Introduction

In the present chapter I survey passages in the Ekottarika-āgama that reflect Mahāyāna thought,[n.1] I already drew attention to some of the late passages discussed below in Anālayo 2009k. For a reply to the suggestion by Legittimo 2014: 70 that Mahāyāna elements are not a characteristic of the Ekottarika-āgama cf. above p. 59f note 33. before studying in more detail one of these instances, which involves an occurrence of the term hīnayāna.

The term mahāyāna of course carries a range of meanings.[n.2] [4] Cf., e.g., the discussion in Silk 2002. In the present context, my investigation covers thought related to the bodhisattvayāna, a term sometimes used in early Mahāyāna texts instead of the term mahāyāna, as well as fully fledged Mahāyāna thought. Besides occurrences of explicit yāna terminology – Mahāyāna, Hīnayāna, and references to the three yānas – Ekottarika-āgama passages that reflect the existence of the developed bodhisattva ideal as a viable path therefore fall within the scope of my exploration.[n.3] [5] Although in Anālayo 2010a I argue that the beginnings of what eventually was to become the bodhisattva ideal can be found already in the early discourses, these beginnings are distinctly different from passages in the Ekottarika-āgama that reflect the existence of the fully fledged bodhisattvayāna. I also consider references to Maitreya as a bodhisattva and the co-existence of more than one Buddha, found in different Buddha fields, as relevant to my present purpose.

My approach thus differs to some extent that of Lamotte, who considers a reference to the diamond concentration in an Ekottarika-āgama discourse as reflecting Mahāyāna influence.[n.4] [6] In relation to EĀ 48.6 at T II 793a13, Lamotte 1967: 114 comments that according to this passage "Sāriputta était entré dans la Concentration du Diamant (vajrasamādhi), concentration ignorée des anciennes Écritures, mais figurant dans la liste des 108 ou 118 samādhi dressée par les Prajñāpāramitā … en faisant intervenir cette concentration, le Sūtra de Śāriputra trahit sa dépendance à l'endroit des Sūtra du Grand Véhicule." Similarly Kuan 2013b: 140– 149 sees this passage as reflecting Mahāyāna thought. The passage in question describes how Sāriputta, seated in this type of concentration, remains unhurt when a yakkha hits him on the head. A parallel to this tale in the Udāna speaks simply of him having entered "a certain concentration".[n.5] [7] Ud 4.4 at Ud 39,22: aññataraṃ samādhiṃ samāpajjitvā. Parallels in the two Saṃyukta-āgama translations do not mention his concentrative attainment, but report that the Buddha spoke a stanza in relation to this event, highlighting that Sāriputta's mind was solidly established like a firm rock or that his mind was like a great mountain.[n.6] [8] SĀ 1330 T II 367b26: 心如剛石堅住 and SĀ2 329 at T II 485b16: 心如大山.

In the Ekottarika-āgama discourse in question, the expression "diamond concentration", 金剛三昧, occurs not only in the Sāriputta episode, but also in the description of another monk who remained unhurt by a fire while being in this concentration.[n.7] [9] EĀ 48.6 at T II 793b21. In most parallel versions, the monk has entered the cessation attainment.[n.8] [10] MN 50 at MN I 333,19, MĀ 131 at T I 620c22, T 66 at T I 864c19, and D 4094 ju 75b3 or Q 5595 tu 85a7 (cf. the reference to the cessation attainment in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Pradhan 1967: 75,3). Another parallel, T 67 at T I 867a28, only reports that the monk was in an unspecified concentration attainment.

