Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c5.s3: Third Period: C. The Beginnings of Mahāyāna

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c5.s3

Language
English

Contents

Third Period: C. The Beginnings of Mahāyāna

c5.s3.1

(circa 100 B.C. to 300 A.C.)

c5.s3.3

Before we proceed to ascertain the approximate time of the emergence of Mahāyāna, we must determine the special characteristics which distinguish Mahāyāna from Hīnayāna. Generally speaking, Mahāyānism is associated with
(i) the conception of the Bodhisattva,
(ii) the practice of the Pāramitās,
(iii) the development of Bodhicitta,
(iv) the ten stages (bhūmi) of spiritual development,
(v) the goal of Buddhahood,
(vi) the conception of Trikāya, and
(vii) the conception of Dharmaśūnyatā or Dharmasamatā or Tathatā.

c5.s3.4

The Mahāyānists distinguish themselves by saying that they seek the removal of both kleśāvaraṇa and jñeyāvaraṇa and this is possible by the realisation of both pudgalaśūnyatā and dharmaśūnyatā. The Hinayānists realise only the former, and thereby remove kleśāvaraṇa. They, therefore, attain vimukti (emancipation) from kleśas, and as far as this is concerned, they are on the same footing with the Mahāyānists, but they lack true knowledge as conceived by the Mahāyānists, viz., dharmaśūnyatā, because they do not remove jñeyāvaraṇa. The Hinayānists, however, do not admit their inferiority with regard to jñāna, for they consider that the destruction of avidyā (ignorance of the truth) or, in other words, acquisition of true knowledge is the only means to emancipation and this is effected by Arhats in the same way as by Buddhas. The Arhats are very often mentioned in the Pāli works as attaining sambodhi. They, however, admit that Buddhas, on account of their superior merits (technically, gotra), due to their long practice of meritorious actions, attain some powers and privileges, and also omniscience, which are beyond the reach of the Arhats. This is, in short, the relative position of the Hinayānists and the Mahāyānists.

c5.s3.5

If the development of Hinayāna in its various phases be examined, one cannot help observing that some of the distinguishing characteristics of Mahāyāna mentioned above are also found in the later phases of Hinayāna, e.g.,
(i) the conception of the Bodhisattva,
(ii) the practice of the six pāramitās,
(iii) the development of Bodhicitta,
(iv) the goal of Buddhahood, and
(v) two of the Kāya conceptions, viz., Rūpa- (or Nirmāṇa-) kāya and Dharmakāya, the conception of the latter being essentially different from that of the Mahāyānists.¹ So, to be exact about the time of emergence of Mahāyana, we should consider when the conceptions of Dharmaśūnyatā and Dharmakāya (=Tathatā) came to be introduced.

c5.s3.6

¹ In the Mtu., the expression Sambhogakāya does not occur; yet the description of Buddha's body sometimes shows it to be tantamount to that conception.

Semi-Mahāyāna

c5.s3.t1.1

From what we have seen above in regard to the lines of development in the preceding period, it is evident that the Hīnayānists either to popularise Buddhism or to interest the laity more in it, incorporated in their doctrines the conception of the Bodhisattva and the practice of the pāramitās.¹ This was effected by the production of the new literature, the Jātakas and Avadānas. As the Jātakas confine themselves to the previous lives of Buddha, we must look to the Avadānas specially for the introduction of the Bodhisattva conception, and for its presentation as an ideal for the laity. The object of the Avadānas is to show how the devotees sacrifice every thing, even their lives, for the performance of the pāramitās, not for any earthly or heavenly pleasures, but for the attainment of bodhi and thus for the rescue of all beings from misery.²

c5.s3.t1.2

¹ For an interesting discussion on this point see Speyer, Ava. S., pp. v ff.

