Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c7.s2.t10: Kāya Conception at the Beginning of Mahāyāna

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c7.s2.t10

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (2)