English
5 and 6 are concerned with religious practices and their duration period. No. 7 points to the kind of salvation. - 1 Lai Bundle, Vol. 2, p, 67a, of Chinese Tripitaka, Ibid, Vol. 3, p. 26a. 172 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Again, if we look at the Mahayana-sitralankara-sastra, we meet with several passages in which Maitreyanadtha io dealing with the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ makes positive references to the Mahayanic doctrines but the point is more clearly explained by Asaiga in his commentary on the said Sastra. VI The application in Asanga. I have stated above that Maitreyanatha was the founder vf the Yogacira school and established, for the - first time, the doctrine of Alaya-vijfiana which, in general _ terms, is called Yogacara doctrines. But it remained for Asanza to evolve a complete system out of it. Asaiga was the son of a Brahmin of Gandhara (modern Peshwar and Rawalpindi districts) and flourished about 310-390 A.D. He was at first an adherent of the Mahisisaka school of Sarvastividins,then- he became a a sreemer te mney an follower ot Vaibhasika philosophy—but could not long remain satisfied with its doctrines. Subsequently he became a follower of the Mahayana school and received MahSy&na-sitralahkéra-Sistra means merely the verse portion which is one of Majitreyanitha’s works. Its prose portion is a commentary on it by Asanga. Therefore, Asanga’s work here should be properly called Mahayéna-sitrdlankdra- Sistra-vritti or kfriké. Up to the present, both the verse and prose portions have been thought as a single work by Asahga. But it is wrong to say so; becanse, according to the evidence of Hiuen-Tsiang : “ Asahga Bodhisattva went up by night to the palace of Maitreya Bodhisattva and there received the Yogicarya Sastra, the Mahdyana-sitralahkary-éastra.” (Beal’s translation here by the word—‘ tika’ is * a mistake , see Beal's Book T, p. 226.) Besides this, in the end of Mahiyanavatiraka- Sastra of Sthiramati it is stated : “¥t should be known that Mahayana is the original vehicle just as it is explained in the Siitralahkdra of Maitreyandtha.’” (See Bundle, Vol. 2, p. 730.) From these statements we can easily conclude that the verse portion of that Sastra was the work of Maitreyanitha. This point has been discussed by my learned friend Dr. H. Ui in his article on the “ Historical personage of Maitreya. nétha and works of Asaiiga,” Vide Philosophical Jonrnal of Imperial University of Tokyo, No. 411, 1921. \ DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 173 instructions from Maitreyanatha somewhere near Ayodhya. In due course Asanga established the Yogacara school which is a well-known Mahayana school of Buddhism as opposed to the Madhyamika school of Nagarjuna.. The terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ have been applied by Asanga in their two-fold sense, viz., ‘ Unfolding one’s own doctrines’ und ‘rejecting other's doctrines.’ For example, in the Mahayana-sitralankara-sistra-karika it is stated :— . “How are these differentiated? They are so in five points, namely: on (i) the aspiration or faith; (ii)' the teaching ; (iii) the way; (tv) the livelihood and (v) the period. In the Sravakayaina those five—viz., aspiration, teaching, way, livelihood and period—are only for the purpose of obtaining one’s own Nirvana. Therefore, the collection of merit as well as of wisdom, the period (of practices and salvation) and the attainment of salvation after three births—uare all in a small scale. While in the Mahayana these are all entirely the opposite scale, Therefore, in every point the two ways are diametrically ' opposite so that Hinayana cannot become Mahayana.” Again, in the Mahayana-samparigraha-sastra, it has been stated thus:— “Ten superior points are existing in the Mahayana but not in the Hinayana.” * In other places of his works we find several times such a relation or comparison drawn between the terms ‘Mahayana’ and ‘Hinayana.’ If we compare his application of the said terms with that of Nagarjuna we 1 “ey faag' | gafafadti:: wieivéa wity comrades: saat maifefratiamaacaaageracaaa wa: Waagema vandala sae: amaq wily azantaatafait wafes: aerena g aa faaaau: amea- frdursant Wa Paka aq a wasnt afaguefas” (MahdySna-siitrslaitara- éSstrea-karik&), Edited by Prof, Sylvain Levi, p. 4, kArik&é for the 10th verse, * Lai Bandle, Vol. 9, p, 476, of Chinese Tripitaka, 174 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM come to appreciate, as we approach the time of Asanya, that a deep sense of rivalry began to grow and that it had evidently a tendency to become more and more sectarian. Therefore, it seems that in Asanga’s time, the question of a comparative estimate of the Primitive and Developed Buddhism was a burning one so to say. The following introductory passage fro.n the Mahayana sitralankira-sastra-karika will clearly indicate such a situation at his time :— “aie aga quaad gaaenaqda afaadas fa- afaomrae quaaaa waraaa acafanieaAnerga: |”! “(Some say) the Mahayana doctrine is not Buddha’s speech. How, then, can it beadmired ? To meet this doubt the following Sloka, by way of a full analysis of the reason, is put forth, in order to carry perfect credence that the Mahayana doctrines are really Buddha’s true speech though the fact has been doubted.”