Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c3: Preface

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c3

Language: English

Preface

c3.1

The object of this work is to present an exposition of the principal doctrines of Mahāyāna as found in the early Mahāyānic treatises and to show points of agreement and difference between the doctrines of Hinayāna and Mahayāna. For the convenience of comparison and for comprehending clearly the gradual changes undergone by the Buddhistic doctrines, I have sometimes placed in a detached way the views as found in the authoritative texts of Hinayāna and Mahāyāna without attempting to mix them up into a composite whole. The reason for following this method of presentation is that the Buddhist texts are the products of different periods and regions separated sometimes by long distances of time and space and, therefore, they cannot always be expected to fit into one homogeneous whole. It would be obliterating the signposts of development of philosophical or religious thought or its distinctions due to its development in different schools or regions if we treat the views embodied in the different treatises as a composite entity. The views found in every volume of the Buddhist scriptures should be subjected to an examination from this standpoint before they could be mixed up into an amalgam. In these circumstances, it will be helpful to Buddhistic studies, if the facts collected from the various texts be stated accurately but in separate groups so as not to blur in any way the peculiar significance of each group.

c3.2

The FIRST chapter is meant to help the readers to have a bird's-eye view of Buddhism for about seven centuries. The doctrines dealt with in the second and subsequent chapters belong to this period, though the sources from which the information has been drawn may be later.

c3.3

The SECOND chapter shows that the Mahāyānists regarded themselves as the true followers of Buddha, and asserted that Buddha had only one form of teaching, the Mahāyāna; but the Hinayānists being, according to the Mahāyānists, intellectually weak, could not comprehend it thoroughly.

c3.4

They considered themselves far superior to the Hinayānists and adduced reasons for this superiority.

c3.5

The THIRD chapter is divided into four sections. It will be found from the first section that according to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and other Mahāyāna texts, the Hinayāna teaching was only an expedient adopted by Buddha to suit the mental calibre of his early disciples, and that the Hinayānists were taught only Pudgalaśūnyatā and not Dharmaśūnyatā. It has been shown in the second section that the Buddha of the Hinayānists was really, according to the Mahāyāna view, one of his Nirmāṇakāyas, his two other kāyas being Sambhoga and Dharma. A review of the speculations of Trikāya in the various texts has been given in the section. The third section treats of the interpretations of Nirvāṇa. In it the conclusions drawn by scholars from the Piṭaka passages have been reviewed and the expositions of Buddhaghosa, Vasubandhu, Nāgārjuna and others have been summarised and compared. The fourth section deals with the four Truths and the Causal Law, the Paramārthasatyas of the Hinayānists. They are, however, Saṃvṛtisatyas to the Mahāyānists, whose Paramārtha or Pariniṣpanna-satya is Dharmaśūnyatā or Tathatā.

c3.6

The FOURTH chapter contains an exposition of the Bodhisattva-bhūmis, showing that the first six bhūmis correspond to the four stages of spiritual progress of the Hinayānists, and that the last four bhūmis are meant exclusively for bodhisattvas for the comprehension of Dharmaśūnyatā or Dharmasamatā and the acquisition of the extraordinary powers of a Buddha.

c3.7

It has been shown in the FIFTH chapter that the Mahāyānists depended upon the Hinayānists for their disciplinary code, adding to it some rules and practices in conformity with their own ideals.

c3.8

In the APPENDIX an attempt has been made to ascertain the probable time of composition of the Prajñāpāramitās.

c3.9

The difficulty of finding suitable English equivalents of the technical terms of Buddhist philosophy has compelled me at times to use the original Pāli and Sanskrit words without their English renderings. To make these words easily intelligible, an alphabetical list of same with the English renderings has been given at the end of the book.

c3.10

A tendency is noticeable in scholars making a special study of a particular branch of Buddhistic literature to develop a love for same, leading him to look upon the other branches of the literature with disfavour. This accounts for the lack of sympathy sometimes evinced by a scholar in the field of Hīnayāna towards the subjects pertaining to Mahāyāna. This state of things ought to be removed by a widening of outlook through an extension of the field of study by each scholar so as to embrace the one towards which he is unsympathetic without any good grounds.

