Indian Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism: Observations of Early and Recent Scholarships

Indian Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism: Observations of Early and Recent Scholarships Unagalawe Anomadassi Introduction Of the three major Buddhist traditions, that of Theravāda, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna; Mahāyāna, generally acknowledged as the second phase of Buddhism See, T. R. V. Murti, 2008, “The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Mādhyamaka System.”, is perhaps the most celebrated Buddhist tradition in terms of popularity and geographical extent. However, it remained for a long time as a minor religious movement in ancient India where its birth has been confirmed by scholars. Besides the East Asian countries where Mahāyāna popularly practises as their major religious cult and philosophical doctrine, it also has a huge number of adherents in the other parts of the world. On one hand, for scholars, Mahāyāna Buddhist culture and its profound philosophies are a vast and excellent field for exploring intellect aspects, and on the other hand, for faithful religious followers, it is a field for cultivating merits. Hence, this form of Buddhism is enormously rich in profound doctrines as well as religious facets that cannot be seen in the other major two schools of Buddhism. Unfortunately, adequate evidence has not been unearthed to confirm its historical origin, and therefore, the formation of this broader Buddhist tradition is still ambiguous. However, the origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism have been an important and debatable topic among scholars since the nineteenth century, and many studies have sought to explain how, where, and for what purpose this particular Buddhist tradition formed. Yet, no sufficient evidence has been found to establish a consensual view of its historical origins. This paper will attempt to discuss the most dubious theories about the origins of Mahāyāna, especially the early theories pertaining to its historical emergence presented by various intellectuals as well as the novel hypothesis put forward by recent scholars. For a clear analysis and presentation, those scholastic approaches and premises will be explained according to the following taxonomies. Keywords: Mahāyāna Buddhism, Nikāya Buddhism, Historical Formation, Traditional Beliefs, Former and later Hypothesises Traditional beliefs The Doctrine Taught by the Buddha Himself Denunciation on the Attainment of Arahants Old Scholarships The Theory of Mahāsānghika Origin The Theory of Sectarian (nikāya) Origin The Origin Theory of the Buddha’s Biographies The Origin Theory of Stūpa Worshipers (Laity) New Scholarships Theory of Forest monk Theory of the Sūtra Cult Traditional Beliefs The Doctrine Taught by the Buddha Himself This can be deemed as the foremost traditional belief. As it has mentioned in some traditional accounts, The Buddha himself taught this exclusive doctrine on the mountain named “Vimalasvabhāva”, and later on, it was recited by Venerable Ananda. It is said that at that time, the beings were not intellectually advanced, thus they were unable to comprehend the ‘Vaipulya Dharma’ (great teachings). Therefore, it was preserved in ‘Dragon World’ for 500 years until Nāgārjuna (150-250 CE) rediscovered and introduced them to the world again. This traditional belief of the origins of Mahāyāna is unquestionably accepted by faithful followers of all Mahāyāna schools. Moreover, the Mahāprajnāpāramitā Sūtra discloses that, after the parinirvāna of the Buddha, Bodhisattvas such as Manjusri, Maitreya and Ananda collected the Mahāyāna sūtras. Further, Bodhiruchi (6th century) states that the Buddha consented to the collection of the Mahāyāna sūtras and Ananda, as mentioned earlier, recited all the sūtras in the assembling of the Bodhisattvas on the mythical mountain, Wimalasvabhāva. Some scholars such as Murakami Sensho (1851-1928) and Maeda Eun (1855-1930) have supported this traditional view and have revised several Mahāyāna discourses attempting to substantiate their views in their works. For instance, some scholarly works; “The Discussion on Fundamental the Unity of Buddhism” and “The Study of History of Mahayana Buddhism” of Murakami and Maeda support this traditional belief of origin. Most of modern scholars, however, are reluctant to accept their views suggesting that their basis are inconsistent and unfounded. Denunciation on the attainment of Arahant The second traditional belief is the denial of the soteriological attainment of Arhats, and this argument traces back to the first Buddhist council. There was a group of monks who hesitated to accept the state of Arahants and, doubted their spiritual attainment. This theory