Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c7: Chapter III. The Doctrines of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna Compared

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c7

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III. The Doctrines of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna Compared

c7.1

The Doctrines of Hinayāna and Mahāyāna Compared :

(a) Preliminary

Hinayāna Doctrines Evaluated in the Early Mahāyāna Scriptures

c7.s1.t1.1

In the course of our examination of the attitude of the Mahāyānists towards the Hinayānists we have found that the former have utilized the doctrines of the latter but have shown that these in their opinion are only an imperfect exposition of the Truth which Buddha had in his mind. The Prajñāpāramitās mention the doctrines, which loom large in the eyes of the Hinayānists, e.g., the Caturāryasatyas, the Pratītya-samutpāda, the Bodhipakṣika-dharmas, the four phalas, the minute divisions and sub-divisions of dhātus, citta and caittas, in order to show from the standpoint of śūnyatā, that the doctrines, which engaged the attention of the Hinayānists so seriously and for the analysis of which they had taken so much pains, were of little consequence, as the view taken by them of the Truth was only a partial one (sāmvṛta) and would not carry them to the goal, or help them in realising the ultimate (paramārtha) truth. The Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka, which regarded Hinayāna as a stepping stone to Mahāyāna, did not reject the Hinayāna doctrines as altogether useless. It showed that the Hinayāna doctrines had a value of their own. Though they might not have helped the realisation of the ultimate truth, yet they could carry their followers to a stage from which it would not be difficult for them to reach the state of perfection the Mahāyānists had in view. It also claimed that the Hinayāna doctrines were preached by Buddha as much as the Mahāyāna doctrines but that the former were only an upāya (expedient) adopted by him to meet the weak intelligence of his early disciples. The Puṇḍarīka¹ cites in this connection a remark attributed to Buddha: "I am the great ascetic (ṛṣi) and father of all beings who are born in the three dhātus (i.e., Kāma, Rūpa and Arūpa) and cling to desires (kāma). The three dhātus are dreadful, full of hundreds of sufferings; there are burning in them incessantly the fires of birth, old age, and disease. I have come out of these three dhātus and am living alone peacefully in open air, but as these fires are burning my ignorant sons, they are affecting me as well. I know the dangers (ādīnava) and I know the way out, but these ignorant persons will not hear my excellent admonitions. So I have to take recourse to the expedient of showing them only the path of escaping from the miseries of the three dhātus. To those of them, who have taken refuge in me and have acquired the six abhijñās (higher knowledge) and the three vidyās,¹ or to those, who have become Pratyekabuddhas or never-to-turn-back (avaivartika) Bodhisattvas, I now say that they should take to the Buddhayāna and become Jinas. I tell them of the excellent knowledge of the Buddhas, their powers (bala), trances (dhyāna), higher trances (vimokṣa) and contemplations (samādhi). To the Śrāvakas who have attained what they call Nirvāṇa, I say that they are all my sons and I am their father. I have brought them out of their sufferings (duḥkha) which were consuming them for innumerable kalpas. I call this state of theirs also Nirvṛti but they have not yet attained the Nirvṛti in its fullness. They have freed themselves from the sufferings of transmigration; now they should seek for the yāna leading to Buddhahood."

c7.s1.t1.2

¹ Sad. P., pp. 89-92.

c7.s1.t1.3

¹ The three Vidyās, in the enumeration, refer to three of the six Abhijñās, viz., Pubbenivāsānussati-ñāṇam, Sattānam cutūpapāte ñāṇam, and Āsavānam khaye ñāṇam. See Dīgha, III, p. 220. The remaining three Abhijñās are Dibbasota, Dibbacakkhu and Paracitta-vijānanam.

c7.s1.t1.4

The Bodhisattvas are asked by the Teacher to observe the rules of conduct leading to Buddhahood while those who have low desires are asked by him to realise the four āryasatyas. Those who are not conscious of the sufferings (duḥkha) or their causes are apprised of the fact that tṛṣṇā (desire) is the cause of all sufferings (duḥkha-samudaya). To get rid of tṛṣṇā, the third and fourth truths, nirodha-satya and mārga are explained to them. But in fact those who have reached the end of the mārga are not completely liberated (anirvṛta), and so they cannot be considered to have attained emancipation (mokṣa), which one cannot reach unless and until he possesses agrabodhi.

c7.s1.t1.5

To show more clearly the relation between the Mahāyāna and the Hinayāna doctrines, the Puṇḍarīka introduces one of the frequently used similes of the Buddhist literature,¹ viz., that of the man born blind. A man born blind does not believe in the existence of the sun and the moon, or of such other objects, even if he is told of their existence. A physician, who can cure all kinds of diseases, finds out that the man's blindness is due to his past evil deeds. He knows that all diseases are due to the abnormal state of any of the three humours, viz., wind (vāta), bile (pitta), phlegm (śleṣman) or their complicated derangements (sāmnipātika). He thinks of the remedy and finds that the special medicines required for the malady are available only in the Himalayas. Out of compassion for the blind man he procures the medicines and by their application cures him of his blindness. The man now realises his foolishness for not having believed in the existence of the sun, moon, and stars, and is possessed by the idea that he can see all that is to be seen and all that others can see. He is told by some ṛṣis who are possessed of the five kinds of superior knowledge (abhijñā), that his pride is baseless, because he has no prajñā and is therefore not a wise man (paṇḍita), for he is not able to see what is behind the wall, or know the minds of others, or hear what is being said at a distance of five yojanas, and so forth. On enquiring how he is to attain them, he is advised to live in a forest or a cave, meditate on the dharma and get rid of passions (kleśas). He accordingly retires from the world, lives in a forest and attains those five abhijñās. In the light of his new acquirements, he realises how small in comparison were his previous powers.

c7.s1.t1.6

¹ Cf. Mil., pp. 134, 135.

