p.A8
With the emergence of interest in Buddhism in the West and the adaptation of specific scientific methods to the study of religion both in the West and in the East, a picture of Buddhism has appeared which is quite different from that found in the traditional account. The application of these specific methods tended to magnify certain aspects of the religion, which, while contributing new knowledge to the field had the effect of creating an imbalance in the picture of the whole. This unbalanced and one-sided approach began with the early application of scientific method to philosophical, historical and textual research, and then was continued with the disciplines of the social sciences. With the advancement of the above mentioned disciplines, the danger of dividing the tradition into many subsections became more and more real. Some historians consider religious thought much less important than would the philosophers; the philosophers however, considered that only they themselves were concerned with the Higher Truth or Reality, and disregarded or down-graded any other discipline; textual scholarship often refuses to articulate.anything beyond the materials in hand; and social scientific studies restricted themselves to empirical data. From the viewpoint of the individual disciplines, each approach is right in its own way as this is what the methodology insists on; yet from a religious viewpoint, one may wonder where is the religion as a whole?
As a reaction to these partial approaches to Buddhism, some scholars began to take the various aspects and approaches to Buddhism in a certain place, and put this information together, thus attempting to combine "the insights of historian, textual analyst and social scientist."[1] This tendency is to be seen in Robert C. Lester's new book on Theravada Buddhism; and to some extent, A. F. Wright's book on Chinese Buddhism,[2] though the latter has less emphasis on social sciences but more on history. As far as Indian Buddhism is concerned, the early publication of Paali scholarship, and the works by Louis de la Poussion, N. Dutt, Etc.,[3] and recent publication of E. Lamotte, E. Conze, L. Joshi[4] and some other historians all give due emphasis to the interplay of religious thought and
p.A9
historical context. In spite of these achievements, there is no doubt that it has been the religious thought or philosophy of Indian Buddhism, especially Mahaayaana philosophy, that has interested the majority of modern scholars; while social and anthropological studies of the subject are almost non-existent as Buddhism itself is no longer an active, living and major factor in Indian society.[5]
There is nothing wrong with research into these aspects of the religion, and, as a matter of fact, these studies are very helpful for modern main's understanding of the Buddhist tradition in India. However, if a broader perspective is not taken into consideration, there is a very real danger that Buddhism will come to be understood as simply an academic philosophy or as only one of the obscure cults of the past. Consequently, those who approach the tradition from the social scientists' viewpoint could easily criticize the historical and textual studies as having 'promoted a wrong image' of Buddhism or charge that it is "a misreading of Buddhist texts and a failure to examine the Buddhism of twentieth century practice as well as the Buddhism of the scriptures..."[6] At the same time, the "Social studies frequently lack 'depth perceptions'. The social scientist may come to his subject without sufficient historical and theoretical (doctrinal, etc.) perspective and thereby elaborately describe what he does not really understand."[7] The only way to overcome this partial approach is to strive for a balanced view of the religion: to put social and historical-textual studies together, so that scholars are able to receive 'insight from various quarters.
In the countries where Buddhism is a living factor, the research of social and historical-textual analysis would be not only possible, but beneficial as it would present different dimensions of the religion as a unified phenomenon. The question, however, is whether this approach can be applied to Indian Buddhism.' An answer to this question is rather complicated; since the religion is no longer a major and living factor in India, and there is not much to link up historical-textual data with social studies. This being the case, we may still ask if Indian Buddhism should be thought of as an academic philosophy, as many studies would have us believe. ' Is there some way that the shortcomings of historical-textual analysis, criticise above, can be overcome?
As Buddhism lacks a social dimension in present-day India, it is impossible to apply the balanced approach of social and textual studies to the area. however, there are other helpful possibilities in this direction, viz , to review Buddhist development in the context of other branches of
p.A10
Indian civilization, especially the religious aspects; and to link up the systematic Buddhist doctrines as presented in the `saastras with their authoritative sources, the Suutras, through this internal and external correctives, the danger of partiality in an understanding of Indian Buddhism may be reduced considerably.
