. Let us state our
own opinion on the subject in question. The foundation of Hinayanism consists
in the four Nikayas, or four Agamas, the most important books of that school.
Besides the four Agamas, there exist in the Chinese Tripitaka numerous books
translated by various authors, some of which are extracts from Agamas, and some
the lives of the Buddha, while others are entirely different sutras, apparently
of later date. Judging from these sources, it seems to us that most of Shakya
Muni's original teachings are embodied into the four Agamas. But it is still a
matter of uncertainty that whether they are stated in Agamas now extant just as
they were, for the Buddha's preachings were rehearsed immediately after the
Buddha's death in the first council held at Rajagrha, yet not consigned to
writing. They were handed down by memory about one hundred years. Then the
monks at Vaisali committed the so-called Ten Indulgences, infringing the rules
of the Order, and maintained that Shakya Muni had not condemned them in his
preachings. As there were, however, no written sutras to disprove their
assertion, the elders, such as Yaça, Revata, and others, who opposed the
Indulgences, had to convoke the second council of 700 monks, in which they
succeeded in getting the Indulgences condemned, and rehearsed the Buddha's
instruction for the second time. Even in this council of Vaisali we cannot find
the fact that the Master's preachings were reduced to writing. The decisions of
the 700 elders were not accepted by the party of opposition, who held a
separate council, and settled their own rules and doctrine. Thus the same
doctrine of the Teacher be.-an to be differently stated and believed.
This being
the first open schism, one disruption after another took place among the
Buddhistic Order. There were many different schools of the Buddhists at the
time when King Açoka ascended the throne (about 269 B.C.), and the patronage of
the King drew a great number of pagan ascetics into the Order, who, though they
dressed themselves in the yellow robes, yet still preserved their religious
views in their original colour. This naturally led the Church into continual
disturbances and moral corruption. In the eighteenth year of Açoka's reign the
King summoned the council of 1,000 monks at Pataliputra (Patna), and settled
the orthodox doctrine in order to keep the Dharma pure from heretical beliefs.
We believe that about this time some of the Buddha's preachings were reduced to
writing, for the missionaries despatched by the King in the year following the
council seem to have set out with written sutras. In addition to this, some of
the names of the passages of the Dharma are given in the Bharbra edict of the
King, which was addressed to the monks in Magadha. We do not suppose, however,
that all the sutras were written at once in these days, but that they were
copied down from memory one after another at different times, because some of
the sutras were put down in Ceylon 160 years after the Council of Patna.
In the
introductory book of Ekottaragama (Anguttara Nikaya), now extant in the Chinese
Tripitaka, we notice the following points: (1) It is written in a style quite
different from that of the original Agama, but similar to that of the
supplementary books of the Mahayana sutras; (2) it states Ananda's compilation
of the Tripitaka after the death of the Master; (3) it refers to the past
Buddhas, the future Buddha Maitreya, and innumerable Bodhisattvas; (4) it
praises the profound doctrine of Mahayanism. From this we infer that the Agama
was put in the present form after the rise of the Mahayana School, and handed
down through the hand of Mahasanghika scholars, who were much in sympathy with
Mahayanism.
Again, the
first book of Dirghagama, (Digha Nikaya), that describes the line of Buddhas
who appeared before Shakya Muni, adopts the whole legend of Gotama's life as a
common mode of all Buddhas appearing on earth; while the second book narrates the
death of Gotama and the distribution of his relies, and refers to Pataliputra,
the new capital of Açoka. This shows us that the present Agama is not of an
earlier date than the third century B.C. Samyuktagama (Samyutta Nikaya) also
gives a detailed account of Açoka's conversion, and of his father Bindusara.
From these evidences we may safely infer that the Hinayana sutras were put in
the present shape at different times between the third century B.C. and the
first century A.D.
With
regard to the Mahayana sutras we have little doubt about their being the
writings of the later Buddhist reformers, even if they are put in the mouth of
Shakya Muni. They are entirely different from the sutras of Hinayanism, and
cannot be taken as the preachings of one and the same person. The reader should
notice the following points:
(1) Four
councils were held for the rehearsal of the Tripitaka namely, the first at
Rajagrha, in the year of Shakya Muni's death; the second at Vaisali, some 100
years after the Buddha; the third at the time of King Açoka, about 235 years
after the Master; the fourth at the time of King Kanishka, the first century
A.D. But all these councils were held to compile the Hinayana sutras, and
nothing is known of the rehearsal of the Mahayana books. Some are of opinion
that the first council was held within the Sattapanni cave, near Rajagrha,
where the Hinayana Tripitaka was rehearsed by 500 monks, while outside the cave
there assembled a greater number of monks, who were not admitted into the cave,
and rehearsed the Mahayana Tripitaka. This opinion, however, is based on no
reliable source.
