Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c5.s3.t4: Nature of the Contents of Early Mahāyāna Works

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c5.s3.t4

Language
English

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 (8)