is generally accepted by Theravadins and even recorded in their historical accounts such as the Cullavagga-pāli, the Dīpavaṃsa, the earliest chronicle of Sri Lanka. Accordingly, A Venerable called Mahādeva presented five comprovincial points regarding the soteriological attainment of Arahants. As they were recorded in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra, they are: (1). “An Arhat may commit sins under unconscious temptation.” (2) “One may be an arhat and not know it.” (3). “An arhat may have doubts on matters of doctrine.” (4). “One cannot attain arhantship without an aid of a teacher.” (5). “The noble way may begin with a shout, that is, one meditating seriously on religion may make such exclamation as ‘How sad!’ and by so doing attain progress towards perfection.” The translation I have mentioned here was done by Watters. And also see Louis De La Vallée Poussin, 1910, “The Five Points of Mahādeva and the Kathāvattu”, The Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland”. In 1881, Rhys Davids (1843-1922) emphasised this idea, and subsequently, it began to resonate in the contemporary academic field. However, this view of the origin of Mahāyāna is as same as the theory of sectarian origin, therefore, it will be discussed under the Theory of Sectarian Origin. The Old Scholarships The Theory of Mahāsāṅgika Origin According to many Buddhist historical records, the Mahāsāṅgika Bart Dessein, The Mahāsāṅgika and the Origin of Mahayana Buddhism: Evidence Provided in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāsāśāstra, p. 27. (“All historical accounts of the origin of the different Buddhist schools agree that the first schism in the Buddhist community is the one that divided the Mahāsāṅgika from the Sthaviravāda”) is generally believed to be the first Buddhist sectarian sect, and it is typically accepted that Mahāyāna Buddhism was derived from this Mahāsāṅgika schools. As has been observed by David Drewens (2010), particularly, the 19th century scholars such as Hendrik Kern (1896), L. A Waddell (1895), and Rhys Davids (1996) have maintained that Mahāyāna was developed out of Mahāsāṅgika School (Drewes, 2010: 56). Though there is a controversy regarding this matter, it is a fact that some doctrinal teachings of Mahāsāṅgika Schools, especially the doctrine of Buddhology, the bodhisattva concept, the canonical taxonomy, and doctrinal expositions such as the notion of the two truths, are considerably similar to the Mahāyāna doctrines. Moreover, according to Fa-xian’s travelogue, a copy of the Mahāsāṅgika Vinaya was found in a Mahāyāna monastery during his pilgrimage to India in the 4th and the 5th centuries. Nevertheless, Bart Dessein holds rather a different idea on this matter. As has been observed by Bart, Mahāyāna is not a Mahāsāṅgika-oriented phenomenon but it was influenced by its sub-schools Ibid, p.26. (“Judging from epigraphical evidence, the Bahuśrutīya subschool was the only Mahāsāṅgika school that was present both in the north and in the south. It is therefore not improbable that this particular subschool was instrumental in the mutual influence between the northern and the southern Mahāsāṅgika. This, however, does not imply that the development of Mahayana Buddhism was a singular Mahāsāṅgika phenomenon. We would rather suggest that the development toward the Mahāyāna was a general development, and that, within the Mahāsāṅgika school, the Bahuśrutīya, a sub-school, might have functioned as an intermediary between the north and the south”.).. Sylvain Levi widely supported this idea. The origin of the Mahāyāna must be sought among the Mahāsaṅghika group and, perhaps most particularly among the Prajñaptivādins and Bahuśrutīyas who form a sub-group transitional between the early Mahāsaṅghikas and the late Mahāsaṅghikas, between those of the north, of the Indo-Gangetic region, and those of the south, of the land of Andhra (Bart, 2009). However, despite similar doctrinal and canonical classifications between the two traditions, scholars such as Dutt (1930), Thomas (1933) and Hirakawa (1963) are reluctant to acknowledge the theory of the Mahāsāṅgika origin because they argued that Mahāsāṅgika School continued long after the arising of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Therefore, the emergence of Mahāyāna tradition would not be solely due to the influence of one particular school such as Mahāsāṅgika, but due to many ways of contributions of other sectarian Buddhist schools. Theory of Sectarian (nikāya) Origin The Indian origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism is still a puzzle. Because of this, many scholars from the early 19th century have tried in various ways to hypothesise and prove the emergence of Mahāyāna, yet the ancient origins of