(2) The
Indian orthodox Buddhists of old declared that the Mahayana sutras were the
fabrication of heretics or of the Evil One, and not the teachings of the
Buddha. In reply to this, the Mahayanists had to prove that the Mahayana sutras
were compiled by the direct disciples of the Master; but even Nagarjuna could
not vindicate the compilation of the doubtful books, and said (in
Mahaprajñaparamita-çastra) that they were compiled by Ananda and Manjuçri, with
myriads of Bodhisattvas at the outside of the Iron Mountain Range, which
encloses the earth. Asanga also proved (in Mahayanalankara-sutra-çastra) with
little success that Mahayanism was the Buddha's direct teachings. Some may
quote Bodhisattva-garbhastha-sutra in favour of the Mahayana; but it is of no
avail, as the sutra itself is the work of a later date.
(3)
Although almost all of the Mahayana sutras, excepting Avatamsaka-sutra, treat
of Hinayanism as the imperfect doctrine taught in the first part of the
Master's career, yet not merely the whole life of Gotama, but also events which
occurred after his death are narrated in the Hinayana sutras. This shows that
the Mahayana sutras were composed after the establishment of early Buddhism.
(4) The
narratives given in the Hinayana sutras in reference to Shakya Muni seem to be
based on historical facts, but those in the Mahayana books are full of wonders
and extravagant miracles far from facts.
(5) The Hinayana
sutras retain the traces of their having been classified and compiled as we see
in Ekottaragama, while Mahayana books appear to have been composed one after
another by different authors at different times, because each of them strives
to excel others, declaring itself to be the sutra of the highest doctrine, as
we see in Saddharma-pundarika, Samdhinirmocana, Suvarnaprabhasottamaraja, etc.
(6) The
dialogues in the Hinayana sutras are in general those between the Buddha and
his disciples, while in the Mahayana books imaginary beings called Bodhisattvas
take the place of disciples. Moreover, in some books no monks are mentioned.
(7) Most
of the Mahayana sutras declare that they themselves possess those mystic powers
that protect the reader or the owner from such evils as epidemic, famine, war,
etc.; but the Hinayana sutras are pure from such beliefs.
(8) The
Mahayana sutras extol not only the merits of the reading, but the copying of
the sutras. This unfailingly shows the fact that they were not handed down by
memory, as the Hinayana sutras, but written by their respective authors.
(9) The
Hinayana sutras were written with a plain style in Pali, while the Mahayana
books, with brilliant phraseology, in Sanskrit.
(10) The
Buddha in the Hinayana sutras is little more than a human being, while Buddha
or Tathagata in the Mahayana is a superhuman being or Great Deity.
(11) The
moral precepts of the Hinayana were laid down by the Master every time when his
disciples acted indecently, while those of the Mahayana books were spoken all
at once by Tathagata.
(12) Some
Mahayana sutras appear to be the exaggeration or modification of what was
stated in the Hinayana books, as we see in Mahaparinirvana-sutra.
(13) If we
take both the Hinayana and the Mahayana as spoken by one and the same person,
we cannot understand why there are so many contradictory statements, as we see
in the following:
(a) Historical
Contradictions. -- For instance, Hinayana sutras are held to be the first
sermon of the Buddha by the author of Saddharma-pundarika, while Avatamsaka
declares itself to be the first sermon. Nagarjuna holds that Prajña sutras are
the first.
(b) Contradictions
as to the Person of the Master. -- For instance, Agamas say the Buddha's
body was marked with thirty-two peculiarities, while the Mahayana books
enumerate ninety-seven peculiarities, or even innumerable marks.
(c) Doctrinal
Contradictions. -- For instance, the Hinayana sutras put forth the
pessimistic, nihilistic view of life, while the Mahayana books, as a rule, express
the optimistic, idealistic view.
(14) The
Hinayana sutras say nothing of the Mahayana books, while the latter always
compare their doctrine with that of the former, and speak of it in contempt. It
is clear that the name 'Hinayana' was coined by the Mahayanists, as there is no
sutra which calls itself 'Hinayana.' It is therefore evident that when the
Hinayana books took the present shape there appeared no Mahayana sutras.
(15) The
authors of the Mahayana sutras should have expected the opposition of the Hinayanists,
because they say not seldom that there might be some who would. not believe in
and oppose Mahayanism as not being the Buddha's teaching, but that of the Evil
One. They say also that one who would venture to say the Mahayana books are
fictitious should fall into Hell. For example, the author of
Mahaparinirvana-sutra says: "Wicked Bhiksus would say all Vaipulya
Mahayana sutras are not spoken by the Buddha, but by the Evil One."