c5.s3.t1.3

² Divyā., p. 473 : Rūpavatī makes sacrifice for “na rājyārtham na bhogārtham na svargārtham na śakrārtham na rājñām cakravartinām viṣayārtham nānyatrāham anuttarām samyaksambodhim abhisambudhyādāntān damayeyam amuktān mocayeyam anāśvastān āśvāsayeyam aparinirvṛtān parinirvāpayeyam”.

c5.s3.t1.4

The Divyāvadāna, as we have seen, refers to the aspiration for the attainment of Buddhahood. So also, one reads in the Mahāvastu³ about devotees developing Bodhicitta and aspiring to Buddhahood by the simple act of worshipping a stūpa or making some presents to it. In connection with the Sarvāstivādins, the treatise of Vasumitra speaks (i) of the sameness of vimukti of Buddhas, Śrāvakas, and Pratyekabuddhas; (ii) of the three Yānas; and (iii) of Bodhisattvas continuing to be pṛthagjana till they step into the samyaktva-niyāma (the path leading to the right knowledge).⁴

c5.s3.t1.5

³ Mtu., pp. 364, 365, 367 : bodhāya cittam nametvā; pp. 375, 377 bodhim atulyam spṛśati.

c5.s3.t1.6

⁴ Masuda, op. cit., p. 49: “The Buddha and the two vehicles have no differences as to emancipation (vimukti): the Aryan paths (mārga) of the three vehicles (however) differ from one another. This is wanting in the Tibetan version.” Masuda contradicts Wassiljew's opinion (p. 275, n.4) that it is an interpolation of the later Mahāyānists.

c5.s3.t1.7

The *Mahāvastu* also speaks of the existence of the three Yānas¹ and of the paths and practices to be followed by a Bodhisattva. It mentions the four *caryās* of a Bodhisattva and the ten *bhūmis* but the conception of the *bhūmis*, as will be shown hereafter,² has very little in common with that of the ten *bhūmis* of the *Daśabhūmikasūtra* except the first two. Of course, it may be assumed that the Lokottaravāda conception of the *bhūmis* served as the seed for the later development of the Mahāyānic conception.

c5.s3.t1.8

¹ *Mtu.*, II, p. 362.

c5.s3.t1.9

² *See infra*, ch. IV; also Rahder's Intro. to *Daśa.*, pp. iii f.

c5.s3.t1.10

Thus the Avadānas, which are primarily the production of the Sarvāstivādins, clearly show a new phase of development within Hinayānic Bodhisattva-yāna. The Lokottaravādins of the Mahāsānghikas show a little more development than the Sarvāstivādins by defining the four *caryās*, viz., *prakṛti-caryā*, *praṇidhānacaryā*, *anulomacaryā*, and *anivartanacaryā*,³ the first referring to the preliminary practices of a Bodhisattva while he is a pṛthagjana, the second to the development of Bodhicitta, the third to the gradual progress made by a Bodhisattva up to the sixth *bhūmi*, and the fourth to the practice of the last four *bhūmis*⁴ from which a Bodhisattva can never retrocede but must ultimately attain Bodhi. The attainment of Bodhi, therefore, came to be regarded as one of the goals of Hinayāna. It is for this reason that we see the *Kośa* discussing the thirty-four moments required for the attainment of Bodhi,⁵ and other matters relating to

c5.s3.t1.11

³ *Mtu.*, I, p. 46; *Lal. Vis.*, p. 35.

c5.s3.t1.12

⁴ The writer of the *Mtu.* had very vague ideas about the last four *bhūmis*; so he dismissed them with mere enumerations of some names of Buddhas and recounting some stories.

c5.s3.t1.13

⁵ *Kośa*, II, 44; VI, 21a-b; cf. *Kvu.*, i. 5; xviii. 5; *Paṭis. M.*, I, pp. 121 ff. discusses the *ñāṇa* of Buddhas.