Mahāyāna are not fully understood. Many intellectuals have come up with a new perspective on the relationship between Mahāyāna and Indian-rooted sects (nikāya). This became a leading theory among the late 19th and 20th centuries scholars who expounded, to some extent that the various sectarian schools (Mahāsaṅghika, Bahuśrutīya, Sarvāstivāda, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka), contributed to the formation of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Some contents in the early Mahāyāna texts are the clear cut-examples here. In particular, shedding new light on controversial ideas of the origins of the Mahāyāna, the Japanese scholar Akira Hirakawa has systematically presented three new theses, known as the ‘Three Sources of the Origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism’. The first is that the Mahāyāna tradition was an upshot of nikāya Buddhism See, Akira Hirakawa,1915, Early Mahayana Buddhism.. To support the above proposition on nikāya origin, Hirakawa has congregated the parallel points between Mahāyāna and sectarian schools, which can be summarised as follows: Mahāyāna texts such as Mahāprajñāpāramitopadesa (Tachihtulun) attributed to Nāgārjuna) and Prañcaviṃsatisahaśrikāprajñāpāmitā (Tapinpanjoching) often included references to Sarvāstivada teachings. Also, Their twelvefold categorisation of scriptures seems to derive from the Sarvāstivāda, Mahīśāsaka, and Dharmaguptaka schools. Further, the Vātsīputrīya’s fivefold classification of dharmas was cited in the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras (Hirakawa, 1915: 257-258). Vasumitra, an erudite scholarly monastic in the 1st century BC and the author of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, in which the doctrines of the four schools (Mahāsaṅghika, Lokottaravādin, Ekavyavahārika, and Kaukuṭika) of Mahāsaṅghika lineage are presented, has indicated that super-mundane and supernatural qualities of the Buddha are similar to the Mahāyāna notions about the Buddha (Hirakawa, 1915: 257-260). These teachings have a huge parallel to Mahāyāna ideas about the ‘Blissful body of the Buddha (saṃbhogakāya). Furthermore, the doctrine of the bodhisattva in the Mahāyāna tradition can also be founded in the various doctrines of sectarian Buddhism. For instance, this teaching was practised by adherents of Mahāsaṅghika school and it was described by Vasumitra as follows: “No bodhisattvas have any thoughts of greed, anger, or harming to others. To benefit sentient beings, bodhisattvas are born onto inferior stages through their wishes” (Hirakawa,1915: 262) As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, Hirakawa has pointed out the number of resemblances between Mahāyāna and sectarian schools. And then Heinz Bechert underpinned this theory emphasising that the Indian Mahāyāna was not distinct from the nikāya schools. Moreover, the Mahāyāna monastic continued to take ordination from them (David 2010: 55-65). Gregory Schopen who first stated that the original movement of Mahāyāna was not of a single origin, advocated the view of multiple origins (Schopen, 1975: 181). This notion of multiple origin theory was attracted by many scholars. Subsequently, Paul Harrison, in his doctoral dissertation in 1994, has correspondingly indicated that the early Chinese translations of Mahāyāna sutras offer a little support for the idea of a distinct Mahāyāna sect. And Ruegg presents a similar idea to Harrison as follows: “Early Mahāyāna would appear neither to have been generally established as an organized institutional entity nor to have been constituted a socio-religious order separate and apart from the Nikāyas of Śravakayana…” (Ruegg 2004: 16). Thus, it is clearly manifested that Mahāyāna was not a separated Buddhist school in India and the groups of monastics and laities who believed the Mahāyāna form of practices and doctrinal lived with other monastics at the same monasteries. That was the beauty of Buddhism in India. Moreover, several other leading Japanese and Western scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including Jonathan Silk, Junjiro Takakusu, August Barth, Louis de La Valle, Jean Przyluski, Edward Conze, and Lamotte, have agreed with Hirakawa’s view proposed that Mahāyāna was not institutionally distinct from the nikāya schools “Much of the recent scholarship on the early Mahayana points to a tradition that arose not as a single, well-defined, unitary movement, but form multiple trajectories emanating from and alongside Mainstream Buddhism” (Daniel Boucher, 2008, Bodhisattvas of the forest and the formation of the Mahayana: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra. Studies in the Buddhist tradition. Honolulu, University of Hawai Press).. Concerning this, Heinz Bechert (1973) mentioned that, “Indian Mahāyāna was not distinct from the nikāya and that Mahāyāna monastic continued to take ordination from them”. Hence, it is generally aggreged that the origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism may have occurred due to many reasons over time and socio-religious requirements of the mass. And particularly, the diverse ways of understanding the Buddha’s teaching by different sectarian schools have had an enormous impact on the formation of this new-fangled tradition. The Origin Theory of the Buddha’s Biographies Another well-grounded theory of the origin of Mahāyāna is the composition of the Buddha’s biographies. According to Hirakawa, the concept of the Buddha’s biographies played an influential role in the formation of Mahāyāna and his idea has been vastly adopted by many contemporary scholars. Pointing out many similarities between the Buddha’ biographies of the other schools and Mahāyāna scriptures, Hirakawa states that “The biographers of the Buddha were probably identical to those people who belonged to the vehicle of those who praise the Buddha…The authors of this literature must have played a significant role in the early development of Mahāyāna thought” (Hirakawa, 1915: 267). The biographical resemblances among different sectarian schools and the Buddha concept in Mahāyāna literature are categorically explicated. For instance, the Mahāvastu, the Vinaya text of the Lokottaravāda sect, expounds the Ten bhūmis of the Buddhahood. By the same token, a well-celebrated Mahāyāna text, the Daṣabhūmika Sūtra (Shi di jing) The Daśabhūmika Sūtra or The Discourse on the Ten Stages of Bodhisattva is one of the significant and very popular texts in Mahayana tradition, especially in the Avataṃsaka School. This Sūtra is one of the three main texts. It is believed that initially, this existed as a separate sūtra in India, however, later on, it was combined with the other two sūtras, namely: The Gaṇḍavyūha and the Avataṃsaka sūtras. also contains those ten stages of training for the Buddhahood. Moreover, the other nikāya traditions such as Sarvāstivādin, Kāśyapīya, and Mahīśāsaka schools have shared a common biography of the Buddha. Indeed, the biographies The Lokottaravāda’s Mahāvastu, the Dharmaguptaka’s Fo pen-hsing chi ching, and the Sarvāstivādin School’s Lalitavistara are the example for the biographies of the Buddha. of different schools differ from each other, in terms of their contents, however, Hirakawa stressed that they seem to have maintained the same biography (Hirakawa, 1915: 265-289). Although there are fundamental disparities between those profiles and in the Mahāyāna sūtras, many similarities between them are explicit. Therefore, Hirakawa and some other scholars like Edward Conze anticipate that the movement of early Mahāyāna thought may have occurred due to the biographies of the Buddha written by various nikāya schools. Nevertheless, many scholars vehemently disagree on their views of Mahāyāna origin. The Origin Theory of Stūpa Worshipers (Laity) Another well-established theory of the origin of Mahāyāna is ‘the Theory of stūpa worshipers which is also known as the Theory of laity. According to this idea, the emergence of Mahāyāna can be traced back to the activities of the laities who revolt against the pretensions of monks and were instrumental in the formation of Mahāyāna in its early phase. In particularly, Jean Przyluski “The first scholar to present an actual lay origin theory was Jean Przyluski, who argued that the Mahayana arose as a lay reaction to the ‘haughty spirit,’ ‘atheistic nihilism,’ and ‘sterile perfection’ of Buddhist monastics and their arahant ideal. Unlike monastics, who retreated from the world to seek their own private salvation, Mahayanists became bodhisattvas ‘for the good of other beings, even if one must remain long in the whirl of reincarnations’ (1926, 1932, 1934). Przyluski’s theory was at root a simple combination of the ideas initially presented by Vasil’ev and Rhys Davids”. (David Drewes, Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship, University of Manitoba) and Etienne Lamotte vigorously held this view. Their notions on this matter have been summarised by Paul Williams thus: “During the first five centuries of its history, Buddhism progressed considerably; nevertheless, it had to face both external and internal difficulties because of the divergent tendencies which formed at the heart of the community. Some monks questioned the authenticity of the early scriptures and claimed to add new texts to them; others leaned towards a laxer interpretation of the rules governing their life; the scholastic treatises, continuously increasing in number, became more and more discrepant; finally, and above all, the