English
9, p. 3a, of Chinese Tripitaka, _* Chap. XVI (Cowel’s Edition, p. 148) and §. B. E., p. 184 DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 16] II Application in Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was a native of Southern India. He wasa Brahmin by caste and flourished sometime between the later half of 2nd century and the first half of 3rd century A.D. He has been known to Indian Buddhism as the founder of Madhyamika school. However, in Northern Buddhism (China and Japan), he bas been known as the fourteenth patriarch in Buddhism and at the same time he has .been regarded not only as the founder of Madhyamika school but as the founder of all Mahayana schools. Of course, though as a matter of fact, he was not the founder of all Mahayana schools, but the tradition seems to indicate how much he was honoured by the Northern Buddhists. And a tradition like this, naturally leads us to understand that he was a brilliant teacher of Buddhist philosophy and a great exponent of the faith. Really, he was the man who expounded and systematized Mahayana Buddhism. ‘Therefore, we can say definitely that the Mahayana movement, in general, arose really in every respect—theoretically and practically—in the time of Nagarjuna. And from this period, the relation between the schools upholding Buddha’s Ontological perception and Phenomenological perception, that is Developed and Original forms of Buddhism, as well as between the different schools, in the sense of superiority and inferiority, became a matter of great controversy and discussion. So the application of the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ also came into being in the real sense of comparison. This is: the reason, I should say, that if we look at his mighty work, the Prajfaparamita-sastra,—the commentary on the .Prajiiaparamita-siitra,—which has been regarded as the Encyclopedia of the Mahayana Buddhism, we meet 21 162 ORIGIN .OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM several times with the comparison of the Developed Buddhism with the Original one or Buddha’s Ontological perception with that of view on Phenomenology through the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana,’ from various points of view—on the points of. ‘doctrines,’ ‘ Religious practices,’ and ‘ Religieux’ as well as finally on ‘salvation.’ The following example will make the idea more clear. In the 4th fasciculi of Prajiiaparamita-sastra,' we find all these points in a single passage, thus :—‘ Mahayana has been preached for both Bodhisattvas and Sravakas, while the Siitra of the Sravakas (Hinayana) has been preached only. for.the monks (sraévakas) but not for Bodhisattvas.”—This ghows the relation between the Mahiyina and Hinaytiina forms of the Buddhism on the point of Religieus. “ Buddhayana is a great and vast one while Srivaka- yana.is small and: narrow. one.”’—This shows the relation bétween Mahayana and Tinayina Buddhism on the point of salvation. “ Sravakayana is: for the benefit of one’s own self while Buddhayana is for the benefit of all.”—This shows the. relation between Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism on. the point of religious practices. “Tn the Sravakayana, the stinyata of individual entity (or anatma) has been preached mainly, while in Buddha- yana, the siinyata of individual entity as well as cosmic existences (anitma-adharma) have been preached.”— TZIere we find the relation between Mahayana and Minayana. Buddhism on the points of philosophical doctrine. An the following statements of the said Sistra again, I .-want to show the relation between the Mahayana and Hinayaina Buddhism on various points referred to above. Wang Bundle, Vol. f, p. 29a of Chinese Tripitaka. DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS = 1638 In the 18th fasciculi of Prajiiaparamita-Sastra it has been stated ' :— “The sinyati of all things has been preached in the Sravakayana. While in Mahayana, the stnyata -of all things as well as their -inner nature have: been - preached.” Again, in the 22nd fasciculi of the same Sastra océurs * the following :— “Tn Sravakayana, suttermg (duhkha), impermanence (anitya), non-ego (anatma) have been preached. While in Mahayana the truth of only one reality (dharmatathata) has been preached.” Again, in the 69th fasciculi of the same, it: is stated >” : — “The doctrine of Hinayana preaches much_ of impermanence, . while the doctrine of Mahayana preaches ‘much of sinyata of existences. In other words, in the doctrine of Hinayana impermanence has been preached first and the stnyata of existences after that. But: in Mahayana, from the very beginning, the idea of ‘ Dharma- Stinyata’ has been preached.” In all the quotations above, the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ indicate doctrinal differences between the two ze. between Developed and Original Buddhism. Next, in the 79th fasciculi of the Prajiaparamita- Sastra,' it has been stated :— “The doctrine of Mahayana is full of mercy, while that_of Hinayana is without mercy. Because the doctrine of the Mahayana is for all creatures but that of ‘the Hinayana is for the benefit of self only.” ' Wang Bundle, Vol. I, p. 1154 of Chinese Tripitaka. 