English
’ But the terms frequently occur in the canon of Mahayana or Northern Buddhism. This Mahayana Buddhism, in my opinion, has been developed (or manifested) in the period between the time of King Asoka and that of Nagarjuna /(roughly 2nd century B.C. to 3rd century A. D.).2) For a clear conception I would like to discuss the subject under three main heads, namely :—(1) By whom or by which school exactly the terms Mahayana and Hinayana were first coined ? (2) From what time the use of the terms, in their present sense came to be current? (3) Why they came to be-so used? Let us now take up the first question. (atymologically, ‘ Mahayana’ means great vehicle and ‘ Hinayana’ means small vehicle. On the face of it, the terms are suggesting a relation of superiority and inferiority of some things. At the same time we understand at once that such relation or strictly a comparison should come up when a man or a school tried to assert | superiority over a rival and attempted to reject the adversary’s doctrine. A clear study will convince us of an underlying doctrinal basis of difference for which the two terms stand against each other. In the history of Buddhism, we may preceive two aspects of Buddhism, one is what we have termed Original Buddhism and another is the Developed Buddhism. By Original Buddhism we mean. the doctrine preached by 1 Students of Buddhism are apt to be mistaken if they think that the terms Mahayana and Hinay&na can divide Northern Buddhism from Southern Buddhism. The s6-called Southern Buddhism belongs to Hinayana; while Northern Baddhism to Maha&y4na. But from the right and critical point of view, Southern Buddhism belongs to Hinay&na only ; however, in Northern Buddhism both Mahayana and Hinay&noa are existing simuttaneously. Therefore, we can by no means hold that Northern Buddhism is the exclasive prodact of Mahayana. “~ % This period may be conceived as the flowering or formative period of Mahayana Brddhism in the course of which it was gradually manifesting itself. INTRODUCTORY NOTE 9 Buddha himself in public; while Developed Buddhism means the doctrines which, though existing in Buddha’s perception rather implicitly, was manifested and develuped later on by his disciples and followers after his Parinirvina. However, these two different aspects of Buddhism are nothing but only manifes-. tation of Buddha’s two-fold perception of the world; that is to say, when Buddha attained Enlightenment he realised the Truth of the Universe. This Truth of the Universe can be presented from two points of view; one is Truth of the _physical_nature_of _ this world and another i is the the Truth of the reality behind it. In other words, when he obtained Enlightenment he understeod the real condition of the ‘Saniséra” and at. the same time he penetrated the reality of the Internal Universe. The former I have called Buddha’s Phenomenological perception and the latter his Ontological perception. Buddha we must remember was enlightened with both these truths. But the religious and philsophical conditions in India at that timé only allowed him to preach the doctrines formulated from a Phenomenolagical point of view, and his Ontological perception was bound to be left in the hands of his disciples to be manifested afterwards when the proper time for it came.’ What we call Buddha’s Ontological perception was “merely formulated and manifested by his disciples and followers ; therefore, sometimes we termed it as Developed Buddhism. But we should not forget that history records its growth, but not its origin. All the same, the idea of Developed Buddhism remained in Buddha’s perception when he was preaching what igusually called Original Buddhism. Now we see thaithe terms Mahayana and Hinayana are applied to two different sets of doctrines of Buddhism. That is to say, in relation of ‘time,’ the doctrines which are expressed by the term Hinayana were promulgated earlier 10 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM during Buddha’s life-time by himself, while the doctrines expressed by the term “Mahayana were formulated by ‘Buddha’s disciples and followers after his death, were manifestations of his Introspectional perception. Again, in relation of ‘space’ these two aspects of Buddhism expressed ‘by the terms Mahayana and Hinayana respec- tively represents Buddha’s Introspectional perception and his Phenomenological perception. Therefore, now it is clear that the terms Mahayana and Hinayana were applied undoubtedly later on, when the mutual conflict engendering a sense of superiority arose between the Original and the Developed Buddhism in the shape of celia) It is-also clear that the school of Developed Buddhism wanted to display their own superiority over Original Buddhism, and they named their own school ‘Mibayana or the Great Vehicle and called their opponents by:‘the term . Hinayana or Small Vehicle. - Therefore, we see that the