RSS Feed
Twitter
Mahayana and Hinayana these are, which were not accepted by the two parties to be titled as such from the very beginning. “Hinayana” means the lower vehicle or inferior path. This epithet was given to the non- Mahayanist school which were 18 in number, and who formed the most primitivr Schools of Buddhism. It took centuries for this word to come into common vogue but now the older form of Buddhism is know throughout as such. In the same way, “Mahayana” was also not accepted as a tem for the new School. These two names express souddhame sort of bitter feelings. I therefore consider it available to leave these words and use some other. I think the most suitable word will be “Primitive Buddhism” and “Developed Buddhism.” But for the convenience of my readers I have kept these terms here.
These are two types of people in the world. Firstly, people who think rationally follow reason alone, and will not believe you unless you convince their intellect. Secondly, those who do not care much for reason. They are very emotional and thing appeals to their heart they will believe emotional, these are two human types found in the world. So the same type of religion or the belief cannot satisfies all. Hence we find divergences in a religion belief according to these types. And so it was natural to occur Buddhism too. The Buddha rightly did not ignore either of these types of people. Even in the primitive Buddhism which is called Hinayana, you find two kind of teachings; one satisfying common people, and the other the intellectual type of people. In this respect Buddha’s method of teaching was quite different. In one of the famous sutras of Pali Tripitaka Called Moggallana Sutta, Buddha shows how different ways and means should be found to teach the people of different standard of intellect. .
I may give you a simile. A small child is playing with an elephant toy. He believes that is an elephant because he never saw a real one. A grown-up man sees his folly and wants to let him know the reality. What should be do then ? The best way is to let the child be also grown-up like him self. But it is never proper to snatch away the elephant toy from the boy’s hands, smash it. We find some accommodation for the lss intelligent people, in Buddhism for their own satisfaction. For example, the whole world of goods which is found in Pali or Chinese Tripitakas were not Buddha’s own belief, but were the commonly accepted belief among th people of India in his time. Most of these might be untrue and they might be quite contrary to modern geography. It is quite impossible, at least a few of them were known as such to the early Buddhists, but still they did not want to disturb the popular mind. So nothing is said against the existence of the heavenly abodes. But the Buddha very wisely reduced their Karma subject to birth and decay. That conception was not known before the Buddha. For the ancient gods meant something quite different they were considered immortal. And as Buddhism spread in other countries, there, too, they found similar belief and they adopted the same attitude. The case is the same with the other countries like Tibet, China, Burma. They had several village gods, local deities, worshipped by the masses. To deprive them of their popular deities would have been not proper to the people, because it is the weak-minded who go to gods for help in adversity. And if that little help is taken away from them, they would lose heart.
I mention this, because Hinayanists it is said that Mahayana has created thousands o gods, rituals and modes of sacrifices, Which are nowhere found in the original teaching of the Buddha. I don’t see much difference between the common practices of the masses of the two vehicles. The masses want in time of their difficulties, some sort of help from supernatural beings. And though Hinayana did not create new gods as Mahayana did, it does not mean that it stops common folk in their land from adding new deities. You will find the Brahmin god Vishnu and many others being Singhalese Hinayanist. Numerous village gods are everywhere worshipped in Burma and Siam. They are quite new arrivals to primitive Buddhism, their names will be nowhere found in ancient Pali Tripitaka. So if Mahayana was forced to invent new gods that was because popular mind wanted it. To say therefore that because Mahayana invented many gods, it goes against Buddha’s original teaching is not correct. If it is a sin, both are sinners. Further, Hinayanists say Mahayana sutras are against historical facts. They are like fiction, full of the stories of gods and demons. And no rational mind can believe them as the teaching of the historical Buddha. But here too, the difference is only of degree. You must keep this point in your mind-Hinayana is the original primitive Buddhism; Mahayana means the developed Buddhism as I told before. Developed, i.e. original plus new contributions so, for Mahayanist there is no room to deny the existence of Hinayana sutra as the teachings taught by the historical Buddha, otherwise, it will be not easy for them to get the historical founder of Buddhism. In reply to the charge brought by the Hinayanists that Mahayana literature consists of fabulous and unhistorical elements, the Mahayanist, too can point out such factors in Hinayana sutras, though in leaser number because the additions and substractions to Pali Tripitaka were stopped at a very early age. What is the war of Mara Fought at the sacred Bodhi tree ? Did really the demon Mara riding a black elephant comes to fight with Boddhisattiva ? Did he possess and army of soldiers to fight his adversary ? There Mara Simply means the evil thought, but this destruction of evil thought was expressed allegorically. Which attracted the popular mind more and they made it areal physical war between the Buddha and Mara, the king of Death. Hinayanists themselves originally made this story of Mara. His is not a Mahayanists creation. You will find several such instances in Hinayana scriptures where popular needs are satisfied. So we can’t blame Mahayana sutras for the same fault, which is found in Hinayana sutras.