(16) There
are evidences showing that the Mahayana doctrine was developed out of the
Hinayana one.
(a) The
Mahayanists' grand conception of Tathagata is the natural development of that
of those progressive Hinayanists who belonged to the Mahasamghika School, which
was formed some one hundred years after the Master. These Hinayanists
maintained that the Buddha had infinite power, endless life, and limitlessly
great body. The author of Mahaparinirvana-sutra also says that Buddha is
immortal, his Dharma-kaya is infinite and eternal. The authors of
Mahayana-mulagata-hrdayabhumi-dhyana-sutra and of
Suvarnaprabha-sottamaraja-sutra enumerate the Three Bodies of Buddha, while the
writer of Lankavatara-sutra describes the Four Bodies, and that of
Avatamsaka-sutra the Ten Bodies of Tathagata.
(b)
According to the Hinayana sutras, there are only four stages of saintship, but
the Mahasamghika School increases the number and gives ten steps. Some Mahayana
sutras also enumerate the ten stages of Bodhisattva, while others give
forty-one or fifty two stages.
(c) The
Himayana sutras name six past Buddhas and one future Buddha Maitreya, while the
Mahayana sutras name thirty-five, fifty-three, or three thousand Buddhas.
(d) The
Hinayana sutras give the names of six Vijñanas, while the Mahayana books seven,
eight, or nine Vijñanas.
(17) For a
few centuries after the Buddha we hear only of Hinayanism, but not of
Mahayanism, there being no Mahayana teacher.
(18) In
some Mahayana sutras (Mahavairocanabhisambodhi-sutra, for example) Tathagata
Vairocana takes the place of Gotama, and nothing is said of the latter.
(19) The
contents of the Mahayana sutras often prove that they were, composed, or
rewritten, or some additions were made, long after the Buddha. For instance,
Mahamaya-sutra says that Açvaghosa would refute heretical doctrines 600 years
after the Master, and Nagarjuna would advocate the Dharma 700 years after
Gotama, while Lankavatara-sutra prophesies that Nagarjuna would appear in South
India.
(20) The
author of San-ron-gen-gi tells us Mahadeva, a leader of the Mahasamghika
School, used Mahayana sutras, together with the orthodox Tripitaka 116 {years?}
after the Buddha. It is, however, doubtful that they existed at so early a
date.
(21)
Mahaprajñaparamita-çastra, ascribed to Nagarjuna, refers to many Mahayana
books, which include Saddharma-pundarika, Vimalakirtti-nirdeça,
Sukhavati-vyuha, Mahaprajñaparamita,
Pratyutpanna-buddhasammukhavasthita-samadhi, etc. He quotes in his
Daçabhumivibhasa çastra, Mahaparinirvana, Daçabhumi, etc.
(22)
Sthiramati, whose date is said to be earlier than Nagarjuna and later than
Açvaghosa, tries to prove that Mahayanism was directly taught by the Master in
his Mahayanavataraka-çastra. And Mahayanottaratantra-çastra, which is ascribed
by some scholars to him, refers to Avatamsaka, Vajracchedikka-prajñaparamita,
Saddharmapundarika, Crimala-devi-simhananda, etc.
(23)
Chi-leu-cia-chin, who came to China in A.D. 147 or A.D. 164, translated some
part of Mahayana books known as Maharatnakuta-sutra and
Mahavaipulya-mahasannipata-sutra.
(24)
An-shi-kao, who came to China in A.D. 148, translated such Mahayana books as
Sukhavati-vyaha, Candra-dipa-samadhi, etc.
(25)
Matanga, who came to China in A.D. 67, is said by his biographer to have been
informed of both Mahayanism and Hinayanism to have given interpretations to a
noted Mahayana book, entitled Suvarnaprabhasa.
(26)
Sandhinirmocana-sutra is supposed to be a work of Asanga not without reason,
because Asanga's doctrine is identical with that of the sutra, and the sutra itself
is contained in the latter part of Yogaçaryabhumi-çastra. The author divides
the whole preachings of the Master into the three periods that he might place
the Idealistic doctrine in the highest rank of the Mahayana schools.
(27) We
have every reason to believe that Mahayana sutras began to appear (perhaps
Prajña sutras being the first) early in the first century A.D., that most of
the important books appeared before Nagarjuna, and that some of Mantra sutras
were composed so late as the time of Vajrabodhi, who came to China in A.D. 719.