[Footnote 197: Chap. XII.]
[Footnote 198: See Watters, I. pp. 222, 224 and 270. It is worth noting that Hsuan Chuang says Asoka lived one hundred years after the Buddha"s death. See Watters, I. p. 267. See also the note of S. Levi in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 1016-1019, citing traditions to the effect that there were 300 years between Upagupta, the teacher of Asoka, and Kanishka, who is thus made to reign about 31 A.D. On the other hand Kanishka"s chaplain Sangharaksha is said to have lived 700 years after the Buddha.]
[Footnote 199: See Takakusu in _J.P.T.S._ 1905, pp. 67 ff. For the Sarvastivadin Canon, see my chapter on the Chinese Tripitaka.]
[Footnote 200: See above, vol. I. p. 262. For an account of the doctrines see also Vasilief, 245 ff. Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, pp. 190 ff.]
[Footnote 201: Its connection with Gandhara and Kashmir is plainly indicated in its own scriptures. See Przyluski"s article on "Le Nord-Ouest de l"Inde dans le Vinaya des Mula-sarvastivadins," _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 493 ft. This Vinaya must have received considerable additions as time went on and in its present form is posterior to Kanishka.]
[Footnote 202: The distinction between Sarvastivadin and Mulasarvastivadin is not clear to me. I can only suggest that when a section of the school accepted the Mahavibhasha and were known as Vaibhashikas others who approved of the school chiefly on account of its excellent Vinaya called themselves Primitive Sarvastivadins.]
[Footnote 203: See Sylvain Levi, _J.A._ 1908, XII. 57 ff., and Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 201 ff.]
[Footnote 204: The only reason for doubting it is that two stories (Nos. 14 and 31) in the Sutralankara (which appears to be a genuine work) refer to Kanishka as if he had reigned in the past. This may be a poetic artifice or it may be that the stories are interpolations.
See for the traditions Watters on _Yuan Chw.a.n.g_, II. 102-4 and Takakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1905, p. 53 who quotes the Chinese Samyukta-ratna-pit?aka-sutra and the Record of Indian Patriarchs. The Chinese list of Patriarchs is compatible with the view that Asvaghosha was alive about 125 A.D. for he was the twelfth Patriarch and Bodhidharma the twenty-eighth visited China in 520. This gives about 400 years for sixteen Patriarchs, which is possible, for these worthies were long-lived. But the list has little authority.]
[Footnote 205: The traditions are conveniently collected in the introduction to Teitaro Suzuki"s translation of _The Awakening of Faith._]
[Footnote 206: The Saundaranandakavya.]
[Footnote 207: See Nanjio, Nos. 1182, 1351, 1250, 1299. It is noticeable that the translator Paramartha shows a special interest in the life and works of Asanga and Vasubandhu.]
[Footnote 208: See Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 211. It is also noticeable that _The Awakening of Faith_ appears to quote the Lankavatara sutra which is not generally regarded as an early Mahayanist work.]
[Footnote 209: Nagarjuna cannot have been the founder of the Mahayana for in his Maha-prajna-paramita-sastra (Nanjio, 1169, translation by k.u.marajiva) he cites _inter alia_ the Lotus, the Vimalakirti-sutra, and a work called Mahayana-sastra. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p. 453. For Nagarjuna see especially Grunwedel, _Mythologie_, pp. 29 ff. and the bibliography given in the notes. _Jour. Budd. Text. Soc._ V. part iv.
pp. 7 ff. Watters, _Yuan Chw.a.n.g_, pp. 200 ff. Taranatha, chap. XV and Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 250 ff.]
[Footnote 210: He is omitted from the list of Buddhabhadra, giving the succession according to the Sarvastivadins, to which school he did not belong. I-Ching cla.s.ses him with Asvaghosha and Aryadeva as belonging to the early period.]
[Footnote 211: Rajatarangini, i. 173, 177.]
[Footnote 212: Edited in the _Bibliotheca Buddhica_ by De la Vallee Poussin and (in part) in the _Journal of the Buddhist Text Soc._ See too Walleser, _Die Mittlere Lehre des Nagarjuna nach der Tibetischen Version ubertragen_, 1911: _nach der Chinesischen Version ubertragen_, 1912.]