For one reason or another, most studies of Indian Buddhism have laid major stress on the `saastras. It is true that there have been a number of editions and translations of Indian Buddhist suutras in our time; nevertheless, when one reviews the interpretative contributions, one finds that as far as Indian Buddhism is concerned, Mahaayaana texts are more often studied than those of the Sarvastivadins, as well as many other so-called Hinayana schools except, of course, the Theravaadin; and Mahaayaana `saastras are more thoroughly studied and investigated than are the Mahaayaana suutras. The advantage of `saastric literature is that it is more systematic; the disadvantage is that it has dealt with only certain limited aspects of the tradition. For example, if Buddhism is reduced to merely philosophical concepts, as has been done by some scholars, then the Mahaayaana Buddhism becomes, at best, a mean for salvation exclusively for a few intellectuals. One may take the present situation into account and begin to question how many experts of Mahaayaana metaphysics are there in today's world? One would probably find that there may be less than a dozen scholars who have specialized in each school of Mahaayaana Buddhism. A second question may be further asked: how many of these experts are Buddhists ? To what academic discipline do they belong? The answers to these questions are revealing.
Even if these philosophical problems are understandable to a few experts, they are apparently not religiously acceptable to those same experts. Should this be the case, then how can the situation be reviewed within the context of the grand spirit of the Mahaayaana Buddhism which promotes universal salvation. '
As the philosophical expositions of Indian Mahaayaana Buddhism have been largely dependent on the `saastras,an enquiry into the scope and aim of that class of literature is in order. According to the traditional account, there were three kinds of Buddhist `saastras. "(1) Condensing excessively large (portions) of Scripture, (2) Giving an analysis of (its) profound meaning (3)Arranging in a regular system that which (in Scripture) is in disorder."[8] Apart from these kinds of exegetical treatises, there are some other `saastras which were composed for specific purposes, and which are not applicable to all. Some of these `saastras were written as criticisms of
p.A11
other schools such as Vasubandhu who "had composed the Abhidharmako`sa `saastras in refutation of the theories of the Vibhaasaa masters."[9] Some `saastras were composed as counter-criticisms, the Abhidharma-nyaayaanusaara by Sanghabhadra, the learned master of Vibhaasaa is another good example as it is a reply to Vasubandhu's criticism.[10] Some other `saastras were designed for technical training rather than for proclaiming the highest or universal truth. For example,among various works attributed to Naagaarjuna, the Vigraha-vyaavartani was for "refuting the challenges of antagonists"[11] and the Vaidalya-suutra "demonstrating the methods of controversy with adversaries and logicians (in general")[12]
Apart from the specific purpose and limitation of Saastric literature, as mentioned above, the whole academic enterprise itself was not at all universal in Indian Buddhist institutions. For example, according to Hsuan-tsang, (玄奘) the priests "who cannot discuss questions out of the Tripitaka are little esteemed, and are obliged to hide themselves for shame."[13] However, the Chinese pilgrim himself also stated that at the time. when he studied at Naalandaa," always present were 10, 000 monks. including hosts and 'guests, who studied both Mahaayaana teachings and the doctrines of the eighteen Hinayana Schools, as well as the worldly books."[14] Moreover, out of these ten thousand monks in the monastery, the pilgrim found that:
More than a thousand of them could master twenty scriptures and commentaries, more than 500 were expert in thirty books, and ten, including the master, were thoroughly learned in fifty books, The Venerable 'Siilabhadra alone was well learned in all the books, ...[15]
This record shows that various schools of Buddhist doctrine were taught on the same campus. Monks might have differed with each others' viewpoints, still they all lived together and were thus uniform in religious life. The record also shows that higher learning in an academic sense occupied only a very small portion of the monastic population. Under such circumstances, what was the position of the majority of the monks? I suppose that although they might not have been learned in bookish knowledge, yet they were not excluded from religious effort, and had access to other practices or means. In other words, Saastric learning, it seems likely, was mostly aimed at the training of teachers rather than at a refutation of the Yoga school."[16] The significance of this episode is that `saastric knowledge is valid only when the intellectual work is based on religious practice and virtue. Without this religious base, intellectual understanding of religious doctrine becomes disadvantageous rather than
