World of Philosophy

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

Page 884

defend Mahāyāna. To defend Mahāyāna, Nāgārjuna has written many other works such as Ratnávali and Suhrllekha. In M. K. Nāgärjuna is not talking to Mahāyānists who are familiar with those peculiar Māhāyānistic terms but talking to and criticising Hinayānists who did not accept Mahāyāna doctrines and also by reasoning on solid grounds, he points out that they have misunderstood the Buddha's teachings. In M. K. Nāgārjuna refutes Hinayānists in their own terms. He persuades them by quoting directly or indirectly early Tripitakas, using those terms which were familiar to Hinayānists. This seems to be the main reason in not using many terms in M. K. which are peculiar to Mahāyāna.
It is again illogical to argue that, the term Mahāyāna is not used or Mahāyāna is no where mentioned in M. K., thus, Nāgārjuna is not Mahāyānist. Always we have to keep in mind that characteristics of the work and doctrines are important factors rather than particular terms. The Diamond Sūtra (before 400 A.D.) is one of the most profound, sublime and influential of all Mahāyāna scriptures. Its main aim is to establish the doctrine of Sünya! But the term Sünya is not even once mentioned, nevertheless the doctrine of Śünya is established in an onto-logical, psychological and logical forms.22
Is it possible to say that since it does not use the term Mahāyāna, thus it does not propagate Sünyavādā and does not belong to Mahāyānā? Again, history of Indian literature reveals that, many great writers of different schools of thought did not mention in their writings to which school they belong, still they propagate doctrines of particular school of thought. Similarly Nāgārjuna also without naming or mentioning the Mahāyāna propagated the doctrines of Mahāyāna in M.K.
It is also important to note that the ideas of Mabāyāna are all to be found in the Nikāyas. Early Tripitakas are like Vedās and Upanisads for all the schools of Buddhism. Just as the Vedānta schools quote Vedas and Upanisads to defend their views, similarly all the schools developed within the Buddhism quote early Tripitakas to defend their view point and claim that their interpretation is real teaching of Buddha. Nāgārjuna also quotes early Tripitakas to show that his school of thought is also founded on solid foundation of the teachings of Buddha. Thus quoting from Tripitakas does not substantiate to prove that he was not Mahāyānist. Nāgārjuna, quoting from Tripitakas in M.K., tried to convince the Hīnayānists that Mahāyāna is not a new teaching, from Buddha's teaching but it represents the real spirit of Buddha's teachings. It is true that Nāgārjuna does not refer to any Mahāyānasūtras in M.K. by name but has derived his ideas from Mahāyānasūtras. Candrakirti in his commentary on M. K. tried to show from which Mahāyānasūtra Nāgārjuna has drawn his ideas.“
835