[Footnote 213: The ascription of these works to Nagarjuna is probably correct for they were translated by k.u.marajiva who was sufficiently near him in date to be in touch with good tradition.]
[Footnote 214: The name of this king, variously given as Udayana, Jetaka and Satavahana, has not been identified with certainty from the various transcriptions and translations in the Chinese and Tibetan versions. See _J. Pali Text Soc._ for 1886 and I-Ching _Records of the Buddhist Religion_ (trans. Takakusu), pp. 158 ff. The Andhra kings who reigned from about 240 B.C. to 225 A.D. all claimed to belong to the Satavahana dynasty. The stupa of Amaravati in the Andhra territory is surrounded by a stone railing ascribed to the period 160-200 A.D. and Nagarjuna may have addressed a pious king living about that time.]
[Footnote 215: For other works attributed to Nagarjuna see Nanjio, Nos. 1169, 1179, 1180, 1186 and Walleser"s introduction to _Mittlere Lehre nach der Chinesischen Version_ The Dharmasangraha, a Sanskrit theological glossary, is also attributed to Nagarjuna as well as the tantric work Pancakrama. But it is not likely that the latter dates from his epoch.]
[Footnote 216: Nanjio, No. 1188.]
[Footnote 217: The very confused legends about him suggest a comparison with the Dravidian legend of a devotee who tore out one of his eyes and offered it to Siva. See Grunwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 34 and notes. Polemics against various Hinayanist sects are ascribed to him. See Nanjio, Nos. 1259, 1260.]
[Footnote 218: Watters, _Yuan Chw.a.n.g_, II. p. 286. Hsuan Chuang does not say that the four were contemporary but that in the time of k.u.maralabdha they were called the four Suns.]
[Footnote 219: For Asanga and Vasubandhu see Peri in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, pp. 339-390. Vincent Smith in _Early History of India_, third edition, pp. 328-334. Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 256.
Watters, _Yuan Chw.a.n.g_, I. pp. 210, 355-359. Taranatha, chap. XXII.
Grunwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 35.]
[Footnote 220: Meghavarman. See V. Smith, _l.c._ 287.]
[Footnote 221: Two have been preserved in Sanskrit: the Mahayana-sutralankara (Ed. V. Transl., S. Levi, 1907-1911) and the Bodhisattva-bhumi (English summary in _Museon_, 1905-6). A brief a.n.a.lysis of the literature of the Yogacara school according to Tibetan authorities is given by Stcherbatskoi in _Museon_, 1905, pp. 144-155.]
[Footnote 222: Mahayana-sutral. XVIII. 71-73. The ominous word _maithuna_ also occurs in this work, XVIII. 46.]
[Footnote 223: Vincent Smith, _l.c._ p. 275.]
[Footnote 224: But there are of course abundant Indian precedents, Brahmanical as well as Buddhist, for describing various degrees of sanct.i.ty or knowledge.]
[Footnote 225: The wooden statues of Asanga and Vasubandhu preserved in the Kof.u.kaji at Nara are masterpieces of art but can hardly claim to be other than works of imagination. They date from about 800 A.D.
See for an excellent reproduction Tajima"s _Select Relics_, II. X.]
[Footnote 226: See Eitel and Grunwedel, but I do not know in what texts this tradition is found. It is remarkable that Paramartha"s life (_T"oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 269-296) does not say either that he was twentieth patriarch or that he worshipped Amida.]
[Footnote 227: On receiving a large donation he built three monasteries, one for Hinayanists, one for Mahayanists and one for nuns.]
[Footnote 228: The work consists of 600 verses (Karika) with a lengthy prose commentary (Bhashya) by the author. The Sanskrit original is lost but translations have been preserved in Chinese (Nanjio, Nos.
1267, 1269, 1270) and Tibetan (see Cordier, _Cat. du Fonds tibetain de la Bib. Nat._ 1914, pp. 394, 499). But the commentary on the Bhashya called Abhidharma-kosa-vyakhya, or Sphut?artha, by Yasomitra has been preserved in Sanskrit in Nepal and frequently cites the verses as well as the Bhashya in the original Sanskrit. A number of European savants are at present occupied with this literature and Sir Denison Ross (to whom I am indebted for much information) contemplates the publication of an Uigur text of Book I found in Central Asia. At present (1920), so far as I know, the only portion of the Abhidharma-kosa in print is De la Vallee Poussin"s edition and translation of Book III, containing the Tibetan and Sanskrit texts but not the Chinese (De la Vallee Poussin--_Vasubandhu et Yasomitra_, London, 1914-18). This chapter deals with such topics as the structure of the universe, the manner and place of rebirth, the chain of causation, the geography of the world, the duration and characteristics of Kalpas, and the appearance of Buddhas and Cakravartins.]