c5.s3.t1.14

For the *vimuktisāmānya* of the Śrāvakas, Pratyekabudhas, and Buddhas, *see infra*. Masuda, *op. cit.*, p. 50: The Haimavata school supports the Sarvāstivādins on this point, adding, however, that the Bodhisattvas are not subject to *rāga* and *kāma*. See Masuda, *op. cit.*, p. 52. The *Mtu.* calls a Bodhisattva in the first *bhūmi* a pṛthagjana who becomes an Ārya from the second *bhūmi*; *see infra* ch. IV.

c5.s3.t1.15

Buddhahood, and the Hinayānic works ¹ mentioning some of the Bodhisattva practices and philosophical expressions like śūnyatā, dharmadhātu, dharmakāya, tathātva, though they are devoid of their new Mahāyānic sense.

c5.s3.t1.16

¹ Mtu., II, p. 357: Śūnyatām śāntam bhāventi, see also Samyutta II, p. 267; III, p. 167.

c5.s3.t1.17

In view of these facts, we may hold that before Mahāyāna came into existence with its new interpretation of Buddha’s words, evolving a new sense of śūnyatā, there had already been a Hinayānic Bodhisattvayāna, which can be called semi-Mahāyāna, or Mahāyāna in the making. This semi-Mahāyāna concerned itself only with the six Pāramitā practices and the extraordinary powers and knowledge attained by Buddhas. It was as yet unaware of ‘Advaya Advaidhikāra’, Dharmaśūnyatā or Tathatā. That the six pāramitās belong to the domain of Hinayāna is also hinted at in the Daśabhūmikasūtra. ² In this sūtra as well as in other treatises dealing with the bhūmis, the ten bhūmis are divided into two sections, the first six carrying a Bodhisattva to the realisation of Pudgalaśūnyatā, or in other words, the Truth as conceived by the Hinayānists, and the last four leading to the realisation of Dharmaśūnyatā, the Truth as conceived by the Mahāyānists. So the actual Mahāyānic stages of progress commence from the seventh, but we learn from the Daśabhūmikasūtra that the six pāramitās are completed by a Bodhisattva in the first six bhūmis. Thus, it follows that the practice of Pāramitās alone does not make a person a follower of the Mahāyāna, though we must admit that the Mahāyāna takes its stand upon the pāramitās as far as the practices are concerned, for it is said in the Prajñāpāramitās that Buddhas deliver discourses connected with the six pāramitās, ³ and in the Madhyamakāvatāra that the Mahāyāna teaches not only śūnyatā but also the pāramitās, bhūmis, and so forth. ⁴

c5.s3.t1.18

² See infra, ch. IV.

c5.s3.t1.19

³ Pañca., p. 7: ṣaṭpāramitāpratisamyuktām dharmadeśanām karoti.

c5.s3.t1.20

⁴ M. Ava., (Le Muséon, VIII, p. 271): En effet, la doctrine du Grand Véhicule n’enseigne pas seulement le néant des éléments, mais encore les terres des Bodhisattvas, les vertus transcendantes (pāramitās),

c5.s3.t1.21

Lastly, the fact, that the conceptions of *nirnimitta* and *niḥsvabhāva* indicating the chief features of the attainments of a Bodhisattva in the last four *bhūmis* were yet unknown to the compiler of the *Mahāvastu*, is evident from his inability to mention the qualities attained in the last four *bhūmis*.¹ Hence it may be concluded that Buddhism entered into its semi-Mahāyānic stage very early, if not at the time of Asoka, at any rate, soon after him.

c5.s3.t1.22

¹ See ante p. 37, fn. 4.