p.A12
advantageous. Even under the uniformity of religious life, there were still some members of the community who failed to free themselves from dogmatism. For example, in the Life of Hsuan-tsang it has been stated that "The learned teacher, Simhaprabhaaa, had previously expounded the Maadhyamika-`saastra and Sata-`saastras or the four groups of followers, in refutation of the Yoga school." [16] The significance of this episode is that if those who expounded the Sastra while living in the monastery and in accordance with the discipline, were still unable to guarantee against dogmatism and sectarianism, the limit and danger of a purely intellectual understanding of Buddhism, without a community foundation, is very obvious. This probably explains why some Buddhist suutras warned the. disciple about the limit and danger of 'too much learning' (bahusrute).[17]
If the source cited above does not fully convince us of the limited purpose of Saastric literature, let us read from another pilgrim's memoirs, namely I-tsing's record of his experience in Naalandaa. According to I-tsing, (義淨) the basic texts for monks in the monastery were not `saastras, but the Vinaya works. He states:
After the lapse of five summers from the time that the pupil masters the Vinaya, he is allowed to live apart from his Upaadhyaayaa. He can then go about among the people and proceed to pursue some other aim. Yet he must put himself under the care of some teacher wherever he goes. This will cease after the lapse of ten summers, i.e. , after he is able to understand the Vinaya.
... If a priest does not understand the Vinaya, he will have to be under another's care during the whole of his lifetime.[18]
Apart from the mastering of Vinaya, disciples usually met their guru in the mornings. In these meetings, the guru would select some passages "from the Tripitaka, he gives a lesson in a way that suits circumstances, and does not pass any fact or theory unexplained. He inspects his pupil's moral conduct and warns him of defects and transgressions... "[19] Here the close connection between theoretical knowledge and religious life is once more stressed. The statement that he "gives a lesson in a way that suits circumstances" is also very significant. It means that the passage which was given by the guru was usually relevant to the individual's circumstances rather than chosen more generally. In another place in the same source, the pilgrim stated that "to those who learn the doctrines of 'existence' and 'non-existence', the Tripitaka itself will be their Master."
p.A13
[20]. This clearly shows, that any doctrinal study must take the whole collection of the Buddhist scripture as the guide, rather than any single work alone as the authority.
Through a regulated life in accordance with Vinaya rules: to study doctrinal statement attributed to Buddha as presented in the suutras, to practise the teaching and to reflect on some of the points in the light of commentaries, are the consistent directives in Buddhist tradition. It Is only through this threefold effort, that the religious goal of Buddhahood or Nirvana might be attainable.
After the study of the Vinaya and passages from Tripitakas, relevant to circumstances, there were other works in the collection for monks to study, I-tsing said that "Throughout India every one who becomes a monk is taught Maatriketa's two hymns as soon as he can recite the five and ten precepts (sila)".[21] Apart from this, he has listed Suhrillekha attributed to Naagaarjuna, the Jaatakamaalaa, and Assvaghosha's Sutraalankaara`saastra and Buddhacaritakaavya as the most popular Buddhist verses for public recitation. After listing some of these basic texts, the pilgrim turns to the question of the philosophical treatises. There he identified the specific aim of each philosophical treatise as "when they discourse on the non-existence' they cleverly imitate Naagaarjuna; whilst when treating the 'existence' they thoroughly fathom the teaching of Sanghabhadra."[22]. If this passage means what it seems to, then the reflecting on existence versus non-existence was probably intended as two tools or medicines aimed at two opposing intellectual diseases, viz. , positivism and nihilism. The argument for this interpretation of 'the Buddhist difference in philosophy has the support of the following remark from Hsuan-tsung: The master told an Indian Maadhyamika master named Simhaprabhaa that "the teachings of the Madhyamiks Sastra and the Sata Sastra only refuted the theory which regarded the seeming to be real, but did not mention the nature of dependant arising and the nature of absolute reality."[23]