[Footnote 229: See Nanjio, pp. 371-2, for a list of his works translated into Chinese. Hsuan Chuang"s account differs from the above (which is taken from Paramartha) in details. He also tells a curious story that Vasubandhu promised to appear to his friends after death and ultimately did so, though he forgot his promise until people began to say he had gone to h.e.l.l.]
CHAPTER XXIII
INDIAN BUDDHISM AS SEEN BY THE CHINESE PILGRIMS
About the time of Vasubandhu there existed four schools of Indian Buddhism called Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Madhyamika and Yoga or Yogacara.[230] They were specially concerned with philosophy and apparently cut across the older division into eighteen sects, which at this period seem to have differed mainly on points of discipline.
Though not of great practical importance, they long continued to play a certain part in controversial works both Buddhist and Brahmanic. The first two which were the older seem to have belonged to the Hinayana and the other two even more definitely to the Mahayana. I-Ching[231]
is quite clear as to this. "There are but two kinds of the so-called Mahayana" he says, "first the Madhyamika, second the Yoga.... These two systems are perfectly in accordance with the n.o.ble doctrine. Can we say which of the two is right? Both equally conform to truth and lead us to Nirvana" and so on. But he does not say that the other two systems are also aspects of the truth. This is the more remarkable because he himself followed the Mula-sarvastivadins. Apparently Sarvastivadin and Vaibhashika were different names for the same school, the latter being applied to them because they identified themselves with the commentary (Vibhasha) already mentioned whereas the former and older designation came to be used chiefly with reference to their disciplinary rules. Also there were two groups of Sarvastivadins, those of Gandhara and those of Kashmir. The name of Vaibhashika was applied chiefly to the latter who, if we may find a kernel of truth in legends which are certainly exaggerated, endeavoured to make Kashmir a holy land with a monopoly of the pure doctrine. Vasubandhu and Asanga appear to have broken up this isolation for they first preached the Vaibhashika doctrines in a liberal and eclectic form outside Kashmir and then by a natural transition and development went over to the Mahayana. But the Vaibhashikas did not disappear and were in existence even in the fourteenth century.[232] Their chief tenet was the real existence of external objects. In matters of doctrine they regarded their own Abhidharma as the highest authority.[233] They also held that Gotama had an ordinary human body and pa.s.sed first into a preliminary form of Nirvana when he attained Buddhahood and secondly into complete Nirvana at his death. He was superhuman only in the sense that he had intuitive knowledge and no need to learn. Their contempt for sutras may have been due to the fact that many of them discountenance the Vaibhashika views and also to a knowledge that new ones were continually being composed.
I-Ching, who ends his work by a.s.serting that all his statements are according to the arya-mula-sarvastivada-nikaya and no other, gives an interesting summary of doctrine.
"Again I say: the most important are only one or two out of eighty thousand doctrines of the Buddha: one should conform to the worldly path but inwardly strive to secure true wisdom. Now what is the worldly path? It is obeying prohibitive laws and avoiding any crime.
What is the true wisdom? _It is to obliterate the distinction between subject and object_, to follow the excellent truth and to free oneself from worldly attachments: to do away with the trammels of the chain of causality: further to obtain merit by acc.u.mulating good works and _finally to realize the excellent meaning of perfect reality_."
Such a statement enables us to understand the remark which he makes elsewhere that the same school may belong to the Hinayana and Mahayana in different places, for, whatever may be meant by wisdom which aims at obliterating the difference between subject and object, it is clearly not out of sympathy with Yogacara doctrines. In another place where he describes the curriculum followed by monks he says that they learn the Yogacarya-sastra first and then eight compositions of Asanga and Vasubandhu. Among the works prescribed for logic is the Nyayadvara-sastra attributed to Nagarjuna. The monk should learn not only the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivadins but also the agamas, equivalent to the Sutra-pit?aka. So the study of the sutras and the works of Asanga and Vasubandhu is approved by a Sarvastivadin.
