The Mahayana sutras are a broad genre of Buddhist scriptures that various traditions of Mahayana Buddhism accept as canonical. They are largely preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the Tibetan Buddhist canon, and in extant Sanskrit manuscripts. Around one hundred Mahayana sutras survive in Sanskrit, or in Chinese and Tibetan translations.
Mahayana sutras are passed down as the legacy of Gautama Buddha: early versions were not written documents but orally preserved teachings said to be verses that were committed to memory and recited by his disciples, in particular Ananda, which were viewed as a substitute for the actual speech of the Buddha following his parinirvana (death).
The origins of the Mahayana are not completely understood. The earliest views of Mahayana Buddhism in the West assumed that it existed as a separate school in competition with the so-called "H?nay?na" schools. Due to the veneration of buddhas and bodhisattvas, Mahayana was often interpreted as a more devotional, lay-inspired form of Buddhism, with supposed origins in st?pa veneration or by making parallels with the Reformation. These views have been largely dismissed in modern times in light of a much broader range of early texts that are now available.[page needed] These earliest Mahayana texts often depict strict adherence to the path of a bodhisattva, and engagement in the ascetic ideal of a monastic life in the wilderness, akin to the ideas expressed in the Rhinoceros Sutra. The old views of Mahayana as a separate lay-inspired and devotional sect are now largely dismissed as misguided and wrong on all counts. The early versions of Mahayana sutras were not written documents but orally preserved teachings. The verses which were committed to memory and recited by monks were viewed as the substitute for the actual speaking presence of the Buddha.
The earliest textual evidence of the Mahayana comes from sutras originating around the beginning of the common era. Jan Nattier has noted that in some of the earliest Mahayana texts such as the Ugraparip?cch? S?tra use the term "Mahayana", yet there is no doctrinal difference between Mahayana in this context and the early schools, and that "Mahayana" referred rather to the rigorous emulation of Gautama Buddha in the path of a bodhisattva seeking to become a fully enlightened buddha.
There is also no evidence that Mahayana ever referred to a separate formal school or sect of Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas. Paul Williams has also noted that the Mahayana never had nor ever attempted to have a separate Vinaya or ordination lineage from the early Buddhist schools and therefore each bhik?u or bhik?u?? adhering to the Mahayana formally belonged to an early school. This continues today with the Dharmaguptaka ordination lineage in East Asia and the M?lasarv?stiv?da ordination lineage in Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, Mahayana was never a separate rival sect of the early schools.
Both adopt one and the same Vinaya, and they have in common the prohibitions of the five offences, and also the practice of the Four Noble Truths. Those who venerate the bodhisattvas and read the Mahayana sutras are called the Mahayanists, while those who do not perform these are called the H?nay?nists.
Much of the early extant evidence for the origins of Mahayana comes from early Chinese translations of Mahayana texts. These Mahayana teachings were first propagated into China by Lokak?ema, the first translator of Mahayana sutras into Chinese during the second century.
Some scholars take an agnostic view and consider the Mahayana sutras as an anonymous literature, since it can not be determined by whom they were written, and only can be dated firmly to the date when they were translated into another language. Others such as A. K. Warder have argued that the Mahayana sutras are not historical. Andrew Skilton summarizes a common prevailing view of the Mahayana sutras:
These texts are considered by Mahayana tradition to be buddhavacana, and therefore the legitimate word of the historical Buddha. The ?r?vaka tradition, according to some Mahayana sutras themselves, rejected these texts as authentic buddhavacana, saying that they were merely inventions, the product of the religious imagination of the Mahayanist monks who were their fellows. Western scholarship does not go so far as to impugn the religious authority of Mahayana sutras, but it tends to assume that they are not the literal word of the historical ??kyamuni Buddha. Unlike the ?r?vaka critics just cited, we have no possibility of knowing just who composed and compiled these texts, and for us, removed from the time of their authors by up to two millenia, they are effectively an anonymous literature. It is widely accepted that Mahayana sutras constitute a body of literature that began to appear from as early as the 1st century BCE, although the evidence for this date is circumstantial. The concrete evidence for dating any part of this literature is to be found in dated Chinese translations, amongst which we find a body of ten Mahayana sutras translated by Lokaksema before 186 C.E. - and these constitute our earliest objectively dated Mahayana texts. This picture may be qualified by the analysis of very early manuscripts recently coming out of Afghanistan, but for the meantime this is speculation. In effect we have a vast body of anonymous but relatively coherent literature, of which individual items can only be dated firmly when they were translated into another language at a known date.
John W. Pettit, while stating, "Mahayana has not got a strong historical claim for representing the explicit teachings of the historical Buddha", also argues that the basic concepts of Mahayana do occur in the P?li Canon and that this suggests that Mahayana is "not simply an accretion of fabricated doctrines" but "has a strong connection with the teachings of Buddha himself".