The expression "diamond concentration" would seem to be a natural way of describing the attainment of cessation as a condition in which one cannot be hurt.[n.9] [11] In relation to another such story in Vism 706,13, where a monk who has entered cessation remains unhurt by a fire that has broken out around him, Griffiths 1986/1991: 12 comments that "external events, no matter how dramatic, could have no effect upon him", which seems to be indeed a central feature associated with this attainment. Thus when Kuan 2013b: 148 comments on the description given in EĀ 48.6 that "this samādhi is endowed with specific magical potency, an empowerment typical of the Mahāyāna meditative traditions", it needs to be added that this magical potency seems to be associated with the attainment of cessation already in early Buddhist texts and is also reflected in the Theravāda commentarial tradition. The notion that a diamond is harder than any other stone is reflected in a discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya, where the motif of the indestructibility of a diamond serves to qualify the eradication of all influxes accomplished by an arahant.[n.10] [12] AN 3.25 at AN I 124,20, a passage already noted by Frauwallner 1971: 96; cf. also the Puggalapaññatti, Pp 30,20, and for further references Anālayo 2011c: 301f note 180 and Martini 2011: 178 note 131. Thus references to the "diamond concentration" in the Ekottarika-āgama may simply intend to convey the indestructibility with which one who has attained cessation was held to be endowed.[n.11] [13] Besides EĀ 48.6, the expression 金剛三昧 also occurs in the list of outstanding monks in EĀ 4.9 at T II 558b29, and in a listing of various concentrations in EĀ 42.4 at T II 753b13. Both instances are compatible with a reading of this expression as a referent to the attainment of cessation. The fact that similar ideas can be found in Prajñāpāramitā texts does to my mind not suffice to make the idea as such an instance of Mahāyāna thought.[n.12] [14] Lamotte 1967: 114 gives references to a samādhi qualified as vajropamo, "like a diamond", in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, Dutt 1934/ 2000: 142,12 and 199,3, and to a samādhi called vajra in the Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, Ghoṣa 1902: 826,13 and 1416,1, which the second instance further explains to be such that, on staying in it, one will not be destroyed, vajro nāma samādhiḥ, yatra samādhau shitvā na bhidyate. The expression vajropama in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā corresponds to the qualification vajirūpama used in AN 3.25. As pointed out by Kuan 2013b: 145 note 26, the Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā passage would convey the sense that one cannot be destroyed or harmed. I find it difficult to follow Kuan 2013b: 145, however, when he considers this to be a "new way instead of referring to the final stage of the path to liberation". The problem I see is that AN 3.25 does not speak of any samādhi, but only compares the irreversibility of the destruction of the influxes to a diamond. It seems to me that this motif would lend itself equally well either to being applied in a physical sense to the cessation samādhi, or else to referring to a samādhi that leads to arahant-ship, without any need to posit one of these two lines of developments as the earlier one. In fact considering the application of this motif to the attainment of cessation as a "new way" in contrast to the Abhidharma usage, reflected in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Dhs 226,1, or the Jñānaprasthāna, T 1544 at T XXVI 922b22 (an idea also found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Pradhan 1967: 364,15), would require first of all establishing that these texts as a whole are substantially earlier than the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā.

My usage of the term mahāyāna in the present chapter also differs from a position taken by Kuan who, following Mizuno,[n.13] [15] This position is taken by Kuan 2013b: 150–163, based on Mizuno 1996: 436; my ignorance of Japanese prevents me from consulting Mizuno myself. considers the description of the making of a Buddha image by King Udayana in the Ekottarika-āgama as a distinct Mahāyāna element.[n.14] [16] EĀ 36.5 T II 706a12; for a study of the fate of what was believed to have been the Buddha statue made at the behest of Udayana cf. Terentyev 2009.

