English
For example; Dharmapala,’ in his VijhaéptimAtrasiddhi-saistra, quoted Maitreyanatha’s explanation on the said point with the following seven kinds of reasons :— “The Mahayana Buddhism is Buddha’s true doctrine. (¢) Because no mention has been made_beforehand, i.e, if the Mahayana Sitras (as the Hinayanists have said) were forgery after Buddha’s death and would have destroyed Buddha’s true doctrine, why then did not Buddha mention it beforehand and at the same time why did not Buddha refer to the fear of it? Therefore, it must be Buddha’s true doctrine. (it) Because both the Sitras have been equally exer- cised, i,e., both the Mahayana and the Hinayana Sitras “have been equally exercised from the very beginning, then how can it be said that Mahayana doctrine is not Buddha’s true doctrine ? (iit) Because _this_is_ not the object of others’ wnder- standing, t.e., the doctrine of Mahayana is vast and deep; therefore, it cannot be understood by men of heretical sect and the Hinayanists. This is the reason why Buddha did not preach this doctrine in their Siitras and Sistras. And if Buddha preached it in their Sitras, it would not have been understood by them, Therefore, this doctrine did not find access in the Hinayana Sitras. But for that reason, it cannot be said that the Mahayana doctrine is not Buddha’s true doctrine. (iv) Because that can be established certainly, i.e., if yon say that the Mahayana Buddhism is another > This Sitra isthe work of Dharmapila, But the quotation, as I have mentioned here, is the explanation of Maitreyandtha and has been qaoted by Dharmapéla in hia work. 23 178 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM Buddha’s preaching, not of present Buddha, yet it can be established that the Mahayana is Buddha’s true doctrine because all Buddhas communicated with one another. (v) Because if it be so, then that cannot be 80, i.e, if any one admit the existence of Mahayana Buddhism then it should be believed that the Mahayana is Buddha’s true doctrine because without Buddha’s doctrine Mahayana could not come into being. If there be no Mahayanism, then Hinayanism also could not come to exist. Because without Mahayana idea Buddha-hood cannot exist. If there is no Buddha, then who is to preach the doctrine of Sravakayana? And you say that Sravakayana doctrine is Buddha’s true speech, how then can, it be possible that Mahayana.is not Buddha’s true doctrine ? (vi) Because _it can_well-conquer, ie. if any one practises religious practices according to the Mahayana Siitras he will obtain clear understanding and knowledge and at the same time he will conquer all of those sufferings, therefore, it should be believed that the Mahayanism is the Buddha’s true doctrine. (vii) Because the inside-ideas differ from the_outside statements, i.e., the idea of the Mahayana doctrine is so deep that the real idea cannot be got only by following the indication of sentences as they appear. Therefore, if we look at only the surface of sentences, we may find differentiation between the Mahayana and the Hinayana doctrines. But if we penetrate deep into the idea, then they are not found to be contradictory to each other. Only with a uy with a superficial observation anda biased mind one should not say that Mahayana is not the true doc! say that Mahayana is not the true doctrine | of Buddha.” ! Asanga also has spoken on these points in his Mahayana-siitrailankara-sastra-karika as well as in the + Wang Bundle, Vol. 10, pp. 12b-12a of Chinese Tripitaka, - DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS = 179 Prakaranaryavata-Sastra-karik&’ and in the Mahayana- samparigraha-Sastra,’ and he has adduced ten reasons in order to prove that Mahayana Buddhism is Buddha’s true doctrine. And these ten reasons are almost the same as those stated by him in the Mahayana-siitralankara-karika as well as in Maitreyanatha’s statement pointed out above. Again, Vasubandhu also tried the same question and he too proved more conclusively than his elder brother that the Mahayana doctrine is Buddha’s true doctrine. So in his Bodhi-cittotpidana-saistra he has counted the calumniation of Mahayana Buddhism as one of the four great crimes. And he has said :— “Thirdly, those people who speak ill of the true and vast doctrine of Mahayana commit one of the great crimes.” ® “The faith on the Mahayana to be the great cause which can destroy the four kinds of hinderances; and at the same time he stated that the calumniation of Mahayana is one of the great hinderances.” * From the above several quotations, we come to under- stand that when Ayodhya was the centre of the Yogacara school, the teachers of that school had tried their best to explain that the Mahayana Buddhismis Buddha’s true doctrine and also proved that the Mahayana Siitras are but the true speech of the