English
The ‘Ten-stazes (dasa- bhiimi) of Avatathsaka-sfitras, ay To have said before, are the systematized forms of the Ten-perfect virtues (dasapiramita) viewed with reference to their internal characteristics. However, formation of these Ten-stages, we may Delieve, depends on the Dasabbiimi of the Mahavastu. Concerning this point Iam very glad ty find that the same opinion is expressed by Trof. 1. de la Vallée Poussin in his learned article on the ‘ Mahay dna.’! The foregoing discussions enable us to say that. there was an inseparable connection between the Dasaptramita of the Original form of Buddhism and that of the Developed Buddhism, and between the Ten-stages (dasa- bhiimi) of Avatathsaka-sitra and the Ten-perfect virtues (dasaparamit&) ay well as the Ten-stages (dasabhiimi) of the Mahavastu. Therefore, from historical point of view the Mahiyanic Dasabhami of the Bodhisattva came into being through the Mahayanie Daéaparamita as well as the Dasabhimi of Mahavastu, and was moreover, connected with the ‘Vimala-citta’ doctrine of the Mahbasanghika school. That is to say, adepts of the Mahasanghika school penetrated into Buddha’s Introspec- tionaland Ontological perceptions, but not being satisfied with the Dasabbimi of Mahavastu, as not being common to all people, at- last formed the DaSabhtimi of the _Avatathsaka, accessible to all, having the said threefold fowridations, for its bases. According to the ‘I-pu-tsun-lun-lun’ of Vasumitra, the doctrine that “all beings are Bodhisattva” was not held by the Mahadsanghikas in the original stage of their separation from the Sthaviras, just one hundred years after the Parinirvina of Buddha; but there can be no doubt, that the doctrine came into being within two hundred “years after the demise of the master, that is to E.R, E., Vol. §, p. 836. HOW THE TERMS WERKE COINKEN? 189 say, about the time when the Ekovyavaharika, Lokattara- vadin and Kokkutika—the offshoots of the Mahasanghika “school—separated each other from the original school. As to the cause of this separation, according to the statement of Paramirtha, it has been said that original Mahasanghika school incorporated at that time, Prajiia- paramit® and Avatarhsaka-sitras, ete., into their scriptures. Some thought it right while others were against it, and in consequence separation took place. But according to me, the real facet signified by this tradition was that those Prajiiaparamita and Avatarisaka- siitras were not independently composed by any man or any school other than the Mabasiaghikas. That is to say the Mabasanghikas after penetrating into Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception manifested the doctrine, for the first time in Siitra form under the man of Prajiiparamita, Avatarhsaka-sitras, ete. But as the doctrine itself originally existed in Buddha’s perception, so they wanted and at the same time they thought it quite proper to state those Siitras as Baddha’s direct preaching. I think such was the common tendency among the Buddha’s disciples and followers. Now, let us see how the original Mahasanghika school began to hold the idea that “All human beings are Bodhisattvas.” As we know, the original Mahi isaighikas held the ‘ Super-human’ Buddhatogy. And this doctrine has been manifested in complete form in the, Avatarhsaka- sittras. Again, also we know that they held the doctrine of ‘ Anadi-ananta-vimala-citta’ which has been manifested fully in the Prajfiapairamita-siitras. Those great thinkers of the Mahasanghika school did not stop their investi- gation there but gradually pushed themselves forward into more advanced stages and at last they combined together the idea of ‘ Anddi-ananta-vimala-citta,’ with the Buddhalogy of ‘Super-human’ and gave out that 140 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM this ‘ Vimala-citta,’ possessed by all human_ beings is the germ of Buddhahood for future. This ‘ germ,’ in other words, is the ‘nature of Bodhisattva.’ Hence they began to hold the idea “AI! human beings are Bodhisattvas,” Again, carrying on their investigation further they formed the idea that all human beings originally possessed the nature of Buddha—nay, they were originally Buddha. Such, ideas of them are clearly manifested in the Mahayana Sitras, specially in the . Avatarnsaka and the Saddharmapundarika-sitras. So it is said in the Avatathsaka-siitra :— “At that time Tathagata, penetrating all beings in Universe (dharma-datu) with the pure eyes of knowledge without any hindrance, said thus:—O wondered! wondered! Those alt beings possessed Tathagata- knowledge, however, being ignorant, they did not know and did not understand what they really were? Therefere, I should teach them the noble right-fold paths in order to destroy their hindrance of ignorance perpetually, and having exercised the noble right-fold paths they would obtain the Tathigata-knowledge.” ! Again, in the Saddharmapundarika-sitra, it has been said :— “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, the sole aim, the lofty object, the lofty aim of the Tathagata. And it is achieved by the Tathagata for, Sairiputra, I do show all creatures the sight of Tathagata-knowledge ; I do “open the eyes of creatures for the sight of Tathagata- knowledge, Sariputra; I do firmly establish the teaching of Tathagata- knowledge on the right path.? + Tien Bundle, Vol. ILI, p. 43, Chincse Tripitaka. 