Rowland (1948), in his discussion of the invention of the Buddha image, does not consider the Ekottarika-āgama tale to be evidence of Mahāyāna influence.[n.15] [17] Rowland 1948: 185, instead of proposing a relationship to the Mahāyāna, holds that "the legend may have been invented to support the religious policy of Kanishka, which included the introduction of the Buddha image." Similarly Soper (1959), who in his study of literary evidence for early Buddhist art in China shows clear awareness of the intrusion of Mahāyāna elements in the Ekottarika-āgama,[n.16] [18] Soper 1959: 259 comments that "the Chinese translation of the Ekottarāgama … goes beyond any of the other sermon collections in fanciful elaboration. It is full of marvellous tales … the details found are frequently those of early Mahāyāna; obviously the Sanskrit original was re-worked and greatly altered at a relatively late date." Soper 1959: 260 then continues that "one other aspect of the lateness of the Ekottarāgama that helps to explain the Udyāna [sic] story is its occasionally shown interest in images." That is, he clearly considers the interest in images to be something apart from the Mahāyāna influences he describes earlier. does not reckon the tale of the Udayana statue as being itself distinctly Mahāyāna. The same is the case for the detailed study of the Udayana tale and its development by Carter (1990). In spite of her being clearly aware of the fact that the Ekottarika-āgama contains Mahāyāna elements,[n.17] [19] In the course of her discussion of the passage in EĀ 36.5, Carter 1990: 6 notes that "the Ekottarāgama appears to be an elaborate Mahayanist rendering of the Pali Aṅguttara-nikāya", following the indication made by Nakamura 1980/1999: 39 that the Ekottarika-āgama preserved in Chinese translation, "which mentions the … Mahāyāna, dharmakāya, and deprecates Hīnayāna, must have been composed after the rise of Mahāyāna, probably in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D." she does not consider this tale to be distinctly Mahāyāna.

Bareau (1987), who elsewhere in his writings highlights the existence of Mahāyāna passages in the Ekottarika-āgama,[n.18] [20] Bareau 1987: 34 points out that "l'Ekottara-āgama contient, ici et là, des éléments nettement mahāyānistes qui furent insérés assez tard dans le texte ancien de ce recueil." does not deem this passage to pertain to the same category. In his partial translation and study of the Ekottarika-āgama discourse in question, Bareau explicitly makes the point that the tale of King Udayana having a Buddha image made is evidently late, but it is not an instance of Mahāyāna influence.[n.19] [21] In a footnote to his translation of the part of the discourse where King Udayana brings the Buddha image to the Buddha, apparently in order to get the Buddha's approval, found in EĀ 36.5 at T II 708a27, Bareau 1997: 28 note 25 comments that "il s'agit très probablement, ici aussi, d'additions tardives, bien que l'inspiration n'en soit pas mahāyāniste." In sum, these scholars, who have studied this tale in detail, do not consider it to be representative of what from their viewpoint are distinct Mahāyāna ideas.

The making of a Buddha image by King Asoka is reported in texts like the Mahāvaṃsa and the Samantapāsādikā.[n.20] [22] Mhv 5.94, Geiger 1958: 38,1, and Sp I 44,5 report that the king carried out an akkhipūjā for the image for seven days, which makes it clear that the tale is about an actual Buddha image being consecrated; for a study of the consecration of Buddha images cf. Swearer 2004/2007; on early Buddha images in Sri Lanka cf., e.g., Wikramagamage 2005. Such a report would not naturally fall under the category of evidence for Mahāyāna influence. Instead, the making of a Buddha image appears to be such a general feature of the Indian Buddhist traditions of the Middle Period that it would be difficult to sustain the position that it is of Mahāyāna origin. In his study of inscriptional data for the early image cult, Schopen does in fact not find evidence for associating this cult with the Mahāyāna.[n.21] [23] After a survey of relevant inscriptions, Schopen 2001/2005: 115 notes that "there is still nothing identifiably Mahāyāna in any of these records dealing with the early image cult. None of these inscriptions, for example, makes any reference or allusion to 'la résolution de devenir des Bouddhas', which should be the single most important and defining characteristic of any early Mahāyāna." Schopen 2001/2005: 116 then even goes so far as to conclude that "the impression left by these inscriptional records [is] that the early Mahāyāna was neither involved with nor even interested in the early cult of images." Kuan 2013b: 160, however, attributes the absence of inscriptional references to the fact that the members of the early Mahāyāna were still part of the various nikāyas, and then p. 161 proposes, based on textual evidence, that "the Mahāyānists may have been the first to allow or even advocate the making of 'Buddha' (not 'Bodhisattva') images."