The Time of Composition of the Prajñāpāramitā

c5.s3.t2.1

The new Mahāyānic conception of *Śūnyatā* was for the first time propounded in the *Prajñāpāramitās* and therefore we should try to ascertain when the *Prajñāpāramitā* first came into existence. There is the Tibetan tradition that the Pūrvaśailas and Aparaśailas had a *Prajñāpāramitā* in the Prākṛt dialect;² unfortunately no other information about it is forthcoming. Tāranātha tells us that shortly after the time of King Mahāpadma Nanda, a king called Candragupta lived in Oḍivisa (Orissa).³ Mañjuśrī came to his house in the form of a bhikṣu and delivered the Mahāyāna teaching. The Sautrāntikas maintain that this teaching was the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā*, while the Tantra school asserts that it was the *Tattvasaṅgraha*.⁴ We may safely dismiss the Tantric tradition in view of the materials that are contained in the *Tattvasaṅgraha*,⁵ and attach importance to the Sautrāntika tradition that the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā* was the earliest text to contain the Mahāyāna teaching. If the contents of the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā*, the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā*, and the *Śatasāhasrikā* be compared, it will be seen that the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā* is

c5.s3.t2.2

² Wassiljew, *Buddhismus*, p. 291 quoting the Tibetan *Siddhānta*.

c5.s3.t2.3

³ Tāra., p. 58; *Pag Sam Jon Zang*., p. 82 also says that Mahāyāna Buddhism had its beginning in Oḍivisa shortly after the reign of Mahāpadma Nanda.

c5.s3.t2.4

⁴ Recently published in the Gaekwad Oriental Series.

c5.s3.t2.5

⁵ For a survey of its contents see my review in *I.H.Q.*, Dec., 1929.

c5.s3.t2.6

les resolutions (praṇidhāna), la grande compassion, etc., mais encore l'application du merite à illumination, les deux equipments de mérite et de savoir et la nature incomprehensible du dharma (acintya-dharma-matā).

c5.s3.t2.7

the earliest of the three and that it can be dated as early as the first century B.C.¹

c5.s3.t2.8

¹ For details see Intro. to the *Pañca.* (published in C.O.S.).

The Geographical Data about the Origin of Mahāyāna

c5.s3.t3.1.1

Without attaching much importance to the chronology of kings and such other materials presented to us by Tāranātha, we may with sufficient caution utilise some of his statements with regard to the developments in the history of the religion, the geographical distribution of the schools, and the succession of teachers in the various centres. He tells us that according to one tradition, 500 bodhisattvas² took part in the Jalandhara Council of Kaniṣka, that about this time the Mahāyāna texts appeared and were usually preached by monks, who had attained the *Anutpattikadharmakṣānti* ("Geduld in der Lehre des Nichtgeborenerdens"),³ a dogma characteristic of the Mahāyānists. It may be a development of the Hīnayānic Anutpādajñāna (further non-origin of āsravas and hence re-birth) and Kṣayajñāna,⁴ but it bore a completely different sense in the Mahāyāna scriptures. The reference to the existence of a class of monks called Bodhisattvas at the time of Kaniṣka’s Council is also significant, for we read in the *Divyāvadāna* of the existence of a class of monks called *Bodhisattvajātika* along with a hint that they were not looked upon with favour by the Hīnayānists.⁵ Tāranātha expresses his difficulty in accounting for the existence of monks called Bodhisattvas in the Kaniṣkan Council.

c5.s3.t3.1.2

He tells us further that about the time of Kaniṣka, the brahmin Kulika of Saurāṣṭra invited the Sthavira and Arahanta Nanda, a native of Aṅga, who had comprehended the Mahāyāna teaching in order to hear from him the new teaching.¹ The only point that deserves notice is the use of the appellations, Arahanta and Sthavira, indicating that Nanda was a Hīnayānist monk who had comprehended the Mahāyāna teaching. The remark of Tāranātha that monks who had attained Anutpattikadharmakṣānti preached also Mahāyāna shows that there was a class of Hīnayāna monks who had been propagating the Mahāyāna teaching.² Then the association of Odivisa with the beginning of Mahāyāna teaching, and of the monk Nanda with Aṅga suggest that we should look for the origin of Mahāyāna somewhere in the east. A passage occurring in all the Prajñāpāramitās partially lends support to the statement of Tāranātha. The passage says that Mahāyāna teaching will originate in the south (Dakṣiṇāpatha), pass to the eastern countries (Vartanyām),³ and prosper in the north. Evidently, this statement of the Prajñāpāramitās was written while the work was compiled in the north after the Mahāyāna teaching had been effectively propagated there. We may substantiate this statement by pointing to the Tibetan tradition about the existence of a Prajñāpāramitā in the Prākṛt dialect belonging to the Śaila schools, the centre of which was in the south (Guntur District).

