoka.  This shows us that the present Agama is not of an earlier date than the third century B.C.  Samyuktagama (Samyutta Nikaya) also gives a detailed account of Acoka’s conversion, and of his father Bindusara.  From these evidences we may safely infer that the Hinayana sutras were put in the present shape at different times between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D.  With regard to the Mahayana sutras we have little doubt about their being the writings of the later Buddhist reformers, even if they are put in the mouth of Shakya Muni.  They are entirely different from the sutras of Hinayanism, and cannot be taken as the preachings of one and the same person.  The reader should notice the following points: 

(1) Four councils were held for the rehearsal of the Tripitaka namely, the first at Rajagrha, in the year of Shakya Muni’s death; the second at Vaisali, some 100 years after the Buddha; the third at the time of King Acoka, about 235 years after the Master; the fourth at the time of King Kanishka, the first century A.D.  But all these councils were held to compile the Hinayana sutras, and nothing is known of the rehearsal of the Mahayana books.  Some are of opinion that the first council was held within the Sattapanni cave, near Rajagrha, where the Hinayana Tripitaka was rehearsed by 500 monks, while outside the cave there assembled a greater number of monks, who were not admitted into the cave, and rehearsed the Mahayana Tripitaka.  This opinion, however, is based on no reliable source.

(2) The Indian orthodox Buddhists of old declared that the Mahayana sutras were the fabrication of heretics or of the Evil One, and not the teachings of the Buddha.  In reply to this, the Mahayanists had to prove that the Mahayana sutras were compiled by the direct disciples of the Master; but even Nagarjuna could not vindicate the compilation of the doubtful books, and said (in Mahaprajnyaparamita-castra) that they were compiled by Ananda and Manjucri, with myriads of Bodhisattvas at the outside of the Iron Mountain Range, which encloses the earth.  Asanga also proved (in Mahayanalankara-sutra-castra) with little success that Mahayanism was the Buddha’s direct teachings.  Some may quote Bodhisattva-garbhastha-sutra in favour of the Mahayana; but it is of no avail, as the sutra itself is the work of a later date.

(3) Although almost all of the Mahayana sutras, excepting Avatamsaka-sutra, treat of Hinayanism as the imperfect doctrine taught in the first part of the Master’s career, yet not merely the whole life of Gotama, but also events which occurred after his death are narrated in the Hinayana sutras.  This shows that the Mahayana sutras were composed after the establishment of early Buddhism.