English
Mabasanghikas as generally called, as historical fact tell us, were the heralds of progress and they felt not the HOW THE TERMS CAME INTO USE? 78 least hesitation to plunge deep into the matter and sift oul the truth whatever it might be. The chief leaders of this party, it seems to me, were the Vajjians of Vaisalt. They were exucuy in every respect men of the said mettle among all the Outiandie Aryans. Therefore, predominantly Vajjian Mahasanghikas ~ having such deep wisdom penetrated into the Buddha’s Introspectional perception and thoroughly understood his Ontological doctrines, and they tried to manifest them into Siitra- form. This is the reason why they had Prajiiaparamita and Avatarnsaka-sitras, during the two hundred years after Buddha’s Parinirvina, as Paramartha informs us, So, it will not be wrong to say that Mahasanghikas were the forefathers of Mahayana Buddhists and their schools. But, unfortunately for us, we have no external evidence for this. Therefore, we would state here our internal consideration to prove this matter. In order to do this, we have to compare_ the doctrine -of Mahé- sanghikas with that of Mahayana siitras on the one hand and on the other with that of, Buddha’s Introspectional perception, so that it will he clear to us that thosy three sets of doctrines are not only mutually interconnected with each other but in a sense all identical. Ultimately we will sec that Buddha’s Introspectional Yoctrines were iransformed into Mahayana siitra setting through the men of the Mahasanghika schools. We reserve the next section for a full discussion of this, Here I draw your attention to one point. The doctrine of every school of Buddhism, really speaking, is mainly concerned with three points at least : Ons Ahe doctrines which deal with Cosmic Existence; Second—that which deals with Buddhalogy; and Lastly, those that deal with conception on Human Life. Therefore, our discussion on the inter- relation between the Buddha’s Ontological perception, 10 14 ‘ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM the doctrine of Mahasanghika and those of Mahayana gtitras will proceed on the above three lines. IT.—(a) The relation between the doctrines of Mahasanghi- kas and those of Mahiyana sutras on Cosmic existence. Buddha’s Phenomenological teachings as well as Theravada’s doctrines are, generally speaking, Original Buddhism. So both the conceptions on the Cusmic existence have actually no difference. They equally hold that ‘All is impermanent,’ and ‘ All is without Ego.’ That is to say, according to them, all phenomenon is nothing but the aggregate productions of elements and these aggregates have been always formed by Cause (hetu) and Conditions (pratyaya). All such composite things are always subject to an invariable law of change and law of cause and effect. ‘I'hcrefore, there is no existence of an eternal Universal Entity or a person who may be regarded as the Creator and Controller of this world, . Lhere was, a branch ch _‘schgol, of, Theravada which has )been known under er the name of Sarvastivida, The latter separated from the main ‘heravadins about three- hundred years, after Buddha’s Parinirvina, and _ estab- lished its centres in Kashmira and Gandhara. This school differed a little from the main Theravidins in doctrine,’ and their doctrine is generally known to us as ‘Anatma-sarvastivada.’* According to them, all cosmic existences are aggregate productions. Therefore, they are alwavs subiect to an invariable law of change as well 1 Here we should remember that main point of difference betwecn the Theru- vadins of Northern school and the Sarvdstivadins, is that the furmer maintained the superiority of Sitra among the three pitakas while the latter maintained the superiority of Abhidharma. <p * This name has been restored by me from, Japanese book. HOW THE TERMS CAME INTO USE? 75 as subject to a law of cause and effect. So there is no existence of an .eternal.niversal.Entity or individual Entities. Thus far their opinion tallies with that of the main Theravadins. But this school held a characteristic opinion quite peculiar to itself. According to these Sar- vastivadius, though composite | things are _impermanent, however, the “elements or substances ‘composing them are themselves permanent. In view of this, this school has been called ‘Sarvastivada.’.“But the so-called Mahisanghikas, onthe Sonirary, held quite different opinions from both the main Theravada as well as its offshoot—Sarvastivada. This school is known to us under the name ‘ Andtma-adharmavada.’! According to their view on the cosmic existence, an Universal Entity or individual Entities as well as cosmic existences—as taken composite thing or in their elements—are all non- _existents, ._.. Hence this school has been called ‘ Anatma- “adharmavada.’ Of course, originally the Mahasanghika school did not go so far as these subtle ideas. But in their branch schools such ideas had been brought out fully. Vasumitra’s Nikaya-bheda-dharmamati-chakra Sastra (I-pu-tun-lun-lun) informs us that the original Mahisanghika school was of opinion that “There is no existence of cosmic elements in the past and future, but they exist in the present only.”* However, according to Paramartha’s commentary on Nikiya-avalambana Sastra (pu-chih-i-lun), Ekavyavaharika; the first branch school of the original Mahasanghika party held that “ All existences of this loka (world) and uttaraloka (higher world) are simply provisional names. Therefore there is no real existence.” ® } This name has been restored by me from Japanese book 2 T-pn-tsun-lun-lun, p. 92, Toyo-Daigaku edition of Tokyc 3] have quoted this from San-ron-gen-gi. Vol, I. p. 51, 76 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Dr. Eun Mayeda, a great Japanese Buddhist scholar, has clearly pointed out the doctrine of this school :— “This school holds such conception that all things in the Universe exist in the three period of time—past, present and future—are simply provisional. And there are no noumenon existences. Therefore, this school is more advanced in doctrine than that of the original Mahasanghika school.”? Thus in this Ekavyavaharika school, the idea of *Andtma-adharmavada of Mahasan- ghikas as a-whole, has found a full expression. Again, this idea has a similar bearing like the ‘ Sinyata’ doctrine. Paramirtha in his commentary on Nikiya-avalambana- sastra characterizes doctrines of Lokottaravada, the third branch school of the Mahasanghikas as ‘ Siinyatma- sanyadharma-vada.’* Consequently, we are justified to say that the Mahasanghika school as a whole, upholds os similar doctrine like that of ‘* Sarva-Sinyata of Mahayana-sitras. Next, let us turn our eyes to the Prajiiaparamita- Sfitras, one of the most important set of Mahayana stitras regarding as a record of the Buddha’s Ontological perception, specially conception on Cosmic existence. There we will find exactly the same idea as among the Mahasanghikas on the same subject, but rather in a much more definite and concrete form. The essential idea of Prajiaiparamita-siitras can he summed up in the words “Nirdkara-sarva-sinyata”® (all is formless, Sdnyat&) or “ Sarvadharmanam stinyata na s& Sakya&bhilapitim ”* (All existence is Stinyata and it cannot be explained). This is exactly the idea of the Mahasanghikas. In a sense it can he said that the 1 In his Historical Discourse of Mahayana Buddhism, p. 72 (In Japanese). * This is found in San-ron-gen-gi, Vol. T, p. 52. ® Such passages are found everywhere in the Prajidp&ramité-sutras. * AstasShasrika Prajiidparamita, p. 3 4 8, Bibliotheca Indica series. HOW THE TERMS CAME INTO USE? 7 Mahasanghika doctrine of ‘Andtma-adharma’ has been elaborately expressed in the Prajiiaparamita-sittras under the term ‘Stnyats’ or -‘ Stinyapurusa-Sinyadharma.”! Here we have an important matter to draw your attention to. Many Buddhist scholars are apt to explain the term ‘Sinyat&é’ in Mahayana Buddhism as ‘emptiness.’ But it is a quite wrong explanation. Because, the meaning of ‘Stnyata’ as explained in Prajfiaparamita as well as other Mahayana siitras may be translated_as ‘absolute unrestrictedness.” Among the Mahasaighikas we do not find a full explanation of this and this is the reason why I called the idea of Prajiaparamita to: be more concrete than that of the Mahasanghikas. Nagarjuna supplies us with a very interesting statement on this point in his Prajiaparamita-sastra :— “Tn Srivaka doctrines (Hinayaéna) we have the idea of Purusa-Sinyaté .while in the Buddha vehicle (Mahayana) both the teachings of Purusa-stinyata as well as Dharma-Ssiinyata.”? Again :—- “There is a two-fold Sanyata; namely - ‘ Purusa; Sunyata’ and ‘Dharma-stinyata.’ ‘ Purusa-Stinyaté’ has been preached in the Hinayana while ‘ Dharma-stinyata ’ has been preached in Mahayana.” ° _On the basis of Nagarjuna’s statement we came to understand that the doctrine which simultaneously dealt with the two-fold Sinyatas belonged to Mahayanism : while that which only dealt with one Stinyataé should be classed as ITinayana. On the other hand, froma statement in Paramartha, we also come to learn that the Mahasan- ghikas, on their part too, upheld both the doctrines of ‘Anitma-adharma’ and ‘ Siinyapurusa-Siinyadharma.’ ' In the Suavikrantavikrami-paripriccha of Prajidpaéramiti-siitra, Yiich Bundle, Vol. 8, p. 89B of Chinese Tripitaka. * Prajiiipéramits-sistra, Wang Bundle, Vol. J, p. 29, Chinese tripitaka. * Prajiidpiramita-éastra, Wang Bundlo, Vol. 1, p. 58a of Chinese Tripitaka. 78 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM On the basis of this, we cannot but identify Mahasanghika doctrines with those in Prajfiaparamita-stitras. Not only that, we can say so far, that the doctrines of Prajiiapira- mit& are actually developments of Mabasangika idea.