English
But beyond ‘these Dharma-tathata exists which has no birth and no death being originally pure.” ! Regarding Nagarjuna, it has been stated in ‘the ‘ Fu-fi-tsia-yuen-kin,’ that he received instruction from Kapimala who was of the same line as Asvaghosa I. From an examination of doctrines we are also convinced that Nagarjuna, undoubtedly was of the “Mahasanghika lineage. We know he established ‘ Sarva-stinyata’ doctrine which was based directly upon Mahayana Sutras, specially, Prajnipiramita-siitras and indiréctly was nothing but a fairly systematized and much advanced form of original Mahasanghika tenets. Tt is needless to mention that the followers of Madhyamika . school like Aryadeva undoubtedly sided, with Nagarjuna in doctrinal matters. We learn nothing of Maitreyanatha the founder of ‘Yogicara school from ‘ Fu-fA-tin-yuen-kin’ and other historical records and consequently it is very difficult to trace his previous connections. However, from the doctrinal point of view we clearly understand that his. ideas had been much influenced by the ‘ Vimal-citta’ doctrine of the original Mahasanghikas. Maitreyanatha as we know established the Yogacira school upon the basis of Mahayana ~Siitras like Avatarnsaka-sitra, Lankavatara-sntra, Sandhinirmocana-siitra, ete. And these 1 Ch’en Bundle, Vol. 9, p. 3a, of Chinese Tripitaka, 156 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Siitras as I have stated before, were propounded by Mahasanghika school men. Therefore, of him it may be said that indirectly he too belonged to the Mahasanghika line. His doctrine ‘of ‘ Vijiadpti-matra’ or ‘Sarva- vijiiina’ from a certain point of view may be called a systematized form of ‘ Vimala-citta’ doctrine of original Mahasanghikas. Asanga, Vasubandhu and other followers of the same school may be'said in the same light to be indebted to the Mahasanghikas although their doctrines were only a step further than those of Maitreyanitha, Thus, the doctrines of ‘ Asanskrita dharma’ as well as ‘ Anidi-ananta-vimala-citta’ of original Mahasanghikas as well as their Buddhalogy were gradually amplified by the Lokottaravadins and Ekavyavaharikas of the same line. Again, a further advanced stage was reached by Piirnayasa and ASvaghosa I. At the time of Nigirjuna of the Maithyamika school and of Maitreyaniths of Yogicara school and their respective followers the above doctrines were developed toa still greater extent. Thus the ‘ Anitma-adharma’ doctrine of the Mahasaaghikas was elaborated by Nagarjuna under the term of ‘Sarva- Stinyaté’ doctrine, and that of ‘Asanskrita-dharma’ under the name of ‘ Dharma-tathati.’ While the ‘ Vimala-citta’ doctrine of the Mahasanghikas was fully developed by Maitreyanatha under the uvme of ‘ Sarva-vijiiana’ as well as ‘ Vimala-svabhava-nirvana” doctrines. At last, as the last logical stage Asvaghosa IT, one of the greatest ‘Mahayana teachers combined together in a perfect whole beth the doctrines of Madhyamikas and Yogacaras under such a title as ‘ Bhiitatathata’ or ‘suchness ’ doctrine. In other words, Nagarjuna’s doctrines mainly treat. of the problem ‘the determination of what constitutes the substance of reality. While Maitreyanatha’s doctrines mainly touch the problem of ‘the determination of the relation- between reality and cognition.’ And both these DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE ‘TERMS 157 points of view have been combined together by Asva- ghosa II.' In this way, the doctrines of the Mahdsanghika school were formulated, developed and advanced step by step by different teachers of the same lineage and were, at the last stage of the whole Mahasanghika movement, transformed into what is generally known as Mahayana Buddhism. The.upholders of the lattersystem finally called themselves Mahiayanists. They went to the extent of including intc the scope of ‘Tlinayana’ the original Mahasanghikas and their allied schools. Besides this, there was another reason for this inelusion of the Mahasanghikas within the scope of ‘Hitaydna.’ About the time of Nagarjuna and afterwards, the question of the religieux, religious practices, as well as firal salva. tion became all important among the different schools of Buddhism. So that the Mahayanists naturally were busily engaged to strike out comparisons among different forms of the Buddhist faith on the said points. The terms ‘Mahayana,’ and ‘ Hinayina’ were used in this connec- tion. At this time these religious controversies, we should bear in mind, were of more value than philosophical discussion, As we all know, from the theoretical point of view, the consideration of philosophical doctrines is of more importance than the religious aspect. But from the practical point of view, religieux, religious practices as well as final salvation are of vital importance in human life. Buddhism as a whole, we should remember, is more a religion than a philosophy. ‘Therefore, its most important question is