Traverses on Less Trodden Path of Indian Philosophy and Religion

Author(s): Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 93

Traverses on less trodden patb...
It is true that there is no authentic biographical data, no reliable historical account of Nāgārjuna is existent. In fact it is difficult to draw satisfactory picture of him because his figure is obviously overlaid by many legends and myths, many of which had nothing to do with him.7 And no where Nagarjuna himself gives bis historical account. But on this basis to carry doubt about Nāgārjuna's very existence, indicates ignorance about Indian tradition. in India even the greatest poets, philosophers and writers, were not used to write about themselves. They were so humole in their nature that they thought writing about themselves amounts to self-praise. These renowned masters were known through their disciples and followers. There was a Guru--Sis ya tradition in India. Nāgarjuna belongs to tois great tradition. He was known through his works and disciples. S., his historicity is undeniable and he represented a movement and a school as much as a personality. 8
Dr. A. K. Warder, in his paper 'ls Nāgārjuna Mahāyānist', questio. ned the authenticity of Nāgarjuna being Mabāyāpist and through this shaking the common belief of Nāgārjuna's affiliation to Maha yang opened the new arena of research in the field of lovian philosopby ia general and Buddhism in particular.
Dr. Warder, ascribes only six books to Nagarjuna viz., Mulamadhyamakakarika, Vigrahavyävartani, Sūnyatāsaptati, Yuktişaştika, Vaidalyasūtra and Prakarana. He does not accept Nāgārjuna's authorship of Suhrllekha, Rainavali and others. ro prove his thesis, the learned author is completely dependent on only one major work of Nagarjuna i.e. Mülamadhyamakakārika (M.K.). Only on the basis of tbis single work he tried to negato Nāgårjuna's affiliation to Mahayāna. His arguments can be summarised in the following manner: "Nāgārjuna neither mentions nor quotes any Mahāyānasūıras in his Mūlamadh yamakakärikā to prove his contents. Instead of quoting Maha yānasürras he quotes many early Buddhist Pitakas without naming the sūtras and mentions · Kätyäyanavavādasitra' by name, which again belongs to early Buddhism. Sources of bis work is Tripitakas but not Mahāyānasūtras. There is no evidence that Nagarjuna had ever seen any Pru jñā pārmaitā. Again there are no terms peculiar to Mahayana in M.K. and nowhere the term Mahayāna is used by Nagarjuna in this work. His criticism in M.K. is not against early Buddhism but against Sarvastivāda Buddhism which is developed from Abhidhurma. His faithfulness to carly Buddhism clearly questions the authenticity of
āgarjuna being Mabāyānist."
7. Ibid-P. 2. 8. Hinduism and Buddhism-Sir Charles Eliot, London, 1957.