s never felt any difficulty
in accepting works of merit--and often only very moderate merit--as
revelations, whether called Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras or what not.
Only rarely have such works received any formal approbation, such as
recognition by a council. Indeed it is rather in Ceylon, Burma, Tibet
and China than in India itself that authoritative lists of scriptures
have been compiled. The natural instinct of the Hindus was not to
close the Canon but to leave it open for any additions which might be
vouchsafed.

Two sketches of an elastic Mahayanist Canon of this kind are
preserved, one in the Sikshasamuccaya[155] attributed to Santideva,
who probably flourished in the seventh century, and the other in a
little work called the Duration of the Law, reporting a discourse by
an otherwise unknown Nandimitra, said to have lived in Ceylon 800
years after the Buddha's death.[156] The former is a compendium of
doctrine illustrated by quotations from what the author regarded as
scripture. He cites about a hundred Mahayanist sutras, refers to the
Vinaya and Divyavadana but not apparently to the Abhidharma. He
mentions no Tantras[157] and not many Dharanis.

The second work was translated by Hsuean Chuang and was therefore
probably written before 600 A.D.[158] Otherwise there is no external
evidence for fixing its date. It represents Nandimitra as explaining
on his deathbed the steps taken by the Buddha to protect the True Law
and in what works that Law is to be found. Like the Chinese Tripitaka
it recognizes both Mahayanist and Hinayanist works, but evidently
prefers the former and styles them collectively Bodhisattva-Pitaka.
It enumerates about fifty sutras by name, beginning with the
Prajna-paramita, the Lotus and other well-known texts. Then comes a
list of works with titles ending in Samadhi, followed by others called
Paripriccha[159] or questions. A new category seems to be formed by
the Buddhavatamsaka-sutra with which the sutras about Amitabha's
Paradise are associated. Then comes the Mahasannipata-sutra associated
with works which may correspond to the Ratnakuta division of the
Chinese Canon.[160] The writer adds that there are "hundreds of
myriads of similar sutras classified in groups and categories." He
mentions the Vinaya and Abhidharma without further particulars,
whereas in describing the Hinayanist versions of these two Pitakas he
gives many details.

The importance of this list lies in the fact that it is