c5.s3.t3.1.3

Very probably, this Prajñāpāramitā contained the germs of Mahāyāna teaching. Then the shifting of the centre of Mahāyāna to the east is hinted at by Tāranātha, as referred to above. In this connection it may also be pointed out that Nalanda was one of the earliest centres and storehouses of Mahāyāna teaching, becoming, later on, the seat of Nāgārjuna. So, it seems quite probable that Mahāyānism originated in the south some time before Kaniṣka and became a recognised form of Buddhism by the time of Kaniṣka, i.e., about the beginning of the Christian era when it established its chief centre in the east, gradually pushing its way towards the north to blossom forth in its full glory under the care of the great Nāgārjuna. In the south too, it continued to thrive, for in the *Gaṇḍavyūha* we read that Mañjuśrī started from Jetavana to travel in Dakṣiṇāpatha¹ and came to Māladhvavyūha caitya in the great city of Dhanyākara,² where many devotees lived. Here he delivered a discourse and aroused aspiration for bodhi in the mind of Sudhanu, son of a rich banker of the place and directed him to go to Sugrivaparvata in the country of Rāmavartta (also in Dakṣiṇāpatha) in order to learn the Samantabhadra-bodhisattva-caryā. Sudhanu travelled over many places³ of the Dakṣiṇāpatha in search of knowledge, arriving at last at Dvāravati. After learning all that he could in southern India, he went to Kapilavastu and travelled over some countries⁴ of the north.

c5.s3.t3.1.4

In the *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa*⁵ also Dhānyakaṭaka, Śrīparvata, and a few other places of the Dakṣiṇāpatha are mentioned, showing the prevalence of Buddhism there. Nāgārjuna, whose birthplace was in Vidarbha (Berar),⁶ also dwelt in the south, passing his last days at Śrīparvata (mod. Śrīśailam).⁷ Āryadeva likewise came from Southern India, as did also Nāga,⁸ the other disciple of Nāgārjuna. So, it appears that the south may claim credit for being not only the birthplace of Mahāyāna itself, but also of the noted figures, who were instrumental in making Mahāyāna what it was in the 2nd and 3rd century A. C. The dates of Āryadeva and Nāga are placed in the early part of the 3rd century (200-225) and Nāgārjuna precedes them by a few decades.¹ The glory of Nāgārjuna and his school of philosophy threw into the shade the great figure of Maitreya, the traditional founder of the Yogācāra school, until the time of Asaṅga, who brought his works into prominence and placed this school of philosophy on a high pedestal.

c5.s3.t3.2

² Aśvaghoṣa is called a bodhisattva in the Chinese *Samyukta-ratna-piṭaka-sūtra* (No. 1329, Vol. VI). See Takakusu, *I-tsing*, p. lix. Cf. De Groot, *Le Code du Mahayana en Chine*, p. 8: Two or three days after the first ordination according to the Prātimokṣa rules, the monks pass through a special ordination according to the Brahmajāla sūtra and become bodhisattva. See *infra*, Ch. V.

c5.s3.t3.3

³ *Tāra.*, p. 61. See M. Vr., p. 363 n.; *Laṅkā.*, p. 81; *Aṣṭa.*, p. 331: anutpādajñānakṣāntiko bodhisattva. See *infra*, Ch. III.