In light of this specific limitation of purpose of some `saastras their study was probably regarded as optional in the Buddhist community and not basic to every Buddhist. This is far from the claim of universal authority. This situation can be attested to by the tone of I-tsing's reference to Saastric literature. While talking of Yogaacaarin texts, I-tsing states that "after having learnt the Yogaa-caarya-`saastra, he ought to study thoroughly Asanga's eight Saastras ..."[24] In the subsequent paragraphs he states that "when a priest wishes to distinguish himself in the study of logic, he should thoroughly understand Jina's eight Saastras ..."[25] And "while studying
p.A14
the Abhidharma (metaphysics) he must read through the six padas ..."[26] The tone of 'having learnt', 'wishes to distinguish' and 'while studying..." are all flexible; while his references to the basic texts, Vinaya, etc. , his expressions were much more forceful. The intention' of the Saastras aimed. at a systematic elucidation of certain problems originally taught in the suutras, or at the cure of certain mental defects resulting from positive or nihilistic viewpoints. In any case, the `saastras are a part of the religious literature, but only a part. The aim of the literature was to help disciples to realize or to experience the religious teaching, not merely to understand It. This has been clearly stated in traditional accounts such as Bu-ston's History of Buddhism. There it states that "he, that has studied and gives himself up to analysis, must live in pure morality and practise profound meditation ..."[27] The author goes on to say that
By study and analysis only, without the practice of meditation, one is unable to get a firm stand in the Doctrine. Likewise is this impossible, if one merely practises meditation and does not take recourse to study and investigation. But if both parts (study on one side and analysis and meditation on the other) are resorted to and accepted as a foundation, one gets a firm standing in the Doctrine.[28]
So it is clear that analytical knowledge becomes beneficial to disciples only when it Is accompanied by other practices.
Bu-ston also confirms I-tsing's report that the knowledge and practice of the Vinaya rules was the foundation for every monk. He quoted a passage from the Mahaayaana Master, Naagaarjuna, who defined the quality of Buddhist gurus in the following terms: "they are well versed in the rules of Discipline, endowed with Great Commiseration and pure morality, and with the Highest Wisdom ..."[29] Here the traditional combination of Wisdom, Morality and Concentration has been affirmed once more. Another Buddhist scripture, the Samadhiraja, has an even more stern warning on the pure intellectual philosopher tradition. It states:
If he, that has become well-versed in numerous works on the Doctrine,
Is proud of his knowledge and does not preserve his morals,
He will not be able to save others by his great learning, and morally impure, he is doomed to hell.[30]
Since the distinguished Buddhologist Th. Stcherbatsky proclaimed that "From the Indian standpoint. Buddhism is a '`saastra ..."[31] and further that "the Paali-school of Buddhologists entirely overlooked that `saastra",[32] this view has come more and more to dominate. His calling for attention to the `saastric traditions and to a proper estimate of Sino
p.A15
Tibetan Buddhism were great contributions to the field; yet the over-emphasis on the `saastric tradition at the expense of a balanced understanding of the tradition, has created certain misunderstandings among scholars. For example, Bhikkhu Naanananda views Dr. T.R.V. Murti's exposition of 'dialectic as 'Suunyataa' as 'somewhat overdrawn'.[33] In the Bhikkhu's view, "such a complacent attitude towards the omnipotence of the dialectic, is not without its dangers."[34] "There was also a tendency .to hypostatise the abstract concept' Suunyataa and make it an Absolute - some eternal principle from which everything comes out and to which everything ultimately returns."[35] And, more seriously, the same scholar implies that this view is " a perversion of dialectics leading to moral anarchy."[36] These remarks are of course, unfair to Naagaarjuna; we have already seen him opting for a combination of Discipline, Commiseration, Morality and Wisdom. Nor is it fair to Murti, who as a philosopher has dealt with what he considered 'the central philosophy' of Buddhism. The question may however be asked whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. Should one view the philosophical aspects of Buddhism as the whole of the tradition, then Naanananda's criticism is of course justified. The limitation of the 'Saastric' tradition and the danger of disregarding the suutra teachings is clearly illustrated by this controversy.