c7.s1.t1.7

The simile is then explained as follows: the blind men represent the beings who are in one of the six forms of existence (saḍgatyupapanna) and ignorant of the true doctrines. They have been blinded by avidyā (ignorance of the Truth), from which have followed the saṃskāras (impressions), then nāmarūpa (name and form) and ultimately the duḥkhaskandha (sufferings). The Tathāgata who has escaped from the three dhātus reappears there out of fatherly love (maitrī) and compassion (karuṇā). He sees the beings passing through the cycles of existence unaware of the means of escape. Through his extraordinary power of perception he ascertains that there are beings, of whom some have little hatred but strong attachment (mandadveṣa tīprarāga), some little attachment but strong hatred (mandarāga tītradveṣa), while others are wise (paṇḍita) or unwise (alpaprajña), pure (paripākaśuddha), or have wrong views (mithyādṛṣṭi). He accordingly imparts his teaching in various ways suited to the mentality of each. The ṛṣis possessed of the five abhijñās are the Bodhisattvas who have developed Bodhicitta and who after attaining anutpattikadharmakṣānti (belief in the non-origination of things)¹ will become Buddhas. The physician is the Tathāgata. The humours wind (vāta), bile (pitta), and phlegm (śleṣman) are attachment (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), and delusion (moha), and the four medicines are the meditations of Śūnyatā (essencelessness), Animittatā (non-contamination by objects of perception), Apraṇihitatā (freedom from desire for perceived objects), and the attainment of nirvāṇadvāra. As by the application of medicines the diseases disappear, so by the meditations of Śūnyatā, Animitta, and Apraṇihita, the Avidyā and the sufferings gradually disappear and the mind no longer clings to any idea of good or evil actions.

c7.s1.t1.8

¹ See, for explanation, Śikṣā., p. 212; Kośa, I, 6, 39; II, 53, 250 266; Dh. S., p. 63.

c7.s1.t1.9

The Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas are compared to the blind men after the recovery of their eyesight. They have cut asunder the ties of saṃsāra (world), freed themselves from kleśas (passions, errors, etc.) and passed out of the three dhātus. They think that by reaching Nirvāṇa they have attained all there is to be attained. The Tathāgata then teaches them that it is by the realisation of the sameness (samatā) of all dharmas that they can truly attain Nirvāṇa. They are made to develop Bodhicitta and realise that they are neither in Saṃsāra nor in Nirvāṇa. They now comprehend that all the three dhātus of each of the ten directions are essenceless (śūnya) like images in dreams. They see all dharmas as having neither origin (anutpannā) nor destruction (aniruddhā), they are neither unfettered (abaddhā) nor fettered (amuktā), neither dark (anandhakārā) nor luminous (atamā). They, who thus realise the dharma which pervades all the three dhātus, can see what is not ordinarily visible.¹

c7.s1.t1.10

¹ Sad. P., pp. 133-7.

Fundamental Points of Difference

c7.s1.t2.1

The Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka, in this manner, clearly brings out the fundamental points of difference between the doctrines of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. It shows :—

c7.s1.t2.2

(1) That Buddha resides aloof from the three dhātus, though he appears in them out of compassion for the innumerable beings who suffer on account of their ignorance of the Truth;

c7.s1.t2.3

(2) That the Nirvāṇa of Śrāvakas is only a place of rest where there is no misery, but it is not the real and final rest, and that Śrāvakas after attaining their Nirvāṇa have still to undergo a course of training to enable them to reach the only real and final state, Buddhahood; and

c7.s1.t2.4

(3) That the mental capacities of beings vary; so for a certain class of beings (i.e., Śrāvakas), the four Truths and the Law of Causation were preached in order to lead them out of the three dhātus, Kāma, Rūpa and Arūpa.

c7.s1.t2.5

These three points require separate treatment, for the first refers to the Trikāya conception of the Mahāyānists, the second to the conception of Nirvāṇa as held by Śrāvakas and Bodhisattvas, and the third to the conventional and transcendental truths in Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.

c7.s1.t2.6

(b) The Doctrine of Kāya

c7.s1.t2.7

The first point of difference between the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna schools noticed by the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka, viz., that Buddha makes a show of his existence in the three dhātus leads us to an examination of the question of the Kāyas of Buddha as conceived by the Hinayānists and the Mahāyānists. Of the Hinayāna schools, the Sthaviravādins had very little to do with the kāya conceptions, as Buddha was to them an actual man living in this world like any other human being and subject to all the frailties of a mortal body. Metaphorically they sometimes spoke of Buddha as identical with Dhamma without any metaphysical implication but these remarks gave opportunity to the Sarvāstivādins and the Mahāyānists to put forth their theories of Dharmakāya.

c7.s1.t2.8

The Sarvāstivādins commenced speculating on the kāya of Buddha, but it was the school of the Mahāsāṅghikas that took up the question of kāya in right earnest and paved the way for the speculations of the Mahāyānists.

c7.s1.t2.9

The early Mahāyānists, whose doctrines are mostly to be found in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, along with the school of Nāgārjuna conceived of two kāyas: (i) Rūpa- (or Nirmāṇa-) kāya, which included bodies, gross and subtle, meant for beings in general, and (ii) Dharmakāya, which was used in two senses, one being the body of Dharma, (i.e., collection of practices) which makes a being a Buddha, and the other the metaphysical principle underlying the universe—the Reality (Tathatā).

c7.s1.t2.10

The Yogācāra school distinguished the gross rūpakāya from the subtle rūpakāya, calling the former Rūpa- or Nirmāṇa-kāya and the latter Sambhogakāya. The Laṅkāvatāra, representing the earliest stage of the Yogācāra conception, calls the Sambhoga-kāya Nisyanda-buddha or Dharmatā-nisyanda-buddha (the Buddha produced by the Dharmas). The Sūtrālaṅkāra¹ uses the term Sambhogakāya for Nisyandabuddha and Svābhāvikakāya for Dharmakāya. In the *Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikā* and the recast version of the *Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā*, Sambhogakāya denotes the subtle body which the Buddhas adopted for preaching their doctrines to Bodhisattvas, and Dharmakāya, the body purified by the practice of the bodhipaksika and other dharmas which constitute a Buddha. For the metaphysical Dharmakāya they use the term Svabhāva- or Svābhāvikakāya. The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* retains the conception of the *Kārikā* but adopts a new term, Svasambhogakāya, to denote the Dharmakāya of the *Kārikā* and distinguishes the Sambhogakāya by calling it Parasambhoga-kāya.

c7.s1.t2.11

¹ Sūtrā., pp. 45, 188.