In sum, it seems to me that references to the diamond concentration and to the making of a Buddha image in the Ekottarika-āgama need not be seen as the result of Mahāyāna influence just because these elements feature in some Mahāyāna texts.

In what follows I therefore will not consider references to the diamond concentration and to the making of a Buddha image as being of direct relevance to my discussion of elements related to Mahāyāna thought in the Ekottarika-āgama.

---

Mahāyāna Passages

An instance that clearly falls within the category of being directly related to Mahāyāna ideas is an occurrence of the term hīnayāna, which I will discuss in more detail later on. The discourse in question, found among the Fours of the Ekottarika-āgama, expounds four unthinkable matters which, as the Buddha explains to Sāriputta, Hīnayānists are unable to understand.[n.22] [25] EĀ 26.9 at T II 640a4: 如來有四不可思議事, 非小乘所能知.

In the beginning part of this discourse, Sāriputta talks to the monks on the four analytical knowledges, paṭisambhidā, before referring to various other sets of four, which would have earned the discourse a placing among the Fours.[n.23] [26] EĀ 26.9 at T II 639a25. The respective uddāna at T II 643a24 refers to Sāriputta and thus gives the impression that some instruction by Sāriputta would have been the original nucleus of the discourse. The discourse gives the impression that its beginning parts, as well as perhaps the bare reference to the four unthinkables, could stem from an early discourse or earlier discourses by Sāriputta on sets of four. These appear to have been subsequently reworked into the discourse as it now appears, in the course of which elements that reflect Mahāyāna thought became part of the text.[n.24] [27] Another Mahāyāna element in EĀ 26.9 can be found at T II 639c25, according to which a former Buddha in the distant past had established innumerable beings in the practice of the three yānas and in the avaivartika stage, 立 無量眾生在三乘行, 有在不退轉地住者.

As a result of this apparent development, the Buddha himself is shown to employ the derogatory expression hīnayāna – an entertaining element in a text that the ancient Chinese audience would have considered to be part of a Hīnayāna textual collection – and Sāriputta appears almost in the role of being a disciple of the Mahāyāna.[n.25] [28] As noted by Migot 1952: 486–491, this is precisely one of the roles of Sāriputta in several Mahāyāna texts.

Whereas the term hīnayāna occurs only in this discourse, the employment of yāna terminology can be found in several Ekottarika-āgama discourses. In what follows I survey some such occurrences which, although not as distinctly Mahāyāna as a reference to the hīnayāna, nevertheless reflect the evolving bodhisattva ideal.

One such instance reports how Mahākassapa, on being told by the Buddha to give up his undertaking of the ascetic practices, refuses to comply. The Ekottarika-āgama actually has two versions of this tale, found among the Ones and among the Sevens,[n.26] [29] EĀ 12.6 at T II 570a23 and EĀ 41.5 at T II 746a21. Other parallels are SN 16.5 at SN II 202,6, SĀ 1141 at T II 301c7, and SĀ2 116 at T II 416b8 (for a translation and study of EĀ 12.6 cf. above p. 249ff). EĀ 12.6 is allocated to the Ones, which could be related to the indication at the outset of the discourse at T II 570a25 that Mahākassapa took only one meal in a single session, 一處一坐; in the case of EĀ 41.5 a rationale for inclusion among the Sevens could be a reference at T II 746b23 to monks of the future who give up seven kinds of practices, 七種之法. which show some narrative differences.[n.27] [30] The two versions are located at two different places, as EĀ 12.6 at T II 570a23 takes place in the Squirrels' Feeding Ground in the Bamboo Grove at Rājagaha, whereas EĀ 41.5 at T II 746a21 has as its venue Anāthapiṇḍika's Park, Jeta's Grove, at Sāvatthī. EĀ 12.6 at T II 570b6 differs from its parallels by reporting that Mahākassapa explained his refusal by indicating that he would have become a Paccekabuddha if the Buddha had not reached full awakening. EĀ 41.5 at T II 746b9 and 746c13 differs from the other parallels to SN 16.5 by recording that the Buddha predicted what will happen a thousand years after his death and requested that Mahākassapa remain in the world until the coming of the Buddha Maitreya; on this notion cf., e.g., Deeg 1999. This may well be why Kuan 2012: 187 comments that EĀ 41.5 "is too different to be counted as a parallel" to EĀ 12.6, SN 16.5, SĀ 1141, and SĀ2 116.

