English
But in the Mahayana school period, specially in the time of Nagarjuna, these terms began to be used more in the sense of ‘rejecting’ other’s doctrines, as 4 fundamental feature, than merely ‘disclosing one’s-own doctrines.’ Again, from the time of Nagarjuna the above terms began not only to be used as indications of a sense of relationship between the Buddha’s Ontological and Phenomenological perceptions but also they were applied to strike out a comparison of one school with another. So that, in this period, Sthaviravida on the one hand, the Sarvastivada with their allied schools as well as, that of the Mahaisanghixas even on the other (which was the fore-runner of Mahayanism) were included in the scope of ‘Hinayana. While the Madhyamika school of Nagarjuna, Yogicira school of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, Vasubandhu and of Agvaghosa IT did alone come under the scope of ‘Mahayana.’ This is clear from the following passage of Nagirjuna’s Prajiaparamita-sastra :— *The doctrines of Hinayana mainly dealt with the idea of impermanence. While those of Mahaiyanas chiefly expostulate the idea that ‘all existence is Stinyaté’ (or "Dharma Sinyata). In other words, in Hinayana at first, the idea of impermanence has been preached but after- wards, the idea of ‘ Dharma-siinyata’ also came in. While in Mahayana from the very beginning, idea of ‘ Dharma- Stinyata’ has been preache oa We should carefully mark here that the first portion of the statement, i.e, ‘“ In Hinayana at first, the idea of impermanence has been preached” is evidently alluding to the Sthavira doctrines or the school of Sarvastivada, while the latter portion, #.e., “But afterwards the idea } Mah&prajfidparamita-Sistra, 69. fascicali; Wang Bundle, Vol. 4, p. 46a, of Chinese Tripitaka, DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 151 of ‘ Dharma-Sinayata’ also came in ” is a distinet allusion to the doctrines of the Mahasanghikas. As we already know, the Sthaviras held that all _existence is impermanent. The Sarvastividins went a little further and opined that although al all € existence is impermanent yet the atomic” ‘elements _ “are. permanent. The Mahasaighikas a again held that both | cosmic existence as well as atomic Bl ouienis are _impermanent. This latter idea of “Mahisaighikes” “js fairly stated in the commentary of the Nikaya-avalambana-sastra (Pu-chih-i- lun) by Paramartha as the doctrine of Ekavyavaharika :— “ Ekavyavaharikas held that all existences in this world (loka = phenomenon) as well as in the super-world (uttaraloka=noumenon) are temporary, so that all existences (dharmas) have no reality.” ' Again, . if we look at the Buddha-svabhava-sastra ® by Vasubandhu, we will come to know that the Maha- saighika school was included within the scope of : Hinayana,’ an extract from which runs thus :— “ Every school in Hinayana has its distinct opinions and specific interpretations. If we look at the doctrines of the Vibhajyavadins, we see that they preach that *Siinyata ’ 1 "is the or origin of all ltiman beings—both wise and ignorant. Because, these classes of men all came into being out of the same ‘siinyata.’ This ‘siinyata’ is the ‘nature of Buddha’ (Buddha-svabhava), and this Buddha- svabhava is the Mahanirvana. Again, if we look at the doctrines of Sarvastivada schools, we see all these schools preaching that all human beings do not possess originally, the ‘nature of Buddha’ (Buddha-svabhava), but it can be obtained by religious practices,” 5 ' The original book has been iost. I have quoted these passages from San-ran- gen-pi, Vol. J, p. 51. * This book was translated by Paramdrtha (357.569 A.D.). See Napjio’s Catalogue, p. 268, No. 1226. °+ * Shu Bundle, Vol. 2, p. 74b, of Chinese Tripitaka. 152 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM In this statement, the texm ‘ Vibhijyavidin’ indicates the Mahasanghika school. Etymologically, ‘ Vibbajya- vadin ’ means ‘one who follows the analytie method of enquiry.’ T'rom the Pali Nikiyas we came to know that the expression ‘ Vibhajyavidin’ originally implied Buddha’s analytic method of enquiry. In the Majjhima Nikaya,' Buddha declares himself to be a ‘ Vibhajyavadin’ and not an ‘ Ekaniisavadin’ indicat- ing thereby that his method of teaching was analytic and not. synthetic. According to Sonthern and Northern Buddhist sources sthaviras with their allied schools were Vibhajyavadins. But in Chinese translations of Northern | Buddhist Books, we find that the term Vibhajyavadin sometimes implied the Mahasanghikas, The above-quoted passage is a sure evidence of this. Again the same expres- sion is used in Abhidharma-mahavibbasa-sistra* of the Sarvastivadins. It has been stated there that :—‘‘ some (school) is holding that ‘Citta is originally pure’ just as the Vibhajyavadins do.”