A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s3.44

v1.c26.s3.44

J. Filliozat was less confident in a later publication, where he conceded that I-ching is mistaken about the recent date of the *Yogaśataka*, if that is the work meant. He mentioned as another difficulty the absence of the name of the author in I-ching's travel report, which requires an explanation in discussions about the *Yogaśataka* as a possible candidate, since this treatise is often attributed, particularly in Buddhist circles, to Nāgārjuna, a name well known to I-ching as a Chinese Buddhist.³¹⁴ Filliozat admitted that I-ching's information is often questionable. He concluded, finally, that a basis for reaching a definite answer is absent.³¹⁵