A History of Indian Literature v2.c19.s6.t4.33

v2.c19.s6.t4.33

However, though the work contains later and earlier parts, it presents a much greater uniformity of character than, for instance, the Mahāvastu or the Lalita-Vistara. Whilst both the last-mentioned works contain many a passage which harks back to the very earliest period of Buddhist doctrine and poetry, the *whole* of the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka only gives expression to a later phase of Buddhism.² Nevertheless we shall most probably be right in placing the nucleus of the work as far back as the first century A.D., as it is quoted by Nāgārjuna, who probably lived towards the end of the 2nd century A. D.¹ The work was first translated into Chinese in 223 A.D. This translation has not come down to us, but we have those of Dharmarakṣa (286 A. D.) and Kumārajīva (about 400 A.D.) and that of Jñānagupta and Dharmagupta (601 A.D.).² In the preface to the last-named translation it is stated that Dharmarakṣa and Kumāragupta made their translations according to two different texts.³ Moreover, the fragments of the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka which have been found in Eastern Turkestan, and which present a text diverging from that of the Napalese manuscripts, afford a proof of the fact that there were two recensions of the work. On the whole it is a shorter text, and yet it contains some passages which are missing in our (Nepalese) text.⁴ Whatever the exact date of the work in its original form may be, one thing is certain: the nature of the work as we know it, implies a mature development of Mahāyāna Buddhism, especially in the direction of Budha-Bhakti and the cult of relics and image-worship, and above all also an advanced stage of Buddhist art.