IME PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF THE MAHAYANA Andrew kawtinson Everyone knows that the origin of the Mahayana is a myst~ ery. Suddenly, there appeared a number of sutras, all Claiming to be suddha-vacana, which criticize, in varying Gegrees of hostility, the Hinayana, and frequently refer to themselves as the Mahayana, Where did they come fron, and why? ‘the usual ansver, pioneered by Bareau? and augmented by banotte? and Conze,? has been a historical one Mccording to this view, the Mahayana has its sources primarily among the Manisanghikas.* The school of | that ane held that the Buddha was infinite? and tokottara,® and two of its offshoots, the PrajRaptivadins and the Bahu- grutiyas, taught some form of the doctrines of prajfapet and éinyatd.” In addition, we have to recognize the influence of other schools: the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma at the back of the Prajaaparamita literature, according to Conse; and the Gharant-pitaka of the Dharmaguptakas.° Then there is the probable Zoroastrian influence on the Suknavati. -vyiiha.*? Ana generally speaking, the impetus behind this new move nent was the pressure of the laity, ‘which the Hahasanghikat were open to anyway. Gnfortunavely, the argunent goes, ve have Lost almost ene entize canon of the Mahisanghikes and their subschool#, and we therefore have a very incomplete picture of the cnergonce of the Mahayana. But we can assume that it Geveloped gradually out of this branch of traditional gudghien, though not vnaffected by a fev extraneous influences.16s ‘traditions in Contact and Change This account, which is carefully argued and based on scrupulous scholarship, is very tempting. But when we examine it closely it appears even more full of holes than its proponents admit. To begin with, it is exceedingly vague - so vague, in fact that it may be unfalsifiable. How, for: example, are we to explain that the Mahisanghikas agree with the Thera- vidins and the Sarvistivadins in omitting ¢tachacd (or dharma-othitatd) from the list of acanekrta-dharmae?! If the dinyaté wing of the Mahayana is influenced by the Prajhapes ins, why does the term prajkapti occur only twice in the whole of the Astasdhasriki Prajnaparanita?!? The Mahdsanghikas, though accepting the milavijnina,!? reject the teaching of vicand and bija;+# yet the early Mahayana includes them,'> presumably taking them from the Sautrantikas.1® so now we have to add this school to the Mahasamghikas, Prajhaptivadins, Bahusrutlyas, Sarvastivad- ins and Dharmaguptakas as sources for seminal Mahayana ideas. ‘This calls for an explanation that is stronger than the “missing evidence” thesis. Similarly, ot least four Mabisanghika doctrines to be in direct conflict with the funyatavada.!? Not only that, but the Prajiaptividins and the BahuérutTyas clearly split from the original Mahisagghikas because of their teachings on dinyati. How is it, then, that the Mahayana manages to bring back together the Buddhology of the MahSsanghikas and the éinyativdda of their offshoots? Again, the Gokulikas, who gave rise to the Prajhaptivadine and the Bahusrutiyas, rejected the sutras ‘and the Vinaya, and regarded the Abhidharma alone as the Buddha-Sieana..® thie does not square with the total reliance of the Mahayana on its own sutras, nor with the complete absence of a Mahayana equivalent of the Vinaya or Ahigharma (until very late). Another question: how are we to explain the energence of the Bodhisattva as the Mahayana ideal? The references to the Bodhisattva by the Mahisaaghikas are few, and the term is understood in the usual iinayana sense of Sakyanuni before his enlightennent.1? Moreover, these references are Rawlinson: ‘The Origin of Lie Mahayana les restricted to the Bodhisattva's birth - hardly Mahayana material, Scholars have frequently pointed out the import~ lance of the Jtakas and Avadnas (this is part of the argument for the lay influence on the emergence of the Nanayana), as well as the occurrence of scenes illustrating the piranitis on the etipac at Sinel, pharahat and Anardvati, But we must assum buddhist property. what we know of the Mahasanghikas does not lead us to believe that it was this © that these were common oped then.