World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 882

Mahāsānghikas are the basis for development of Mahāyāna. At the time of Nāgārjuna, i.e. in 2nd century itself some of the Prajñāpārmitā sūtras were translated into Chinese language. The Astasahasrikā Prajñapārmită (Asta.) was translated into Chinese by Lokaksema in 170 A.D. At this time not only Asta but even Pañcavimśatisahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā was known to Chinese because on some occasions the text of Lokaksema is nearer to that of the large Prajñāpāramitā, than to Astia." That means these some of the Prajñāpāramitā were introduced to China long before, their translation took place. They must have been existent in India longlong before they were introduced to China. Therefore, safely we can say that -Prajñāpāramitā literature was existent atieast one or two centuries earlier to Nāgārjuna. Secondly, a close study of the language and style of some of the Prajñāpāramitās, especially Asta. reveals that it was composed in 1st century (circa) or latest by beginning of the Christian era. The style, language and phraseology of Prajñāpāramitā literature is very much similar to Pali pitakas and seems to be just rendering into Sanskrit of Pali-pitakas. This Prajñāpāramitā literature is also written in a repetitious style like Pāli Canon. It seems that no other style was known to that period except the canonical style. Prajñāpāramitā, like Pāli Cannon appeared in prose form and did not enter into philosophical discussion until its ideas were systematically formulated by later writers. Like Pali canon it lacks refined form and logical regour. Not only this, in the Prajñāpāramitā literature like Pāli Canon, philosophical principles are mixed with religious dogmas and ethical conduct. All these indicate that, at the time when Astasahasrikā Prajñāparamitā was composed, the Mahāyāna was in the early state of its history. While, Nāgārjuna's style and language are very much refined, there are no repetitions, doctrines are systematically presented and defended with sharp logical argumentation. On this basis also, we can say that Prajñāparamitā Mahayana literature was existent prior to Nagarjuna. Thirdly, a comparative study of the development of Sünyavāda reveals that some of the Prajñāpāramita were definitely existent prior to Nāgārjuna. The term 'Sünya' is found in Buddhism since the beginning of its history, but its meaning has not been defined beyond its being identified with nothingness or emptiness in the sense of absence of content.
Hinayānists accepted only the pudgalanairātmya (non-substantiality of soul). They did not try to go into its depthness. The Mahāsānghikas, for the first time took this word in a broader sense and maintained Pudgalanairātmya as well as Dharmanairātmya i.e. un-substantiality of all dharmas. According to them, empirical knowledge could not give to us an insight into reality, only Sūnyatā which transcends all worldly things can give to us a vision of the real.12 The Prajñāpāramitā literature has concentrated on this conception of Sūnyata' of the Mahāsānghikas. It
833