Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c2: Foreword

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c2

Language
English

Foreword

c2.1

MY DEAR FRIEND,

c2.2

You have done me an honour by requesting me to write a few words by way of Preface for your work on the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna and this request reminds me indeed of the many happy hours passed by us in the study of some Buddhist texts and in the discussion of the innumerable questions, of which your well-meaning curiosity expected to have from me the solutions. Often our learned palabra did not of course yield satisfactory solutions; it drifted on, one śāstra leading us to another; commencing from Hinayāna, we landed in Vijñaptimātratā where quite naturally we lost ourselves. While making our way, however, each of us profited by the discussions.

c2.3

Your aim, rather modest, is to present a clear view of the relations, historical and doctrinal, between the two Vehicles, and your book responds very well to your purpose. In your treatment of the numerous questions interesting in themselves and more interesting by reason of their general significance, you have not omitted to direct your attention to the exposition of the process of ideas, the action of foreign influences, the stages covering some centuries and an extensive region, by which the early form of Buddhism developed into the wonderful efflorescence of beliefs, myths and metaphysics of the Great Vehicle. It will be clear to your readers that the systems of the Great Vehicle are an adaptation of the theories of the Small Vehicle: prāptis and bījas, asaṃskṛtas, kāyas, the tathatā itself, the Sukhāvatīs and the heaven of Maitreya, etc. It is necessary to understand that there was never anything like Protestantism in the history of Buddhism. It is this that you show very well in the course of an examination of an important point.

c2.4

You have not denied yourself the trouble of giving expositions of the topics on which you have some new observations to make. I wish you had expanded the portion dealing with the history of Buddhism into three or more independent chapters. One can well see from your volume that the Buddhism of the most ancient sūtras differs from that of the philosophical sūtras; the Buddhism of the Mahā-sānghikas is not the Buddhism of the Sarvāstivādins, which again is not identical with that of the Sthaviras; the Mahāyānic tendencies, both doctrinal and religious, are of great antiquity and the Mahāyānic writings refer to aspects of Buddhism very different from one another, e.g., the Lalita, the Puṇḍarīka, the Prajñās, and the treatises of Asaṅga, not to speak of the Śraddhotpāda and such other works, in which the archaic Śakyamuni disappears giving place to the five Jinas. The researches which will give a little of chronology and geography have hardly been begun. Accordingly you do not pretend to write the history of Hinayāna-Mahāyāna, that is to say, the history of Buddhism.

c2.5

One of your best chapters, the newest by virtue of both the subject and the method, is that devoted to the Vinaya of the Great Vehicle. While reading it I have taken many of your notes and references. You have rectified some errors that have been current for a long time. We know that the Chinese pilgrims noticed long ago that the members of the two Vehicles resided together in a number of convents. The monks,—some adhering to the Great Vehicle and some to the Small, but belonging to the same sect, as also members of different sects within the convent of a particular sect,—lived in excellent harmony performing in unison the ecclesiastical acts, and evidently complying quite closely with the same disciplinary rules. Many European critics, not the less, or the least prudent, have denied it in the name of logic: "The sects have for their basis", says one of them, "not only traditional formalities but also some canonical writings, and precise doctrines; a sect divided into two yānas is therefore almost inconceivable. The statements of this nature found in the accounts of the Chinese pilgrims are due probably to confusion, or point to variations purely local and do not permit one to draw from them a general principle." All this is not clear; but we know, from the account given by I-tsing, the story of a Buddhist of the Great Vehicle, who had a horror for meat food: his master, of the Small Vehicle, refused him ordination as long as he did not eat the "three pure (kinds of meat).” This anecdote, so touching, shows where the difficulty lies. The master of Cittavarman saw nothing wrong in the fact that his disciple read books of the Great Vehicle; his sect had undoubtedly definite views about *sarvam asti*, about the inutility of the cult of the Bodhisattvas and so forth, but these were problems that did not affect the life of the monks within a convent. The important point is the respect shown to the traditional *Vinaya*. Cittavarman’s master cannot tolerate the scruples about eating which Cittavarman had foolishly learnt from the *Laṅkāvatāra*. In the same way, the king of Koutcha received respectfully Hiouen Tsang despite his Mahāyānism, but he had in mind to persuade him to take pure meat. Nevertheless, Cittavarman was received amongst the convinced and irreconcilable Hīnayānists, but all Hīnayānists were not of this sort and finally the diversities of diet were allowed in the same convent.

c2.6

In fact, Mahāyāna is sometimes allied to Tāntrism; it has sometimes sanctioned the marriage of monks and the overthrow of the ancient Buddhist institution. It cannot be denied that from the beginning it had a tendency to place the lay-supporters on the side of, if not above, the monks. But you show well that the Mahāyānic disciplinary initiatives at the earliest stage were very modest; the purpose was satisfied by adding a certain number of new rules to the ancient Vinaya (the avoidance of meat and so forth) and by increasing the rigour of some precepts. The scale of values is modified; it is believed that the preaching of the Law and service to others are more precious than the exercises which are of personal utility and certain ancient rules, though favourable to Arhatism—“no possession, no anxiety”—were no longer regarded as obligatory. The progress was generally slow but it was pursued without any harm. “The upholders of the more rigorous discipline should not be blamed, the upholders of the less rigorous are also blameless.” Devadatta, the Abbé Tempête of the history of Buddhism, did not play an important rôle in this history. As concerns the doctrines, it cannot be conceived that Vasubandhu on adopting the doctrine of Tathatā had to quit his sect for entering into a sect of the Mahāyānists. Where are the sects of the Mahāyānists, and by which names should they be known? There are only eighteen sects, all of which were represented in the assemblage of scholars of Nālandā. Can it be doubted that the communities of the Sthaviras practised the cult of relics? However, according to the definite views found in the Dīgha, the cult of relics concerns the laity and not the monks, whose endeavour should be exclusively confined to the supermundane.

c2.7

Your critical *exposé* of the views formerly and lately offered concerning Nirvāṇa is very lucid. It is a problem full of difficulties because it is not easy for unmystical minds to understand a thing which can only be "realised" in trance. Clearly, the Hinayāna denied the existence of any psychological principle outside the Skandhas. Evidently, the Skandhas (which are also named Upadhi) disappear at the death of a saint. Nevertheless, if the (Sautrāntika) author of the Sūtra says: "Five things are mere name, *viz.*, things of the past, things of the future, space, Pudgala and Nirvāṇa," the Buddhists, as a rule, admit that Nirvāṇa is bliss; but the saint, when dead, does not touch, seize, possess, realize Nirvāṇa, as he used to do when living. Such is the doctrine of the Vibhāṣā. For early Buddhists, the Nirvāṇa was, of course, an immortal state beyond existence and non-existence. The thirst for non-existence is very bad, the aspiration to Nirvāṇa is the very root of salvation and happiness.

c2.8

In conclusion, I do not wish to omit to point out the diligence with which you have collected the information and discussed the few points with which we are acquainted about the geographical origin of Mahāyāna; and also the interesting results that you have furnished by your study of the Prajñā-pāramitās.

c2.9

It now remains for me to thank you for your desire that my name should be associated with your work.

c2.10

Yours very sincerely, LOUIS DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN

c2.11

BRUXELLES 5th November, 1929

Linked texts (7)