2 §. B. E., Vol. XXT, p. 40. < HOW THE TERMS WERE COINED ? - 141 According to me such lofty ideas were investigated and manifested by the Mahasanghikas during the period from their separation to first century A.D. approximately. The Mahasanghikas thus coined the term ‘ Bodhisativa- yina’ or ‘Buddhayana.’ They thought it to be a more suitable term to distinguish themselves from the Sthaviras in point of doctrine and atthe same. time to assert their own superiority. And they called their opponent by the term ‘ Arahatyana’ or ‘ Srivakayana,’ which indicates that by this vehicle, men could attain only to ‘Arhatship’ but not ‘Bodhisattvahood,’ not to speak of Buddhahood. (8) The term Mahayana. In the oldest Mahayana Sitras, such as the Saddharma- -pundarika-siitra, some portion of the Prajiiapiramita- siitra and some portion of Avatarnsaka-siitras, we come across the terms ‘ Ekayfna,’ ‘ Bodhisattvayana’ and ‘ Buddhayana,’ more frequently than the term ‘ Mahayana’ which is used not in the sense of comparison.’ While in the later Mahiyaina Siitras, the term Mahayana occurs more frequently than those terms and there this.term has been used in the sense of comparison. Fromy-such: application, it appears to’ me that the term ‘ Mahayana’ came into being in its current sense at a much later time. For, as I have already discussed, when_ the . -Mahasanghikas found that the term ‘ Ekayaéna’ was common to both the Sthaviras and the Mahasanshikas and that it indicated Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception (which the Mahasanghikas wanted to manifest) and at the same time Buddha’s Phenomenological doctrine (which the Sthaviras loyally adhered to), they began to search for another suitable term to serve their patos and as a result ‘ ‘Bodhisattvayana’ and ‘ Buddhaya ana’ were coined. Again after some time they came to know that 142 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM it indicated Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception on his ‘ own personality ’ as well as ‘ human life.’ But this is only one aspect of his perception and not the entirety of it. If Buddha’s full Introspectional aud Ontological perceptions are to be expressed by a single term, it should be necessary to find out such a term as can indicate both the aspects of Buddha's perception on the ‘cosmic existence’ as well as on ‘human life.’ ‘Thus again the Mahasanghikas began to seek for a suitable term and at last they coined_the term_‘ Mahayana ’ to he applied to themsely es and the term ‘ ILinayan: v’ for their opponents with a view to indicate the superiority of their own doctrine, As a maiter of fact, it seems that these terms fulfilled their intentions for hoth purposes, that is to say, the term, on the one hand, fairly distin- guished them se far as doctrine and religious practices were concerned, while, on the other hand, the term * Mahayana ’ exactly indicated the sense of both the term ‘Ekayana’ and ‘Buddhayana.’ For example, in the Prajiaparamita-siitra, it has been said :— * For the men of Mahayana, the supreme way has been shown.” ' Again, in the same Stitra :-— “ Six-paramitaés are the Mahayana of the Bodhi- sattva.”’” _ Again, in the Saddharmapundarika-sitra :— “In like manner, Kasyapa, is there but one vehicle, viz., Mahayaina:* there is no second vehicle, no third.” * * Yéch Bandle, Vol. 8, p. 676 of Chinese Tripitaka. * Yiich Bundle, Vol. I, p. 200. 3 There are eix manuscripts word ‘Mahdydna,’ whils others mentioned ‘the word place of Mah&yana, * Boe 8, B. EL, XXI, p. 129. in Sanskrit, three among ithem mentiqned the ‘ Buddhayana’ in the HOW THE TERMS WERE COINED? 143 Again, in the Avatarhsaka-stitra :-— * Desire, O monks, all people in the Mahayana can accomplish ‘ Sarvajiiina-marga’ without any hin- drance and also desire, O monks, all people can arrive at the region of bliss by that Sarvajfiana-yana.”’! Again, in the Samadhiraja-siitra :— “With the object of attaining a Buddba’s know- ledge, I adore the Mahayana (great vehicle), which is neither destroyed nor made, which is devoid of stains and which cannot be described by words, I repeatedly bow down to the Mahayana, which. is devoid of any contingency, non-conditioned, un- created, and reverenced by the Buddhists.