laity, considering the monks’ privileges to be excessive, tried to win equal religious rights for themselves.” (Williams, 2009: 23). Afterwards, this idea was systematically developed and presented by Hirakawa who emphasized that the Mahāyāna evolved within an identifiable order of Bodhisattvas, composed of lay and ordained members of equal status, centred on the stūpas or relic shrines worship. Those stūpas were administered by the laity groups, which eventually indicated that those relics were identified as the Buddha himself (Hirakawa, 1915: 265-289). He further claimed that these stūpas were established separately from monks’ monasteries and consequently, a certain rivalry might have been with monastic orders. Hence, an alternative religious tradition centred on Bodhisattvas and Buddha would have appeared as antagonistic to the conducts and aspirations of monastics of the contemporary. His thesis was largely dependent on the teachings of the Pāli Mahāparinibbāna Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya. When Ven. Ānanda asked the Buddha about the preparation of the Buddha’s funeral, his answer to Ānanda is very significant in this regard. In the Sutta, it is stressed by the Buddha thus: “Do not get involved in the rites for venerating the Realized One’s corpse, Ānanda. Please, Ānanda, you must all strive and practice for your own goal! Meditate diligent, keen, and resolute for your own goal! There are astute aristocrats, brahmins, and householders who are devoted to the Realized One. They will perform the rites for venerating the Realized One’s corpse” (D II. 72). Therefore, it is clear that stūpas were assigned to laymen for their protection and maintenance from the very beginning, and stūpa worship was thus begun by laymen as a devotional practice and practice of paying gratitude towards the teacher. Moreover, another considerable piece of evidence that supported Hirakawa’s thought is the early Mahāyāna sutras. In particularly, sutras such as the Saddharmapunḍarīka, the Sukhāvativyūha, the Vimalakīrtiniddeśa the Bhadramāyākāravyākaraṇa are vastly deemed as the earlier discourses of the dawn of Mahāyāna. Those sūtras have disclosed the significance of the venerating stūpas and the role of lay Bodhisattvas (Hirakawa, 1915: 265-289). He thus gives more emphasis on the laity (lay bodhisattva) theory of the origins of Mahāyāna than the other previous theories. Therefore, his fundamental notion is that the Great Vehicle initially originated in the circle of stūpa worshipers who were, perhaps, lay Bodhisattvas. Scholars like Jan Nattier, Conze and some other Japanese intellectuals are in favour of this supposition. However, several scholars disagree with Hirakawa’s laity theory, saying that it is based on some erroneous assumptions and is not supported by conclusive evidence. Schopen has presented an argument against this view by quoting several important early Mahāyāna texts that show a distinctly hostile attitude to the ‘Stūpa Cult’. As Schopen observes: “ Mahāyāna in Indian inscriptions has shown that by far the majority of those associated with making donations and other religious activity towards stūpas were monks and nuns, and a large number of these were also learned members of the monastic community rather than their exclusively simpler brethren. Moreover, in all inscriptions which are recognizably Mahāyāna in type, over 70 per cent of the donors are monks or nuns, mainly monks. Laymen are very much in the minority.” (Schopen 1997, 31-2; Schopen 2005, Ch. 7). Though the theory of stūpa worship is very attractive, no sufficient historical evidence is available to be proven. Some of the earlier texts have disclosed the significance of the veneration of the Buddha’s stūpas as an integral part of one’s religious practice, however, no texts explicitly illustrate the lay dominance of the stūpas. Henceforth, the ‘Stūpa Cult’ theory, though has some ground, regards as not a widely accepted thesis. Not only Schopen presents doctrinal evidence against Hirakawa’s theory, but some other modern scholars like Silk and Harrison also somewhat disagree with Hirakawa. 3. New Scholarships The Origin Theory of Forest Monks Most of the previous assumptions on the basis of the early Mahāyāna tradition have been negated stating that Mahāyāna was not a distinct sect from the nikāya schools. Also, it had not much to deal with worshipping stūpas, as well as it was not developed by the laities or lay Bodhisattvas. What is more, it was neither a branch of the Mahāsaṅghika nor sectarian origins. Apart from those abovementioned postulations, some new hypothesises have appeared in this regard, and one of the new leading theories put forward by Paul Harrison is the ‘theory of forest monks.’ As this theory indicates, the historical emergence of Mahāyāna occurred as a result of the forest meditation practitioners. Harrison (2003) stresses “the Mahāyāna was the work of hard-core ascetics, members of the forest-dwelling (āraṇyavāsins) wing of the Buddhist Order.” In the early 1990s, Harrison and Reginald Ray put forward this theory separately. Harrison in his work on “Searching for the Origin of the Mahāyāna” 1995, had elucidated that the Mahāyāna sūtras, translated into Chinese by Lokakṣema Lokakṣema was a Kuśān Buddhist scholarly monastic (Gandhārian) who travelled to China during the Han Dynasty, and probably, the first Central Asian monk who translated Buddhist Sanskrit texts (early Mahāyāna texts) into Chinese. He is thus highly regarded as a very important figure in the Chinese Buddhism. Aṣṭasahasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Akṣobhyaviyūha Sūtra, Sūrangamasamādhi Sūtra, Avatamsaka Sūtra, and so forth, are some of the Sanskrit texts that he translated into Chinese. (147-189 CE), showed a positive emphasis on the dhūtāṅga-s (rigorous ascetic practices) and the āraṇyavāsa (forest-dwelling). Thus, he assumes that the initial concept of Māhāyāna was formed by isolated groups of people who fully focus on rigorous meditation practices. A equal notion put forward by Reginald Ray (1994) in work on “Buddhist Saints in India”, argues that the pioneers in the history of Buddhism were ‘forest dwellers’ who were responsible for the initial development of Buddhism, the rise of the Mahāyāna, as well as the development of Vajrayāna. Subsequently, some other modern intellects have carried this theory of the origins of Mahāyāna. For instance, Nattier in her work on “A Few Good Men’, 2003”, has obviously expounded that male monastics who typically practised forest-dwelling paved the way for the establishment of early Mahāyāna. The Ugraparipricchā Sūtra represents the earliest or most primitive form of Mahayana that we have access to. It presents the bodhisattva path as a ‘supremely difficult enterprise’ adopted primarily by ascetic, male monastics who typically practiced forest dwelling. (Jane Nattier, 2003, “A Few Good Men”). Boucher, Deleanu, Schopen and Williams are the other leading scholars who maintain a parallel premise. In particularly, Williams in his book entitled “Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations”, has cited Schopen’s opinions on this matter thus: “Schopen suggests that we should therefore look in two directions in any search for early Mahāyāna. On the one hand, we have Mahāyāna groups within the existing monasteries, ‘marginalized embattled segments still institutionally embedded in the dominant mainstream monastic orders’. On the other hand, there ‘may have been small, isolated groups living in the forest at odds with…So Mahāyāna may well have grown up among or been significantly influenced by those who had left the monasteries in order to practise their Buddhism more austerely and more single-mindedly, both in deep meditation and also in the practice of the various ascetic acts (dhūtāṅga-s) such as dressing only in rags from the dust-heap, eating only food gained from alms, and so on. Mahāyāna may have been the result of an austere (perhaps even puritanical) ‘revivalist movement’ that felt it was returning to the example of the Buddha himself, and the long and painful path he trod to full Buddhahood” (Williams, 2009: 30). It is therefore clear the practice of the forest-dwelling (āraṇyavāsa) and severe meditation practices (dhūtāṅga-s) have played a crucial in early Mahāyāna Buddhism, and those groups of monastics who were separated from the city-dwelling monasteries may have reformed this new form of the Buddhist tradition, which is known today Mahāyāna. Nevertheless, this theory is neither the foremost nor the ultimate conclusion of the hypothesis on the origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The Origin Theory of the Sūtra or Book Cult It is undoubtedly acknowledged that early Mahāyāna scriptures were written by mostly monastics members. And those compositors have emphasised in their works the significance of worshipping and paying respect to those texts by indicating that kind of devotional act of respecting books would generate the highest merits for the worshipper. Thus, it has become a traditional practice of writers to mention the importance of veneration of texts, as well as of followers to pay their faithful respect towards those scriptures. Hence, those texts (sūtras) gradually became as sacred as the living Buddha or the stūpas where the Buddha’s relics were enshrined in. According to scholars, the veneration of books (sūtras) was practised for more than a century and this practice has played a crucial role in formatting the early Mahāyāna