(b) The Doctrine of Kāya

c7.s2.1

In a land where the tendency to deify saints is so strong, it is greatly to the credit of the early Hīnayānists that they were able to retain the human conception of Buddha even a century or two after his actual existence, when the scriptures may be regarded as having been put into a definite shape. They gave expression to their conception of Buddha in the following words:

c7.s2.2

Bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā. So imaṃ lokaṃ sadevakaṃ samārakaṃ sabrahmakaṃ sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiṃ pajaṃ sadevamanussaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti. So dhammaṃ deseti ādikalyāṇaṃ, etc.

c7.s2.3

(The Blessed One is an arhat, a fully awakened one, endowed with knowledge and good conduct, happy, a knower of the world, unsurpassed, a leader able to control men, a teacher of men and gods, the awakened, the blessed. He knows thoroughly the worlds of gods, māras, recluses, brahmins and men, and having known them he makes his knowledge known to others. He preaches the dhamma (doctrines), which is excellent in the beginning, middle and end, etc.)¹

c7.s2.4

¹ This passage occurs in many places of the Nikāyas, see, e.g., Digha, I, pp. 87-88; cf. Lal. Vis., p. 3; Sad. P., pp. 144, 376.

c7.s2.5

A description like this does not suggest that Buddha was originally more than a man, a mortal. In the cosmology of the Buddhists, the gods of the various heavens, the highest of which is Brahmaloka,¹ are only beings of superior merit and power, but they are inferior, in the matter of spiritual attainments, to the saints or arhats. So in this description, the Hinayānists do not attribute any transcendental or theistic element to Buddha. All they say is that Śākyamuni, by pure and simple spiritual culture in this life and as a result of the accumulated merits of his previous lives, reached the highest stage of perfection and attained not only knowledge and power superior to any man or god but also the highest knowledge and power attainable. In the *Majjhima Nikāya*, Ānanda explains why Buddha should be considered superior to the Arhats as well, although both arrived at the same goal. He says that there is not a single bhikkhu who can be regarded as endowed with all the qualities in all their forms as possessed by Buddha. Moreover, a Buddha is the originator of the path not existing before, a knower and promulgator of the mārga, which is only followed by the sāvakas.²

c7.s2.6

¹ In the Mahāyānic works also, as for instance in the *Daśa.*, it is stated that a Bodhisattva can become a Mahābrahman in the ninth bhūmi if he so wishes.

c7.s2.7

² *Majjhima*, III, p. 8.

Nikāya Passages Admitting a Non-Realistic Conception

c7.s2.t1.1

In the face of such descriptions of Buddha, it would have been difficult for the later Hinayāna schools to sublimate the human elements in him, had it not been for certain expressions in some of the earlier works of the Piṭaka, which lent themselves to other interpretations. Some of these expressions are:—

c7.s2.t1.2

(1) Yo vo Ānanda mayā dhammo ca vinayo ca desito paññatto so vo mam’ accayena satthā.

c7.s2.t1.3

(Buddha said to Ānanda just before his parinibbāna ‘the dhamma and vinaya that have been preached by me will be your teacher after my death.’)³

c7.s2.t1.4

³ *Dīgha*, II, p. 154; *Mil.*, p. 99.

c7.s2.t1.5

The dhamma and vinaya clearly refer to the collection of doctrines and disciplinary rules delivered by Buddha. This is also evident from the conversation of Ānanda with Gopaka-Moggallāna, where the former explains why the monks after Buddha's death should not be regarded as without refuge (appaṭisaraṇa). He says that they have now a refuge in Dhamma (dhammapaṭisaraṇa), which, he points out, are the doctrines and disciplinary rules.¹

c7.s2.t1.6

¹ Majjhima, Gopaka-Moggallāna Sutta (No. 108). Cf. Saddhamma Saṅgaha (JPTS., 1890), ch. x, p. 65: Buddha says "84,000 dhammakhandhas have been preached by me in 45 years. I alone only pass away while there are 84,000 dhammakhandhas which like 84,000 Buddhas (buddha-sadisa) will admonish you."

c7.s2.t1.7

(2) Bhagavato' mhi putto oraso mukhato jāto dhammajo dhammanimmito dhammadāyādo iti.² Taṃ kissa hetu? Tathāgatassa h' etaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Dhammakāyo iti pi Brahmakāyo iti pi. Dhammabhūto³ iti pī ti.

c7.s2.t1.8

² Saṃyutta, II, p. 221; Majjhima, III, p. 29 has the identical passage with the addition "no āmisadāyādo" after "dhammadāyādo." For the interpretation of "dhammadāyādo" see Majjhima, I, pp. 12f.

c7.s2.t1.9

³ Majjhima, II, p. 84; Dīgha, III, p. 84; Majjhima, III, pp. 195, 224 has "Bhagavā jānaṃ jānāti passam passati cakkhubhūto ñāṇabhūto dhammabhūto."

c7.s2.t1.10

Just as a brāhmaṇa would say that he is born of Brahmā, through his mouth—Brahmuno putto oraso mukhato jāto brahmajo brahmanimmito brahmadāyādo—so a Sākyaputtiya-samaṇa may say that he is born of Bhagavā, through his mouth, born of his doctrine, made of his doctrine, etc. Though in this passage Dhamma is equated with Brahmā, the context shows that there is no metaphysical sense in it; it is only to draw a parallel between a brāhmaṇa and a Sākyaputtiya-samaṇa that Dhammakāya is equated with Brahmakāya.

c7.s2.t1.11

(3) Vakkali on his death-bed became very eager to see Buddha in person; so Bhagavā came to him and said, "Alaṃ Vakkali kiṃ te pūtikāyena diṭṭhena. Yo kho Vakkali dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati. Yo maṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati."

c7.s2.t1.12

Just after saying this, Buddha referred to his dhamma of impermanence (anicca). There are in the Nikāyas many passages of this import, which may well be taken as precursors of the later Mahāyānic conceptions and probably formed the basis of their speculations. But the passages when read as they stand do not appear to bear any metaphysical sense. In this passage Buddha refers to his body as *pūti-kāya* (body of impure matter), and to lay stress on his doctrines he says that his dhamma should be looked upon with the same awe and reverence by his disciples as they regard his person.¹

c7.s2.t1.13

¹ *Samyutta*, III, p. 120; *Majjhima*, I, pp. 190, 191: Yo paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati yo dhammaṃ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati. For other references, see Prof. Vallée Poussin's article "Notes sur les Corps du Buddha" in *Le Muséon*, 1913, pp. 259-290. Compare the remarks in the later Pāli works,— *Saddhamma Saṅgaha* (JPTS., 1890), p. 61: Yo me passati saddhammaṃ so maṃ passati Vakkali, Apassamāno saddhammaṃ maṃ passe pi na passati. *Milinda*, p. 71: yo dhammaṃ passati so bhagavantaṃ passati, dhammo hi mahārāja bhagavatā desito ti. *Ibid.*, p. 73: Dhammakāyena pana kho mahārāja sakkā bhagavā nidassetum, dhammo hi mahārāja bhagavatā desito ti.

