Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c6.s7: The Japanese Scholars on the Authenticity of Mahāyāna

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c6.s7

Language
English

The Japanese Scholars on the Authenticity of Mahāyāna

c6.s7.1

Let us now see what the modern scholars have to say about the authenticity of Mahāyānism and Mahāyāna scriptures. Mr. Suzuki takes to a line of reasoning different from those of the ancient scholars. He tries to draw an analogy between Buddhism and Christianity and says that if Protestantism be the genuine teaching of Jesus of Nazareth then Mahāyāna Buddhism is also the genuine teaching of Buddha Śākyamuni. This sort of argument may well serve Mr. Suzuki in a controversy with an orthodox advocate of Protestantism speaking on Mahāyāna, but in historical criticism, it has no weight. However, he reveals the real state of things when he points out in another place that Mahāyānism is not a fossilised but a living religion like Christianity and though some “changes it has made during its historical evolution, its spirit and central ideas are all those of its founder”. He states further that if we take the term “genuine” to mean a lifeless preservation of the original, then Mahāyānism is not the genuine teaching of Buddha, but "the Mahāyānists would be proud of the fact, because being a living religious force, it would never descend to be the corpse of a bygone faith". Ultimately he says "What does it matter, then, whether or not Mahāyānism is the genuine teaching of Buddha" ¹.

c6.s7.2

¹ Suzuki, *Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism*, p. 16.

c6.s7.3

Mr. Suzuki admits, therefore, that Mahāyāna may not be the teaching of Buddha, but Mr. Kimura, without denying the fact that the "Mahāyāna sūtras and the statements embodied therein undoubtedly came into being after Buddha's death", puts forward his theory about the possession of two kinds of "perception" by Buddha, Mahāyāna representing the "introspectional or esoteric" side of the "perception" and Hinayāna the "phenomenological or exoteric" side ². He believes that Buddha imparted his introspectional teachings to the select few among his disciples, preaching his 'phenomenological' teachings to all the rest. This theory is based partly on the traditions to the same effect preserved in Japan and partly on an uncritical acceptance of some of the statements relating to Sāmvṛta and Paramārtha truths found in the early Mahāyāna treatises, specially the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka. There could be no objection to accept Mr. Kimura's view if he could point out the "advanced and brilliant disciples" who "rightly grasped Buddha's introspectional ideas" and of which they made an exposition resulting in the development of "Mahāyānic ideas". If Śāriputra, Subhūti, Mahāmaudgalyāyana were not able to grasp Buddha's ontological teachings as the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka actually states, then who were the others able to do so? They certainly cannot be the Bodhisattvas, who have the appearance of fictitious figures even in the Mahāyāna literature. In fact, the interlocutors in the early Mahāyāna treatises, such as the Prajñāpāramitās, are the Hinayāna savants, Śāriputra, Subhūti, etc., and the names that we most frequently come across in the Mahāyāna works are those of the prominent figures of the Hīnayāna literature. No student of history will probably believe the statement of the *Prajñāpāramitās* that these disciples delivered the Mahāyāna teachings only by being inspired by Buddha¹ and without properly grasping them. Japanese traditions, which are relied upon in this connection to establish the authenticity of the Mahāyāna, reveal, I think, the actual state of things. They accord priority of origin to Hīnayāna, as will be seen from the following:—

c6.s7.4

² Evidently Mr. Kimura has in his mind the Paramārtha- and Samvṛti-satyas. For Mr. Kimura's statements, see *Journal of Letters* (Calcutta University), vol. xii, pp. 47, 59, 65. For the two Satyas see Chapter III (d).

c6.s7.5

¹ *Aṣṭa.*, p. 33: Sthaviraḥ Subhūtir āha. Tena hi Kauśika upadekṣyāmi te buddhānubhāvena buddhatejasā buddhādhiṣṭhānena.