Buddha himself. Reason to this is not far to seek. As we know, when the Mahasan- ghikas, having manifested Buddha’s Introspectional and Ontological perception, separated from the Sthaviras, the latter excommunicated the former with such bad epithets as ‘Adharma-Vadins’ and ‘Papabhiksu’ as their nick- names. Hence a great dispute took place between those Lai Bundle, Vol. 7, p, 86a, of Chinese Tripitaka, 2 Ibid, Vol. 9, p. 470. ® Ibid, Vol. 10, p. 99a. * Su Bundle, Vol. 2, p, 828, 180 ORIGIN OF MATLAYANA BUDDHISM two schools. And when the latter lineage of the Mahasanghikas established the Mahayina Buddbisin or the Mahayana schools then the Sthaviras began to calumniate the Mahayina Buddhism. And they were called by the Mahayiinists as ‘Sravahiyanv’ or Linayana.’ Therefore, their hatred upon the Mahiydina Buddhisin. As the Mahayanists became more and more strong 8) they began to call the Mahayana Buddhism by such terms as ‘ Naivedarh Mahayana Buddha Vacamun? (i¢., the Mahayana doctrines ave not the true doctrine of Buddha). Of course, the struggle ! etween the Mahayanists and the Hinayanists existed undoubtedly lony before the time of Asanga and Vasubandhu, but it became a burning question at the time of Asanga and Vasubandha and downwards. VIII The application of the terms in Asrayhosa LL. Many of the Buddhist scholars still hold that Asva- ghogsa, the author of the Buddhacarita and the Svundara- nanda-kavya, is identical with the author of the Mahayana Sradhotpada-sastra; but I cannot agree with them. According to me the author of the Buddhacarita and the Soundarananda-kavya is somebody other than the author of the Mahayanasradhotpada-sistra. Regarding this point, we have very few external evidences but from internal investigations, it can be shown that they are different persons having the same name. Because Asvaghoga I, was a great poet in India before the time of Walidisa but not a great Philosopher, while Asvaghusa II, was not a poet but rather one of the greatest Philosophers of Buddhism in India. He established the doctrine of * Bhittatathata-pratityasamutpaua’ or the doctrine of phenomenon rising from suchness fexistence as such). If DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 181 we look at the philosophical work referred to above, we shall be struck with the depth of his system of philosophy. We already know that Nagarjuna’s doctrine of the ‘ Dharma-tathata’ mainly dealt with to speak in the terms of European philosophy—The problem ‘ the determination of constituents of reality,’ while the Yogacara doctrine of ‘Alaya-pratityasamutpada ’ or ‘ Sarva-vijfiina-vada’ mainly deals with the problem of the ‘determination of the rela- tion between the reality ind cognition.’ And the doctrine of Asvaghosa II is a combination of both the above two systems of the doctrine. Hence, we are able to ascertain his date also; the foregoing discussion proves that he must have flourished after the time of Nagarjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu and we shall not be far wrong if we place him in or about the 5th century A.D. approximately. Now, let us see, how the terms ‘Mabayana’ and ‘Hinayina’ had been applied by him. Through his work we come to know that he tried to exalt Mahayana doctrine with the help of the term ‘ Mahayana’ and without rejecting or disparaging other doctrines. The following quotation will make the point clear. In the Mahayana Sradhapida-sistra, it is stated that :—, “Tho Mahayana can be briefly treated as to its two aspects, namely, what it is, and what it signifies... What is the Mahayana? It is. the soul of all sentient beings fsarvasattva) that constitutes all things in the world, phenomenal and supra-phenomenal and through this soul we can disclose what the Mahayana signifies. Because the soul in itself involving the quintessence of the Mahayana, is suchness (bhiitatathata), but it becomes (in its relative or transitory aspect, through the law of causation) birth and death (samsira) in which are revealed the quintessence, the attributes and the activity of the Mahayana. The Mahayana has a triple 182 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM significance. The first is the greatness of quintessence. Because the quintessence of the Mahayana as suchness exists in all things, remains unchanged in the pure as well as in the defiled, is always one and the same (samata) neither increases nor decreases and is void of distinction. The second is the greatness of attributes. Here we have the Tathagata’s womb (Tathagatagarbha) which in exuberance contains immeasurable and innumerable merits (punya) as its characteristics. The third is the greatness of activity, for it (.¢.,) Maha- yana) produces all kinds of good works in the world, phenomenal and supra-phenomenal. Hence the name Mahayana (great vehicle).