426 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [August, 1910. 



work, was divided into eight chapters. Of what recension 

 of the Prajiiaparamita it is a recast cannot be positively stated ; 

 but in all probability it is the Astasahasrika recension in thirty- 

 two chapters or parlvartas which has been recast. I have not 

 compared the two recensions, and that I leave to future 

 explorers . 



Referring to Nanjio' s catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka, 

 I find that the Paficavinsatisahasrika Prajiiaparamita was twice 

 translated into Chinese between 265 and 316 A.D., and in both 

 these cases, Nanjio notes c< with the first chapter on." The 

 book is in eight chapters. What does Nanjio mean by that state- 

 ment ? If it means anything it means that the translation 

 included Maitreyanatha 's work. The next translation by 

 Kumarajiva was made some time before Huientsang's transla- 

 tion between A.D. 384 and 417. But in the description of that 

 translation, the statement "with the first chapter on " does 

 not appear. Kumarajiva was an Indian Pandita. He knew 

 where to commence a translation of Prajnaparamita, while his 

 predecessors, being Chinese, translated fche work from the 

 manuscript placed before them, which had Maitreyanatha's work 

 added to it. 



The antiquity of the translation shows the antiquity of the 

 work. The Prajnaparamitas are written in the form of a dialogue 

 between Buddha and his followers. They begin in the traditional 



form : — v$ nm ^rrif"*fw«? ^«5r wrasr etc. But they are 





really the works of Nagarjuna. It is said that he had recovered 

 them from the nether world. In some Prajiiaparamita manu- 

 scripts it is written at the end «ttotctt*%«i RMF^l ^ r f T. as if 



they were lost to this world and Nagarjuna recovered them. 



Nagarjuna is said to have flourished 50 years after Kana- 

 ka's great council, that is, about the middle of the second 

 century A.D. Maitreyanatha, therefore, must have flourished 

 between 150 and 265 A.D. 



My friend Mr. Yamakami tells me that many scholars in 

 China and Japan consider Maitreyanatha to be a hypothetical 

 person, like Avalokitesvara and others, and not a historical per- 

 son ; and that he was brought to being by Asaiiga in the beginning 

 of the fifth century, and that the works attributed to him are 

 really the works of Asaiiga. This is clearly disproved by the 

 existence of this work and of its translation into Chinese , at least 

 100 years before Asaiiga. The statements made in Sadajiro 

 Sigiura's book entitled Hindu Logic also disprove this theory. 

 For, he says that Nagarjuna believed in four pramanas, namely 

 (1) Prtyaksa, (2) Anumana, (3) Upamana, and (4) Sabda. 

 Maitreyanatha discarded Upamana, and Dinnaga discarded 

 Sabda, leaving only two pramanas in the later Buddhist philo- 

 sophy. This statement shows that Maitreyanatha was a historical 

 p ersonage. 