The Sautrantikas,[234] though accounted Hinayanists, mark a step in the direction of the Mahayana. The founder of the school was k.u.maralabdha, mentioned above. In their estimation of scripture they reversed the views of the Vaibhashikas, for they rejected the Abhidharma and accepted only the sutras, arguing that the Abhidharma was practically an extract from them. As literary criticism this is correct, if it means that the more ancient sutras are older than the oldest Abhidharma books. But the indiscriminate acceptance of sutras led to a creed in which the supernatural played a larger part. The Sautrantikas not only ascribed superhuman powers to the Buddha, but believed in the doctrine of three bodies. In philosophy, though they were realists, they held that external objects are not perceived directly but that their existence is inferred.[235]
Something has already been said of the two other schools, both of which denied the reality of the external world. The differences between them were concerned with metaphysics rather than theology and led to no popular controversies.
Up to this point the history of Indian Buddhism has proved singularly nebulous. The most important dates are a matter of argument, the chief personages half mythical. But when the records of the Chinese pilgrims commence we are in touch with something more solid. They record dates and facts, though we must regret that they only repeat what they heard and make no attempt to criticize Indian traditions or even to weave them into a connected chronicle.
Fa-Hsien, the first of these interesting men, left China in 399 and resided in India from 405 to 411, spending three years at Pataliputra and two at Tamralipti. He visited the Panjab, Hindustan and Bengal and his narrative leaves the impression that all these were in the main Buddhist countries: of the Deccan which he did not visit he heard that its inhabitants were barbarous and not Buddhists, though it contained some Buddhist shrines. Of the Middle Kingdom (which according to his reckoning begins with Muttra) he says that the people are free and happy and neither kill any living creature nor drink intoxicating liquor.[236] He does not hint at persecution though he once or twice mentions that the Brahmans were jealous of the Buddhists. Neither does he indicate that any strong animosity prevailed between Maha and Hinayanists. But the two parties were distinct and he notes which prevailed in each locality. He left China by land and found the Hinayana prevalent at Shen-shen and Wu-i (apparently localities not far from Lob-Nor) but the Mahayana at Khotan. Nearer India, in countries apparently corresponding to parts of Kashmir and Gilgit, the monks were numerous and all Hinayanist. The same was the case in Udyana, and in Gandhara the Hinayanists were still in the majority. In the Panjab both schools were prevalent but the Hinayana evidently strong. In the district of Muttra the Law was still more flourishing, monasteries and topes were numerous and ample alms were given to the monks. He states that the professors of the Abhidharma and Vinaya made offerings to those works, and the Mahayanists to the book Prajna-paramita, as well as to Manjusri and Kwan-shih-yin. He found the country in which are the sacred sites of Sravasti, Kapilavastu and Kusinara spa.r.s.ely inhabited and desolate, but this seems to have been due to general causes, not specially to the decay of religion. He mentions that ninety-six[237] varieties of erroneous views are found among the Buddhists, which points to the existence of numerous but not acutely hostile sects and says that there still existed, apparently in Kosala, followers of Devadatta who recognized three previous Buddhas but not Sakyamuni. He visited the birth-places of these three Buddhas which contained topes erected in their honour.
He found Magadha prosperous and pious. Of its capital, Patna, he says "by the side of the topes of Asoka has been made a Mahayana monastery very grand and beautiful, there is also a Hinayana one, the two together containing 600 or 700 monks." It is probable that this was typical of the religious condition of Magadha and Bengal. Both schools existed but the Mahayana was the more flourishing. Many of the old sites, such as Rajagr?iha and Gaya, were deserted but there were new towns near them and Bodh Gaya was a place of pilgrimage with three monasteries. In the district of Tamralipti (Tamluk) on the coast of Bengal were 22 monasteries. As his princ.i.p.al object was to obtain copies of the Vinaya, he stayed three years in Patna seeking and copying ma.n.u.scripts. In this he found some difficulty, for the various schools of the Vinaya, which he says were divided by trivial differences only, handed down their respective versions orally. He found in the Mahayanist monastery one ma.n.u.script of the Mahasanghika rules and considered it the most complete, but also took down the Sarvastivadin rules.