Gṛhapatyugraparipṛcchāsūtra
| 🤓 Admin Zone 🛠️ hidden to non-admins | |
Description
K. Warder has observed, in his Indian Buddhism (1st edition, (Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, 1970, p. 354), that there came a time in the doctrinal evolution of Buddhism when
- "certain monks felt the need not simply for new interpretation of the original sūtras ... but for wholesale restatements of the doctrine. For this purpose they rewrote the sūtras, or wrote new sūtras, sufficiently similar in content as well as style as to appear authentic, but differently arranged,
with different emphases and, on close checking, proving to contain here and there a new phrase slipped into an old formulation, opening up a new avenue of thought."
Warder is referring here to the works of monks belonging to certain Mahāsaṃghika schools such as the Pūrva Śailas, who are generally regarded as having developed doctrines which contributed to the birth of the Mahāyāna; and he is referring to the Mahāyānist writers as well. If it is the case that the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras were composed in this way, it would be highly instructive to be able to compare such "new" sūtras with the pre-Mahāyāna texts which they follow so closely. From such an examination, one could hope to learn more about just what earliest Mahāyāna Buddhism was and how various elements of Mahāyāna doctrine and practice evolved; and one could hope to see how these first steps taken by the Mahāyānists were related to the views of older schools. It might even be possible, if a sufficient number of pre-Mahāyāna texts were available which represented different recensions of the same text belonging to different schools, to determine from which schools' texts the Mahāyānists borrowed. But it the very earliest versions of certain Mahāyāna texts which would likely to provide most information on these earliest stages of the emergence of the Mahāyāna, for most Mahāyāna sūtras seem to have undergone further development and reworking over a long period of time after their original composition. So far it has not seemed possible to make such a study using any of the most famous Mahāyāna sūtras; texts such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and Sukhāvatīvyūha, for example, even in their earliest extant forms, appear to have evolved far beyond the thought of the various pre-Mahāyāna schools and to have broken new ground.
But among the vast body of less well known shorter sūtras which survive in Chinese and/or Tibetan translations, I have found one, at least, which does seem to be susceptible of such examination and comparison with the pre-Mahāyāna sūtras on which it is based. The text is the Ugraparipṛcchā, which is about the bodhisattva's career. It describes in detail how the bodhisattva should live whether he or she chooses to remain a layperson, or prefers to renounce ordinary worldly life to dwell in the forest. The Mahāyāna sūtra has clearly been inspired by certain sūtras found in the Chinese Āgamas as well as in the Pali Nikāyas. In particular, certain texts on the lay disciple of the Buddha known as Ugra or Ugga were the source for the section of the Ugraparipṛcchā on the householder bodhisattva. In this essay I will discuss the entire Mahāyāna Ugraparipṛcchā, but I will give most attention to the section on the householder bodhisattva, and will demonstrate the text's relationship to pre-Mahāyāna texts. (Warder, introduction, 26–27)
K. Warder has observed, in his Indian Buddhism (1st edition, (Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, 1970, p. 354), that there came a time in the doctrinal evolution of Buddhism when
- "certain monks felt the need not simply for new interpretation of the original sūtras ... but for wholesale restatements of the doctrine. For this purpose they rewrote the sūtras, or wrote new sūtras, sufficiently similar in content as well as style as to appear authentic, but differently arranged,
with different emphases and, on close checking, proving to contain here and there a new phrase slipped into an old formulation, opening up a new avenue of thought."
Warder is referring here to the works of monks belonging to certain Mahāsaṃghika schools such as the Pūrva Śailas, who are generally regarded as having developed doctrines which contributed to the birth of the Mahāyāna; and he is referring to the Mahāyānist writers as well. If it is the case that the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras were composed in this way, it would be highly instructive to be able to compare such "new" sūtras with the pre-Mahāyāna texts which they follow so closely. From such an examination, one could hope to learn more about just what earliest Mahāyāna Buddhism was and how various elements of Mahāyāna doctrine and practice evolved; and one could hope to see how these first steps taken by the Mahāyānists were related to the views of older schools. It might even be possible, if a sufficient number of pre-Mahāyāna texts were available which represented different recensions of the same text belonging to different schools, to determine from which schools' texts the Mahāyānists borrowed. But it the very earliest versions of certain Mahāyāna texts which would likely to provide most information on these earliest stages of the emergence of the Mahāyāna, for most Mahāyāna sūtras seem to have undergone further development and reworking over a long period of time after their original composition. So far it has not seemed possible to make such a study using any of the most famous Mahāyāna sūtras; texts such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and Sukhāvatīvyūha, for example, even in their earliest extant forms, appear to have evolved far beyond the thought of the various pre-Mahāyāna schools and to have broken new ground.
But among the vast body of less well known shorter sūtras which survive in Chinese and/or Tibetan translations, I have found one, at least, which does seem to be susceptible of such examination and comparison with the pre-Mahāyāna sūtras on which it is based. The text is the Ugraparipṛcchā, which is about the bodhisattva's career. It describes in detail how the bodhisattva should live whether he or she chooses to remain a layperson, or prefers to renounce ordinary worldly life to dwell in the forest. The Mahāyāna sūtra has clearly been inspired by certain sūtras found in the Chinese Āgamas as well as in the Pali Nikāyas. In particular, certain texts on the lay disciple of the Buddha known as Ugra or Ugga were the source for the section of the Ugraparipṛcchā on the householder bodhisattva. In this essay I will discuss the entire Mahāyāna Ugraparipṛcchā, but I will give most attention to the section on the householder bodhisattva, and will demonstrate the text's relationship to pre-Mahāyāna texts. (Warder, introduction, 26–27)