* But we know, already that the doctrine of ‘ An&di-ananta-vimal-acitta,’ is a distinct Mahasaighika tenet. Therefore, it is not very difficult to conclude that in the above statement, the term ‘ Vibhajya- vadin’ implies Mahasanghikas and also that the Maha- sanghika school came under the scope of ‘* Hinayana.’ Again, if we look atthe record of Fa-Hien who came to India during the fourth century A.D. we find the following :— “Students of the Mahayana present offerings to the Prajiaparamita and to Mafijusri.” * 1 M,N, IL, 99, p. 197. ° 2 See Dr. Oldenberg’s Introduction tothe Vinaya Pitaaa, Vol. I, p. xlii; and Mrs. Rhys Davide’s Intruduction to the English translation of Katha-vattn. * See Nanjio’s catalogue, p. 277, No. 1264. * Shu Bundle, Vol. 2, p. 7a, of Chinese Tripitaka. 5 Fa-hien by Legge, p. 46. DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 153 This dops not supply any direct’ evidence for our purpose. But we have here an indirect implication that, ib Fa-Hien’s time, the Mahisanghika school alre rady had betn included in the ‘Hinayana.’ Again, I-Tsing who tavelled through India in the seventh century’ A.D, gives us the following :— “Tose who worship the Bodhisattvas and read the Mahayana ‘Siitras are called the Mahayana (the great). While’ those’ who do not perform those are called Hina- yana (the small). There are but two kinds of the so- called Mahayana, first the Madhyamika; second the Yoga.” ! This also is not direct evidence, But from this, we understand clearly that, at the time of I-Tsing, Madhya- mika and Yogacara schools only were regarded: as_ Mahayana. Therefore, it is no wonder that all other Buddhist schools would naturally: at that time, come ‘under ‘Hinayina.’ Thus, from the above discussion, it becomes clear that the implication of the term ‘Mahayana’ and its relation with ‘Hinayana’ had changed widely in the interval between the Mahayana - Stitra period and Mahayana school period. "Now this will naturally lead to such a question as how did the Mahasanghika school came to be included into the scors of ‘ Hinayana.’ at the Mahayana school period ? In ‘ars, er to this, I would like to say that the Mabas: ghika and its allied schools just began the task of manifesting Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception into a doctrinal form. ‘hey also expressed those doctrines by such terms as ‘ Ekayana,’ Bodhisattva- yana, ‘ Buddhayana’ and at last by ‘Mahayana.’ While, on the contrary, at the same time they, with a strong sense. of superiority, termed the doctrine of their opponents or ' I-Tsing, by Dr. J. Takakusn, p. 15. 20 154 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Sthaviras by ‘ Dviyana,’ ‘Arhatyana,’ and at fast by ‘Hinayaua’ in order to perpetuate a well-marked mutual distinction. But when, in course of time, the Buddha's Introspectional and Ontological perception was revealed, expressed and systematised more and more by brilliant men of the lineage of later Mahisanghikas, a necessily arose to differentiate the earlier and later movements. The later line of the Mahasanghikas was disposed to include the original Mahasanghika school under the head of ‘ Hinayana.’ Let us continue the above discussion a little further in a concrete form. ; Parnayasa a teacher of the later Mahasanghika line the elder contemporary of Asvaghosa I, held a little more advanced ideas than {hose of the original Mahasanghikas. We come to know of his tenets from his discourses with Asvaghosa I, embodied thus in ‘ Pu-fa-tsin-yin-yuen- kin * :— ‘There are two standpoints from which to explain the existence. From the Conventional (samurita-satya) points of view ‘existence’ is nothing but simply a_ provi- sional name. While from the Transcendental (paramiirtha- satya) point of view every existence is ‘sinya.’” ? _ ‘The life of Asvaghosa I, shows that he was influenced by the teacher Parsva and became a Buddhist. But _ according to the historical record ‘ Fu-fa-tsii-yin-yuen- kin’ he obtained real perception through the teacher _Parnayasa which reason, I think, led him in the begin- ning of his Sitralankara-sastra to offer a salutation first to. Piirnayasa and then to Bhiksu Parsva. This is a clear indication to prove that he belonged to the Mahasanghika w ‘4 ‘Translated by Ci-cia-ye, together with Than-yfo, 472 A. D. of the Northern Wei dynasty, 386-584 A.D, In 6 fasciculi. This isa very well-known history of the succession of twenty-three patriarchs from Mahikasyapa to the Bhiksu Simha (see Nanjio’s Catulogue, p. 298, No. 1340). * Ch’ang Bundle, Vol. 9, p. 1050, of Chinese Tripitaka, DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 1b5 lineage. Asvaghosa I, again lays down his’ fundamental doctrine in the ‘Sastra on the meaning ‘of Andtma in Dharma asked by a Nirgrantha,’ there too he is seen to consider existence in general from two points of view, i.¢., from the point of Sarmvritasatya, all things exist in different ways .in different, positions; again, from the point of Paramarthasatya no such things (of the said descriptions) exist.