In his influential article Daijō kyōten no hattatsu to Ajaseō setsuwa, “The Development of Mahāyāna Sūtras and the Tale of King Ajātaśatru”, Hirakawa suggests that there is a contrast between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions in their attitudes towards saving the patricide Ajātaśatru. He argues that the prohibition of patricides and matricides from ordination stipulated in Buddhist monastic codes95 implies that non-Mahāyāna Buddhism—or as Hirakawa calls it, Nikāya or Hināyāna Buddhism96—exclude such criminals from being saved, in contrast to which Mahāyāna
Buddhism offers them opportunities for salvation. He says:
“Not to be allowed to become a bhik+u means not to be a person capable of attaining the Buddhist path, and means that in Buddhism he will not be saved forever…Thus, patricide or matricide is not an issue that can be forgiven if one repents. [Rather,] they are serious issues insofar as [to a patricide or matricide] the Dharma-gate will be closed forever [Jpn. 永 久に仏法の門がとざされる] (even though they can become lay believers). This is clearly stated in the Vinaya-pi3akas, which means that in Hināyāna Buddhism, namely Nikāya Buddhism, people who have committed the five most serious crimes are not saved. On the other hand,
95 On the prohibition of any offender of one of the five ānantarya crimes from entering the Buddhist
Community, see also Silk (2007: 276).
96 Hirakawa’s use of the term Nikāya Buddhism (i.e., Buddhism practiced by Nikāya or sectarian groups)
as the opposite of Mahāyāna Buddhism is evidently based on his erroneous theory of the lay origins of Mahāyāna (see Silk 2002: 379-380). As for Hināyāna, “an expression of derisive attitude toward non- bodhisattva practitioners” (Nattier 2003: 174 n.6), is almost certainly a “rhetorical fiction” rather than a designation of any actual institution or organization (Silk 2002: 367).
there is a question of what happens to a patricide or matricide in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Can we say that Mahāyāna Buddhism, when referring to itself as Mahāyāna in opposition to Hināyāna, does not leave out people who have committed patricide or matricide? If we can say that [Mahāyāna Buddhism] does not leave them out, there would have been questions such as what the reason for this is. At least when looking at stories of King Ajātaśatru told in Mahāyāna sūtras, we may take them up from this perspective.”97
Following this, Hirakawa shows that the “Pure Practice” Chapter of the Chinese Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāa-sūtra in both its northern and southern versions contains a section which may be seen as an expanded adaptation of the frame story of
Ajātaśatru’s visit to the Buddha in the SPS. There, the salvation of Ajātaśatru is prominently featured. His patricide is said to have been erased due to his repentance and faith in the Buddha and therefore, he will not have to fall into hell in the next life. Hirakawa goes on to compare this section of the MMPS with the various versions of the SPS, and observes that in most versions of the SPS (except T.22 and T.125 [43.7]) the salvation of Ajātaśatru is not much featured, but only treated as a secondary theme. He also observes that except for the SPS, no other text within the āgama corpus gives account of Ajātaśatru’s repentance or salvation. Based on these observations, he says:
“In any case, in āgama texts, King Ajātaśatru’s crime of patricide is not considered to be serious. Perhaps as a historical fact, King Ajātaśatru’s crime of patricide did not become a serious issue. This does not seem to be well connected with [the stipulation] in the Vinaya-pi3akas regarding the exclusion of committers of the five most serious crimes from entering the sa gha…98
Here, Hirakawa contends that the few and unelaborated presentations of Ajātaśatru’s repentance and salvation in the āgama corpus imply that Ajātaśatru’s patricide is not
97 Hirakawa 1971: 2. He further says that the contrast between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna can also
be seen in Buddhist sources on the salvation of Devadatta. In fact, as in the case of Ajātaśatru, more than one non-Mahāyāna text predicts that after his life in hell Devadatta will finally become a pratyeka- buddha (see below n.104). Clearly, Devadatta is also completely saved by non-Mahāyāna Buddhists.
