[Footnote 522: The Later Han Annals say that the Hindus are weaker than the Yüeh-chih and are not accustomed to fight because they are Buddhists. (See _T'oung Pao_, 1910, p. 192.) This seems to imply that the Yüeh-chih were not Buddhists. But even this was the real view of the compiler of the Annals we do not know from what work he took this statement nor to what date it refers.]
[Footnote 523: See Beal, _Life_, p. 39, Julien, p. 50. The books mentioned are apparently the Samyuktâbhidharmahṛidaya (Nanjio, 1287), Abhidharma Kosha (Nanjio, 1267), Abhidharma-Vibhâsha (Nanjio, 1264) and Yogâcâryabhûmi (Nanjio, 1170).]
[Footnote 524: The importance of the Tarim basin is due to the excellent preservation of its records and its close connection with China. The Oxus regions suffered more from Mohammedan iconoclasm, but they may have been at least equally important for the history of Buddhism.]
[Footnote 525: _E.g._ see the Maitreya inscription of Turfan.]
[Footnote 526: Or at least is not accessible to me here in Hongkong, 1914.]
[Footnote 527: I do not mean to say that all Dhâraṇîs are late.]
[Footnote 528: It is even probable that apocryphal Sûtras were composed in Central Asia. See Pelliot in _Mélanges d'Indianisme_, Sylvain Lévi, p. 329.]
[Footnote 529: The list of manifestations in Jambudvipa enumerates 56 kingdoms. All cannot be identified with certainty, but apparently less than half are within India proper.]
[Footnote 530: See _Bibl. Budd._ XII. pp. 44, 46, XIV. p. 45.]
[Footnote 531: The Turkish sutras repeatedly style the Buddha God (t'angri) or God of Gods. The expression devâtideva is applied to him in Sanskrit, but the Turkish phrases are more decided and frequent. The Sanskrit phrase may even be due to Iranian influence.]
[Footnote 532: An Chou, the Prince to whose memory the temple was dedicated, seems to be regarded as a manifestation of Maitreya.]
[Footnote 533: _J.A._ 1913, I. p. 154. The series of three articles by Chavannes and Pelliot entitled "Un traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine" (_J.A._ 1911, 1913) is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of Manichæism in Central Asia and China.]
[Footnote 534: _E.g._ see _J.A._ 1911, pp. 509 and 589. See also Le Coq, _Sitzb. preuss. Akad. der Wiss._ 48, 1909, 1202-1218.]