c6.s7.6

(a) The Hsien Shou school thus arranges chronologically the Japanese traditions on the various forms of the Buddhist teachings:—

c6.s7.7

(i) Siao Chiao or primitive teaching;

c6.s7.8

(ii) Shih Chiao or the beginning of the true religion (transitional state);

c6.s7.9

(iii) Chung Chiao or the final development of the true religion;

c6.s7.10

(iv) Tun Chiao or the school of meditation;² and

c6.s7.11

² "This second school founded by the last Buddhist patriarch Ta Mo is not mentioned separately in the Tien Tai classification" T. Richard, *New Testament of Higher Buddhism*, p. 41.

c6.s7.12

(v) Yuan Chiao or the complete religion of all the schools.

c6.s7.13

(b) The Tien Tai school puts the order thus:—

c6.s7.14

(i) Tsang Chiao or primitive teaching;

c6.s7.15

(ii) Tung Chiao or the teaching in a transitional state;

c6.s7.16

(iii) Pieh Chiao or the new teaching; and

c6.s7.17

(iv) Yuan Chiao or the complete religion of all the schools.³

c6.s7.18

³ See T. Richard, *op. cit.*, p. 4; here the word "teaching" has been preferred to "Buddhism"; see also *Journal of Letters*, xii, p. 64, *Eastern Buddhist*, iv, i.

c6.s7.19

The tradition of the Tien Tai school, however, adds that the *Avatamsaka sūtras* were preached first, but as they were not understood by the disciples, the *Āgamas* were preached.

c6.s7.20

Then, after some time when Buddha had some disciples with more developed mental powers, the ontological doctrines found in the *Prajñāpāramitās* and such other works were preached. Both the traditions support the view that both the forms of teaching were delivered by Buddha within the space of forty years. The Tibetan traditions go further and state that Śākyamuni delivered his instructions on the *Prajñāpāramitā* sixteen years after the attainment of bodhi, i.e., in the fifty-first year of his age while he was dwelling on the Gṛdhrakūṭa mountain, and add that they were compiled by Kāśyapa.¹ Any one who examines the style of writing and the nature of the doctrinal and other matters discussed in the *Gaṇḍavyūha*, an old treatise of the *Avataṃsaka* class, can have little doubt about the posteriority of this class of literature not only to the Hīnayāna *Āgamas* or the *Nikāyas*, but also to the *Prajñāpāramitās*. Considering, for instance, the conception of the lokadhātus or the account of the existence of Buddhism in the south of India as found in the *Gaṇḍavyūha*, its composition cannot but be relegated to a time much later than the *Prajñāpāramitās*.²

c6.s7.21

¹ *As. Res.*, xx, pp. 399, 400.

c6.s7.22

² For a discussion about the time of the earliest *Prajñāpāramitā*, see my Intro. to the *Pañca*.

c6.s7.23

The *Prajñāpāramitās* like the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā* and the *Śatasāhasrikā* occupy a position between the *Mahāvastu* and the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* or the *Gaṇḍavyūha*. This fits in with the chronological arrangement of the Japanese traditions, if we leave out of account the statement mentioned in them that Buddha could not have any disciples able to understand the teachings embodied in the *Avataṃsaka sūtras*. Thus, we find, that the traditions do not deny the priority of origin of Hīnayāna referred to as Tsang Chiao (primitive teaching). Their mention of Tung Chiao (teaching in a transitional state) is also very interesting in view of the fact that it probably refers to the various schools like the Sarvāstivādins, the Mahāsānghikas, the Lokottaravādins, etc., which were half-way between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. But Yamakami Sogen³ thinks that "Harivarman's doctrine (Satyasiddhi school) is to be regarded as the highest point of philosophical perception attained by Hīnayānism, and in a sense it constitutes the stage of transition between Hīnayānism and Mahāyānism”. But the difficulty in the way of taking the Satyasiddhi school as indicative of the transitional state of Buddhism lies in the fact that the school came into existence as late as the 3rd century A.C., when Mahāyāna had already developed. It may be taken as an attempt made by Harivarman to reconcile Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. The third name Pieh or Chung Chiao evidently refers to the early form of Mahāyānism as found in the Prajñāpāramitās and the contemporaneous literature.

c6.s7.24

³ Sogen, *Systems of Buddhistic Thought*, p. 173.

Linked texts (5)