c7.s2.t1.14

(4) The passage in the *Aṅguttara Nikāya*,² where Buddha says that he is neither a god, nor a gandhabba, nor a man, has been taken by Prof. Masson-Oursel³ as showing trace of the Mahāyānic kāya conceptions. It is not impossible to read some metaphysical ideas into the passage, though probably the compiler of the Suttas did not mean to convey them. Doṇa brāhmaṇa, noticing the sign of the wheel in the feet of Buddha, enquired of him whether he was a deva, a gandhabba, a yakkha or a mortal. Buddha replied that he was none of these beings as he had got rid of the āsavas (impurities) by the continuance of which one remains a deva, gandhabba, yakkha or mortal. Just as a lotus is born in water, grows in it but remains above and is apart from it, so also Buddha was born in the world, grew up in it but overcame it (abhibhuyya) and lived unaffected by the same. Therefore, he asked the brāhmaṇa not to regard him as anything but Buddha.

c7.s2.t1.15

² *Aṅguttara*, II, p. 38.

c7.s2.t1.16

³ Prof. Masson-Oursel in his article "Les trois Corps du Bouddha", *J.A.*, 1913, pp. 581ff.

c7.s2.t1.17

There are other passages referring to the miraculous powers of Buddha, viz., his ability to live a kalpa or to assume different forms and perform such other miracles, but it should be noted that these powers were attributed not to Buddha alone but also to his disciples in general, who had been able to attain the higher stages of sanctification.¹

c7.s2.t1.18

¹ See Kośa, II, 10 (also for references in the Nikāyas).

Kāya-Conception of the Theravādins Remained Unchanged

c7.s2.t2.1

Even if it be assumed that the Mahāyānic ideas are latent in the above-mentioned expressions though not adequately expressed, the discussion in the *Kathāvatthu*² to establish the historical existence of Buddha as against those who denied it, and the manner in which references were made to the events of Buddha's life as depicted in the Nikāyas leaves no vestige of doubt about the opinion of the Theravādins regarding the kāya of Buddha.

c7.s2.t2.2

² Kvu., xvii, 1: The Vetulyakas held on the basis of the passage cited above (fn. 4) that "it is not right to say that the exalted Buddha lived in the world of mankind." The Theravādins did not agree with them. Buddhaghosa also pointed out how the passage should be interpreted.

c7.s2.t2.3

Though the terms rūpakāya and dharmakāya found their way into the later Pāli works³ from Mahāyāna or semi-Mahāyāna works, they did not bring with them any non-realistic sense. Buddhaghosa even as late as the fifth century A.C. refers thus to the kāyas:

c7.s2.t2.4

³ See, e.g., Sad. Saṅ. (JPTS., 1890), p. 69: Sambuddhānaṃ dve kāyā rūpakāyo sirīdharo, Yo tehi desito dhammo dhammakāyo ti vuccati.

c7.s2.t2.5

Yo pi so Bhagavā asiti anuvyañjanapatimaṇḍita-dvattiṃsamahāpurisalakkhaṇa-vicitra-rūpakāyo sabbākāraparisuddhasīlakkhandhādi-guṇaratanasamiddha-dhammakāyo yasamahatta-puññāmahatta......appaṭipuggalo arahaṃ sammāsambuddho.

c7.s2.t2.6

(That Bhagavā, who is possessed of a beautiful rūpakāya, adorned with eighty minor signs and thirty-two major signs of a great man, and possessed of a dhammakāya purified in every way and glorified by sīla, samādhi, etc.,¹ full of splendour and virtue, incomparable and fully awakened ).²

c7.s2.t2.7

¹ The five khandhas referred to here are, sīla samādhi, paññā, vimutti and vimuttiñāṇadassana. See *Mil.*, p. 98.

c7.s2.t2.8

² *Vis. M.*, p. 234; *Jātaka*, I, p. 84: Rūpakāyasirī.

c7.s2.t2.9

Though Buddhaghosa’s conception was realistic, he was not immune from the religious bias of attributing superhuman powers to Buddha. In the *Atthasālinī*³ he says that during the three months of his absence from the world while Buddha was engaged in preaching Abhidhamma to his mother in the Tusita heaven, he created some *Nimmitabuddhas* as exact replicas of himself. These Nimmitabuddhas could not be distinguished from the real Buddha in voice, words and even the rays of light that issued forth from his body. The created Buddhas could be detected only by the gods of the higher classes and not by the ordinary gods or men of the world.

c7.s2.t2.10

³ *Attha.*, p. 16.

c7.s2.t2.11

In short, the early Hīnayānists conceived Buddha’s *rūpakāya* as that of a human being,⁴ and his *dhammakāya* as the collection of his dhammas, *i.e.*, doctrines and disciplinary rules collectively.

c7.s2.t2.12

⁴ See Prof. Vallée Poussin’s *Bouddhisme*, pp. 232f.

Conception of the Sarvāstivādins

c7.s2.t3.1

The other school, the Sarvāstivādins, who retained the realistic conception of Buddha, differed a little from the Theravādins. Unfortunately their original Piṭakas in Sanskrit are lost beyond recovery and we have to depend for our information about them on the few fragmentary pieces of their literature discovered in Central Asia, or on the Chinese translations of their Āgamas, in which again very little spade-work has yet been done.⁵ Our main source of information at present is the *Abhidharmakośa*, made accessible to us from Chinese by the monumental French translation of Professor La Vallée Poussin. The *Kośa*, again, it should be noted, is the work of a systematiser and the production of a time much later than that of the Āgamas, to which it bears the same relation as the *Visuddhimagga* does to the Pāli Piṭakas. As the present state of our knowledge indicates that the *Divyāvadāna* and the *Lalitavistara*¹ originally belonged to this school, though they were recast by the Mahāyānists, we must examine with caution some of the statements found in them regarding the kāya conception.

c7.s2.t3.2

⁵ Dr. Chizen Akanuma (*Eastern Buddhist*, II, p. 7) quotes some passages from the Chinese Aṅguttara and Saṃyukta Āgamas and shows that the *dharmakāya* of Buddha denoted the collection of dharmas (teachings).

c7.s2.t3.3

¹ Winternitz, *Geschichte etc.*, II, p. 194.

