Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c7.s3.t27: Conclusion

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c7.s3.t27

Language
English

Conclusion

c7.s3.t27.1

The agreements and disagreements in the accounts of Nirvāṇa, as noticed above, point to the following conclusions:

c7.s3.t27.2

The Hīnayānic Nirvāṇa, *i.e.*, the Nirvāṇa as described in the literature of the Theravāda school, clearly refers to a Unity eternally existing beyond the three worlds (Kāma, Rūpa and Arūpa dhātus). It is infinite, inexpressible, unborn, and undecaying. It is homogeneous (ekarasa) and knows no individuality. In it, all discriminations or dichotomy cease. Many of the aspects of Ākāśa (space) and the ocean bear comparison with those of Nirvāṇa.

c7.s3.t27.3

Every being is a conglomeration of elements, which can be classified under the five heads, rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa; hence one being is not essentially different from another, an ordinary man is not different from a perfected saint. But if the nature and proportion of each of the five constituents existing in an individual be taken into account, then one being is different from another, an ordinary man is different from a perfected saint. It is in this way that the Buddhist saying ‘n’eva so na ca añño’ (neither the same nor different) is explained.

c7.s3.t27.4

The combination of elements is the outcome of Karma (past deeds) and is happening every moment (kṣaṇika), implying that the disintegration of elements always precedes it. The elements in a combined state pass as an individual, and from time immemorial he labours under the misconception of a self and of things relating to a self. His vision being distorted or obscured by ignorance of the truth he cannot perceive the momentary combination and disintegration of elements. On the other hand, he is subject to an inclination for them. A perfect man with his vision cleared by the Buddhistic practices and culture realises the real state of things, viz., that an individual consists of the five elements and does not possess a permanent and unchanging entity called soul.

c7.s3.t27.5

The elements, combined under the force of karma, pass as an individual, who becomes deluded by misconceptions. He weaves a net of fancies around himself and believes he is related in some way or other to things or individuals. Because of such illusions he experiences endless sufferings, or according to the Mahāyānists, thinks of himself as suffering, on account of his supposed separation from people or things near and dear to him, or through supposed disorders or derangements of his mental and physical system.

c7.s3.t27.6

It is for these deluded so-called individuals that Buddhism prescribes the eightfold path. By following it an individual ultimately realises the transitoriness of things, to which he has hitherto attributed some form of existence, and finds that the elements, by which he thought himself constituted, are ultimately not constituents peculiar to him but common to all other so-called beings. He is then said to have attained Nirvāṇa, i.e., a mental state in which he can no longer distinguish himself as an individual different from the infinite elements constituting the universe. In other words, all individuality ends in it. In that state of Nirvāṇa Gautama Buddha is not different from Śāriputra—all are one and the same.

c7.s3.t27.7

The Mahāyānic conception of Nirvāṇa is completely different from the Hīnayānic. The fundamental point of difference is that the Mahāyānists deny the existence of elements altogether. They do not know of any other reality but the truth, the Dharmakāya or Dharmadhātu. Many of the aspects of their conception are brought out by the various terms used in Mahāyānic works. For instance, when Nirvāṇa is equated with śūnyatā, the implication is that all things which are ordinarily supposed to exist are really non-existent just as the mirage has no substantiality whatever, e.g., the pṛthivī-dhātu is void (śūnya) of real origination, destruction, or existence in reality.¹ When it is equated with Tathatā or Dharmatā, the implication is that all things of this world are essentially of the same nature, void of any name or substratum.² It is that which is neither existence nor non-existence.³ Śūnyatā represents the negative and Tathatā the positive aspects of the Truth. When it is called bhūtakoṭi (true limit), it is implied that on analysis of dharmas, which are false designations, one arrives finally at the Reality, beyond which it is impossible to pass and which alone is true. Some of the other expressions which are often used as synonyms of Nirvāṇa are,—avitathatā (not untruth); ananyathatā (unique); aviparyāsatathatā (irreversible); paramārtha (the highest truth), tattva (the essence); acintyadhātu (incomprehensible substance), dharmadhātu (totality of things), dharmasthiti (substratum of things); supraśānta (perfectly calm, unruffled by origination or destruction); advaya and advaidhīkāra (non-separable and non-divisible).⁴

c7.s3.t27.8

¹ Śikṣā., p. 246.

c7.s3.t27.9

² Laṅkā., p. 226.

c7.s3.t27.10

³ Śikṣā., p. 263.

c7.s3.t27.11

⁴ Cf. Saṃyutta, II, pp. 25ff; “Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idapaccaytā, ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo ti. For explanation of the words in italics, see Vis. M., p. 518.

c7.s3.t27.12

The Mahāyānists hold that all beings other than Buddhas are under delusions, the nature of which varies according to their spiritual advancement. An ordinary man is as much under a delusion that he has a son or property as the Hinayānic saints, the Arhats, who think that they have attained Nirvāṇa, a state of perfect rest and happiness, and have gone beyond the three worlds. The contention of the Mahāyānists is that the only reality is Nirvāṇa or Dharmadhātu, everything else being a delusion of the mind. The moment an individual realises that he is the Reality, that Saṃsāra is identical with Nirvāṇa, he becomes perfect, i.e., a Buddha. One must eradicate from his mind the conception not only of his own individuality but also of the substantiality of anything whatsoever perceived or cognized by him. When a being attains a state of mind, in which he cannot distinguish himself from any other thing of the world or from the Absolute, he is said to attain Nirvāṇa in the Mahāyānic sense.

c7.s3.t27.13

(d). The Doctrine of Truths

c7.s3.t27.14

An important point of difference between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna pointed out by the *Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka* is that, according to the former, a being, by comprehending the Āryasatyas including the Pratītyasamutpāda, attains Nirvāṇa, *i.e.*, he passes from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, from a laukika to lokottara state; while, according to the latter, a being, by comprehending the fact that there is no difference between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, that the world has only a relative existence (pratītyasamutpanna) and that it is unreal but appears real to a deluded mind, realises the true Nirvāṇa, which is nothing but the Śūnyatā or Tathatā, the absolute principle underlying the universe. The conceptions of the Reality being so wide apart, the Hīnayānists and the Mahāyānists look upon everything including the Buddhistic practices from two quite different angles of vision. To the Hīnayānists, the Āryasatyas and the Pratītyasamutpāda are real and hence belong to the domain of the highest truth (*paramattha* and not *sammuti*), while to the Mahāyānists, they are unreal and belong to the domain of convention (*saṃvṛti* or *parikalpita-paratantra*). The Mahāyānists, however, could not do away with the four truths and the formula of the chain of causation, for, they held that beings, deluded as they are, should at the beginning try to comprehend the Pudgala-śūnyatā through them. In consonance with their conception of the Reality, the Mahāyānists held that Buddha had two forms of teaching, conventional and transcendental, and that whatever he said about the Āryasatyas or Pratītyasamutpāda were conventional, his real teaching being Śūnyatā or Tathatā, which could not be imparted by one to another and could be realised only within one's own self. Before we enter into the discussion about his two forms of teaching, let us see what the Āryasatyas and the Pratītyasamutpāda are.

Cites (5)