*° Yet another question: if the Mahayana was influenced by the laity, oF was even a concession to it, why does the Aatesinaseiki prajiipdramith say that ag, $8 practically impossible to understand the Jinyatdvada?" why does the Sadgharmapundarika say that the Dharma is deep and ditti- cult to know??? These texts advocate considerable extens- jons and subtle transformations of the Dharma, not a dilution of it. ‘All of these points can be summed up very simply: many new ideas were available to Buddhists, sone of which vere particularly favoured or developed by specific schools. but ie is not obvious that the Mahayana, which synthesised these ideas into a whole, is based on any one of these schools. ‘This is indicated by the fact, as Bareau notes,? that not one work of any Hinayana school mentions the Mahayana by name - the very word is entirely missing. And not only that, but the Mahayana sutras also do not refer to any gpecific school - they simply yse their ovn blanket term thinayana". Now if the Mahayana had evolved out of the Mandeamghikas, is it not likely that there would be come reference to them, somewhere, at some time? But there jan't, Aze the MahSsanghikas and their offshoots included in the Hinayana or not? We Just don't know - the Mahayana sutras are sient. 1 suggest that a purely historical approach will never answer the questions I have raised. And this is not because we do not have the evidence to hand, but rather because wo first need to angwer the question: jiow and why16 ‘Traditions in Contact and change are the main strands of the Mahayana related (namely: Buddhology, the Bodhisattva-carya, Sinyatd and prabhiievara- citta)? This is a religious question, not a historical one. And as we indicated above, even if we accept that the Mahayana did grow out of the Mahasamghikas and their offshoots (though personally I do not think.it did), the question still remains of how the very different ideas of this tradition were united in the Mahayana. Before going on to try and answer this basic question ‘of the how and why of the Mahayana, we must be aware of two important facts established by recent scholarship. First, the earliest Mahayana sutras were mich shorter ‘than the versions we have now. I have summarized the evi- dence for this elsexhere.?4 Here we need only mention the following vital points: the carlicst Mahayana wore transmitted oratiy,?® seoretty™® groupe?” teachings and probably in omatt Secondly, and following from the first point, the ideas and doctrines of the earliest strata of the earliest ‘sutras cannot easily be placed in a Linear order of devel- opment. The concepts of Bodhisattva, éinyatd, tazhaca, fuddha-jnina, parindme, upiye, paranted, prabilevara~ wcitta, Buddha-kiya ‘ete., are found with various senses, and in various relationships with each other, in different sutras.7° as we discover how the texts themselves have evolved over the centuries, we find that we cannot use the later, established senses of these terns to understand their usage in the earliest strata. Lancaster, for example, has shown that the concept of updya in the first Chinese translation of the Astasihasriki Praj- AGparamita is mainly restricted to the Bodnisattva's use of upiya to gain enlightensent for himself. This is very different from the vay the concept is used in the later recensions of the same text.” have shown that the earliest layer of the Saddharmapundarika is not unduly critical of the Sravakas (i.e. the Winayana), and that it says that even avaivareiks Bodhisattvas cannot know the range (vigaya) of the Suddha-jiina ~ not at all what one HawLinson: The Origin of Lhe Mahay.ane be would beliove from reading the expanded Nepalese version that ve now have.2? ‘The fact is that aif the seminal Mahayana concepts of ene Mahayana axe found early on, but with an extremely uneven development in the various texts. The simplest way Of explaining this is to postulate a multi-origin of the mahayana, But this is not primarily a historical claim, but a religious one. I propose a three-fotd trancformation ve puddhism, the interactions of which yave rise to the fmany-faceted phenomenon we call the Mahayana, These transformations are: 1. A fragmentation of tnaremivoion, Dy a division of labour, sone monks specialized in the sutras, some in the Vinaya, sone in the Abhidharmia, some in the Jatakas and Aeaddnas2? Each of these divisions created its own peculiar biases and developments. 2. the dincneions of the Buddhist tradition were also separaved out and, more than that, extenJed. These dimen= fa) dita: Key terms: viduddha, punya, guna, kudalannita, pija, — éraddni auddha; Base the stipa te) samidhi: Key terms: (4) the nature of eftta prabkiovara-cktta, bodhicitta, mita-vijnana, raya, Dija; (id) the mantfeotations of cftta: rddhi, Main thene: glorification of the Sikarvana, nivm@ua, anubhva, adkigrhana: Main theme: magical and spiritual transformation; Base: the or ene 82 aranydyatana. eee (ey prajad: Key kerma: Busdtha-Jndna, dunyard, : tathetd, dharmadhitu; Main theme: parandntha; Base, the vitana.?? . 