By this comparison, I mean to show that new gods and fabulous sutras are to be found in the scriptures of both Schools. On such ground, one cannot decry the other. The popular mind always likes simple stories though evidently absurd. You know such fables are always useful for the training of young minds. Hundreds of stories are taught now in our schools, and children enjoy them very much and derive many good morals from them. But nobody can say that those are useless stories because they are not based on real fact or history. In the same way there might be many more sutras in Hinayana Tripitaka where you find such unhistorical elements or they might be many more sutras in Mahayana scriptures having same faults. But if they help man to better his life or to soothe his mind in difficulties, and certainly most of them have such qualities, they should not be considered as trash.
But all these differences are only the things of surface. Let us look inside and see. In there any real difference in the fundamentals of Hinayana and Mahayana. The doctrine of Non-soul is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism, that is, that the Law of Impermanence is without exception for all elements and so there is no possibility of an eternal soul inside the body. The Mahayanist who contributed many new grounds and reasons or it also upholds this doctrine of Non-soul. Several fine treaties written by great Mahayanist scholars in India from the time of Vasubandhu (fifth century A.D) to Ratnakara-shanti (eleventh century A.D.) on this subject. So they are not an inch behind Hinayanists regarding this doctrine of Non-soul. You can take one after another almost all the fundamentals of Hinayana. You will find all of them supported well by Mahayanist scholars. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, the karmic retribution, all of them are upheld. Where then does the fundamental difference lie ? Mahayana scholars when they found some of the teachings of the Buddha condemned by the Brahmin scholars, they went forward and by giving strong arguments in their favor, they defeated their adversaries.
Perhaps the Thervada’s of Siam, Burma and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) do not know the difficulties, which have to be faced in India. The rival philosophical schools in India have developed a high literature on the art of debate and logic. And unless you first convince or silence them, it is not possible to influence the mind of people there. In a country where there is only a naïve conception of the soul, it is not very difficult tp\o tell in a few simple words that there is no eternal soul, But in India Brahmins have created a great literature upon this subject alone and one who knows about their doctrine, alone can compare the superiority of the doctrine of Non-soul. And in this respect, I may tell you, if we leave the great contributions of our Mahayana Indian scholars, we have nothing to put our case strongly before them.
So as far as the highest philosophical thoughts are concerned, Hinayana and Mahayana are misnomers; they have not got two such sets of doctrine. There is one more point to be explained. Mahayanist blamed Hinayanists for putting a very low ideal before the individual by placing individual salavation as the immediate goal for a man’s career and the Mahayanist do not care for the individual salavation. They say as long as there is a single living being not out of suffering, we shoul not try to escape from it. Our duty is to help the suffering fellow-beings. they think that such a high ideal is quite absent from Hinayanist scriptures. But that is not true. The 550 Jatakas of Hinayanist are nothing but to illustrate this high ideal. In the very beginning of the Jatakas, we find Sumedha renouncing his own Nirvana for the sake of helping others. He makes all kinds of sacrifices in over to help the needy, he gives his body in order to save a hungry tiger. And many such examples will be found in those stories. That shows that the Hinayanist never deny the high ideal of Boddhisattva.