taken seriously in the āgamas, which he finds inconsistent with the emphasis on the high severity of patricide in the vinayas, as suggested by the ordination prohibition. He goes on to introduce a number of Mahāyāna sūtras—or rather, sūtras he believes to have been composed by Mahāyānists99—which contain extensive and detailed accounts of the patricide and/or salvation of Ajātaśatru. In introducing the AjKV, the earliest extant Mahāyāna text centred on the salvation of Ajātaśatru, Hirakawa says,
“King Ajātaśatru’s crime of patricide, which was not considered to be serious at the time of [the composition of] āgamas, is treated as a serious religious crime in Mahāyāna Buddhism. This already appears in the earliest Mahāyāna scriptures.”100
While it is understandable that, as Hirakawa observes, the theme of saving Ajātaśatru is treated differently in the MMPS, the SPS, the AjKV and in other related Buddhist texts, it is nevertheless a question whether such differences can be generalized as a distinction between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna groups in their attitudes towards Ajātaśatru’s patricide and salvation, as Hirakawa argues. In order to answer this question, we need to look at how Hirakawa constructs his arguments and whether they are valid. In the beginning of his article, Hirakawa argues for the contrast between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna with regards to their attitudes towards patricides and matricides in general. This argument, it seems to me, is problematic in three aspects:
First of all, the argument is clearly based on Hirakawa’s own theory that Mahāyāna Buddhism was a movement initiated by lay believers who were
99 Some of those texts which Hirakawa classifies as Mahāyāna sūtras related to Ajātaśatru, for instance,
the Weishengyuan-jing (T.507, *Ajātaśatru-sūtra) and the Asheshiwang-wen-wuni-jing (T.508), are not definitely Mahāyāna. T.507 is a text mainly concerning the story of Ajātaśatru’s patricide, which, as far as I can discern, contains no elements characteristic of Mahāyāna (see a translation in Silk 1997: 224-229). As for T.508, according to Mizuno (1996 [1989]: 429), it may be one of the remnants of Dharmanandi’s lost translation of the Chinese EĀ.
100
institutionally separate from Buddhist monastic communities.101 It is on this basis that Hirakawa argues that Mahāyāna Buddhism does not exclude patricides or matricides for, as he assumes, Mahāyānists were predominantly non-ordained lay people who did not need to follow ordination rules made by Buddhist monks. However, as many scholars have shown, Hirakawa’s theory of the lay origins of Mahāyāna is invalid in a number of ways and in fact, increasing evidence suggests that the Mahāyāna movement (or rather, movements) almost certainly arose within traditional sectarian monastic communities, as an alternative path of religious
practice.102 If that was the case, Mahāyānists would also have had to follow the rules and restrictions of monastic ordination, the same as their non-Mahāyāna brethren. Secondly, while the prohibition of patricides and matricides from ordination does prevent such criminals from attaining liberation in this life, it does not prevent them from doing so in a future life. In other words, the ordination prohibition does not constitute an obstacle for patricides and matricides to attain salvation in the long run. In fact, it has been observed that Indian Buddhist traditions generally do not consider the five ānantarya crimes as causing eternal damnation or preventing future positive possibilities.103 Instead, there is evidence from both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna sources, showing that even committers of these most serious crimes can still attain
101 The main arguments of Hirakawa’s theory have been systematically and critically reviewed in Sasaki
1997 [English translation of the Japanese article published in 1995].
102 Besides Sasaki’s review, there have been a number of other reconsiderations and criticisms of
Hirakawa’s theory. See for instance, Harrison (1995: 52f.), Silk (2002: 378-382), Nattier (2003: 89-93), Schopen (2005: 51f., 109f.), Boucher (2008: 40f.), and Williams (2009: 272 n.34). Moreover, the finds of Sanskrit Mahāyāna manuscripts within Sarvāstivādin monastic settings on the northern Silk Route, as well as the recent discoveries of Gāndhārī Mahāyāna manuscripts from the Bajaur and Bamiyan areas which form parts of larger collections predominantly comprised of non-Mahāyāna or Mainstream Buddhist texts, “could be taken as further evidence that practitioners of the Mahayana were ordained members of various nikāya communities” (Salomon and Allon 2010: 13-17).
liberation in the future after being released from hell.104 As shown in the chart above, this is exactly the case for Ajātaśatru in some Buddhist texts. For instance, while the Pāli version of the SPS says that Ajātasattu fails to gain the “Dhamma-eye” in this life because of his patricide, in commenting on the Pāli sutta in question Buddhaghosa says that Ajātasattu, after his next life in hell, will rise again and eventually attain liberation in his last birth as a paccekabuddha. Thus, while Ajātasattu is not saved in the Pāli canon—if we understand “salvation” in its ultimate sense of an escape from sa sāra forever—he is indeed saved in Pāli commentarial literature. When we talk about the salvation of Ajātasattu in Theravāda Buddhism, we need to consider both Pāli canonical and non-canonical sources, and to appreciate changes and development in attitudes towards this issue within Theravāda Buddhism itself.