Buddhism. Drewes, Schopen, Harrison, McMahan and many other modern scholars postulate that these manuscripts may have some connection with the origins of Mahāyāna. For instance, Schopen states that “Rather than coalescing primarily around stūpa sites, early Mahāyāna groups rejected stūpa worship and developed new cult sites where they enshrined and worshipped Mahāyāna stūpa. He further argues that these sites served as institutional bases for various Mahāyāna groups” (Schopen, 1975). See, his article published in 1975 ‘‘The Phrase ‘Sa pṛthivīpradeśaś caityabhūto bhavet’ in the Vajracchedikā: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahayana,’’ Thus, this passage illustrates that some rival groups maintained a negative attitude towards relic worshippers and favour of the veneration of Buddhist scriptures, and this new form of the cult may have gradually caused the development of early Mahāyāna and its institutional structure. Nevertheless, this view is also problematic as archaeological artefacts have illustrated that there was not found any particular shrines or stūpas of stūtra or book, yet some non- Mahāyāna materials were discovered in those stūpas. No evidence for the existence of Mahāyāna sūtra shrines has been found. Moreover, some scholars (Nattier “Rather than representing the established doctrines and practices of distinct communities, various Mahāyāna sūtras seem more likely simply to represent the views and imaginations of different Mahāyāna authors. Instead of distinct communities, the varying perspectives of Mahāyāna sūtras can better be taken as evidence that the movement encouraged innovation and made room for theoretical diversity”. ) rationally argue that the Mahāyāna sūtras were not initially composed in a written form, yet they were transmitted by mnemonic or oral practices, therefore, it may not have been possible to believe that the evolution of early Mahāyāna occurred caused by the cult of books. Even some point out that worshipping religious scriptures is not an exclusive practice of Mahāyāna, but worshipping texts are the part of religious practice of non-Mahāyāna as well as non-Buddhist, particularly Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. So, it is now obvious that this hypothesis put forward by Schopen is not accepted by many, therefore, it can be concluded that book worshipping or the cult of books or sutras has not played a central role in establishing the Mahāyāna thought in India. Conclusion As discussed in the foregoing passages, since the early 19th century, many remarkable studies have been conducted to find out some intimate reasons for the origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India. Those researchers have put forward all those aforementioned premises fundamentally based on socio-religious and socio-political background, geographical facts, textual practices, archaeological discoveries, and so on. Nonetheless, as it is stated by Nakamura (1987), “the social background of the origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism has not yet been elucidated, although some studies have been done”. Thus, the causes for the origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism are still ambiguous to the world today. Therefore, we cannot simply refute any of the studies or views examined in this paper. Yet, it can be still greatly appreciated the significant works of those scholars especially Akira Hirakawa, the pioneer academic on this research matter, has presented his ideas systematically and the other fellow intellects. Additionally, one should not forget that, as Paul Harrison observes, “Those works are not more or less marvellous than the deserted ruins of a lost civilisation that we might find scattered over the surface of some distant planet”. Thus, many new leading scholars consistently and persistently will appear in the future in this field since there are no unanimously accepted views, and still is much to be ascertained. Therefore, besides narrowing down to a particular theory, perhaps, it is safe to conclude that the historical emergence of early Mahāyāna may have occurred due to the socio-religious, socio-political soteriological circumstances and requirements, as well as substantial contributions committed by many monastics and laities.  References Bart, Dessein. 2009. “The Mahāsāṃghikas and the Origin of Mahayana Buddhism: Evidence Provided in the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra.” The Eastern Buddhist, 40/1: 25-61. Bechert, H. 1973. “Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Mahayana.” German Scholar on India, Vol.n 1. Varanasi. Bodhi, Bhikkhu. 1995. “The Long Discourse of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dighanikāya”. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Boucher, Daniel. 