Mahayana has not got a strong historical claim for representing the explicit teachings of the historical Buddha; its scriptures evince a gradual development of doctrines over several hundred years. However, the basic concepts of Mahayana, such as the bodhisattva ethic, emptiness (sunyata), and the recognition of a distinction between buddhahood and arhatship as spiritual ideals, are known from the earliest sources available in the Pali canon. This suggests that Mahayana was not simply an accretion of fabricated doctrines, as it is sometimes accused of being, but has a strong connection with the teachings of Buddha himself.
Others such as D. T. Suzuki have stated that it doesn't matter if the Mahayana sutras can be historically linked to the Buddha or not since Mahayana Buddhism is a living tradition and its teachings are followed by millions of people.
Some traditional accounts of the transmission of the Mahayana sutras claims that many parts were actually written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred years in the realm of the n?gas (serpent-like supernatural beings who dwell in another plane of being). The reason given for the late disclosure of the Mahayana teachings is that most people were initially unable to understand the Mahayana sutras at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE) and suitable recipients for these teachings had still to arise amongst humankind.
According to Venerable Hsuan Hua from the tradition of Chinese Buddhism, there are five types of beings who may speak the sutras of Buddhism: a buddha, a disciple of a buddha, a deva, a ??i, or an emanation of one of these beings; however, they must first receive certification from a buddha that its contents are true Dharma. Then these sutras may be properly regarded as the words of the Buddha (Skt. buddhavacana).
Some teachers take the view that all teachings that stem from the fundamental insights of Buddha constitute the Buddha's speech, whether they are explicitly the historical words of the Buddha or not. There are scriptural supports for this perspective even in the P?li Canon. There the Buddha is asked how the disciples should verify, after his death, which of the teachings circulating are his. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16) the Buddha is quoted as saying:
There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: 'In the Blessed One's presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One's presence have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.' His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas (discourses) and tally them against the Vinaya (monastic rules). If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don't stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it' -- and you should reject it. But if... they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.'"
Some scholars have traditionally considered the earliest Mahayana sutras to include the very first versions of the Prajñ?p?ramit? series, along with texts concerning Akshobhya, which were probably composed in the 1st century BCE in the south of India. Some early Mahayana sutras were translated by the Kushan monk Lokak?ema, who came to China from the kingdom of Gandh?ra. His first translations to Chinese were made in the Eastern Han capital of Luoyang between 178 and 189 CE. Some Mahayana sutras translated during the 2nd century CE include the following:
Some of these were probably composed in the north of India in the 1st century CE. Thus scholars generally think that the earliest Mahayana sutras were mainly composed in the south of India, and later the activity of writing additional scriptures was continued in the north. However, the assumption that the presence of an evolving body of Mahayana scriptures implies the contemporaneous existence of distinct religious movement called Mahayana, which may be wrong.
The teachings as contained in the Mahayana sutras as a whole have been described as a loosely bound bundle of many teachings, which was able to contain the various contradictions between the varying teachings it comprises. Because of these contradictory elements, there are "very few things that can be said with certainty about Mahayana Buddhism".
In the 4th century Mahayana abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asa?ga refers to the collection which contains the ?gamas as the ?r?vakapi?aka, and associates it with the ?r?vakas and pratyekabuddhas. Asa?ga classifies the Mahayana sutras as belonging to the Bodhisattvapi?aka, which is designated as the collection of teachings for bodhisattvas.
Although there is no definitive Mahayana canon as such, the printed or manuscript collections in Chinese and Tibetan, published through the ages, have preserved the majority of known Mahayana sutras. Many parallel translations of certain sutras exist. A handful of them, such as the Prajñ?p?ramit? sutras like the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra, are considered fundamental by most Mahayana traditions.
The standard modern edition of the Buddhist Chinese canon is the Taisho Tripitaka, redacted during the 1920s in Japan, consisting of eighty-five volumes of writings that, in addition to numerous Mahayana texts, both canonical and not, also include ?gama collections, several versions of the vinaya, abhidharma and tantric writings. The first thirty-two volumes contain works of Indic origin, volumes thirty-three to fifty-five contain works of native Chinese origin and volumes fifty-six to eighty-four contain works of Japanese composition. The eighty-fifth volume contains miscellaneous items including works found at Dunhuang. A number of apocryphal sutras composed in China are also included in the Chinese Buddhist canon, although the spurious nature of many more was recognized, thus preventing their inclusion in the canon. The Sanskrit originals of many Mahayana texts have not survived to this day, although Sanskrit versions of the majority of the major Mahayana sutras have survived.
