This paper aims at placing the Mahāmeghasūtra (MMS) properly in the history of Indian Buddhism by clarifying the theoretical background to this sūtra, especially by focusing on its buddhakāya idea. The MMS, which has seldom drawn modem scholarly attention, has been proved in another paper by the present author to be a single important source attested in Buddhist literature from which the Suvar?aprabhāsa (Suv) quotes long series of passages concerning the idea of buddhakāya. This idea can, for example, be represented by the following verse: "The tathāgata has an eternal body composed of dharma and has no 'relics'. He (still) shows himself entering into parinirvā?a to benefit all sentient beings." The MMS reiterates this kind of statement and tries to devaluate stūpa worship throughout the text. What is intrinsic here is the meaning of the two compounds "dharmakāya" and "dharmadhātu." Both are used as possessive compounds, and the former, meaning "[the Buddha has] a kāya [composed] of dharma," is common to Mahāyāna literature, as has been shown by Harrison [1992]. But regarding the latter word dharmadhātu, no other text, with the exception of those from later periods, seems to use the term so clearly in the meaning of "dharma as relics," and not "sphere or element of dharma," as in this context of the MMS. This usage serves as the main theme in Chapter 37, where the series of advocacy of the sūtra culminates in declaring that the Buddha is composed of dharma and that the meaning of stūpa/relics is "completely nothing." There may be no arguing, thanks to several previous studies, that early Mahāyāna sūtras rose with the intention of shifting the central value of Buddhism from stūpa worship to sūtra evaluation. We should still be careful, however , as has been properly and elaborately discussed by Shimoda [ 1997], not to ignore the high possibility that this shift could have been attained neither completely nor suddenly; rather, the early Mahāyāna movement must for a considerable period have stimulated remnants of pious stūpa worship and have been forced to make compromises with them. The ambiguity or hesitation in stupa degradation found in the A??asāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsñtra or the Saddharmapu?darīkasūtra explains this kind of concession. All these factors considered, especially with a focus on the MMS's decisive attitude toward stūpa devaluation, the MMS must have a different background from that of early Mahāyāna sūtras; a background where no compromise is needed or permissible. Regardless of the appearance of the early Mahāyāna movement, stūpa worship never disappeared. On the contrary, the proponents of stūpa worship in later times sometimes tried to use Mahāyāna sūtras, the new media of the time, as simple measures to convey their own rūpakāya idea. The intention of the MMS lies here in sweeping the legacy of stūpa worshippers completely away out of Mahāyāna sūtra literature.