The over-emphasis on religious philosophy often provided scholars with a sharp contrast between different viewpoints within and without the tradition. Again from the standpoint of philosophy such contrast is very helpful in clarifying subtle differences. However, in the context of Indian Buddhism, the difference was much less serious; we have already mentioned that there was a common ground of religious discipline and practice that bound the community together. Under these circumstances, when one puts the accent on philosophical differences, but ignores the common ground, it gives the impression of a disunited community. It seems precisely because of this reason that scholars who live within the tradition like W. Rahula have felt some scholars had made too much philosophy out of the religion. Thus he complained that these scholars "seem to have thought that great Buddhist doctors like Naagaarjuna, Asanga or Vasubandhu were expounding their own systems of philosophy in contradiction with each other."[37] To him those ancient Buddhist holy men "never advanced any theory of their own which would go against the teachings of those texts."[38] In Rahula's estimate, the contribution to Buddhism made by these great religious doctors 'lay not in giving it a new philosophy, but providing, in fascinatingly different ways, brilliant
p.A16
new interpretations and explanations of the old philosophy. "[39] AS we have already noted, his comment is congruous with Hsuan-tsang's remark on the intentions of Maadhyamika and Yogaacaara teachings.[40]
Compared with the philosophical approach to Indian Buddhism, the study of the cultic aspects of the religion is much less developed at present. However, with the rising interest in the History of Religions in recent decades, this discipline is expected to produce more work in that area. As far as this author's limited knowledge is concerned, there are quite a few young scholars who have expressed their interest in that direction. They feel strongly about the tendency to reduce Indian Buddhism to an academic philosophy. For this approach to Indian Buddhism, two points are worth noting: firstly, the soteriological aim should not be dismissed lightly in that Buddhism has persistently stressed Wisdom (prajna) as the means to achieve the religious goal. Secondly, "as the goal of Buddhism, particularly Mahaayaana doctrines, aimed at the transcendence of time and space",[41] there are elements in the hagiographical literature which are simply beyond the scope of empirical research.
Taking into account the shortcomings of both the philosophical, the historical and the social studies of Buddhism, a better approach to the subject probably would be a composite one: let philosophers keep historical circumstances and literary evidences in their mind; historians and linguists take other dimensions of the religion into their own disciplines. This composite approach would give scholars a more complete and less sectarian perspective of the tradition.
It is in this context, that some attention to scriptural suutras is called for. In spite of the disorder and unsystematic nature of the suutras, the principal purpose and variety of means for achieving the religious goal are clearly mentioned in all major suutras. Taking Saddharmapundarika as an example, "it is for a sole object, a sole aim... that the Buddha... appears in the world... . (it is) to open the eyes of creatures for the sight of Tathaagata-knowledge... firmly establish the teaching... lead the teaching of Tathaagata-knowledge on the right path."[42]
Though Tathaagata-knowledge was regarded as the sole aim, yet the entrances into that knowledge are many Not only the threefold effort of panna-sila-samadhi of the early teaching and the six paramitas of Mahaayaana doctrine listed but some other paths like the worship of
p.A17
stupas, performance of religious drama, image making, paintings, offerings, religious music, salution of holy relics, reciting the name of Buddha, etc., are all described as paths that lead to the attainment of 'superior enlightenment'.[43] The description clearly indicated that there are various means available for men to choose. It also clearly indicates that though the means and vehicles are different, yet the goal is the same. Comparing the emphasis on the different capacities of human understanding, the compassion of Bodhisattvas, and skilfulness which are taught repeatedly in the suutras , especially Sadharmapundarika, with the systematic dogmas found in many `saastras one would easily find out how many of these important teachings were left out. These topics were either not referred to or passed by with brief lip service, thus making the `saastric teaching with the domination of philosophical concept and the diminution of religious dimensions the standard.
In another place in the suutra, it has been said that the Dharmadhara to the four classes of disciples in the last period' should follow the procedures of Buddhism: "After having entered the abode of the Tathaagata, after having put on the robe of the Tathaagata, and occupied the pulpit of the Tathaagata".[44] The text further indicates the abode (layanam) 'is the abiding in charity' (sarva-sattva-maitrii-vihaarah), the robe (ciivaram) 'is the apparel of sublime forbearance (mahaa-ksaanti-sauratyam) and the pulpit (asane) 'is the entering into the voidness (or complete abstraction) of all law (or things)' (sarva-dharma-sunyata-pravegah)[45].
