English
Regarding this, the Mahayana siitras, the Avatarnsaka and Saddharmapundartka-siitras, are specially important. The very statement “the mind (universal mind) Buddha and the human life are one and the same,” is the very expression of Avatarnsaka-siitra on the idea. Again, throughout the same Sitras, we find such concep- tion that all human lives unite with ‘ Dharma-kaya,’ that is to say, human lives exist within the ‘ Dharma-kaya- Buddha.’ Therefore, it is not wrong to hold that in these Siitras Buddha’s Ontological perception on human lives has been manifested more clearly than the-doctrines of Mahasanghika schools. But concrete form of this conception can be found only in Saddharmapundarika- siitra. It has been said there :— . Sarre mftqa anmaaatanctd wea avi aad Ia ala ae cevaradge ata saat, afed. HUTA TATA RTIAS Aorta Bat AMAA sereTATTe * Tien Bundle. Vol. 7, p. 57 B, of Chinese Tripitaka, HOW THE TERMS CAME INTO USE? 1 aa waa annagaenadedaegatad aarat dara SeqUAITE Gee SAMI) aaeMAed ararncasafafad wert aarratseqaandgel Mae set) | aETAA- sianfanuaggafan aearai anmdiseaeeandgn ara STH | aUMMAMAeIaMAlaaNe qa | weaTal aa AANSSAVARGGW Bear saraqas |”! , “ This, O Sariputra, is the sole object, the sole aim,— the sole purpose of his appearance in the world. Such then, Sariputra, is the sole object, tae sole aim, the lofty object, the lofty aim of the Tathagata. And ‘it is achieved by the Tathagata. For, Sariputra, I do show all creatures the sight of Tathagata-knowledge ; I do open the eyes of creatures for the sight of Tathaigata- knowledge, Sariputra ; I do firmly establish the teaching of 'athigata-knowledge, Sariputra ; I do lead the teaching of Tathagata-knowledge on the right part.” ? In the above statement, the conception of Mahayana Buddhism on the ‘ human life’ reached its highest zenith and here again Bnddha’s Ontological perception on the same point has been fully revealed. If all human lives had not possessed ‘the nature of Buddha’ as well as ‘Buddha-hood’ originally, then how could the Buddha, as stated in the Sitra, show, open, establish, and lead to the ‘ Buddha-knowledge.’ Through the expression of this statement we therefore, come to know definitely that all human lives originally possessed ‘ Buddha’s nature’ as well as the germ of ‘ Buddha-hood.’ Thus, Buddha’s conception, the conception of Mahasanghika school and the conception of Mahayana siitras on the ‘ human life’ has been shown to be nearly related. To sum up: in above three sections (II, III and IV), we have, after lengthy discussion, shown clearly a close Gaddharmapundarika-siitra, Part 1, p. 40. * 8. B. BE. XXI,p. 40. . 112 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM relation among the Buddha’s Ontological perception and the doctrines of Mahasaighika school as well as that of Mahayana siitras on the three points (i.e. on cosmic existence, Buddhalogy, and human life), And at the same time we have found out their doctrinal identification also. That is to say, Buddha’s Introspectional- and Ontological preception on the said three points, showing a close relation with the conception of Mahasanghjka school and the doctrine of Mahayana siitras on the same points. We can now arrive at a conclusion by holding that Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception transformed into the form of Mahayana siitras and it manifested in the Mahayina doctrines by the men of Mahasanghika school and their lineage. And at the same time we understand this also that such Mahayana sitras as existed before the time of Nagarjuna were compiled by Mahasanghikas. Hence it will not be going far away from historical triith to hold that, man of Mahasanghika schools were ‘ forefather of the Mahiyanist.’ At the end of this section, I would like to remind you one important feature in the Mahayana sitras. Among the many Mahayana sitras, Prajfiaparamita, Avatarhsaka and Saddharmapundarika and the like are the most important as well as representative in character. Among them Prajfidparamita-sttras mainly reveal Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception on the cosmic existence, while Avtarsaka-siitras mainly dwell upon Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological ‘perception upon Buddha’s own personality as well as human life. And lastly, both the conception of cosmic existences and Buddha’s own personality as well as human lives has been again manifested fully and in concrete form, in- the Saddharmapundarika-stitra. This is the reason, | think, why this Sttra has been regarded as.the-heart of whole HOW THE TERMS CAME INTO USE? 118 Mahayana Sitras by the founders of various sects of the Buddhism in China and Japan from the ancient time. in Charis. Buddha’s perception (On the cosmic (On his own personality existence) and human life) Manifested in the Manifested in the Prajfaparamita-siitras Avatathsaka-siitras | Both fully dealt with in the Saddharmapundartka-siitra 