If that is so, then it is not just to say that Hinayanist are too selfish for their own salvation. The only difference is that while Mahayanist say there is only one way to Nrvana, and that is, theattainment of Buddha hood after raising countless beings from their down-trodden states; the Hinayanist think that there are different human types, there are some who want just to escape from suffering with the least delay; and they can select the path of sravaka or pratyeka, i.e. individual salavation. But no Hinayanist can say that this ideal is equal to that of Boddhisattva. So in their ideal of life, too, the difference is not much. This is an old misconception but now the time is not such that we should emphasize them. In those days there might have been some reasons to keep these small differences always in the front, but now we have to think impartially and whatever best contribution is found from the different sects of Buddhism we must take. There are certain qualities, which are found in Hinayana.Tripitaka, which Mahayana should adopt, and there are certain other good elements in Mahayana which Hinayana must adopt. For example, there as a time when people did not like much if the life of their teacher was told without telling several miracles and supernatural occurrences, but now is the age of reason; people want more rational stories about their teacher. And if you want to find the real historical Buddha, then for it you have to look towards Hinayana scriptures. There you will find the humane Buddha. An uncared monk is suffering from dangerous disease. The Buddha sees him. He washes his body with his own hands; he puts him again on his bed. Such instances in the life of Buddha are many which are found in those scriptures. If all these are collected leaving all miracles and supernatural things, you will find the Buddha more splendid in his character.
Here Mahayana Sutras are lacking behind. So this human element of the Buddha can be complemented from the Hinayana scriptures. Mahayana contributed two high philosophies of Nagarjuna and Asanga. They are the real explanations of the Buddha’s original thought, they are not to supersede the original but to support and make it clearer. The simile of raft is very famous. The Buddha says all my teachings are like a raft, they are to cross on, not to be held fast. Taking such similes Mahayana scholars propounded many good theories for their explanation of the Dhamma. There is need for explaining when the philosophies of Nagarjuna and Buddha are not different or rival doctrines. To go in detail of them would be to become too technical. Nagarjuna’s philosophy is the philosophy of relativity, that is things have only relative existence, as cold to hot, dark to light, small to big. This short formula he applied everywhere, giving different illustrations from philosophical, moral points of view. This conception certainly does not go against the orthodox teachings of Hinayana school. When everything in the world is momentary and there is nothing permanent, it is only by relative terms that we can know the value. So this relativity is a corollary of the original doctrine of universal commentaries.
The Yoga-carat School of Asanga is another contribution of Mahayana to the Buddhist philosophy. It is very high and deep, philosophy, which even now inspires the minds of learned Brahmin scholars. This the School from which is derived the modern School of Vedanta in India. It is this School, which gave philosophers, and logicians like Vasubandhu Dingnaga Dharmakirti and a host of others. The chief treatise of this school is the Vijnaptisastra, which its commentaries is found in its Chinese translation.
If there are differences between two schools, they are merely in small things, which have some value, if any, for those who cannot understand true and high principles. In philosophical ideas they are really one and the same.
These are two types of people in the world. Firstly, people who think rationally follow reason alone, and will not believe you unless you convince their intellect. Secondly, those who do not care much for reason. They are very emotional and thing appeals to their heart they will believe emotional, these are two human types found in the world. So the same type of religion or the belief cannot satisfies all. Hence we find divergences in a religion belief according to these types. And so it was natural to occur Buddhism too. The Buddha rightly did not ignore either of these types of people. Even in the primitive Buddhism which is called Hinayana, you find two kind of teachings; one satisfying common people, and the other the intellectual type of people. In this respect Buddha’s method of teaching was quite different. In one of the famous sutras of Pali Tripitaka Called Moggallana Sutta, Buddha shows how different ways and means should be found to teach the people of different standard of intellect. .
I may give you a simile. A small child is playing with an elephant toy. He believes that is an elephant because he never saw a real one. A grown-up man sees his folly and wants to let him know the reality. What should be do then ? The best way is to let the child be also grown-up like him self. But it is never proper to snatch away the elephant toy from the boy’s hands, smash it. We find some accommodation for the lss intelligent people, in Buddhism for their own satisfaction. For example, the whole world of goods which is found in Pali or Chinese Tripitakas were not Buddha’s own belief, but were the commonly accepted belief among th people of India in his time. Most of these might be untrue and they might be quite contrary to modern geography. It is quite impossible, at least a few of them were known as such to the early Buddhists, but still they did not want to disturb the popular mind. So nothing is said against the existence of the heavenly abodes. But the Buddha very wisely reduced their Karma subject to birth and decay. That conception was not known before the Buddha. For the ancient gods meant something quite different they were considered immortal. And as Buddhism spread in other countries, there, too, they found similar belief and they adopted the same attitude. The case is the same with the other countries like Tibet, China, Burma. They had several village gods, local deities, worshipped by the masses. To deprive them of their popular deities would have been not proper to the people, because it is the weak-minded who go to gods for help in adversity. And if that little help is taken away from them, they would lose heart.
