Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c6.s7.23

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.