that which touches salvation and its ways. But when Nagarjuna and other Mahayana teachers found themselves into the vortex of a keen controversy and had to stand against Brahmanical or non-Brahmanical ‘ For this reason, his only known work ‘ Mahéydna Sroddhotpads: Saga’ hae been considered as the common scripture for Mahayana Buddhists, 158 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM philosophers and theorists were compelled to formulate a set of philosophical doctrine and tenets and thus to raise high in men’s estimation the fame of the Buddhist faith. However, when the conflict was in their own folk they made comparison among the ‘different Buddhist schools on practical religious points indicated above. The original Mahasanghika school as we have stated, began to manifest Buddha’s [ntrospectional and Ontologi- cal ideas, and at the same time, it became the fore-runner of Mahayana Buddhism. But at that time, their ideas on the religieux, religious practices and final salvation could not reach the Mahayanic stage on the same. For example, the original Mahasanghikas though held ‘ Anadi-ananta- Vimala-citta’ doctrines yet practically their idea on religieux did not go beyond ‘Arhatship.’ While the Mahayanists realized all religieux as Bodhisattvas and capable of attaining Buddhahood. From such a religious or practical consideration, the fully developed, later Mahayanists counted original Mahasanghikas as one of Hinayaéna. While they them- selves, i.e, the Madhyamika school of Nagirjuna, Yogacaira school of Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasu- bandhu as well as that of Asvaghosa II, were only regarded as ‘ Mahayana.’ CHAPTER II Applications of the terms ‘Mahayana’ and * Hinayana among the founders of Mahauina schools and their followers. Different teachers of Mahayana school made indepen- dent applications of the terms ‘Mahayana’ and *‘Hinayana’ according to their individual notions. The investigation on this subject is a very important matter for the students of Buddhist history. So I shal} state in this chapter, the different applications of the terms ‘Mahayana’ and ‘Hinayana’ of different teachers of Mahayana school, and of their immediate followers. I Application by Ascaghosa f£. _ Let ussee at first, in what sense the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘Hinayana’ have been applied by Asvaghosa I. As we know, he, an inhabitant of Saketa, was the son of _Suvarniksi snd lived contemporancously with king Kaniska II, the Great Scythian king (about 140 A. D.). In Buddhist history, he was known more as a poet than a8 a philosopher of India. He wrote many works in Sanskrit among them, Buddhacarita, Saundrananda- kivyas and a drama Saradvati-putra-prakaranam ! ‘are regarded as the best specimens of his poetic literature. Of his poetic art, it has heen said, it excels even that of Kalidasa.” While regarding his religious and philosophical ideas, I would like to say that they stand midway between the Hinayana on the one hand and Mahayana on the other ; they contain in them much of Hinayanic doctrines ? Tt has been discovered in the second Turfan Expedition and has been edited by H. Liiders, 1911. & 2 See Preface of Saundranandamikavyam, P. iv, by MM. H, P, Sastri, 160 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM and at the same time, they smack of Mahiiyanic idea, none the less. Ié is then rather proper to say that, his stage is one of transformation of the Hinayana school into that of Mahayana. But as stated already, he is one of, the predecessors of Mahayana Buddhism. In his works we come across the term ‘ Mahayana’ about four times, but the term is always used singly, without giving risa to any idea of compayison with the term * Hinayana,’ which curiously enough, is not mentioned at all. For example, in the ‘Sutra on the meaning of the Anatma in Dharma asked by a Nirgrantha Jiiati-putra’! stated :—“At that time Nirgrantha went to the man who understands the Mahayana.” * Again, “Man who understands the Vaehayana said to Nirgrantha.” * Again, in the same Satra :— At that time, after hearing (Asvaghosa’‘s explanation on the Anatina) all those heretical ‘people were delighted much and having well understood that explanation, they dissolved their doubt and obtained J/luhayana knowledge.” * Again, in the Buddhaearita Kavya, once we meet with the term ‘ Mahayana ’ thus :— “his, sirs, is the I/ahkayava, the instrument of the law of perfect Buddha.” * _ From the above quotations, it becomes clear that the application of the term, ‘ Mahayana,’ by Asvaghosa J, means only the indication of certain ideas of Buddha’s Introspectiona] and Ontological perception ; but it does not indieate any relationship with the term ‘ Hinayana.’ ‘ - * This book has not been mentioned in Nanjio’s Catalogue. But we find it in the Catalogue of Chinese Tripitaka of K6-kio-sh6-In Edition. 2 Oh’ang Bundle, Vol. 9, p. 2c. a Foid, : * Ch‘ang Bundle, Vol.