Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c10.s3.1

c10.s3.1

Another internal evidence, proving the greater antiquity of *Aṣṭa.* is its conception of Bhūmis. We have seen that in the evolution of the Bhūmi conception, the *Mahāvastu* represents the earliest stage, the *Śata.* and the *Pañcaviṃśati.* the middle, and the *Daśabhūmikasūtra* and other works the latest¹. The *Aṣṭa.* does not refer to the Bhūmis at all. Objection may be taken to such negative evidences, but if the *Aṣṭa.* and the *Śata.* be compared, it will be found that the evidence, though negative, is strong enough to prove our contention. The account of the Bhūmis occurs in the tenth chapter of the *Śata.*, in which the topic has been introduced by the line: *Katham bodhisattvo mahāyāna-samprasthito bhavati* (how a bodhisattva is regarded as having started on the great way?)². This is preceded by an elaborate answer to the question, "What is Mahāyāna?"³, giving opportunity to the *Śata.* to dilate on all the practices, which a bodhisattva is expected to accomplish. The chapter that follows the account of the Bhūmis deals with the metaphysical interpretation of Mahāyāna, which is identified there with the highest truth, the *Śūnyatā*, and compared to *Ākāśa*⁴. The *Aṣṭa.* answers the question as to who is Mahāyāna-samprasthita by one word: *pāramitābhiḥ samprasthitaḥ* (started by practice of the pāramitās). This is preceded by a brief answer to the question "What is Mahāyāna?" and followed by the remarks about the metaphysical aspect of Mahāyāna without any reference to the Bhūmis. It may be contended that the *Aṣṭa.* for the sake of abridgment omitted many topics and the account of the Bhūmis was one of them. An objection like this cannot be answered except by a further negative evidence. It is a common practice with the *Prajñāpāramitās* to enumerate all the various practices and even stages of sanctification of a Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha or Bodhisattva and show that they are non-existing or that Bodhisattvas remain dissociated from them or that they are only dreams but taken as real by the dreaming masses. None of the *Prajñāpāra-* mitās mention these Mahāyānic bhūmis though they speak of the Hinayānic stages of sanctification¹ in such enumerations. This strengthens our position that the conception of Bhūmis was not known to the early Mahāyānists and that they were invented later on and incorporated in the larger Prajñāpāramitās, leaving untouched the older enumeration of Śrāvakabhūmis².