of
causality: further to obtain merit by accumulating good works and
_finally to realize the excellent meaning of perfect reality_."

Such a statement enables us to understand the remark which he makes
elsewhere that the same school may belong to the Hinayana and Mahayana
in different places, for, whatever may be meant by wisdom which aims
at obliterating the difference between subject and object, it is
clearly not out of sympathy with Yogacara doctrines. In another place
where he describes the curriculum followed by monks he says that they
learn the Yogacarya-sastra first and then eight compositions of Asanga
and Vasubandhu. Among the works prescribed for logic is the
Nyayadvara-sastra attributed to Nagarjuna. The monk should learn not
only the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivadins but also the Agamas,
equivalent to the Sutra-pitaka. So the study of the sutras and the
works of Asanga and Vasubandhu is approved by a Sarvastivadin.

The Sautrantikas,[234] though accounted Hinayanists, mark a step in
the direction of the Mahayana. The founder of the school was
Kumaralabdha, mentioned above. In their estimation of scripture they
reversed the views of the Vaibhashikas, for they rejected the
Abhidharma and accepted only the sutras, arguing that the Abhidharma
was practically an extract from them. As literary criticism this is
correct, if it means that the more ancient sutras are older than the
oldest Abhidharma books. But the indiscriminate acceptance of sutras
led to a creed in which the supernatural played a larger part. The
Sautrantikas not only ascribed superhuman powers to the Buddha, but
believed in the doctrine of three bodies. In philosophy, though they
were realists, they held that external objects are not perceived
directly but that their existence is inferred.[235]

Something has already been said of the two other schools, both of
which denied the reality of the external world. The differences
between them were concerned with metaphysics rather than theology and
led to no popular controversies.

Up to this point the history of Indian Buddhism has proved singularly
nebulous. The most important dates are a matter of argument, the chief
personages half mythical. But when the records of the Chinese pilgrims
commence we are in touch with something more solid. They record dates
and facts, though we must regret that they only repeat what they heard
and make no attempt to criticize Indian traditions or even to weave
them