Early in the 20th century, a cache of texts was found in a mound near Gilgit in Pakistan. Amongst them was the Ajitasena S?tra. This sutra appears to be a mixture of Mahayana and pre-Mahayana ideas. The text is set in a world where monasticism is the norm, typical of the P?li Suttas; there is none of the usual antagonism towards the ?ravakas (i.e., the early Buddhists) or the notion of Arahantship, as is typical of Mahayana sutras such as the Vimalak?rti-nirde?a S?tra.
Amongst the earliest Mahayana texts, the sam?dhi sutras are a collection of sutras that focus on the attainment of profound states of consciousness reached in meditation, perhaps suggesting that meditation played an important role in early Mahayana. These include the Pratyutpanna-s?tra, Sam?dhir?ja-s?tra and ??ra?gama-sam?dhi-s?tra.
These deal with Buddhist wisdom (prajñ?). "Wisdom" in this context means the ability to see reality as it truly is. They do not contain an elaborate philosophical argument, but simply try to point to the true nature of reality, especially through the use of paradox. The basic premise is a radical non-dualism, in which every and any dichotomist way of seeing things is denied: so phenomena are neither existent, nor non-existent, but are marked by emptiness (??nyat?), an absence of any essential, unchanging nature. The Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter illustrates this approach by choosing to represent the perfection of wisdom with the Sanskrit and P?li short a or "schwa" vowel ("?", [?]). As a prefix, this negates a word's meaning, e.g., changing "svabh?va", "with essence" to "asvabh?va", "without essence". It is the first letter of Indic alphabets and, as a sound on its own, can be seen as the most neutral and basic of speech sounds.
Many sutras are known by the number of lines, or ?lokas, that they contain.
This sutra is called the Lotus Sutra, White Lotus Sutra, Sutra of the White Lotus or Sutra on the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma; Sanskrit: Saddharma-pundar?ka-s?tra; ????? Cn: Miàof? Liánhu? J?ng; Jp: My?h? Renge Ky?. Probably written down in the period 100 BCE - 100 CE, the White Lotus Sutra proposes that the three y?nas (?r?vakay?na, pratyekabuddhay?na and bodhisattvay?na) are not in fact three different paths leading to three goals, but one path, with one goal. The earlier teachings are said to be skilful means to help beings of limited capacities. The sutra is notable for the (re)appearance of the Buddha Prabhutaratna, who had died several aeons earlier, because it suggests that a Buddha is not inaccessible after his parinirv??a and also that his life-span is said to be inconceivably long because of the accumulation of merit in past lives. This idea, though not necessarily from this source, forms the basis of the later doctrine of the three bodies (trik?ya). Later it became associated particularly with the Tien Tai school in China (Tendai in Japan) and the Nichiren schools in Japan.
The Ananta-nirdesa Sutra belongs to the Lotus Sutra category as well, and is also known as the Innumerable Meanings Sutra. This text was translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by Dharmaj?taya?as, an Indian monk of the 4th to 5th century. It belongs to the so-called Threefold Lotus Sutra that is also composed of the Lotus Sutra and the Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Universal Virtue. It was and is considered to be the prologue to the Lotus Sutra itself, and is therefore included into the canon of Tendai, some Nichiren Buddhist sects, and also Rissh? K?sei Kai.
Also in the Lotus Sutra category is the Samantabhadra Meditation Sutra, which is also called the Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Universal Virtue. This Mahayana Buddhist text teaches meditation and repentance practices. It is considered by many Mahayana sects to be a continuation (an epilogue) of the Buddha's teachings found within the Lotus Sutra and is therefore included into the canon of some Nichiren Buddhist sects, and also Rissh? K?sei Kai. The Bodhisattva Samantabhadra (Universal Virtue) is portrayed in the 28th chapter of the Lotus Sutra as the protector of the Dharma teachings from every kind of persecution.
The Pure Land teachings were first developed in India, and were very popular in Kashmir and Central Asia, where they may have originated. Pure Land sutras were brought from the Gandh?ra region to China as early as 147 CE, when the Kushan monk Lokak?ema began translating the first Buddhist sutras into Chinese. The earliest of these translations show evidence of having been translated from the G?ndh?r? language, a prakrit descended from Vedic Sanskrit, which was used in Northwest India.
The Pure Land sutras are principally the Shorter Sukh?vat?vy?ha S?tra, Longer Sukh?vat?vy?ha S?tra, and the Amit?yurdhy?na S?tra. The shorter sutra is also known as the Amit?bha S?tra, and the longer sutra is also known as the Infinite Life S?tra. These sutras describe Amit?bha and his Pure Land of Bliss, called Sukh?vat?. Also related to the Pure Land tradition is the Pratyutpanna Sam?dhi S?tra, which describes the practice of reciting the name of Amit?bha Buddha as a meditation method. In addition to these, many other Mahayana texts also feature Amit?bha Buddha, and a total of 290 such works have been identified in the Taish? Tripi?aka.