The same may also be said of other non-Mahāyāna traditions. For instance, there are two sūtras in the Chinese EĀ especially related to Ajātaśatru’s patricide and salvation: sūtra 43.7 belonging to the textual family of the SPS, where Ajātaśatru is said to have failed to realize any spiritual attainment in this life because of his patricide, and sūtra 38.11 where Ajātaśatru is predicted to be released from hell after
104 As Deeg (1999: 202 n.10) observes, even Devadatta who committed three of the five ānantarya
crimes is not condemned forever in canonical texts. The Abhayarājakumāra-sutta, “Discourse on Prince Abhaya”, of the Pāli MN contains a comment of the Buddha on Devadatta: “Devadatta is doomed to a state of misery; Devadatta is doomed to hell; Devadatta is staying [in hell] for one kalpa; Devadatta is incurable” (Trenckner 1888: 393.2-3: āpāyiko Devadatto, nerayiko Devadatto, kappa33ho Devadatto, atekiccho Devadatto ti). This sentence also appears, with variants, elsewhere in the Pāli canon (for other occurrences, see CPD, i. 94b, s.v. a-tekiccha). The duration of one kalpa in hell as referred to here—which is a standard punishment for anyone creating a schism in the sa gha—is differently calculated in scholastic literature (Lamotte 1944-1980: i. 407n.1; v. 2105 n.1; CPD, iii. 174b. s.v. kappa-33ha). In her introduction to the translation of the AN (Vol.III), C.A.F. Rhys Davids says that the word “incurable” (atekiccha) used in the sentence in question has “the fearful implication, possibly monkish, of a Buddhist hell that is unending” (Hare 1934: xiv). However, the word kappa33ha, “staying for one kalpa”, clearly suggests that Devadatta will not endure in hell eternally, no matter how long such a kalpa is supposed to be. The word atekiccha, “incurable”, used here may well refer to the inevitability of Devadatta’s descent into hell in consequence of his serious crimes. As is well known, Devadatta is predicted to become a buddha in the Lotus Sūtra (see for instance, Ray 1994: 172-3). His future pratyekabuddha-hood after being released from hell is predicted in the Pāli Milindapañha (Trenckner 1880: 111.13-16 [text]; Horner 1963-1964: i.155-6 [translation]), the Dhammapada- atthakathā (Norman 1906: i.148.1-3 [text]; Burlingame 1921: i. 240 [translation]), the Chinese EĀ (T.125 [49.9]) and the Sa ghabhedavastu of the MSV (Gnoli 1977-1978: ii. 262.1-4 [Sanskrit text]; Panglung 1981: 124); see also Hiraoka (2006: 138, 146).
falling into it and to eventually attain pratyekabuddha-hood in the future. In other words, the Chinese EĀ contains two sūtras separately corresponding to the Pāli SPS and to Buddhaghosa’s prophecy of Ajātasattu’s future rebirths in his commentary. In his article mentioned above, Hirakawa only introduces sūtra 43.7, without making reference to sūtra 38.11. What we see here is that even within one āgama collection (the EĀ) there are different—though not incompatible—ways of handling the
salvation of Ajātaśatru: in sūtra 43.7 he is not saved (or at least, not completely saved), while in sūtra 38.11 he is completely saved. So what is the attitude of the compilers of the Chinese EĀ towards Ajātaśatru? Do they have him saved or not?105 This question leads us to a third problematic aspect of Hirakawa’s argument for the contrast between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna in their attitudes towards patricides and matricides:
By simply dividing Buddhist sources into Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna, Hirakawa fails to take into account dynamics within each category and possible interactions between them. It can be certain that neither Mahāyāna nor non-Mahāyāna Buddhists hold uniform, unchanging views on whether or how to save an ānantarya criminal, even though they may agree on the possiblity of ultimate salvation of such a criminal. The afore-mentioned two sūtras in the Chinese EĀ show that even within one āgama collection the issue of the salvation of Ajātaśatru is treated differently. The different treatments, as we will see, are intended for different emphases: in sūtra 43.7 where Ajātaśatru fails to make spiritual progress, the emphasis is on the destructive consequence of his patricide; in sūtra 38.11 where Ajātaśatru is completely saved, the
105 Regarding the Chinese EĀ, Enomoto (1986: 25) says that “there are complicated questions which
have yet to be solved on the school, place of formation, language of its original text”. Enomoto (1984: 102-3) suggests that the original of T.125 may well have been compiled in North India, probably in Kashmir. He observes that some sūtras in T.125 seem to be combinations of pre-existing short sūtras, added with Mahāyāna elements. I have no access to the earlier study on the formation of T.125 by Mayeda (1964). Whatever the sectarian affiliation of the compilers of T.125 might have been, whatever their relationship to Mahāyāna was, it is clear that they give two different illustrations of the theme of the salvation of Ajātaśatru in two different sūtras, for different purposes as I will argue below.