2008. “Bodhisattvas of the forest and the formation of the Mahayana: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra.” Studies in the Buddhist tradition. Honolulu: University of Hawai Press. Drewes, David. 2007. Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship.. ReligiousCompass. The University of Manitoba, Vol. 40/2: 55-65. Drewes, David. 2010. Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism II: New Perspectives. ReligiousCompass. The University of Manitoba, Vol. 40/2: 66-74. Harrison, Paul. 1987. “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-image and Identity Among the Followers of the Early Mahāyāna.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 10: 67-90. Harrison, Paul. 1995. “Searching for the origins of Mahayana: What are we looking for?” The Eastern Buddhist, Vol. 28/1: 48-69. Hirakawa, Akira. 1963. “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas.” Translated by Taitetsu Unno. Memories of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko. Vol. 22: 57-106. Hirakawa, Akira. 19015. “Early Mahāyāna Buddhism.” A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamini to Early Mahāyāna. (trans and ed) by Paul Groner. 223-296. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Jonathan A, Silk. 2002. “What, if anything, is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications.” Numen, Vol. 49. 4: 355-405. Nakamura, Hajime. 1987. “Mahāyāna Buddhism.” Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Nattier, Jan. 2005. “A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugrapariprccha.” University of Hawaii Press. Reginald, A Ray. 1994. Buddhist Saint in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press. Ruegg, David Seyfort. 2004. “Aspects of the Investigation of the (earlier) Indian Mahayana.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 27/1: 03-62. Rhys Davids, T.W. 1881. Lecture on the Origin and Growth of Religon as Illustrated by Some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism. Reprinted (1991). Londan. Sasaki, Shizuka. 1999. “The Mahāparinirvāna Sūtra and the Origins of Mahayana Buddhism.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 26/1-2: 189-197. Sensho, Murakami. 2005. “In Search for the Fundamental Unity of Buddhism.” Eastern Buddhist, 37/1: 77-105. Schopen, Gregory. 1975. The Phrase ‘sa prthivīpradeśaś caityabhūto bhavet’ in the Vajracchedikā: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahāyāna, in Indian Inscriptions. Indo-Iranian Journal, 21/1: 1-19. Schopen, Gregory. 1985. “Two problems in the history of Indian Buddhism: The layman/monk distinction and the doctrines of the transference of merit, Studien Zur Indologie und Iranbistic.” 10: 9-47. Schopen, Gregory. 1997. “The Stupa Cult and the Extant Pali Vinaya.” Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: A Collected Paper on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. 86- 98. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schopen, Gregory. 1997. “Monks and Relic Cult in the Mahāparinirvāna-sutta: An Old Misunderstanding in Regard to Monastic Buddhism.” Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: A Collected Paper on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. 99-113. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schopen, Gregory. 2003. “Mahāyāna.” In Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Edited by Robert E. Buswell Jr., 492–499. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan. Schopen, Gregory. 2005a. “On Sending the Monks Back to Their Books: Cult and Conservatism in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers.108–153. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Thomas, E. J. 1933. The History of Buddhist Thought. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Reprint 1997. Vallee Poussin, Louis De La. 1910. The Five Points of Mahādeva and the Kathāvattu. The Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, 413-423. Vetter, Tilmann. 1994. “On the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism and the Subsequent Introduction of Prajñāpāramitā.” 1241-1281. Watters. 1905. (trans.) Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra: A Commentary on the Jñānaprasthāna. P. 267. Waddell, L. A. 1895. The Buddhism of Tibet; or Lamaism: With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism, and Mythology, and in Its Relation to Indian Buddhism. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Reprint 1991. Williams, Paul. 2009. “Introduction.” Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations.1-45 New York: Routledge. Kern, H. 1896. Manual of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Reprint, 1989. Rhys Davids, T.W. 1896. Buddhism: Its History and Literature. 3rd revised edition. London. 1