terms were coined and applied at a later stage for the first time by the school of Developed Bud- dhism or the Mahayanists. This is precisely the reason why we do not find such terms in.the Pali Nikiyas and Chinese t ‘translations of Agmas, but we do find innumerable mention of them in’ the Mahayana siitras and Sistras. Now the great question may arise, ‘“ Who is the founder of the Mahayana Buddhism and _ school represented. by it”? Many scholars are of opinion that ‘the. = tomneer of Mahayana Buddhism one school is ify “we look at the stupendous: work called Prsinapitamils sistra and Dasabhiimi-Vibhasa-sastra' of Nagarjuna, we actually find. many Mahayana siitras which have been quoted by the author. And this will convince us at least that ‘before Nag agarjuna there were many Mahaya ana siitras. } The fotmer i isa va commentary 9n the. Mahdprajiiaparamita. aftra and the latter ie a commentary on the first two of the ten Bhiimis in Dasgebhinstka chapter of Xvatorhanka atitre. And aee Appendix: INTRODUCTORY NOTE a Therefore, itis beyond doubt that Mahayana Buddhism and its certain allied schools were already in existonce before the time of N&garjuna. Again, through Paramartha’s introduction to the *‘N ikaya-abalambana- Sastra’ of Vasumitra which exists only in a Chinese translation, we come to know that the Mahasaighikas used some Mahayana.siltras. If this is a- true fact, we are here assured that some of the Mahayana siitras were certainly existing, may be in a different form, even in the two centuries following Buddha’s Parinirvana (i. @., tth and 8rd centuries B. C.). "Not only that, if we compare the Mahasanghika doctrines with those of Developed Buddhism or Mahayana, a bit carefully, we see that both sets. of doctrines are closely connected with each other. Again, at the same time we find that the ideas embodied in Mahasanghika school, are nothing but the aspect of Buddha’s Ontological perception. Therefore, my opinion is that Buddha’s Ontological perception has manifested itself as Mahayana Buddhism through the Mahasanghika school. Therefore, the origin of “Mahayana doctrines in the last analysis is Buddha’s perception in an incipient stage. But the full manifestation of the Mahayana doctrines is due-to the Mahasanghika school which, as you see, acted as an intermediate stage from a historical point of view. Hence we can’ safely say that the Mahasaaghikas were, in a certain sense, the founder of Mahayanism and at the same time the terms Mahayana and Himayana" were for the first time coined by the Mahasanghikas but used by the Mahayanists themselves. Our sort problem is why the Mah&sanghikas used such terms at all? In the course of this discourse, a question “when such terms were used?” naturally suggests itself. According to both Southern and Northern Buddhist records, disciples of Buddha entertained different ovinions 12 ORIGIN OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM even in his lifetime: but these they did individually.’ However, in course of time these different opinions found _ vent through different parties and schools at the Vaisall Council.". Why these different parties and schools ia Buddhism came to .being will be all clear to us if we do not forget the fact that the Mahdasanghikas as liberal and advanced Buddhists had always a conflict of opinion . with the Sthaviras or conservatives who loyally stuck to the original doctrine of Buddhism preached by the Master himself. Hence, the doctrines of these two parties in every respect were different from each other. For this reason in the Vaisali Council, the Sthaviras excommuni- cated the Mahdsanghikas or the Vajjian monks* and called them ‘Papa_Bhikkhus’ and ‘ Adhammavadins.’ . Henceforth the Mahasanghika party was growing in power and popularity each day in the Buddhist community ;- but this excommunication pained them much. Since that time Mahasanghikas began to search for such terms by which they could display the superiority of their own doctrines and reject other and after passing through many stages at last they hit upon the term ‘ Hinayana’ for the Sthaviras and called themselves -Mahayanists. Now, let us consider ‘‘ When these terms were first used?’ Such full-fledged terms cannot be found all at once. It is reasonable’ to ‘conjecture that gradually the terms ‘ Mahayana’ and ‘Himaydna’ must have come into vogue at a much later time when after. many similar other terms were tried and rejected, to belittle the doctrines of Sthavira-vada. This is quite evident from the fact that we find the use of these terms in Mahayana siitras and Sdstras which were ‘41 have made this clear in my “ The History of Early Baddhist Schools” in the Sir Asutogh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volume, Ty. 2 I maintain that Vajjian monks composed the main body of the, Mahdsahghika achodls*” INTRODUCTORY NOTE--- 1d composed abont the time of Nagarjuna and later on.