= This passage shows clearly that at the time of Asanga there were many Sthaviras and other men belonging to allied schools in Ayodhya and its neighbouring countries who very much abused Mahayanic Buddhism by applying such terms as ‘ Adharma-vadin’ in the same way as the original Sthaviras did ia course of their disputes with the Mahasanghikas. This is the reason, I think, why Asanga tried his utmost to remove such a false notion and to establish the truth of Mahayanism by the right application of the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana.’ VII The application in Pasubandhu, ' Vasubandhu was a younger brother of Asanga and flourished about 390-400 A.D. He was a man of brilliant + Maha@yana-sitrélahkara-ffstra-karika, p. 3, DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 175 parts. At first, he was a member of the Sarvistivada school and, as one of its leaders, wrote out the Abhi- dharmakasa-sastra, one ¢ of the famous works ofthe Sarvastivadins. But sometime ~ after, . he tried. the doctrines of the Sautrantika school. He, however, could not rest satisfied with the latter. Subsequently, as the result of Asaiga’s teachings, he became a follower of the Yogacira school and incidentally one of its greatest masters. The Yogacara school, as we know, was founded by Maitreyanatha, systematised by Asanga and elaborated. by Vasubandhu. The headquarters of the latter was round about Ayodhya which was the capital of the Gupta Empire at that time. When Baladitya (Kumara G1pta 1) ascended the Gupta throne, Vasubandhu came to be highly respected and patronised by him and his mother Dhruva. Hence Ayodhya, the imperial capital city became a great centre of the Yogacaira school of Buddhism.’ Regarding the application of the terms ‘ Mahayana and ‘Hinayéna,’ he played no less a part than Asanga, but was even more positive in his dealing than the latter. Examples will make this point clear. In his Madhyan- tavibhaga-sastra, it is stated :— “The Sitra of Hinayana is only for self-benefit, but the Mahayana Sitra is for the benefit of the self as well as others. Therefore, Mahayana is the superior one.” * Again, in the Mahayana-samparigraha-sastra-yakya, it. has been stated, :— “This one Vehicle (ekayana) only is the highest one, There is no other Vehicle superior to this. ‘Therefore, you should know, that there is only one superior Vehicle 1 See my ‘Shifting of the Cevtre of Buddhism in India,’ Jorrnal of Letters, Calcutta University, Vol. 1, pp. 29-34. 2 Lai Bundle, Vol. 9, p. 26a, of Chinese Tripitaka. 176 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM which has been called ‘ Buddhayina,’ besides the ‘ Srava- kayana.” ! Again, in the Saddharma-pundarika-sitra-Sdstra, we find :— “The Hioayana is like milk, while the Mahayana is like the cream of milk.” ? Again, if we look at the Buddha-svabhava-sastra, in the first fasciculi, we find :— “Buddha preached (in the Mahayana) that all beings possessed the nature of Buddha.” § But in the same fasciculi, we find :— “Buddha preached, for the men of Hinayana, the doctrine that they do not live in the ‘ Nature’ (nature of Buddha) and will not be able to obtain Nirvana.” * In these statements, the former indicates the exalta- tion of Mahayana doctrines and the Mahayanists; while the latter indicates the rejection of the Hinay&na ‘doctrines and the Hinayanists. Besides these eminent teachers of Yogacara school, there were several other great teachers of the same line, namely, Bandhusri, Citrabhana, Vinasvabhava, etc.,> and they flourished after the time of Vasubandhu and before the time of the teachers of Nalanda. Regarding their applications of the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana,’ there is nothing of special importance. In connection with the Yogacara teachers, we should direct our attention to one point which is very important in the history of Mahayana Buddhism. Among the Mahayana teachers, those of the Yogacara school mentioned above, tried not only to establish the relation and comparison between the Primitive and * Wang Bundle, Vol. 7, p. 54a of Chincse Tripitaka. 2 Ibid, Vol. 6, pp. 68a and 7a. 3 Su Bundle, Vol. 2, p. 74b. * Ibid. 5 See Nanjid’s Catalogue, p. 373 (Appendix I, No. 12). DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 177 Developed Buddhism by the application of the terms ‘ Mahiyana’ and ‘ Hinayana,’ but also emphatically asserted to prove that the Mahiyaina Buddhism is Buddha’s true doctrine.