English
—About his application we find the following statement in his Vijiaptimatrasiddhi-Sistra in connection with what he said about six Pravartana-stage: “The 5th Pravartana stage is low and inferior; that . is to say, the stage of two yéna (Sravaka and Pratyeka Buddha-yana) is meant only for the self-benefit and for this purpose, suffering is depreciated, while search after Nirvana and realisation of the truth of Atma-sinyata only are advocated......... .The 6th Pravartana stage is high and superior, that is to say, the stage of Mahayana is intended for the attainment of great Bodhi—both for self and others—and at the same time they neither hate birth and death nor do they seek for Nirvana; but they look to the attain- ment of both the Atma-Sinyata and Dharma-sdnyata.” * Again, in the Vaipulya-sata-sistra-oyakhya he has said thus :— “This Sloka indicates two kinds of virtues of one who believes in the Mahayana. One is the attainment of high knowledge and the other is the great virtue itself. Therefore, Mahayana can easily destroy all heretical sects and it gives great benefit. In other words, through those virtues one can attain the highest Nirvana and at the same time help others to shake off the pangs of birth and death.” Silabhadra.—Regarding his application of the terms, we have no statement in particular. However, from the 1 Su Bundle, Vol. 8, p. 78b-a, of Chinese Tripitaka, 2 Wang Bundle, Vol. 10, p. fhe. ® -Ibid, p. 104a, DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 189 Chinese as well as from the Japanese accounts! we come to know that he has made ae ee Aas Precise Buddhism_according 1g to different characters of the doctrine, through three diforent categortes7as has been stated in the Suadiiattmocaha-eates: The three divisions are :— (¢) The doctrine of existence (i.e., the doctrine which admits the existence of atomic elements but not thé existence of Ego). (ii) The doctrine of Stinyata (i.e., the doctrine which does not admit either the existence of atomic elenrents .or the existence of Ego). : (iii) The hioetrine: of middle-path (i.e., the deste which not only admits the existence, but at the same time does not admit the Stnyata also). Among them, First division indicates the Hinayana doctrine, Second and Third indicate the Mahayana doctrine. With the help of these three kinds of division he depreciated the Hinayaéna Buddhism and extolled the Mahayana Buddhism. Dharmakirti—is a disciple of Dharmapala. In the translation of Chinese Tripitaka’ we have two works referring to Dharmakirti as an author. One is Vajrasiici and another is Siksa-samucchaya. Regarding his appli- cation of the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ we find three places? of reference in his latter work. But these statements are, curiously enough, exactly identical with those of Sintideva’s Siksa-samucchaya already pointed out by me. From an examination of both I hold that this Sikst-samucchaya is, on the whole, almost the same as that of Sintideva. ‘Therefore even if it is the translation of the same original, it is quite clear that Dharmakirti 1 Jiaeni-mon-ron-shiu-chi-gi-ki: one of the most important commentary on the Dvddasa-nikdya-sdstra, Vol. I, p. 36-a. * Su-Bundle, Vol. 3, p. 24b; p. 28a; p. 336 of Chinese Tripitaka. 190 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM was not the author of the work but Santileva is. The Chinese translator, however, has made a mistake. Jinaputra, Visesamitra, Jianachandra and Bandha- prabha,—Regarding their application of the terms we do not find any statement at present. Thus in the above, we have shown several applications of the terms ‘Mahayana’ and ‘Hinayana’ by ditfereat teachers belonging to the Nalanda period. This application of the terms point to two ends in view: that is to say, through these terms they disparaged doctrine while extolling Mahayina Buddhism on the one hand and they tried to prove that the Mahayana doctrine is the true doctrine of Buddha on the other. This being the case, we also come to understand that during the Naland& period there were still many Hinayanists who used to look down upon the Mahayanists and their ‘Dharma’ as not being true Buddha’s doctrine, otherwise, why did these Mahayana teachers of that time tried to prove that the Mahayana Buddhism is the only true doctrine of Buddha. Moreover, this fact is clear from a statement in the life of Hiuen-Tsiang where it has been stated thus :— “Before Sirnharasmi had departed, Siladitya-raja had constructed a vihara covered with brass plates by the side of the Nalanda monastery about a hundred feet in height. It was renowned through all countries. “The king after returning from the subjugation of Konyodha (Ganjam ?) came to Orissa. The priests of this country all study the little vehicle fand do not believe in the great vehicle. They say it is a system of the ‘ sky-flower’ heretics, and was not delivered by Buddha, . _ “When they saw the king after his arrival, they entered into conversation and said: ‘ We hear that the king has built by the side of the Nalanda’ convent a DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 191 vihira of brass, a work magnificent and admirable. But why did not Your Majesty construct a Kapalika temple or some other building of that sort ?’ “The king answered: ‘What mean you by these words of reproach ?’ | “In reply, they said: ‘ The Monastery of Nalanda with its “ sky-flower” doctrine is not different from that Kapilika sect. This is our meaning.’ “ Before this a consecrated king of South India had a teacher, an-old Brahman, whose name was Prajiiagupta and who was well versed in the doctrine of the Sammatiya school: ‘This man composed a treatise in 700 ‘Slokas against the Great Vehicle. All the teachers of the Little Vehicle rejoiced the~.at, and taking the book showed it to the king and said: ‘This represents our doctrine: is therea man of the other school that can upset one single word of it?’ “The king said: ‘I have heard of the fox, accompanied by the meadow rats, boasting that he was able to contend with the lion, but as soon as he saw him,.his heart failed him and they were all scattered in a moment. You, sirs, have not yet seen the priests of the great Vehicle, and so you firmly maintain your foolish principles. If you once see them—affrighted, you will, I fear, then, be the same as that (fox).’ “Then they answered: ‘ If there be any doubt on the king’s part about the matter, why not assemble a conference and let there be a close investigation as to right and wrong ?’” “The king said: ‘And what difficulty is there in this ?’ “ So on that very day he sent a messenger with a letter to the Nalanda convent to Silabhadra, the master of the Law, surnamed ‘the treasure of the true doctrine’ (saddharmapitaka?), in which he said: ‘ Your servant, whilst progressing through Orissa, met some priests of 192 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM the Little Vehicle who hampered by contracted views, adhere toa Sastra which abuses the principles of the Great Vehicle. They speak of the followers of that - system as men of a different religion, and they wish to hold a controversy with you on this point. Now I know that in your convent there are eminent and exceedingly gifted priests of different schools of learning who will undoubtedly be able to overthrow them—so now, in answer to their challenge, I beg you to send four men of eminent ability, well acquainted with one and the other school, and also with the Esoteric and Exoterie doctrine, to the country of Orissa.’ “When Silabhadra had received the letter, he assembled the congregation, and after inquiry, he selected Sagara- mati, Prajiidrasmi, Sithharasmi and the master of the Law as the four men in reply to the king’s mandate... ‘And now, the master of the Law being dédivous i go to Orissa, inquired about getting the essay of the “Little Vehicle” which proposed to destroy the principles of the “Great Vehicle ” in 700 Slokas.. “Then having grasped tho errors of the work, he wrote a refutation of it in .600 Slokas, and called it ‘ The destruction of heresy,’ taking up the doctrines of the Great Vehicle point by point. “He presented the work to Silabhadra and amongst all the disciples there was not one, on reading the work, but was consenting to it, ‘who,’ they said, ‘can over- turn such arguments?’”' This was the condition that existed between the Mahayanist and Hinayanist even at that time. ‘In the above I have shown only the application of the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana’ by the Mahayana teachers. Let us then see also what was the conception 1 Beel’s translation of the life of Huien-Tsiang, pp. 158-165. DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS 193 .' the terms ‘Mahayana’ and ‘ Hinayana,’ according to the view of the common people at this time. On this point, I-Tsing’s statement will give” clear explanation. His statement runs thus :— “Those who worship the Bodhisattva and read the Mahayana Siitras are called the Mahayanists while those who do not perform these are called the Hinayanists. There are two kinds of the so-called Mahayana, first the Madhyamika: second, the Yoga”! It should be borne in mind that this kind of conception among the common people were current even in the time of Fi-Hien who started on his travels in A.D. 899 and returned to China after fifteen years. So he has said :— “Students of the Mahayana present offerings to the Prajiiipairamita, to Mafijusri and to Avalokitesvara. ” * 1 Dr, Takakuan’s, I-Tsing, . 15. * Legge’s Fa-ITien, p.