I mention this, because Hinayanists it is said that Mahayana has created thousands o gods, rituals and modes of sacrifices, Which are nowhere found in the original teaching of the Buddha. I don’t see much difference between the common practices of the masses of the two vehicles. The masses want in time of their difficulties, some sort of help from supernatural beings. And though Hinayana did not create new gods as Mahayana did, it does not mean that it stops common folk in their land from adding new deities. You will find the Brahmin god Vishnu and many others being Singhalese Hinayanist. Numerous village gods are everywhere worshipped in Burma and Siam. They are quite new arrivals to primitive Buddhism, their names will be nowhere found in ancient Pali Tripitaka. So if Mahayana was forced to invent new gods that was because popular mind wanted it. To say therefore that because Mahayana invented many gods, it goes against Buddha’s original teaching is not correct. If it is a sin, both are sinners. Further, Hinayanists say Mahayana sutras are against historical facts. They are like fiction, full of the stories of gods and demons. And no rational mind can believe them as the teaching of the historical Buddha. But here too, the difference is only of degree. You must keep this point in your mind-Hinayana is the original primitive Buddhism; Mahayana means the developed Buddhism as I told before. Developed, i.e. original plus new contributions so, for Mahayanist there is no room to deny the existence of Hinayana sutra as the teachings taught by the historical Buddha, otherwise, it will be not easy for them to get the historical founder of Buddhism. In reply to the charge brought by the Hinayanists that Mahayana literature consists of fabulous and unhistorical elements, the Mahayanist, too can point out such factors in Hinayana sutras, though in leaser number because the additions and substractions to Pali Tripitaka were stopped at a very early age. What is the war of Mara Fought at the sacred Bodhi tree ? Did really the demon Mara riding a black elephant comes to fight with Boddhisattiva ? Did he possess and army of soldiers to fight his adversary ? There Mara Simply means the evil thought, but this destruction of evil thought was expressed allegorically. Which attracted the popular mind more and they made it areal physical war between the Buddha and Mara, the king of Death. Hinayanists themselves originally made this story of Mara. His is not a Mahayanists creation. You will find several such instances in Hinayana scriptures where popular needs are satisfied. So we can’t blame Mahayana sutras for the same fault, which is found in Hinayana sutras.
By this comparison, I mean to show that new gods and fabulous sutras are to be found in the scriptures of both Schools. On such ground, one cannot decry the other. The popular mind always likes simple stories though evidently absurd. You know such fables are always useful for the training of young minds. Hundreds of stories are taught now in our schools, and children enjoy them very much and derive many good morals from them. But nobody can say that those are useless stories because they are not based on real fact or history. In the same way there might be many more sutras in Hinayana Tripitaka where you find such unhistorical elements or they might be many more sutras in Mahayana scriptures having same faults. But if they help man to better his life or to soothe his mind in difficulties, and certainly most of them have such qualities, they should not be considered as trash.
But all these differences are only the things of surface. Let us look inside and see. In there any real difference in the fundamentals of Hinayana and Mahayana. The doctrine of Non-soul is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism, that is, that the Law of Impermanence is without exception for all elements and so there is no possibility of an eternal soul inside the body. The Mahayanist who contributed many new grounds and reasons or it also upholds this doctrine of Non-soul. Several fine treaties written by great Mahayanist scholars in India from the time of Vasubandhu (fifth century A.D) to Ratnakara-shanti (eleventh century A.D.) on this subject. So they are not an inch behind Hinayanists regarding this doctrine of Non-soul. You can take one after another almost all the fundamentals of Hinayana. You will find all of them supported well by Mahayanist scholars. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, the karmic retribution, all of them are upheld. Where then does the fundamental difference lie ? Mahayana scholars when they found some of the teachings of the Buddha condemned by the Brahmin scholars, they went forward and by giving strong arguments in their favor, they defeated their adversaries.