I. Divyāvadāna

c7.s2.t4.1

There are a few passages in the *Divyāvadāna* throwing light on the rūpakāya and dharmakāya of Buddha and bearing the identical sense of the Pāli works. On one occasion Śroṇa Koṭikarṇa said that, through the grace of his teacher, he had seen the dharmakāya of Buddha, but as he was anxious to see the rūpakāya, he wanted to go to the place where Buddha was living at the time.² Upagupta once said to Māra that he had seen the dharmakāya only and requested him to show him the rūpakāya. Māra thereupon made an image (vigraha) of Buddha replete with all the major and minor signs of great men.³ In the answer that king Rudrāyaṇa gave to Bimbisāra that “na rājan kṛpaṇo loke dharmakāyena saṃspṛśet” [let not, O King, an irreligious person⁴ attain (lit. touch) the dharmakāya], the word “dharmakāya” may bear a metaphysical interpretation but the context does not warrant it.⁵ The remark made by Aśoka, after Upagupta had pointed out to him the stūpa of Ānanda, makes the sense of dharmakāya quite explicit. It runs thus: ‘That body which you all call pure, excellent and made of dharma (dharmātmano dharmamayo) was borne (dhāritam) by him called Viśoka (=Ānanda) and therefore his stūpa deserves great honour. The lamp of dharma, the dispeller of the darkness of afflictions that burnt still among men was due to the power of him, the son of Sugatendra, and therefore, should be worshipped with special reverence.¹

c7.s2.t4.2

² *Divyā*., p. 19.

c7.s2.t4.3

³ *Ibid*., p. 360.

c7.s2.t4.4

⁴ *Ibid*., p. 560: kṛpaṇa is defined thus: yas tu dharmavirāgārtham adharme nirato nṛpaḥ, sa rājan kṛpaṇo jñeyas tamastamaḥparāyaṇaḥ.

c7.s2.t4.5

⁵ *Ibid*., p. 560.

c7.s2.t4.6

¹ *Divyā*., pp. 396-7. Cf. Przyluski, *Asoka*, p. 408: In connection with the destruction of the law, Mahāmāyā exclaimed Ceux qui sont nés du Corps de la Loi (dharmakāya), ou sont-ils allés?

c7.s2.t4.7

There are, however, Avadānas in the *Divyāvadāna*, which were not without some Mahāyānic tint, for, we read in the *Rudrāyanāvadāna*,² as we usually find in the Mahāyānic works, that rays of light issued forth from Buddha's mouth when he smiled, irradiating the beings of heaven and hell. It is noteworthy that the *Atthasālinī*³ also speaks of raśmis (rays of light) of six colours issuing out of Buddha's body. It seems that the Mahāyānic ideas were percolating gradually into the rocky soil of the conservative Theravādins.

c7.s2.t4.8

² *Divyā*., xxxvii, p. 568.

c7.s2.t4.9

³ *Attha*., p. 16.

II. Lalitavistara

c7.s2.t5.1

The *Lalitavistara* gives us a picture of Buddha more superhuman than human and yet far from the Mahāyānic conceptions of the Sambhogakāya and Dharmakāya, though in the last two chapters it dwells on the doctrine of Tathatā. In the *Lalitavistara* Buddha is deified but there are no traces of the Trikāya conception. It says in many places that Buddha appears in the world of men for *lokānuvartana*⁴ (i.e. to follow the ways of the world), which, if he so desired, he could avoid by remaining in one of the heavens and attaining emancipation there. The running account of Buddha's life is interrupted at times—probably they are afterthoughts of the complier—by dialogues between Buddha and Ānanda, in order to make the treatise appear Mahāyānic and not Hinayānic. At one place Buddha explains to Ānanda that, unlike human beings, he did not stay in the filth of mother's womb but in a jewel-casket (ratnavyūha)⁵ placed in the womb, which was as hard as adamant but soft to the touch like the down of a Kācilindika bird, and that his birth and other events connected with it were all superhuman. At the same time he prophesies that there will be, in the future, men unrestrained in act, thought and speech, ignorant, faithless, proud, believing without deliberation what is heard by them, who will not believe in the superhuman nature of his birth.¹ One can perceive through the poetical exaggerations of the Lalitavistara that it has in view the historical Buddha endowed with the major and minor signs—a human being after all, who requires to be reminded by the heavenly musicians of the acts of his past lives and his resolution to become a Buddha and rescue beings from misery, and who needs a stimulus to renounce the world in order to fulfil his resolution.² In connection with the offer of houses which was made by the gods to the Bodhisattva when he was in the womb, it is said that in order to please all the gods who offered houses he caused the appearance of his pregnant mother Māyādevī in each of those houses by means of the Mahāvyūha samādhi. This does not clearly reflect any idea of Nirmāṇakāya—it appears more like some of the miracles mentioned in the Nikāyas. In the last chapter of the Lalitavistara where Buddha’s attributes are mentioned, he is called the great tree (mahādruma), because he possesses a body of Dharmakāyajñāna (the knowledge of Dharmakāya).³ As this chapter is very likely a Mahāyāna addition, we may reasonably say that the Lalitavistara in its original form as a treatise of the Sarvāstivādins viewed Buddha as a human being with superhuman attributes.

c7.s2.t5.2

⁴ E.g., *Mtu*., I, pp. 168, 170.

c7.s2.t5.3

⁵ *Lal. Vis*., pp. 88, 105, 106. This formed one of the points of contention of the Mahāsānghikas. See Masuda, *Early Origin etc.*, in the *Asia Major*, Vol. II.

c7.s2.t5.4

¹ Lal. Vis., pp. 87ff. This goes against the Sarvāstivāda and Theravāda conceptions.

c7.s2.t5.5

² The descriptions gave opportunity to the Mahāyānists to invent Upāyakauśalya Pāramitā, the duties of Adhyeṣaṇā, Yācanā, etc.

c7.s2.t5.6

³ Lal. Vis., p. 428.

III. Abhidharmakośa

c7.s2.t6.1

We may now consider the writings of Vasubandhu, the great exponent of the Sarvāstivāda school. In his Abhidharmakośa he imported a new meaning into the words Dharmakāya and Rūpakāya. In examining the three Śaraṇas, he tried to bring out the real sense of Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha in which a devotee takes refuge. He said that those who take refuge in Buddha do, in fact, take refuge in the dharmas (qualities) which constitute a Buddha (buddha-kāraka), i.e., the dharmas by the acquisition of which a certain person is called a Buddha, or in other words, the dharmas by the acquisition of which a person understands all things. These dharmas are kṣayajñāna (knowledge of the destruction of misery), anutpādajñāna¹ (knowledge of the further non-origination of misery), and samyagdṛṣṭi (right view) of the Aśaikṣas together with the dharmas attendant on the jñāna, viz., the five pure skandhas. A dharmakāya is formed of these dharmas. In another place, while showing the sameness of the Dharmakāyas of all Buddhas, he explained the Dharmakāya as a series of pure dharmas, or rather a renewal of the psycho-physical organism of the substratum (anāsravadharmasaṃtāna, āśrayaparāvṛtti).² The Dharmakāya then signifies a new purified personality or substratum (āśraya), but it is pointed out that such a dharmakāya is possessed also by an arhat.³ In the Sūtrālaṃkāra⁴ such a dharmakāya is attributed to the mother of Śākyamuni or to an advanced upāsaka. Thus we see that the Kośa has two interpretations of the Dharmakāya, one being the qualities adhering to a Buddha and the other the purified personality (āśraya) possessed by him. The Kośa, in fact, replaces the concrete conceptions of the Dharmakāya found in the Nikāyas and the Divyāvadāna by an abstract one. In the last two works the Dharmakāya signified only the doctrines, viz., the Bodhipakkhiya dharmas or Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, together with the Vinaya rules contained in the Pātimokkha, while to Vasubandhu it meant the qualities adhering to a Buddha as well as the purified personality (āśraya).