Here the suutra binds various dimensions of Indian Buddhism together. The friendliness or love (maitrii) represents the emotional dimension of Buddhism, forbearance or intellectual receptivity (ksaanti) represents self-restraining, and the voidness of all elements (dharma-sunyataa) represents the Buddhist view of all elements, both the empirical and intellectual views of religious truth. It is only when these dimensions are tied together that Buddhism is no longer only a cult or an academic philosophy or a practical technique without a higher purpose. It is only when these dimensions are unified in a religious man, that he will become friendly and active as inspired by forbearance, and attached to neither worldly elements nor theoretical religious teachings. It is only when these dimensions are manifested together in man's life that the religious goal of Buddhahood or Nirvaana is achievable. And, finally, it is only when all these emotional, practical and intellectual aspects of the religion are all taken into consideration, that the conflicting views will disappear, studies and actions become simultaneously purposeful, and the tradition can be understood correctly.
p.A18
1. Robert C. Lester, Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1973), p.5.
2. Robert C. Lester, op. cit.; Arthur F. Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History, (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1959).
3. For the history of Western scholarship on Buddhism, see Conze, "Recent Progress in Buddhist Studies", in Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies , (Columbia S.C. : University of South Carolina Press, 1968), pp. 1-37; C. Regamey, Buddhistische Philosophie Bibiographische Einfuhrungen in das Studium der Philosophic, 21/22 (1950) pp. 14-17.
4. Lamotte, Histoire du boundhisme Indien, des origines a I'eve Saks, (Louvain: Museon, 1958;) Ed. Conze, Buddhism its Essence and Development (London: Faber & Faber, 1963) and A Short History of Buddhism, ( Bombay: Chetana, 1960 ); L. Joshi, Studies in the Buddhistic Culture of India. (Delhi: Motilal, 1967). Other recent works like A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism: (Delhi, 1970 ), R.H Robinson, The Buddhist Religion, (Belmont, 1970); and Bhikshu Sangharakshita's A Survey of Buddhism, (Bangalore, 3rd ed. 1966) are all giving due attention to the broader perspective of the religion.
5. Though there are new movements for the revival of Buddhism in India, see A. M. Fiske, "Religion and Buddhism among India's New Buddhists", Social Research 36, (Spring, 1969), 123-157; R.D. Bhandare, "Problems of Indian Buddhists", Maha Bodhi, 79/2-3 (1971), pp. 73-80; Yet when one takes this new development into the context of whole India, the movement is far from a major factor in present stage of Indian religions.
6. Lester, op. cit. p. 4.
7. Loc. cit., p. 5.
8. Bu-ston, History of Buddhism (Chos-hbyung), translated from Tibetan by E. Obermiller, (Leipzig, 1931, reprint Tokyo, 1964), p. I, 43.
9. The Life of Hsuan Tsang, translated by Li Yung-hsi, (Peking: The Chinese Buddhist Association, 1959), p. 79. The same story also available in the Si-yu-ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated by Samuel Beal, (London, 1884: New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1968), p. I. 193 and Bu-ston, op.cit. p. II. 144-145.
10. Ibidem.
11. Bu-ston, op. cit. p. I. 51.
12. Ibidem. Cf. with other statements on same subject in P. II.125, 131.
13. S. Beal, transl. op cit. .p. II. 170.
14. Li Yung-hsi, transl. op. cit. p. 107-108.
p.A19
15. Ibid. p. 190.
16. Ibid. p. 152.
17. For example, see passage from Samadhi-raja, verse 34 in the Gilgit Manuscripts, IIpart l,(ed.by N.Dutt),p.l05; Siksasamuccaya, Bendall's ed. p. 189 and Rouses translation of'the same work p. 184. See also H. Kern's translation, Saddharma-pundarika or the Lotus of the True Law,. The Sacred Book of the East vol. XXI.(Oxford 1884), p.208. The term is usually translated as 'heard much', 'well informed' (see the Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, ed. by the late Professor Dr. G. P. Malalasekera, Section 'B', p. 502 b -505 a.) The words 'too much learning' is a loose translation of mine in a negative sense, usually read as wide learning;, ibid, P. 505 a.) In the Paali materials, there is a more significant passage which occurs once at Majjhima-nikaya, I. 445, or The Collection of the Middle Length Sayings, trans. by J. B. Homer, Vol. II, p. 116 and at Vinaya, III. 10, I. B. Homer's translation. The Book of Discipline, Part I, p. 190. There bahusacca or bahusrautya is listed as one of five things which bring about a decline in the Sangha.
18. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D., 671-695) by I-tsing, translated by J. Takakusu, (London, 1896; Delhi reprint, 1966), p.119.
19. Ibid., p.120. For a contrary view on the order in which Sutta, Vinaya,etc., were learned, see H. Oldenbery, Buddha. His Life, His Doctrine. His Order, transi. by W. Hoey, (London: William & Norgate 1882,) p. 371. He cites Vinaya, iii, p. 299 which is Buddhaghosas historical introduction to the Vinaya and as such not canonical. For the passage, see N. A. Jayawickrama, the Inception of Discipline, and The Vinaya Nidana (London: Luzac, 1962), p. 37.
20. I-tsing, op. cit. p. 184.
21. Ibid., p. 157.
22. Ibid. , p. 184.
23. Li Yung-hsi. op. cit. p. 153. It is interesting to notice that the harmonious view on the relation between Maadhyamikas and Yogaacaarins as expressed by Hsuan-tsang has its echoes from monk-scholars both in old and recent times. For example Tsung-mi (780 -841 A.D.) states that some seemed conflict between masters of `saastras like Bhavaviveka and Dharmapala "were mutually completing each other, but did not destroy each other..." (Ch'an-yuan chu-ch" uan-chi tu-hsu, Taisho edition of Tripitaka in Chinese, No. 2015, p. 404 b, lines 9-10; S. Kamata's new edition and Japanese translation of the same work section xxviii, p.126). Similarly, W. Rahula also states; "The Suunyataa philosophy elaborated by Naagaarjuna and the
p.A20
citamatra philosophy developed by Asanga and Vasubandhu are not contradictory, but complementary to each other.", "Vijnaptimatrata philosophy in Yogaacaara system and some Wrong Notions", The Middle Way, XLVII (1972), p.120, To deny completely the conflict between certain Buddhist thinkers is of course, unrealistic on the "one hand; yet the degree and nature of their conflict has been however, judged differently by monks within the order from those who saw in purely from intellectual viewpoint.
24. I-tsing, op. cit. p. 186.
25. Ibidem.
26. Ibidem.
27. Bu-ston, op. cit., p. 1. 85.
28. Ibidem., p. 1. 86.
29. Ibidem., p. 1. 62.
30. Ibidem., p. 1. 85. Cf. footnote No. 17 above. Before Hsuan-tsang's praise for the learning of Tripitaka, he has also mentioned pure conduct prior to the learning. He stated that "Their conduct is pure and unblamable. They follow in sincerity the precepts of the moral law. The rules of this convent are severs, and all the priests are bound to observe them.", Beal's transl. op. cit. p. II. 170.
31. Madhyanta-vibhanga Discourse, Bibliotheca Buddhica. XXX (1936), p. iv.
32. Ibidem.
33. Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought, (Kandy: Buddhist Society, 1971), p. 85.
34. Ibidem.
35. Ibidem.
36. Ibidem, p. 88.
37. Rahula, op. cit. The Middle Way, p. 118.
38. Ibidem.
39. Ibidam.
40. See note No. 23.
41. See my article, "Naagaarjuna, One or More?", History of Religions. X (1970), p. 151. Students of History of Religions should read Conze's view on possible ''harm to the spiritual vision of the Dharma" very carefully as it points to the defect of the pure historical.study of the religion. Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies, op. cit. p. 28.
42. Kern's translation, op. cit. p. 40.
43. Ibidem, pp. 44 ff.
44. Ibidem, pp. 222.
45. Loc. cit. For Sanskrit terms as quoted in brackets, see U. Wogihara and C. Tsuchida, Saddharmapundarika-sutram, Romanized and
p.A21
revised text, (Tokyo: The Sankibo Buddhsit Bookstore, 1958), X. 8, p. 203.