3. the underlying motif of the Dharma was altered. te wes now immeasucableness (apraneya) of infinity fenant a 34 ettta {ananta): the Buddha is infinite (7fa dimension) :** eres cee manatestations are infinite (candihi dimension) 7° 2 36 the prajnipdranitd ig infinite (iraJii dimension) T now present a hypothesis concerning the origin of ‘the Mahayana, a hypothesis that is tacitly based on these transformations. I am in effect placing the emergence of168 the new yana in a religious context, ice., 1 am attempting to explain the how and the why of the Manayai T suggest that there were separate groups of Bud- @hists, both monk and lay, which claimed direct contact with the Buddha, or some Mahaéravaka (e.g. the opening of the Ratnagunasancayagatha, or some Bodhisativa (e.g. ManjuérT in’ the Saddharmapundarika). This was an inspirat~ visionary, contact that vas extrenely powerful, totally convincing to those who exper- fenced it, and passed on from person to person (not unlike the Subud latihan). it was independent of any school or group of schools: in other words, it occurred spontaneously or by direct transmission among groups of Buddhists that belonged to many different affitiations The claim of the Mahayana sutras (which were, renem- ber, originally concise oral teachings) to be Suddha-vacana is not, therefore, a propaganda device or a pious fiction. The authors of these works genuinely thought of themselves as channels for a éasana that needed to make no appeal to existing teachings. ‘That is why the sutras make no mention of schools by nane. The result of this new inspiration was the realization that the Dharma had boon straitjacketed by conservatism doctrinally, socially and most importantly, in its reli- tious aspiration. The guiding force of the new awareness was apreneya. But this realization was itself filtered through one of the thre dimensions of Gila, camidhi or prasha (with varying combinations, of course; see the end of my Conze Festechrift article). ‘The stiipa-based sla groups were lay oriented; the more retired canddhi groups were probably mainly monks but there may well have been lay members also: the vihdra-based prajiid groups were entirely composed of monks. All of these groups (which were separated geo graphically as well as being centred on different buildings or institutions, with all the social differences that these imply) contributed to the Mahayana. The Bodhisattva is in fact an analgan of these three, which explains why, for example, the PrajndpSraniti literature is obviously non-lay while Vimalakirti is a wealthy merchant. And, of course, Rawlinson: ‘the Origin of the Hahayana wwe these inspired groups could have any number of prior [ilegiances: Mahasanghika, Prajnaptividin, sahudrutTya, Dharmaguptaka, Sarvastivadin, Sautcantika and so on. These ant and were swept traditional distinctions were irrelevant and tion of the new dacuna. away under the inspira! oe Go the Mahayana has a multi-origin that is varied tine (sone elenents of it are very old, some vory new), in japs in the northwost, sone in the provenance (some roups a ——C seeneeiinoton (ieecy dita, comiuht of prajii). Tis ie Tee mince nekajane itaoat ss ysod #0 caBvally vy me ctiest guteat, Other terme such as ulhenyinay ne ermeeydnn, uiinargana ete.» in fact occur more eee several instances in the Saddharma~ ee concerned with this StnaerTea, the text. that is most : perder cee sone recensione have one of these arms and ‘ have another.2” The Agtasaharika Sther_vecensions ne aegaaheens cine gramied he oniy one occurrence of buddhayina,”® bu cere aeceat nezavun, specifically says that the nekiyine rameya and ananta. 