c7.s2.t6.2

¹ Kośa, VI, 67 explains that Kṣayajñāna with Anutpādajñāna makes Bodhi. On account of difference among saints in the acquisition of these jñānas, Bodhi is said to be of three kinds: Śrāvakabodhi, Pratyekabuddhabodhi and Anuttarasamyaksambodhi. By the above two jñānas one completely abandons ignorance (aśeṣavidyāprahāṇāt); by the first, one realises the truth that his task is accomplished (i.e., the duḥkha has been realised by him); by the second, one realises that his task is no more to be accomplished (i.e., the duḥkha has been realised by him and he will not have to exert any more.) The samyagdṛṣṭi of the Aśaikṣas is to see things as they are really, to know truly the general character (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) of dharmas. See Kośa, VI, 50 fn. For a note on the Kṣayajñāna, see Masuda, Early Origin etc., in Asia Major, Vol. II, Fasc. I.

c7.s2.t6.3

² Kośa, VII, 34; for the sense of āśraya see Ibid., VIII, 34 fn. Cf. āśraya pariśuddhi in Sūtrā., p. 186.

c7.s2.t6.4

³ Kośa, IV, 56.

c7.s2.t6.5

⁴ Hüber, Sūtrālaṃkāra, pp. 217, 390 quoted in the Kośa, VII, 32. p. 81.

c7.s2.t6.6

Referring to the formulæ of the Śaraṇas, Vasubandhu says that as the physical body (rūpakāya) of Buddha does not undergo any modification by the acquisition of the quality of Buddha, one should not take refuge in the rūpakāya of Buddha, which is, in fact, the rūpakāya of the Bodhisattva and hence sāsrava (impure). Just as a man would respect a monk for the qualities adhering to him and not for his person, so a devotee should take refuge in Buddhatva and not in Buddha the person. In the same way Vasubandhu explains the two other śaraṇas, viz., Dharma and Saṅgha, the former being explained as Nirvāṇa, or the three Truths—Duḥkha, Samudaya and Mārga, or Sukha, Duḥkha and Asukha-aduḥkha—and the latter as the qualities that a saṅgha of monks is expected to possess.¹

c7.s2.t6.7

¹ Compare the formula of Śaraṇa in the Nikāyas, e.g., Digha, III, p. 227.

c7.s2.t6.8

The Vibhāṣā informs us that there are some who believe that to take refuge in Buddha is to take refuge in the body constituted by the head, nape of the neck, belly, back, hands and feet of the Tathāgata. Some say that as the body is born of parents, it is impure (sāsrava) and therefore it should not be a place of refuge. The refuge should be the Asaikṣa dharmas, which make a Buddha, i.e., the Dharmakāya.² Apparently the Vibhāṣā refers in the first case to the earlier Hinayāna schools and in the second to the Sarvāstivādins and their followers.

c7.s2.t6.9

² Kośa, VI, p. 32; IV, p. 76n.; VIII, p. 34.

Similar Dharmakāya Conception among the Satyasiddhis and the Mahāyānists

c7.s2.t7.1

The Satyasiddhi school takes almost the same view of the Dharmakāya as the Sarvāstivādins. According to it the Dharmakāya is made of śīla, samādhi, prajñā, vimukti and vimuktijñānadarśana dharmakāyas. Buddhaghosa, Nāgārjuna and the writer of the Milindapañha also refer to such a dharmakāya.¹ It means that the body of Buddha was purified by the practices of these five skandhas, and hence it can be called Dharmakāya. But as these purifications are obtained by Arhats also, Harivarman, the founder of the Satyasiddhi school, distinguished the Dharmakāya of Buddha by saying that his Dharmakāya consisted not only of the above five purificatory practices but also of ten powers (daśa bala), four proficiencies (vaiśāradya) and the three recollections (smṛtyupasthāna), which the Arhats cannot obtain.²

c7.s2.t7.2

¹ Vis. M., p. 234; M. Vr. (as opinion of non-Mādhyamikas), p. 433; Mil., p. 98.

c7.s2.t7.3

² Sogen, Systems etc., pp. 181, 182.

c7.s2.t7.4

The Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikā³ and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā,⁴ important text-books of the Yogācāra school, define the Dharmakāya with a similar sense. They say that the various dharmas, viz., Bodhipakṣikas, Apramāṇas, Vimoksas, Samāpattis and so forth, constitute Sarvajñatā (omniscience) and Sarvajñatā is the Dharmakāya. It should be noted that the Kārikā and the Prajñāpāramitā use this expression in a sense different from that current in the Mahāyāna texts. They really mean the Svasambhogakāya of the later Vijñānavādins.

c7.s2.t7.5

³ Kārikā, ch. viii

c7.s2.t7.6

⁴ Pañca., (ASB. ms.) leaf 224a.

c7.s2.t7.7

The Prajñāpāramitās also maintain the conception that the Dharmakāya is produced by dharmas, the highest of which is, according to them, the prajñāpāramitā, i.e., the knowledge which helps a person to realise the dharma-śūnyatā. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā takes up the question whether the honour shown to the relics of the Tathāgatakāya is more meritorious than the honour shown to the *Prajñāpāramitā*, e.g., by making a copy of it. The answer given is that the relics depend on the body purified by the *prajñāpāramitā*, and therefore it is the source of Buddhas. The source deserves more honour than the remnants of the fruit (*i.e.*, relics of Buddha) produced therefrom, and therefore it is more meritorious to honour the *Prajñāpāramitā* than the relics.¹ It adds that all teachings of Buddha issue from the *Prajñāpāramitā*, and the *Dharmabhāṇakas* preserve and propagate them; so the *Dharmabhāṇakas* should also be respected. They are protected by the *Dharmakāya*, the *Prajñāpāramitā*. *Sarvajñatā* (omniscience) is pervaded (*paribhāvita*) by the *prajñāpāramitā*; from *sarvajñatā* issues the body of Tathāgata, the relics of whom are worshipped; hence *prajñāpāramitā* deserves greater honour.²

c7.s2.t7.8

¹ *Aṣṭa.*, ch. iv.

c7.s2.t7.9

² Ibid., p. 99. It is from this conception that the *Prajñāpāramitā* is addressed as the mother of Buddhas.