Perhaps the Thervada’s of Siam, Burma and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) do not know the difficulties, which have to be faced in India. The rival philosophical schools in India have developed a high literature on the art of debate and logic. And unless you first convince or silence them, it is not possible to influence the mind of people there. In a country where there is only a naïve conception of the soul, it is not very difficult tp\o tell in a few simple words that there is no eternal soul, But in India Brahmins have created a great literature upon this subject alone and one who knows about their doctrine, alone can compare the superiority of the doctrine of Non-soul. And in this respect, I may tell you, if we leave the great contributions of our Mahayana Indian scholars, we have nothing to put our case strongly before them.
So as far as the highest philosophical thoughts are concerned, Hinayana and Mahayana are misnomers; they have not got two such sets of doctrine. There is one more point to be explained. Mahayanist blamed Hinayanists for putting a very low ideal before the individual by placing individual salavation as the immediate goal for a man’s career and the Mahayanist do not care for the individual salavation. They say as long as there is a single living being not out of suffering, we shoul not try to escape from it. Our duty is to help the suffering fellow-beings. they think that such a high ideal is quite absent from Hinayanist scriptures. But that is not true. The 550 Jatakas of Hinayanist are nothing but to illustrate this high ideal. In the very beginning of the Jatakas, we find Sumedha renouncing his own Nirvana for the sake of helping others. He makes all kinds of sacrifices in over to help the needy, he gives his body in order to save a hungry tiger. And many such examples will be found in those stories. That shows that the Hinayanist never deny the high ideal of Boddhisattva.
If that is so, then it is not just to say that Hinayanist are too selfish for their own salvation. The only difference is that while Mahayanist say there is only one way to Nrvana, and that is, theattainment of Buddha hood after raising countless beings from their down-trodden states; the Hinayanist think that there are different human types, there are some who want just to escape from suffering with the least delay; and they can select the path of sravaka or pratyeka, i.e. individual salavation. But no Hinayanist can say that this ideal is equal to that of Boddhisattva. So in their ideal of life, too, the difference is not much. This is an old misconception but now the time is not such that we should emphasize them. In those days there might have been some reasons to keep these small differences always in the front, but now we have to think impartially and whatever best contribution is found from the different sects of Buddhism we must take. There are certain qualities, which are found in Hinayana.Tripitaka, which Mahayana should adopt, and there are certain other good elements in Mahayana which Hinayana must adopt. For example, there as a time when people did not like much if the life of their teacher was told without telling several miracles and supernatural occurrences, but now is the age of reason; people want more rational stories about their teacher. And if you want to find the real historical Buddha, then for it you have to look towards Hinayana scriptures. There you will find the humane Buddha. An uncared monk is suffering from dangerous disease. The Buddha sees him. He washes his body with his own hands; he puts him again on his bed. Such instances in the life of Buddha are many which are found in those scriptures. If all these are collected leaving all miracles and supernatural things, you will find the Buddha more splendid in his character.
Here Mahayana Sutras are lacking behind. So this human element of the Buddha can be complemented from the Hinayana scriptures. Mahayana contributed two high philosophies of Nagarjuna and Asanga. They are the real explanations of the Buddha’s original thought, they are not to supersede the original but to support and make it clearer. The simile of raft is very famous. The Buddha says all my teachings are like a raft, they are to cross on, not to be held fast. Taking such similes Mahayana scholars propounded many good theories for their explanation of the Dhamma. There is need for explaining when the philosophies of Nagarjuna and Buddha are not different or rival doctrines. To go in detail of them would be to become too technical. Nagarjuna’s philosophy is the philosophy of relativity, that is things have only relative existence, as cold to hot, dark to light, small to big. This short formula he applied everywhere, giving different illustrations from philosophical, moral points of view. This conception certainly does not go against the orthodox teachings of Hinayana school. When everything in the world is momentary and there is nothing permanent, it is only by relative terms that we can know the value. So this relativity is a corollary of the original doctrine of universal commentaries.
The Yoga-carat School of Asanga is another contribution of Mahayana to the Buddhist philosophy. It is very high and deep, philosophy, which even now inspires the minds of learned Brahmin scholars. This the School from which is derived the modern School of Vedanta in India. It is this School, which gave philosophers, and logicians like Vasubandhu Dingnaga Dharmakirti and a host of others. The chief treatise of this school is the Vijnaptisastra, which its commentaries is found in its Chinese translation.
If there are differences between two schools, they are merely in small things, which have some value, if any, for those who cannot understand true and high principles. In philosophical ideas they are really one and the same.
0 comments:
Post a Comment