39 qe sukhavati-vytha sutras do pot use the term natiyine once. a C—r—r— not cues age of a achool or echools. Te wae 4 transform eee eae wnich accepted anyone regardless of his/her wea sounds and in Ate carkiest phason, a8 Teast, relied oo — eee penvecantelion, which ineiudes both Catno}ice : 1d te, but which in the last analysis claims the Motifieation. And. ve know that, fehy spieie as 083 f aoa rae entacostaism Gig not grow out of eith ULC —— seen that spread by virtue of the shased experience This ie not to say, of course, that oe ses practitioners. : rr ———T—": reef tarieclaniuy. me poine in that it dows not need to sto to reesieional Christianity ar a source for ie LLL ———— teaching nich was Larger than cheistianity Dut Was ats0 eee ccnin it but in fact. ss independent of Lt)10 Traditions iw Contact and chanse We will not be surprised to find, therefore, that the Mahayana, Like Pentecostalism and Gnosticiom, used varied sources in order to flesh out its teaching. These included: 1, reintenpretations of the Nikayas, including spe~ cific passages, "? by those who were conversant with them; 2. epeculations of every description from the more Progressive schools (e.g. the Mahisanghikas and their off- shoots: 3. reaeseconent of traditional techniques (e.g. the Prajiaparamita Literature's radical ce-orientation of Abhidharma practice); 4. imolueion of non-exclusive practices (e.g. the paramitie; etipa worship): 5. aeceptanee of foreign influences (e.g. anitiyus; the Buddha image in northwest India) . We are asking the wrong question if we try and find an origin of the Mahayana (allowing for a few extrancous additions.) We will not find it among the laity or the Mahasanghikas or among rebel monks or breakaway Abhidharmists or among the invading tribes of northwest India. All of these made a contribution, but the contribu- tion of each was controlled by the multi-dimensional model of the Mahayana that existed from the beginning. ‘The multi-origin that I propose has, as one of its attractions, that it takes the Mahayana sutras thenselves seriously. There was @ reason why they claim to be Buddha~ vacana. In an important religious sense, they are: they vere received by the few and transmitted to the many. Tt is Likely that the Mahayana's early spread was very rapid, and, like any inspirational movenent, its adherents were tenacious and influential out of all proportion to their numbers. The bulky and somewhat laborious nature of the sutras as we now have them has obscured this possibility, a5 has the ponderous response of the traditional schools, which were probably barely aware of the now phenomenon. But hidden beneath all these textual elaborations and sectarian accretions is a simple and perennial truth: that the spring of spirituality is inexhaustible and wells up in the most unexpected plac1. As pareau, tee Sector onddalquee du Petit YehLeute (Saigon: Ecole JP mipLianague durss-s8. Lionte soar of Sucen frinith. thew York # london: Columbia University tress, Ln, 1-3, who argue Ehae thie Cont acco from within the ManSeapghenas. Lokottaravidins (ibid., 76-771 are also found among the parent vahicanghikas [ibid., 38-61). Tho exact significance of this is smpossible to thelr Felationship to each other iz, of even whether they ell exist (ibid, Jinsot Thought in tutta Wondons Aten 4 Unwin, 1962), 5, The Fragipdrant 13 Lieratare ('S-Gravonnage, Holiand: Mouton, 1960), Suadnacmapundactka ie entitled dkira 10, See M. de Malinann, Inizoduction 3 I'étade dYécalokitedoara (Pacis sss Universitaires de France, 1948) 86-95. Souddhinten, 285-06 coe prajtopei inf. Cone, Nateriate for 2 Dletionary of the Pradhipinanted Literature (Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1972), Society, 1934); [reprinted by the Sunukd Research Foundation, a. reference], and are seninai tothe favhigatayertie texts i SeinbtadevFeinanida and Retnayotsavibhiga) 36, Seo 7.5. Jaini, "The Sautrintsxa Theory of Sehool of Ortental and Afrioan Studien, 22 (1999), 236-49. + "Quand tee fenbryonneires...come leur evsbhcoa." Thesis 29 (2b1d., 64): “Lee Srotipanne Pewent comprendre 18 epsbhive de leur pensée (cltia) wt Ge leur choses nentales (ceitte dhareal." Th wekrtandhorna]s protityas is 4) (ibid, 67) [arong the nine Ta "Gbid., 720+, MEm cnuneLité (paccayara) eat determinge (oavatehie5)* In face, the tarm dings occurs only once, a a synonym of andempa (thesis 23, the Mahisamphikas held any version of the Sinyativide, (Conze's references in held a sort of Joivttaradhsrmasrabiinasiias (Gh The existence of the Boviiou (a) che Satyasiddhisdatee makes this clas: Wo) ie wae written by Hacivarnan ninor chord 4 sympathetic to 4 major chord) that ve find in the Sataka/Avw ‘To emphasize this point st iz vorth remembering that we have no way of deat (in the specific Mahayana sence of [a] ali boings sre potentially oidhas, and fb] thece are tnnunerable hodnieattvas working for the benefit oftraditional puddhism ~ and theeaby transformed it = by Buddhists who had to {ind something to hand tholr experience on. Their starting point, wos so devastating that can secouie for thir departore, (apart, frou, Wasit abvieut opearees