c5.s3.t3.4

⁴ For Anutpādajñāna and Kṣayajñāna, see *Kośa*, VI, 17, 71. The Kṣayajñāna with the Anutpādajñāna makes the Bodhi; see also *Kośa*, vi, 50; vii, 1, 46, 7.

c5.s3.t3.5

⁵ *Divyā.*, p. 261.

c5.s3.t3.6

¹ Tāra., p. 62.

c5.s3.t3.7

² Can it be that Aśvaghoṣa, author of the Buddhacarita, belonged to this class of Hīnayāna monks?

c5.s3.t3.8

³ Aṣṭa., p. 225. For Vartanyām, see Trikāṇḍaśeṣa, 2. 1. 12.

c5.s3.t3.9

¹ *Gaṇḍavyūha* (A. S. B. ms.) leaf 19b.

c5.s3.t3.10

² *Ibid.*, 21b: Dakṣiṇāpathe Dhanyākaran nāma mahānagaram. Very likely it is the same as the famous Dhānyakaṭaka (Dharaṇikoṭa).

c5.s3.t3.11

³ The names of places in some cases seem to be fictitious; some of the names are:—Sāgaramukha, Sāgaranāma, Laṅkāpatham, Vajrapuranāma Draviḍa-paṭṭala, Vanavāsī, Milasphuraṇam nāma Jamudvipaśīrṣam, Potalaka (the dwelling-place of Avalokiteśvara), and Dvāravati.

c5.s3.t3.12

⁴ The northern countries visited by him are:—Bodhimanḍa and Kapilavastu.

c5.s3.t3.13

⁵ *Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa* (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series), p. 88.

c5.s3.t3.14

⁶ Walleser, *Die Lebenszeit des Nagarjuna in Z. für Buddhismus* (Munich), I, pp. 95ff.

c5.s3.t3.15

⁷ Nāgārjuna's name is closely associated with Dhānyakaṭaka, near which are Śrīparvata and Nāgārjunikuṇḍa (west of Palnad Taluk); for details see Burgess, *Stūpas of Amarāvatī*, pp. 5, 6, 112; *Annual Report of South Indian Epigraphy*, 1926-7, p. 71.

c5.s3.t3.16

⁸ Nāgāhvaya in *Laṅkā*., p. 286; see Vaidya's *Catuḥśatikā*, Intro.,

c5.s3.t3.17

¹ Prof. Walleser thinks it should be the beginning of the 2nd century. See Z. für Buddhismus (6 Jahrgang, Schluss Heft), p. 242; I-tsing, p. lvii : Nāgārjuna, Aśvaghoṣa, and Āryadeva are regarded as contemporaries of Kaniṣka.

Nature of the Contents of Early Mahāyāna Works

c5.s3.t4.1

The first two centuries of the Christian era witnessed the conflict between Hinayāna and Mahāyāna as well as the systematisation of the Mahāyāna doctrines. The works which depict (in one-sided fashion, it must be admitted) this struggle, viz., the Prajñāpāramitās, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Laṅkāvatara, Daśabhūmikasūtra, and Gaṇḍavyūha, were very probably the products of this period, but evidences are still lacking as to the exact dates of composition of these works. The only clue is supplied by the dates of their Chinese translations, but these are to be regarded as the latest limits of the time of their composition.² In the absence of any definite data about the earliest limit, we can take into consideration

c5.s3.t4.2

² Dates of the Chinese translations :
(i) Of the Prajñāpāramitās, the earliest translated is the Daśasāhasrikā, which, however, has no Sanskrit original. It was translated between 25 and 220 A.C.; the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā between 265 and 316 and the Sata-sāhasrikā about 659.
(ii) The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka was translated between 265 and 316 by Dharmarakṣa, and between 384 and 417 by Kumārajīva. For its various versions, see Hoernle, Manuscript Remains, etc., pp. 139ff.;

c5.s3.t4.3

pp. 22, 61; Wassiljew, op. cit., p. 130; Vidyābhūṣaṇa's Logic (1st ed.), p. 71.

