ther shore_ or _transcendent_. As a feminine substantive it means a
transcendent virtue or perfection.]

[Footnote 130: See Walleser, _Prajna-paramita_ in _Quellen der
Religionsgeschichte_, pp. 15 ff. _S.B.E._ XLIX. Nanjio, Catalogue Nos.
1-20 and Rajendralala Mitra's _Nepalese Buddhist Literature_, pp. 177
ff. Versions are mentioned consisting of 125,000 verses, 100,000
verses, 25,000 verses, 10,000 verses and 8,000 verses respectively.
(Similarly at the beginning of the Mahabharata we are told that the
Epic consists of 8,800 verses, of 24,000 and of 100,000.) Of these the
last or Ashtasahasrika has been published in the _Bibliotheca Indica_
and the second or Satasahasrika is in process of publication. It is in
prose, so that the expression "verses" appears not to mean that the
works are Gathas. A Khotanese version of the Vajracchedika is edited
in Hoernle's _Manuscript Remains_ by Sten Konow. The Sanskrit text was
edited by Max Mueller in _Anecdota Oxoniensia._]

[Footnote 131: The Sanskrit text has been edited by Kern and Nanjio in
_Bibliotheca Buddhica_; translated by Burnouf (_Le Lotus de la bonne
Loi_), 1852 and by Kern (Saddharma-Pundarika) in _S.B.E._ vol. XXI.]

[Footnote 132: There appears to have been an earlier Chinese version
of 255 A.D. but it has been lost. See Nanjio, p. 390. One of the later
Chinese versions alludes to the existence of two recensions (Nanjio,
No. 139). See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p. 453. Fragments of a shorter and
apparently earlier recension of the Lotus have been discovered in E.
Turkestan. See _J.R.A.S._ 1916, pp. 269-277.]

[Footnote 133: Edited by Rajendralala Mitra in the _Bibliotheca
Indica_ and partially translated in the same series. A later critical
edition by Lefmann, 1902-8.]

[Footnote 134: The early Chinese translations seem doubtful. One said
to have been made under the later Han has been lost. See Nanjio, No.
159.]

[Footnote 135: See Burnouf, _Introduction_, pp. 458 ff. and _J.R.A.S._
1905, pp. 831 ff. Rajendralala Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Literature_,
p. 113. A brief analysis is given in _J.A.S.B._ June, 1905 according
to which the sutra professes to be the work of a human author, Jina of
the clan of Katyayana born at Campa. An edition of the Sanskrit text
published by the Buddhist Text Society is cited but I have not seen
it. Chinese translations were made in 443 and 515 but the first is
incomplete and does not correspond with our Sanskrit text.]

[Footnote 136: A