I cannot help saying a few words here about the importance of Açvaghosha's main work which is scarcely known in the West, and if so, wrongly. Even Samuel Beal who is considered one of the best authorities on Chinese Buddhism, makes a misleading reference to our author in his Buddhism in China. The following quotation from the same apparently shows that at least when he wrote it, in 1884, he had a very insufficient knowledge of the subject. He says (page 138):
Wassiljew, another of the highest Western authorities on the subject, seems to be entirely ignorant of the existence of the present work. It is very strange that those who are considered to be quite well acquainted with the development of the Mahâyânistic thought, do not place in the right light a prominent, if not the principal, actor, who, so far as is known to us, practically initiated this great spiritual and intellectual movement in India. Wassiljew says in his Buddhismus (pp. 83-84):
"Zu welcher besonderen Schule Açvaghosha gehörte, wird nicht mit Bestimmtheit überliefert: aus der Legende, nach welcher er sich bei der Abfassung der Vibhâshâ betheiligte, dürfen wir jedoch den Schluss ziehen, dass er zu den Repräsentanten der Vaibhâschika's gerechnet ward."
It is true that in the Life of Vasubandhu Açvaghosha is said to have taken part in the compilation of the Vibhâshâ, but it is of no account whatever in the
The second thesis, the theory of the triple personality, that is one of the most distinctive characteristics
general names of the Mahâyâna and the Hînayâna schools.
A supplementary point to be noticed in Açvaghosha is the abundance of similar thoughts and passages with those in the Bhagavadgîta. The coincidence between the latter and the Saddharmapuṇḍarîka has been pointed out by Kern in his Buddhismus und seine Geschichte (Vol. II., p. 500, footnote). While it is an