15 CHAPTER III. Why did the men of the Mahasunghika schools coin and use the terms Mahayana and Hinayana ? Let us now turn our attention to the main discussion. The terms ‘Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinaydna,’ as I have told you, inthe previous section, could not be of Hinayana origin, but were undoubtedly coined and used by the Mahayanists. In the previous section, I have also discussed that the men of Mahasanghika schools, were fore- fathers of the Mahayanists, and Mahayana doctrines were made manifested and their Sitras were formed by them. This being so, we may hold that the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayaéna’ were for the first time coined and used by the Mahasanghikas. Hence the question necessarily arises, for what reason the men of Mahasanghika school coined and used those terms? The reason is not far to seek. I may.at once point out, that the conflict between the Sthaviravadins and the Mahasanghikas as regarding the superiority of their doctrines led to the coinage of these terms.. According to the Southern as well as Northern records of Buddhism, it was the historical event, that even in the ‘Buddha’s lifetime, disciples of the Buddha held different opinions on Buddha’s doctrine and ‘in consequence a great conflict arose among themselves.’ But at that time the conflict was limited to individuals’ only. It was for the first time, in the history of Indian Buddhism, that different opinions of different parties and different schools were afloat at the Vaisaili Council, known in the ! About this point, [ have fully discussed in my ‘History of eayly Buddhist Schools’ in the Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volumes, Vol. ITI, Part II. HOW THE TERMS WERE COINED? 115 Buddhist history of India as the Second Council. And why these different parties and different schools came to the arena of Buddhism, will be all clear to us, if we understand the characteristics of both the schools. That is to say, the Mahasanghika party was liberal and advanced, while the Sthavira party was conservative, who loyally stuck to the Original Buddhism preached by Buddha in general. Hence, their doctrines.on the ‘ cosmic existence’ and ‘Buddhalogy,’ ete., must naturally be different. Consequently, they had always a conflict of opinion. The Mahasanghikas did not rest satisfied with the Phenomenological aspect of Buddha’s doctrine preached in general, but wanted to rightly manifest Buddha’s Intros- pectional and Ontological perception upon the ‘ cosmic existence,’ ‘ Buddhalogy,’ as well as ‘human life.’ Such being the case, the conflict of the parties went on and at last, just one hundred years after Buddha’s Parinirvana, actual separation was made at the Council of Vaisali on the questions (i) ‘The ten different points’ of Vinaya and (ii) ‘ Bhadra’s five points’ of doctrine.’ Owing to their conflict in Vaisali, the Sthaviras ex- communicated the Mahasanighikas, on the ground of their introducing heretical views into the Buddha’s me Re ec in ” + According to the statements of the Southern school of Buddhism, ‘the ten points ' of the Vinaya, were only the cause of that separation hetween the Sthaviras and Mahdsadghikas, But Northern records mantair. that ‘the five points of Bhadra’ were only the cause of that separation (Chinese records on the other hand state * Mab&deve’s five points’ instead of ‘ Bhadra’s tive points’ but to me this is an error). 1 hold both to be real causes, because, their opinions must be differentiated on the ‘Vinaya’ as well as on the ‘doctrine.’ However, different schools state the canse according to their point of view. As to the reason of this, I would like to say that Sthaviras of Southern school belong to the lineage of the Vinaya-Bhanaka, while the Northern school of the Sthaviras belong to that of Sitra-Bhinaka. Therefore, to the former, the Vinaya is essential, so far as the teachings of Buddda are concerned so they mantained the ‘ten points’ of Vinaya as the only cause. While to the latter, the Siitra is essential, so they maintained the ‘five points’ of Bhadra as iis only cause, About this point I have discussed fnlly in my ‘ History of Early Buddhist Schools.’ 116 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM doctrine. Not only that much, but Sthaviras even called them hy the bad epithet ‘ Adharma-vadin ’ (holder of the heretical doctrine) and ‘ Pipa-bhiksu’ (sinful monk).' After the time of Vaisali, Mahasanghika school was getting into power and popularity among the Buddhist communities. But it pained them much to have had such epithets like ‘ Adharma-vadin’ and ‘ Papa-bhiksu.’ Henceforwarid, they harboured much rage upon Sthaviras, and began to search for such a term as could display the superiority of their own doctrine, on the one hand, and disparage the doctrine of their opponent, on the other. Many terms were invented by them, but none suited their purpose.