c3.11

In sectarian disputes it is not unusual that one sect should misrepresent the views of the rival sect. As the result of my study of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, however, I can state without hesitation that the Buddhist writers are not open to this charge. Uniformly, the Mahāyāna works have represented accurately the position of the Hīnayānists. This can be well corroborated by actual references to the Hīnayāna works in regard to the expositions of particular Hīnayānic views. I have attempted to demonstrate that the Mahāyānists had no personal grudge against the Hīnayānists though, of course, the doctrines of the former differed essentially from those of the latter. The Mahāyānic criticisms of the Hīnayānic doctrines throw a flood of light on points which would have remained obscure if we had to depend on the Hīnayāna works alone. In order to clear up their own position, the Mahāyānists carefully analysed the Hīnayāna doctrines. Hence, instead of obscuring or misrepresenting the position of the Hīnayānists, the Mahāyāna works made substantial contributions towards the elucidation of Hīnayānic doctrines. Hence, to my mind, it is essential that we should utilise both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna works in order to arrive at the right conclusions with regard to the Buddhist doctrines.

c3.12

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge my debts of gratitude to the scholars who have rendered me help in various ways in the preparation of this work. I am thankful to Prof. R. L. Turner, Dr. L. D. Barnett and Dr. N. N. Law, under whose directions the plan of the book was matured and who did not spare themselves the trouble of going through it to remove its blemishes. The sympathy with which Dr. Barnett used to come to us, the Indian students, in the Oriental Room of the British Museum to furnish us with the pieces of useful information come across by him in the course of his studies and to help us otherwise in our subjects of research will always be a pleasant memory to me. The help derived by me from Prof. Louis de la Vallée Poussin of the University of Ghent proved very fruitful. Little did he realize the services he was rendering to me through the answers to my "queries" which by their nature and number often taxed to the utmost his delicate health. But his genial temper was never ruffled, and the best efforts were made by him to lead me through the maze of technicalities of the Mahāyāna scriptures. It was indeed a pleasure to meet him at Brussels in his cosy study with the master-minds of the Buddhistic age preserved in the numerous volumes nicely arranged all around. He has increased my obligation to him by contributing a Foreword to this volume. My thanks are also due to Prof. Max Walleser of Heidelberg and Dr. E. J. Thomas of Cambridge for giving me facilities for research, the former by placing his whole library at my disposal during my stay at Heidelberg and guiding me to consult the Tibetan and Chinese works, and the latter by enabling me to have access to the rare Buddhist manuscripts deposited in the Cambridge University Library. I also take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Principal of the London School of Oriental Studies, Dr. E. D. Ross, who is always ready to extend his helping hand to the Indian students, and who took much interest in my Tibetan and Chinese studies.

c3.13

Though this work was written in Europe, I had in India a few sincere friends who helped me in diverse ways in spite of the distance; particularly mentionable among them is Prof. Durgamohan Bhattacharya, M.A., of the Scottish Church College.

c3.14

Mr. N. C. Barua, M.A., has helped me much by preparing the Index to this work. The way in which a young friend of mine, Mr. Abani Mohan Chakravarti, has assisted me in making my manuscript ready for the Press merits special mention. As a mere expression of gratitude to Dr. N. N. Law would be inadequate for the help received from him, I take this opportunity to dedicate to him this humble volume.

c3.15

The acknowledgments of my indebtedness will not be complete unless I express my gratitude to the authorities of the Post-graduate Arts Department of the Calcutta University for the study-leave granted to me for enabling me to prosecute my researches in Europe.

c3.16

NALINAKSHA DUTT

c3.17

Calcutta University 30th July, 1930

Linked texts (2)

Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra — Sanskrit
Tipiṭaka (Theravāda) — Pāli