Hīnayānic Speculations: (a) Whether Rūpakāya is Vipākaja?

c7.s2.t8.1

The *Kośa* maintains that the *rūpakāya* of Buddha endowed with the major and minor signs is the result of the excellent karmas of his previous lives. According to it, even the Buddhas cannot escape the effects of their karma. The schism created by Devadatta in the *saṅgha* is attributed to a deed in one of the previous lives of Śākyamuni. The *Vyākhyā* and the *Vibhāṣā* explain that it happened to Śākyamuni only, and not to the other Buddhas, because in one of his former lives he sowed dissension among the disciples of an ascetic, possessed of five *abhijñās*.³ The Buddhas enjoy or suffer the effects of karma is also maintained by the *Divyāvadāna*⁴ and the *Majjhima Nikāya*.⁵ The *Divyāvadāna* refers to a saying of Śākyamuni that even the Jinas themselves are not free from their karmas, while the *Majjhima Nikāya* says that a Tathāgata performs good deeds in his previous lives, and as a result of these he enjoys in the present, pure and pleasant sensations (vedanā) only. Tradition says that when Buddha was hurt by the splinter of stone thrown by Devadatta, he said that ninety-one kalpas ago he had hurt a person by a spear, as the result of which evil deed, he now received a wound.

c7.s2.t8.2

³ *Kośa*, VII, 34, p. 8 fn., 84; IV, 102, p. 212 fn. 2.

c7.s2.t8.3

⁴ *Divyā.*, p. 416.

c7.s2.t8.4

⁵ *Majjhima*, III, p. 227.

c7.s2.t8.5

The *Milindapañha*, however, takes a different view of this matter. Admitting that Devadatta created a schism in the saṅgha, it says that as the schism was not created by any act of Buddha's own and as it was caused by an external influence, it should not be said that Buddha as the result of his *karma* had a divided assembly (bhejjapariso). In a similar way it explains away the wound or the illnesses from which Buddha suffered. First it asserts that Buddha attained omniscience after uprooting all roots of evil (akusalamūlas); so he could not have any more sufferings through *karma*. It then says that apart from *karma* there are other causes like the three humours, seasons, etc., which produce vedanā (feelings). According to it, the wound that Buddha received was due to an opakammika (accidental) cause and his illnesses to causes other than *karma*.¹

c7.s2.t8.6

¹ Mil., pp. 134f.

(b) Was Buddha a Jarāyuja or Upapāduka?

c7.s2.t9.1

In order to remove doubt from the minds of the people as to the nature of the birth of so great and meritorious a being as the Bodhisattva in his last existence—a doubt expressed also in the *Lalitavistara*, where a ratnavyūha has been devised for the Bodhisattva's abode in his mother's womb—the *Kośa*² proceeds to show that the Bodhisattvas possess the power of choosing the manner of their birth (upapattivaśitva), and that Śākyamuni chose birth in a womb (jarāyu) with two objects. One was to benefit the Śākya clan and at the same time not to give opportunity to the people to consider him a magician or a god or a demon, and the other was to leave some relics of his body, by worshipping which men and other beings would go to heaven by thousands, or attain deliverance.

c7.s2.t9.2

² Kośa, III, 9.

c7.s2.t9.3

The Mahāsāṅghikas and their followers³ assert that Śākyamuni was an upapāduka (self-born), and that even his son Rāhula was also an upapāduka, for Bodhisattvas cannot have kāma. They assert that Bodhisattvas are possessed of ‘adhiṣṭhāniki ṛddhi’ (i.e., the power of appearing anywhere and in any form), and that by that power Śākyamuni made a seeming show of his existence in the womb of Māyā. They conceived Buddha as lokottara (transcendental), and Śākyamuni as only a phantom (Nirmāṇakāya). The transcendental Buddha has a rūpakāya which is limitless, everlasting, free from all sāsrava dharmas. He is always in samādhi,¹ never sleeps or dreams, and can know everything in an instant of thought. He knows neither fatigue nor rest, and is ever busy in enlightening sentient beings. His power and his life are limitless. For the benefit of sentient beings he appears at will in any one of the six gatis. Whatever he utters relates to the truth, though people may understand him differently. In short, the Mahāsānghikas conceived Buddha as a totally supermundane being with illimitable powers and knowledge, who never desired to attain Nirvāṇa.²

c7.s2.t9.4

³ E.g., the Vetulyakas.

c7.s2.t9.5

¹ Cf. Laṅkā., p. 240 : sadā samāhitāś ca tathāgatāḥ.

c7.s2.t9.6

² For details see Masuda's Origin and Doctrines of Early Indian Buddhist Schools, Asia Major, vol. II, fasc. I; Anesaki's article in the E.R.E., sv. Docetism (Buddhist); Suzuki's Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, pp. 249-251. See also Kośa, III, 9 referring to Miu., I, pp. 145, 154.

Kāya Conception at the Beginning of Mahāyāna

c7.s2.t10.1

The Mahāyānists incorporated the Nirmāṇakāya conception of the Mahāsānghikas into their Trikāya theory, adding the two other, Sambhogakāya and Dharmakāya, the former approaching the Mahāsānghika conception of the transcendental Buddha, and the latter being a new philosophic conception of the Mahāyānists.

c7.s2.t10.2

These new Kāya conceptions, it seems, did not make much of an appeal at the beginning of Mahāyāna. The Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa tried to erase from the minds of the people the lingering impression about the historical existence of Śākyamuni. In the Puṇḍarīka³ we find Maitreya assuming the rôle of a sceptic and enquiring how Buddha could, within a short space of forty years after the attainment of Bodhi at Gayā, perform the innumerable duties of a Tathāgata and lead incalculable bodhisattvas to Buddhahood. It appears like the paradox of a man of twenty-five years claiming centenarians as his sons and the latter calling him their father. Similarly Buddha's pointing to Bodhisattvas who had been performing the various duties conducive to Buddhahood for many millions of years as his disciples appears paradoxical. Maitreya says further that in the minds of those Bodhisattvas who recently became Mahāyānists (navayānasamprasthitāḥ) there may be doubts of this nature; so the Tathāgata should explain the paradox for the welfare of the religion. Buddha then asks his audience thrice to believe his words (avakalpayadhvam abhiśraddadhvam), and says, "It is not to be considered (naiva draṣṭavyam) that Bhagavān Śākyamuni lately leaving his family attained Bodhi at Gayā. I attained sambodhi incalculable ages ago, and since then I have been preaching the dharma. All that I have said about the previous Tathāgatas, Dīpaṅkara etc., and their parinirvāṇa were all my own creations. They were only my expedients for imparting the dharma (upāyakauśalyadharmadeśanābhinirhāranirmitāni). All that I have said to the effect that I was young, recently born, left home, and attained Bodhi, was to appeal to a class of people who otherwise would not have been convinced of the excellence of the religion and derived benefits therefrom. But all that I said was not untrue, as the Tathāgatas know what the three dhātus really are; they know that the dhātus neither are born nor die, neither produce nor non-produce, neither exist nor non-exist; neither are they the same nor different, and they are neither true nor false. All that the Tathāgatas say is true, but people devoid of right knowledge construe different meanings out of it. Though I have not attained parinirvāṇa, I say that I have attained it. In order to rouse curiosity in the minds of the people and a desire to see Buddha, I say that the appearance of a Buddha is an exceedingly rare event. I made a show of the Nirvāṇa, but did not enter into it, but people with distorted views could not see my real self, and busied themselves with the worship of my relics. But this also produced a good effect, for they thereby became righteous and gave up their passions. From among them I formed my śrāvakasaṅgha, and showed myself at Gṛdhrakūṭa, and explained to them how to attain the agrabodhi”.