Pure Land texts describe the origins and nature of the Western Pure Land in which the Buddha Amitabha resides. They list the forty-eight vows made by Amitabha as a bodhisattva by which he undertook to build a Pure Land where beings are able to practise the Dharma without difficulty or distraction. The sutras state that beings can be reborn there by pure conduct and by practices such as thinking continuously of Amitabha, praising him, recounting his virtues, and chanting his name. These Pure Land sutras and the practices they recommend became the foundations of Pure Land Buddhism, which focus on the salvific power of faith in the vows of Amitabha.
In the Vimalakirti sutra, composed some time between the first and second century CE, the bodhisattva Vimalak?rti appears as a layman to teach the Dharma. This is seen by some as a strong assertion of the value of lay practice. A major theme is the non-duality of the Dharma. This sutra has been very popular in China and Japan.
The Triskandha S?tra and the Golden Light Sutra (Suvar?aprabh?sa-s?tra) focus on the practice of confession of faults. The Golden Light Sutra became especially influential in Japan, where its chapter on the universal sovereign was used by Japanese emperors to legitimise their rule and it provided a model for a well-run state.
This is large composite text consisting of several parts, most notably the Da?abh?mika Sutra and the Gandavyuha Sutra. It probably reached its current form by about the 4th century CE, although parts of it, such as those mentioned above, are thought to date from the 1st or 2nd century CE. The Gandavyuha Sutra is thought to be the source of a cult of Vairocana that later gave rise to the Mah?vairocana-abhisa?bodhi tantra, which in turn became one of two central texts in Shingon Buddhism and is included in the Tibetan canon as a carya class tantra. The Avata?saka Sutra became the central text for the Hua-yen (Jp. Kegon) school of Buddhism, the most important doctrine of which is the interpenetration of all phenomena.
These sutras primarily teach the doctrine of Representation Only (vijñapti-m?tra), associated with the Yogacara school. The Sandhinirmocana Sutra (c 2nd century CE) is the earliest surviving sutra in this class. It divides the teachings of the Buddha into three types, which it calls the "three turnings of the wheel of the Dharma." To the first turning, it ascribes the ?gamas of the ?ravakas, to the second turning the lower Mahayana sutras including the Prajñ?-p?ramit? sutras, and finally sutras like itself are deemed to comprise the third turning. Moreover, the first two turnings are considered to be provisional in this system of classification, while the third group is said to present the final truth without a need for further explication (n?t?rtha). The well-known La?k?vat?ra S?tra, composed sometime around the 4th century CE, is sometimes included in this group, although it is somewhat syncretic in nature, combining pure Mahayana doctrines with those of the tath?gatagarbha system and was unknown or ignored by the progenitors of the Mahayana system. The La?k?vat?ra S?tra was influential in Chan Buddhism.
These are especially the Tath?gatagarbha S?tra, the ?r?m?l? S?tra (?r?m?l?devi-simhan?da S?tra) and the Mah?y?na Mah?parinirv??a S?tra (which is very different in character from the P?li Mahaparinibbana Sutta).
These two large sutras are, again, actually collections of other sutras. The Mah?ratnak??a S?tra contains 49 individual works, and the Mah?samnip?ta-s?tra is a collection of 17 shorter works. Both seem to have been finalised by about the 5th century, although some parts of them are considerably older.
Esoteric sutras comprise an important category of works that are esoteric, in the sense that they are often devoted to a particular mantra or dh?ra??. Well-known dh?ra?? texts include the U????a Vijaya Dh?ra?? S?tra and the Cund? Dh?ra?? S?tra.
A number of sutras focus on actions that lead to existence in the various spheres of existence, or expound the doctrine of the twelve links of dependent-origination (prat?tyasamutp?da).
These focus on principles that guide the behaviour of bodhisattvas, and include the K?shyapa-parivarta, the Bodhisattva-pr?timok?a Sutra, and the Brahmaj?la Sutra. For monastics, the Bequeathed Teachings Sutra is a necessary manual that guides them through the life of cultivation.
TA large number of sutras describe the nature and virtues of a particular Buddha or bodhisattva and their pure land, including Mañjusri, K?itigarbha, the Buddha Ak?obhya, and Bhai?ajyaguru, also known as the Medicine Buddha.
The most widely used (in liturgy) of these is the Bhadra-kalpika Sutra, available in various languages (Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, etc.) in variants that differ slightly as to the number of Tath?gatas enumerated. For example, the Khotanese version is the proponent of a 1005-Tath?gata system. There is in use in the Shingon school a sutra naming some 10,000 Tath?gatas, distinguishing the ones longer-lived after enlightenment (the same as in the approximately 1,000 in the Bhadra-kalpika) as "Sun-Buddhas", and the shorter-lived ones as "Moon-Buddhas".