c5.s3.t4.4

the nature of their contents, indicating a time when the Mahāyānists were trying to belittle the Hīnayānists. The Prajñāpāramitās are full of Hīnayānic technical expressions and phraseology, meant to show how the position of the Hīnayānists is untenable, how they are deluded by the superficialities of the religion, and how insignificant their knowledge is in comparison with that of a bodhisattva practising the prajñāpāramitā. The Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka sets itself to the task of proving that the Hīnayānists are of poor intellect, but yet they can make progress in religious matters, ultimately turning to Mahāyāna and comprehending the truth. The Gaṇḍavyūha essays to depict the great struggles of a bodhisattva—struggles which are beyond the capacity of the Hīnayānists—in order to learn the Samantabhadra-bodhisattvacaryā; Sudhanu visits many bodhisattvas, bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, and upāsikās versed in certain portions of the Caryā and acquires the same from them. The Daśabhūmikasūtra, as the title indicates, relates the practices connected with the bhūmis, the gradual stages of a bodhisattva's sanctification. It also never misses an opportunity to attack the Hīnayānists and to show how the last four bhūmis of the bodhisattvas are wholly beyond the capacity of the śrāvakas. The Laṅkāvatāra, though one of the latest books of this group to be translated, contains an exposition of the early Yogācāra system and it harps throughout on the theme, viz., how the Hīnayānists are concerned only with svasāmānyalakṣaṇa (particular and generic characteristics of things) and are ignorant of the non-existence of all things.

c5.s3.t4.5

The Mahāyāna works that immediately follow are those of Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga, Āryadeva, Vasubandhu, etc. Though

c5.s3.t4.6

J.R.A.S., 1927, pp. 252ff.; Feer, Annales du Musée Guimet, II, p. 242; As. Res., XX, p. 436; Wassiljew, Buddhismus, p. 151.

c5.s3.t4.7

(iii) The Laṅkāvatāra was translated by Guṇabhadra (443 A.C.) and Bodhiruci (553). See Eastern Buddhist, IV, p. 99.

c5.s3.t4.8

(iv) The Daśabhūmikasūtra was translated by Dharmarakṣa (297 A.C.) and by Kumārajīva (384-417). See Rahder's Intro. to the Daśa.

c5.s3.t4.9

(v) The Gaṇḍavyūha was translated between 317 and 420 A.C.

c5.s3.t4.10

the main object of Nāgārjuna’s Kārikā is to establish the idea that things are relatively existent, and that the truth is one and realisable only within one’s own self, he takes up the chief dogma of the Hinayānic schools and tries to prove its hollowness from the new standpoint set up by him. Asaṅga, though of a much later date, does not allow the Hinayānic doctrines to pass unnoticed. He shows in his Sūtrālaṅkāra the inferiority of the Hinayānists in mental calibre and their unfitness to comprehend the truth. Vasubandhu likewise in his Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi pointedly indicates how the Hinayānists labour under misconceptions, the complete eradication of which is the aim of the Mahāyānists. Thus we see that though most of the works mentioned above belong to a time posterior to that with which we are here primarily concerned, they present us with materials illustrative of the conflict for ascendancy that was going on between the Hinayānists and the Mahāyānists.

c5.s3.t4.11

One remarkable feature, however, of the criticisms contained in these works against the Hinayānists is that they do not attempt to distort the position of the Hinayānists in order to win the laurel for the Mahāyānists. The statements made in them with regard to the Hinayānists are mostly borne out by the earlier and later Hinayāna works. Hence, instead of distorting their real position, they throw a flood of light on the Hinayānic doctrines. The Mahāyānists found fault with the Hinayānists, not because they misinterpreted the teachings of Buddha but because they looked upon as truth that which appeared to the Mahāyānists as only partial. In the next chapter, we shall examine the estimate made of the Hinayānists by the Mahāyānists, and the reasons underlying such an estimate.

Linked texts (25)