c7.s2.t10.3

³ Sad. P., pp. 311ff.

c7.s2.t10.4

In the Suvarṇaprabhāsa¹ Ruciraketu and Kauṇḍilya the brāhmaṇa play the rôle of the sceptics. The former enquires why Śākyamuni, who performed so many meritorious deeds, should have such a short span of life as eighty years. The latter seeks a mustard-like relic of Buddha’s body to worship and thus go to heaven. Ruciraketu is told by the Buddhas of all lokadhātus that they did not know any man or god who could calculate the length of Śākyamuni’s life. They said that it might be possible to count the drops of water in a sea but it would be impossible to ascertain the length of his life. Kauṇḍilya brāhmaṇa, who only feigned ignorance, was told by Litsavikumāra that, just as it is absurd to expect cocoanuts from a rose-apple tree, so it is absurd to expect a relic from the Buddhakāya. The Tathāgatas have no origin, they are ever existing and inconceivable. It is only the Nirmitakāya that is shown by them. How can a body, in which there is no bone or blood, leave a dhātu (relic)? Buddhas have only Dharmakāya and there is only the Dharmadhātu.

c7.s2.t10.5

¹ Suvarṇaprabhāsa (B.T.S. ed.), pp. 4-8.

Nirmāṇakāya

c7.s2.t11.1

The Mahāyānic texts tried to show, on the one hand, that the Hinayānists were wrong in their belief that Śākyamuni was really a man of flesh and blood and that relics of his body existed, while on the other hand, they introduced the two conceptions of Nirmāṇakāya and Buddhakāya. Whatever is said to have been done by Śākyamuni is accounted for by these texts as the apparent doings of a phantom of the Buddhakāya, a shadowy image created to follow the ways of the world (lokānuvartana),² in order to bring conviction to the hearts of the people that the attainment of Buddhahood was not an impossibility. As the Buddhas possess the knowledge of all that is to be done (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna jñāna),¹ they can take any form they desire for the illumination of the various classes of beings. The Mahāyānic conception of the Nirmāṇakāya is essentially the same as that of the Mahāsānghikas.

c7.s2.t11.2

² Cf. Miu., I, pp. 168, 170.

c7.s2.t11.3

¹ One of the four jñānas peculiar to Buddha, see Mvyut., p. 2.

c7.s2.t11.4

The Prajñāpāramitās in their quaint way refer to the Nirmāṇakāya or Rūpakāya. The Pañcavimśati says that a bodhisattva, after acquiring all the necessary dharmas and practising prajñāpāramitā, becomes Sambuddha. He then renders service to beings of all lokadhātus (worlds) of the ten corners at all times by Nirmāṇamegha (Nirmāṇa clouds). This is called the Nairmāṇika-kāya.²

c7.s2.t11.5

² Pañca. (Cambr. ms.), leaf 343b.

c7.s2.t11.6

From the Chinese sources³ we are informed that Nāgārjuna in his commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā, called the Mahāprajñāpāramitā śāstra, speaks of two kāyas, rūpakāya and dharmakāya. The former is the body born of parents, possessing the qualities of sentient beings, and is subject to human frailties. It was born in Kośala while his dharmakāya was born at Rājagṛha. The material body was necessary for "earthly truth". It was for the deliverance of beings that Buddha assumed different bodies, different names, birth-places and ways of emancipation. This interpretation of rūpa- and dharma-kāyas is also followed in the Chinese Parinirvāṇasūtra and Sandhinirmocanasūtra.⁴

c7.s2.t11.7

³ C. Akanuma, E.B., II, pp. 17ff.; Masuda, Die Individualistische etc., p. 60.

c7.s2.t11.8

⁴ E.B., II, pp. 21f.

c7.s2.t11.9

Some of the Yogācāra texts furnish us with the following information regarding the conception of Nirmāṇakāya as prevailing among the Yogācārins:

c7.s2.t11.10

(i) The Sūtrālaṅkāra⁵ explains the Nirmāṇakāya to be those forms which are assumed by Buddhas to render service to beings of the various worlds. It generally refers to the human form that Buddha takes in order to make a show of his acquiring the ordinary arts and crafts required by an average man, living a family life and then retiring from it, and ultimately attaining Nirvāṇa by a recourse to ascetic practices.

c7.s2.t11.11

⁵ Sūtrā., p. 45.

c7.s2.t11.12

(ii) The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* tells us that the Nirmāṇakāya is meant for Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Pṛthagjanas (common men) and Bodhisattvas who are not yet in one of the ten bhūmis. It may appear in all lands whether pure or impure.¹ The Chinese commentaries on the *Siddhi* mention the various ways in which Buddha can transform his body or another's body or voice, and his or others' mind, to suit his purpose. Not only could he transform himself into Śākyamuni, or Śāriputra into a young girl, but also could create an altogether new apparitional body, not, of course, a living, thinking being.² Often he assumed the voice of Brahmā or expressed himself through the mouth of Śāriputra or Subhūti, and it was for this reason that we find Śāriputra or Subhūti explaining some of the abstruse Mahāyāna teachings, which they themselves were not expected to understand.³ The third way in which he could transform his voice was to produce sounds from the sky. His thoughts were supramundane (lokottara) and pure (anāsrava). He could produce in his mind any thought he liked; in fact, he appeared in his Nirmitakāya as Śākyamuni with a mind (citta) suited to the ways of the world. He could also impose his thoughts on the minds of others.

c7.s2.t11.13

¹ Masuda, *Die Individualistische etc.*, p. 60.

First 125 of 856 passages. Read on

Linked texts (63)