ea 29. Geo Secter bndihntes, 299, van bonaphoat (sh contory) and tne aerosol oer aca ant ee esate soretiner lainedevger by Lamotte, no ast, aso de toadittns tnsteey S90), thas the Whoyana {x roferad to Bp huuaantocn th nis eesontny on abe so ees alee een eee stnavins (hugh one eision hae the vets hanipszacstnsy wae tee Yeontjnide snd Gedtiepttols ave nice Cound tones ite aheewtony tee me cm thot teementary Noroover, the surpored conection between the kerma vetulta/vetuiga/eaitutya on the one hand, and tepuita/veruiya/eatraty2 on the school is simply that neither the Sar secraviding reciting it, chanting it, and holding it in mind, eon chs Ip someday hover, writing 1s nntioned (alony with reetingy canting, and haloes va sind) (2) Ch. 30 and of the Nptaninaseinipee sina " eeiniprajnipicanstS (the avai of Sesiprarosich) is very simttar to chy 32 of the satoharnpupiariva und oh 38 ations are to. te expected in ors eanemiseien? (9) the. fasngee aod ‘cannot be s26ily explained by seribal errors oF emendations, Tee verses from ranemsasion); (2) the Last two Lines of v.38, which diverge very considor~ 26, Evidences (11 Hoferonces to my zecrat (rule) that the Bodhi should hold in mind (Giirapanta)™ (Gaddnarmapundarika, eh. 2, ¥. 19, of Remn-kaniio ei. = vs 40 Sn Soginara-tauchida od.) and to “hidden/nysterious/ leroteric speech" (2unchibiGzya [20-10 of ecnotanaio ede] of sipdadozcuns teh Bp wy. MAD and 140 of Rerm-Nansio ed. = WW. M44 ond 45 of WowiharanTeuchida een pany Buddhas, planted snnurerable qood roots (éasatsI-nvlal), nave a fem a), it seems obvious to me that ve are dealing with @ spectal group (not (etted in 9.23 above), paras, 10951, Ano relevant here are pp.19-21 of wyfertLlization, so to speak, from the diftorent strands that mado up the abaya 29. L. Lancaster, “An Analysis of the Agtesinasrikiprajis; fron the chinese Translation,” Ph.o thesis (Wisconsin: 1966), 36-57. The. main tenets of the thetis are summarized in L. Lancaster, “The oldest. mahayane Sutra: Its Significance Cor the study of Buddhist Development," The susters Buddhier, 4/2 (ney 1975) 30-42. 30, See ny thesis, para. 425-53; summacized in my Conce restacheite article p.8. The crucial passage 4a ch. 2, vv. 1-17, of whieh Ww. 1-7 Lin loka) expressly contradict ww. 817 (in tréstunny DL, Bareau, Len Seecee Houdahtates, 49=45; mawlinson, "Posi tion,” Ue as suggested to me by A. wirakava, “Phe Rise Of Mohayane and its Relation to the Worship of stupas." Nonoire of the Kesvarch Department of the Tose sonee 422157106. The term occurs on p.95, and Hirskava gives se translation of the Ugradattapariprcchi 190,328, p.20a} 00.323, p.28a; Talaho 12 90.310, pe4?Ie). Wed these three dimensions in a slightly different 1979). 24, Cases ‘Honage to you, the infinite” p.62 of Waynan's translation of the drinilicevisimnandasives, cited above n.4) 35+ Espey "he SSranganazandahi est tellesent immense (apraciya) quai Févile 1a toute puissance miraculeuse dy Ouddha et quo d'innombeables étces on Fetizent avantage™ (E. anotte, iu Concentration de ta Marshe. seo {siapgamasaniahiaitea) (8c 1965), 2409. 36, ages “This perfection of wiedon, Subhuti, is a great perfection, unlimited (eprenine), measureier The Perfection ef Wieden ter and M. Lat (eds.}, Early chia fn china an Tiber (oarkeley (aparinina), infinite (onanta)* (E, conte, Fight Thou olinas, cA: Four Seasons Foundation, 19711, 100, sp-4s of Mitta" ed.) 37. Bags, 192.11 of the Keen-tanjio od., where the Buddha says that there 4s only the eheying, the buidhapina. But the teading buddhayins is supported by only three Hepalese ssi another three have muhiyiaa, uhich is) leo supported by the Gilgit me. (Ga folio Sob ~ €1.29 of 5. Watanabe, Saddhareopundartha Manuscripts Found sn Gilgit (Tokyo: The Reiyukaly, 1995], PE-2) But buddheyina is supported by the Kashgar me. (folio 1520). (there As a gap im the Gilgit ms, Gb. nere; and this second half of ch. 5 Ls onitted in Kunarajive, so wo nave no reading from hin either.) Similarly, Ketn-nansio 82.10 has mahivine (supported by both Cilgit fragmenta: Ge 330 [2311 of Yatanabel and cb 27m [=210.25 of Matanabe]), whore the Keshgar a. has which is supported by Kunazejiva (13c17 of the Tetsho ed.) 5 dey BoD) 40, See the clichés collected at the end of Lamotted transitions of the Sixapganasanienisitea (cited in n.36 above) and the Vinalaaireinicdess Woviain: BAbLiotnaque du Musson 51, 1962); the passages noted by Lamotte, Mintotre du foudshtene Indien (elted in n.2 shovel, 650-42; the concepts ond passages noted by conse, rata