2 Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 7a. : 3 Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 46a. + Ibid, Vol. 4, p. 1076. 164 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM In the 35th fasciculi of the same Sastra we find ! :— “The wisdom of Bodhisattva is superior to that of Sravaka. The Sravaka though he understands the sinyata of all existences yet does not know that both this world and Nirvana are one and thé same.” Again, the 24th fasciculi of the same Sastra stated ?:— “The Sravaka is just like a physician who does not know proper medical treatment, while the Bodhisattva is just like the great physician to whom there is no disease unknown to him and at the same time no medicine, the use of which he does not know.” In the above quotations, through the two terms a differentiation has been made between the Mahayana and Hinayana on the point of religieur. _ Again, in the same Sastra, 96th fasciculi, it occurs*:— "4s In the school of Hinayana, Nirvana is regarded as the only reality, while in the school of Mahayana every existence is regarded as one and the same_ with Nirvana, for the teachers of Mabayana penetrated those existences with deep and sharp knowledge.” Again, in the same Sastra, 100th fasciculi, we find*: “The aim of all Buddhism is only one,—what is called the destruction of suffering and attainment.of Nirvana. This salvation is of two kinds ; one is. only for the self, another is not only for the self but for all creatures. Therefore, though both are equally claiming Nirvana as their ideal, yet there is the difference that one claims it for the self and the other for all creatures. This makes a differentiation in Buddhism. This is the reason why there are ‘Mahayana’ and ‘Hinayana’ in the Buddhism.” The above quotations show the relation between différent 1 Wang Bundle, Vol. 2, p. 84a of Chinese Tripitaka, 2 Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 17a. 3 Ibid, Vol. 5, p. 85d. * Ibid, Vol. 5, pp. 105a-b. DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 165 aspect of Buddhism on the salvation by the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana.’ Thus, I have shown that at the time of Nagarjuna the interrelation and comparison of Buddha’s Ontological and Phenomenological perceptions, in other words Developed and Original forms of Buddhism, became of vital impor- tance from various points of view. Here one thing we - should bear in mind, viz., that Nagarjuna also_used specially the terms ‘ Buddhayana’ and ‘Sravakayana’ in place of ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ in order to praise the Mahayana doctrines and reject the Hinayana_ones respectively. For example, in the 77th fasciculi of Prajiaparamita-sastra,' it is stated thus :— *QOne should be far away from the ‘ Dviyana,’ i.c., (Sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayana) and one close to * Buddhayana.’ ” ae Again, in the 5th and 13th fasciculi of Dasabhiimi- vibhasa-sastra,? it is stated that :— * Tt has been called the death of a Bodhisattva if (any one) sinks down into the level of a Sravaka or a Pratyekabuddhayana. Because, there he loses all benefit. “It is no fear at all, if (any one) goes down into the hell even. But, on the other hand, it is the greatest fear for him if he sinks down into the level of Dviyana. Because, if (any one) goes down even into the hell yet he would obtain Buddhahood at last. But if (any one) sinks down into the level of Dviyana he will thereby cut off all_his connections with Boddhisattvahood for ever.” III The Application in Aryadeva. Aryadeva, sometimes known under the name of Kanadeva, son of a Brahmin of South India, was an * Wang Bundle, Vol, 4, p. 97) of Chinese Tripitaka. ? Su Bundle, Vol. 8, p. 196, and Vol. 8, p. 62d. 166 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM eminent disciple of Nagarjuna and consequently his younger contemporary. As we know, Nagarjuna treated Buddhism in a double way, i.e., ‘rejecting or disparaging others, doctrines’ and * disclosing or unfolding one’s own doctrine.’ But Arya- deva, being matchlessly eloquent and possessed of a very strong power to defeat his adversaries, has treated Bud- dhism during his whole life much more from the outlook of ‘ rejecting other’s doctrines’ than ‘ disclosing one’s own doctrines.’ This we can see very well in his works.’ All his works except the ‘ Mahapurusha-sastra’ deal mainly with the method of the ‘ rejecting the doctrines of others.” He too, like Nagarjuna, has not only rejected Brahmanical and uon-Brahmanical doctrines but also proved the futility of the doctrines of the primitive or Hinayana schools of Buddhism. An example® of this can be cited from the Sastra or ‘the explanation of the Nirvana by the heretical Hinayana teachers mentioned in the Lankavatara-siitra.