Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c6.s6: Attempts to Prove that Mahāyāna was Derived Directly from Śākyamuni

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c6.s6

Language
English

Contents

Attempts to Prove that Mahāyāna was Derived Directly from Śākyamuni

c6.s6.1

There are however scholars, both ancient and modern, who are not willing to accept the unpleasant truth that Mahāyāna is not derived from Śākyamuni directly. The ancient scholars take shelter in scholastic arguments to oppose the inference, while the modern rely with the same object on a few traditions preserved in the literatures of Japan and India.

I. Asaṅga

c6.s6.t1.1

Asaṅga in the first chapter of his Sūtrālaṅkāra³ puts forward these arguments: "If it be a fact that Mahāyāna was not preached by Buddha and that it was invented (utpāditam) by some body at a later time, then it would be a danger (antarāya) to the excellent religion (saddharma), and it should have been foretold by Buddha as one of the many dangers that might befall his religion in future (anāgata-bhayas),¹ but it was not. It appears that Mahāyāna originated at the same time with Hīnayāna and not afterwards; then why should it not be regarded as based on Buddhavacana. Mahāyāna is a sublime and profound religion and so it cannot be understood by tārkikas (sceptical dialecticians). It is also not correct to say that it was uttered by some body other than Buddha, for it does not appear in the Śāstras of the non-Buddhists (tirthikas), and even if the tirthikas are told of it, they do not believe it. If we admit that it was said by some body other than Śākyamuni, then it must have been uttered by some one who had attained Bodhi. In that case also it is Buddhavacana, for he who after realising Bodhi has uttered this is a Buddha. If the existence of the Mahāyāna be denied, then there cannot exist a Śrāvakayāna, because Śrāvakayāna is Buddhavacana and it is not proper to say that there is no Mahāyāna (or Buddhayāna), for there cannot arise a Buddha without a Buddhayāna. It is also Buddhavacana in view of the fact that the unconditioned knowledge (sarvanirvikalpajñāna) attainable through Mahāyāna operates as an antidote to all kleśas. This scholastic reasoning of Asaṅga may have a value of its own but it does not establish the simultaneous origin of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.

c6.s6.t1.2

³ Sūtrā., pp. 3, 4. This passage of the Sūtrālaṅkāra is cited also in the Chinese commentary of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi for proving the authenticity of Mahāyāna. See Prof. Poussin's French translation of the Chinese commentary, pp. 176-78.

c6.s6.t1.3

¹ For a note on the Anāgatabhayas, see Lévi's French Translation of Sūtra., pp. 6, 7 fn.

II. Śāntideva

c6.s6.t2.1

Śāntideva, in his Bodhicaryāvatāra, adduces reasons different from those of Asaṅga to establish the authenticity of the Mahāyāna scriptures. His attempt is more to challenge the authenticity of the Hīnayāna Āgamas than to establish the aforesaid point. He says that the statement found in the Prajñāpāramitās that all the three yānas have been preached in them (atra prajñāpāramitāyām sarvāni trīṇi yānāni vistareṇopadiṣṭāni) is not accepted by the Hīnayānists, for the latter deny the authenticity of the Mahāyāna scriptures. To establish the authenticity of their own Āgamas, the first argument advanced by the Hīnayānists is this, that with regard to the authenticity of the Hīnayāna scriptures, the Mahāyānists have nothing to say by way of objection, while the Hīnayānists do not accept the scriptures which the Mahāyānists accept as the authentic utterances of Buddha himself. But the argument for establishing the authenticity of the scriptures on the acceptance of the same by persons (in this case the Hīnayānists or the Mahāyānists) is considered worthless by the Mahāyānists. The second argument put forward by the Hīnayānists is that their Āgamas have been handed from teacher to pupil and that it satisfies the conditions laid down by Buddha as proofs of authenticity, viz., that it agrees with the Sūtra, it can be traced (samdṛśyate) in the Vinaya, and that it is not in conflict with the causal origin of things (dharmatā¹, i.e., pratīyasamutpāda). But this argument also falls through on account of the fact that the Mahāyānists also can quote a similar passage from the Adhyāśaya-samcodanā-sūtra of theirs. The third argument of the Hīnayānists is that the authenticity of their scriptures is acknowledged not only by the Hīnayānists and the Mahāyānists but also by the non-Buddhists. This again is met by the Mahāyānists, who argue that the Vedas and such other literature would also then be accepted as authentic. The fourth and the last argument of the Hīnayānists is that as regards their scriptures, there are no differences of opinion, while there are many in regard to the Mahāyāna scriptures. This is answered by the Mahāyānists by pointing out that, leaving out of account the non-Buddhists such as the Mīmāṃsakas, the Hīnayānists themselves are not unanimous in their opinion about their scriptures, as they are divided into eighteen sects (bheda); the division does not stop there, the commentator adds, because in each sect (bheda) again, there are differences of opinion according as one is a Sautrāntika (one who studies the Sūtras only), an Ābhidharmika (one who studies the Abhidharma only), or a Vainayika (one who studies the Vinaya only)¹. The Hinayānists, therefore, should give up their Sūtras, Vinaya, and Abhidharma. This fact shows the unsoundness of the Hinayānic argument that their scriptures have been handed down faithfully from teacher to pupil. Moreover, there should not be any disagreement regarding Buddha- or Sarvajña-vacana if they have been faithfully preserved. Śāntideva’s arguments may show the anomaly of the position of the Hinayānists, but they do not establish his proposition that the Mahāyāna scriptures originated with Buddha.

c6.s6.t2.2

¹ Bodhic., p. 431: Yae ca sūtre' vatarati, vinaye ca samdṛśyate, dharmatām ca na vilomayati, tad Buddhavacanam nānyad; see also Sūtra., p. 5; cf. Dīgha, II; p. 124: Tāni padavyañjanāni sutte c'eva otaranti vinaye ca sandissanti, etc.

c6.s6.t2.3

¹ For detailed discussion on the division of monks belonging to the same sect, see my *Early History etc.*, p. 207; *Laṅkā.*, (B.T.S. ed.) pp. 135, 137.

Linked texts (4)