emphasis is on the far-reaching benefits of his faith in the Buddha in this life. Given the differences, it is hard to generalize whether the compilers of the Chinese EĀ have Ajātaśatru saved or not. Instead, we need to consider this issue within the specific context of each of the two sūtras. Further, even Buddhist authors who agree with each other that Ajātaśatru will be completely saved do not necessarily have him saved in the same way. For instance, while both Buddhaghosa and the authors of sūtra 38.11 of the Chinese EĀ show that Ajātaśatru will be reborn in hell in his next life and finally attain pratyekabuddha-hood in the future, they nevertheless disagree on what will happen to him between his next life in hell and his final life as a pratyekabuddha. The disagreements, as I will suggest, signify the different strategies used by Buddhaghosa and the authors of sūtra 38.11 in reconciling the laws of karma and the salvific power of the Buddha. On the other hand, among the Mahāyāna sources, even if we postulate that the salvation story of Ajātaśatru told in the “Pure Practice” Chapter of the northern (T.374) and southern (T.375) Chinese recensions of the MMPS as such represents an Indian narrative tradition—which is a point hard to substantiate since the story in its entirety finds no parallel in the independent Tibetan translation of the MMPS or in any extant Indian-language sources as far as I know—it is clear that in T.374 and T.375 Ajātaśatru is saved in a way different from what we see in the AjKV. The AjKV relates in detail Ajātaśatru’s future rebirths and eventual buddha-hood, whereas T.374 and T.375 only tell us that Ajātaśatru conceives the aspiration to supreme awakening in this life, without saying anything further.106 Moreover, while in T.374 and T.375 Ajātaśatru is saved by the Buddha and his salvation is related to the doctrine of the
106 See T.374.484c22-23 = T.375.728a14-15. 王及夫人、後宮婇女悉皆同發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心,
“The king [Ajātaśatru] and his wives, as well as maids inside the palace, all conceived the aspiration of supreme and perfect awakening (*anuttarasamyaksa bodhicitta)”.The Tibetan translation, made from Chinese, may be found at Derge Kanjur 119, mdo sde, nya 323b7-324a1.
icchantika107, in the AjKV he is saved by the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī and his salvation serves to demonstrate the efficacy of the theory of śūnyatā. Thus, even Mahāyāna authors do not deal with the salvation of Ajātaśatru in a uniform way. The dichotomy of Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna, therefore, conceals the dynamics and varieties within each of the two categories. Further, since Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna groups are supposed to have lived together within a larger community of Buddhist monastics rather than being isolated from each other—which is a point not agreed by Hirakawa —it is conceivable that there were dialogues going on across those groups especially regarding topics of common interest in Buddhist ethics and soteriology. In this regard, Hirakawa’s dichotomy also fails to take into account possible interactions between Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna traditions.
Hirakawa’s other argument that Ajātaśatru’s patricide is not taken seriously in the āgama corpus is also untenable. Hirakawa is certainly right in observing that compared with the MMPS (T.374 and T.375) the extant versions of the SPS illustrate the theme of Ajātaśatru’s salvation in a less prominent way, since in most versions the focus of the SPS is on the fruits of the ascetic life as its title indicates. However, this does not mean that the authors of those versions of the SPS do not take Ajātaśatru’s patricide seriously. As we will see in the next chapter, in almost all the extant versions of the SPS (except T.22), Ajātaśatru is said to fail to realize any spiritual attainment during his visit to the Buddha due to his patricide. This detail shows that the authors of those versions are fully aware of the heinous nature of Ajātaśatru’s patricide and the unsurpassable hindrance that such a crime has constituted for his spiritual growth in this life. Moreover, the incapability of any ānantarya criminal to make substantial spiritual progress during the lifetime in which he committed the crime is clearly stated
107 On the connection of the salvation of Ajātaśatru with the doctrine of icchantika in the MMPS, see