Comparative study of the Sutta Nipata and the Lotus Sutra

Abstract

Literally, the small or inferior vehicle, Hinayana was designation used by the Mahayana schools to denote the perceived shortcoming of their predecessors. Mahayana criticized Hinayana principally for stressing benefits to the individual alone through its goal of self-perfection and release from the bonds of existence. The other hand, Sectarian Buddhism (Nikaya Buddhism or the Abhidharma schools) apparently claimed that the new Mahayana sutras were the teachings of devils, not the Buddha. This assertion was revived in Japan in the latter part of the nineteenth century, when Western historical research methods were first applied to Buddhology. As a result, some scholars considered that Mahayana was not the direct teaching of the historical Buddha. If the Buddha’s teaching is defined strictly as the actual word of Shakyamuni, however, then even the teachings recorded in the Agamas are not original: the Agama did not take their present form until several hundred years after the Buddha’s death, and in the course of their transmission both conscious and unconscious changes were introduced. I have heard that modern scholars agree that it is justifiable to regard as the Buddha’s teaching whatever expounds the Law accurately and transmits its spirit. From this point of view, Mahayana scriptures must be accepted as part of the Buddha’s teaching. In the thesis, I try to search for underlying both the Sutta Nipata and the Lotus Sutra.