English
* This original commentary has been lost, and I culled this statement froma qaotation in ' San-ron-gen-gi,’ Vol. I, p. 51 (in Chinese). THE TERMS MAHAYANA AND HINAYANA 67 those. Mahayanic doctrines (in their siitra-form) were existing in Buddha’s lifetime. Here, we find the definite reason why we have ‘termed Mahayana Buddhism as ‘ Developed form of Buddhism,’ Thus in the .course of the above long discussion we have tried to show clearly the validity of two different positions regarding the Buddha’s Ontological perceptions or Manayana Buddhism. First, the Ontological doctrines had been existing in the Buddha’s lifetime. Second, the said doctrines waited to be developed or. manifested cnly after the Buddha’s death. My attempt has’ been to show that both the statements are correct as they stand by themselves as historical facts. Because from the historical point of view ‘Ontological doctrines’ (or Ma- hayiina Buddhism) are Devetoped form of Buddhism and ‘Phenomenological doctrines’ (or Hinayana Buddhism) only are Original Buddhism. But from the standpoint of idea or perception we cannot deny the existence of Mahiyanic doctrines or ‘ Ontological perception ’ in the Buddha’s lifetime. Not only that, we may go a step further, and say that in his lifetime, the Buddha preached such doctrines among his advanced disciples in the esoteric way. This is the reason, I think, why we meet even in the Pali_Nikaya many passages which clearly indicate Buddha’s Introspectional perception. Let us now at the end of this section give a resumé of the whole discussion. We have learnt that the terms ‘Mahayana’ and ‘Hinayana’ in their relation with one another have following senses :— (1) The terms as expressing the relation between ‘Phenomenological perception’ and ‘ Ontological percep- tion.’ This is from the point of Buddha's perception. _ (2) The terms as expressing the relation between ‘ Expedient doctrines’ and ‘True doctrines.’ This is fron the doctrinal point. 68 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM (8) The terms as expressing the relation between ‘Exoteric doctrines’ and ‘Esoteric doctrines.’ Thia ia from the point of Buddha’s way of preaching. (4) The terms as expressing the relation between $ Original Buddhism’ and ‘ Developed form of Buddhism.’ This is from historical point of view. Now, we have to discuss “ By which early Buddhist. school the Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological doctrines have been developed and transformed into the Mabayana Buddhism as generally called. This question ‘we shall take up in the next section. ‘CHAPTER II. I—Through men of what school and at what time the terms Mahayana and Hinayana came to be used. In the last chapter, I have discussed . various inter- pretations on the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and.‘ Hinayana,’ and their relation from many points of view. Our duty, now, is ta see, how these terms came into use? That is to say, by whom, or through which school and from what time, the terms were made current? In order to clear the question, we have to discuss two problems at least, Firstly, we should deal with the ‘Men’ or ‘School’ through whom or which, the said terms were used. Besides these, many other allied questions also will crop up as side issues, but I hope they will be all made clear in the course of our discussion on the two main ques- tions. Incidentally a very important question, viz., “ the origin of Mahayana Buddhism” also will be explained. - Now, let us take up the first question. And in doing ‘so, we would draw your attention, at first, to the point already noted that the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and * Himayana’ on the very face bear a relative sense, ‘ Superiority’ and ‘Inferiority,’ as well as ‘ Praise and Depreciation.’ Obviously, as we can all easily imagine, such terms, speaking from an emotional point of view, cannot come from the quarter of the men of Hinayana. This i is exactly the reason why the terms ‘Mahayana’ and § Hinayana’ and other allied ones having the same sense are occurring in Mahayana Sitras and ‘Sastras innumerable times, but ‘there is even not asinele instance of them in the” Pali Nikaya.' 1 In certain statements contained in introduction of Ekottaragama-siitra, in Chinese we meet with the term ‘Mahay&na.’ However, so far as we understand these portions are later additions. 70 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Our next question then is, who was the founder of the Mahayana school and whom can we call the first Mahayanist, if at all? As I have told you in the introductory note, some scholars of Buddhism are of opinion that the foundérs of Mahayinism were Aéva- ghosa’ I, Nagarjuna, as wellas Asanga and Vasubandhu. And among them Nagarjuna was regarded as the chief one. Their opinion mainly rests on two points. (i) According to the Mahayana tradition, Mahayana Sitras like Prajfiapiramité, Avatarnsaka and Saddharmapunda- rika were kept in the palace of a Naga king before the time of Nagarjuna.’ But Nagarjuna brought them from there, made their contents public, spread those doctrines and established Mahayana Buddhism, as well as its school. Since that time Mahayanic doctrines came to be known. On this tradition scholars base their view that Nagarjuna was the founder of Mahaiyina Buddhism. (i) Next, Buddhism as known to Brahmani- cal sistras like Madhavacharya’s Sarvadarganasamgraha, Satnkarabhasya on Brahmasiitras as well. as to Jaina books like Gunaratna’s commentary on Shaddarsana samucchaya, is divided into four schools, namely: Sautrantika, Vaibbasika, Madhyamika and Yogiicira. [Among these the first two belong to Hinayana, while the last two came under Mahayana. According to them the founder of the Madhyamika school was Nagarjuna, and of the Yogicara school were Asanga and Vasubandhu. Hence they are apt to hold the view that men like Nagarjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu were founders of Mahayana Buddhism. But from my point of view, the said opinion is ontirely ‘wrong. Of course, Nagarjuna -may claim credit as a great systematizer or expounder of Mahayana Buddhism. ba Wassiloitt’s Buddhism, p. 188 ff. There are many like traditions in Chinese Suddhist texts, See Appendix. HOW THE TERMS CAME INTO USE? 71 But distinctly he was not the founder of Mahayana Buddhism. There is no question of Asanga and Vasu- bandhu at all. This fact will be clear to us if we critically look at the mighty work: Prajfiaparamita- Sistra and’ Dasabhiimi-vibhasé&-sastra of Nagarjuna. The former is a -commentary on Prajiiaparamita-sttra and the latter is a commentary on the Avatrhasaka-siitra. In these Sastras the author quotes many Mahayana siitras ; for example, Saddharmapundarika-stitra, Prajiaparamita- siitra, Amitiyusha-siitra and Vimalakirti-siitra, etc.’ This fact convinces us sufficiently that there were un- doubtedly many Mahayana siitras before Nagarjuna, Then, how can we say that Nagarjuna was the founder of Mahayana Buddhism? And this fact itself indicates that there were certain schools which acted as fore- runners to Mahayana Buddhism before “Nagarjuna. (about 250 A. D:—350 AT D.), and these previous schools were gradually manifesting and expounding the Buddha’s Ontological perception which in ‘their Siitra-form were termed Mahayana Buddhism Otherwise, how can we explain the existence of those Pre-Nigarjuna Siitras, if Mahayana doctrines were not spreading beforehand. Moreover, from Paramartha’s. commentary on Nikaya- avalambana-sastra (Pu-Chih-I-lum) of Vasumitra,.as I have stated before, we come to know that Prajiaparamita and Avatathsaka-siitras were existing within two hundred years after Buddha’s Parinirvina, and these had been used by the Mahdsanghikas. Of course, those Siitras would not be in the’same form then as at present, these were certainly an original nucleus. If this was the case, then, it is not wrong to observe that men of the Mahasanghika schools were closely connected with” “Mahayana _ “Buddhism. “Nay, “fron this point of view, it was _they _wwho.manifested_Buddha’s See Appendix. 72. ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Introspectional and Ontological doctrines which were embodied - first in the Mahayana siitras and ultimately came to be known as Mahayana Buddhism. Of course, really speaking, there was no actual founder of Mahayana Buddhism except the Buddha himself. Because, its ideas were existing in Buddha’s perception, and only remained to be. manifested into set doctrines or in the Sitra-form by the Mahasanghika men. However, from “the historical point of view, if any one insistently asks me “Whois the founder of Mahayana Buddhism 7” then, I would like to say, that the men of Mahasatghika schools were the founders. Let us discuss now this point a little elaborately. As I have told you many times before, the Mahayana doctrines were tbe exposi- tion of Buddha’s self-introspectional and ontological perceptions. , Without a human agency, such introspectional ideas could not be transformed into set doctrines, and these again into Stitra-forms later on. But such deep and high ideas or doctrines could be understood or penetrated not by common people but by the advanced men, through their inner intuition. Speaking from the point of view of mental culture, the Sthaviravadins belonged to the ultra- conservative party, as we know from Dipavarbsa and Mahavarga as well as other historical records of Indian Buddhists. Therefore, they simply preservedBuddha’s ~~ Vs Phenomenological ‘doctrine (known as Original Buddhism) very strictly, carefully too, without going into deep ontological ideas? But brilliant thinkers among the Buddha’s disciples were naturally progressive. Therefore, such men could not rest satisfied without going further into the bottom and penetrating Buddha's Introspectional perception on his Ontological doctrines, The.