The discourse on Mahākassapa's refusal found among the Ones concludes with the Buddha praising the undertaking of the ascetic practices as leading to stream-entry, once-return, nonreturn, and the awakening of the three yānas.[n.28] [31] EĀ 12.6 at T II 570b16: 成須陀洹, 斯陀含, 阿那含, 三乘之道. This praise gives the impression that what originally may have only been a listing of the four stages of awakening has been changed, with the reference to the arahant being replaced by a reference to the three yānas (quite appropriately, if considered from the viewpoint of later tradition). References to the three yānas are frequently found among discourses in the Ekottarika-āgama.[n.29] [32] EĀ 1 at T II 550b29, EĀ 3.3 at T II 554c27, EĀ 24.6 at T II 625c15, EĀ 26.9 at T II 639c25, EĀ 32.1 at T II 674a7, EĀ 43.2 at T II 757a13, EĀ 45.5 at T II 773a23, EĀ 48.3 at T II 788c26, and EĀ 48.5 at T II 792b12.

The three yānas occur also in a discourse that describes various aspects of keeping the observance day, when the faithful lay disciple temporarily adopts the type of conduct observed always by arahants, such as celibacy, etc. One of these various forms of conduct concerns not using eight types of special seats that are not used by arahants. Three of these seats are the "Buddha seat", the "Paccekabuddha seat", and the "arahant seat".[n.30] [33] EĀ 24.6 at T II 625c5: 佛座, 辟支佛座, 阿羅漢座 … 阿羅漢不在此八種 座; a reference to the 三乘 is then found a few lines below, T II 625c15. It is unclear to me what these three seats might be referring to. The parallel versions have no comparable reference,[n.31] [34] AN 3.70 at AN I 212,24, MĀ 202 at T I 771a3, T 87 at T I 911b7, T 88 at T I 912b27, and T 89 at T I 913b15. giving the impression that the seats of those who follow the three yānas would be an addition to the Ekottarika-āgama discourse. This apparent addition seems to have been done without proper examination of the context, with the result that the discourse describes arahant seats that arahants do not use.

The Ekottarika-āgama also reports an instruction by the Buddha that the monks should have an attitude of gratitude and benevolence for those who give them alms. The instruction is then followed by a set of stanzas. One of the stanzas proclaims that through giving one will accomplish Buddhahood and be endowed with the thirty-two marks.[n.32] [35] EĀ 10.3 at T II 564b16: 布施成佛道, 三十二相具. The uddāna related to this discourse confirms that the main topic was recollecting [with gratitude] the alms [one has received], T II 566a22: 念檀 (adopting the variant 檀 instead of 壇), which is the topic taken up by the Buddha in the initial question that sets the direction for the rest of the discourse, EĀ 10.3 at T II 564a19: 當云何觀檀 越施主?

In the early discourses found in the other Āgamas and in the Pāli Nikāyas, the predominant function of the thirty-two marks is to provide visible evidence for contemporary brahmins to verify the Buddha's claim to awakening. From the perspective of these discourses, concern with the thirty-two marks is something characteristic of brahmins who are not yet followers of the Buddha and who need some aid that accords with their notions of spiritual accomplishment in order to gain sufficient faith to become receptive to the Buddha's teachings.[n.33] [36] Cf. in more detail above p. 336ff and Anālayo 2011c: 529. The idea that a disciple of the Buddha would aspire to have the same marks as part of a wish to accomplish Buddhahood is a later development that reflects a developed bodhisattva ideal.[n.34] Cf. in more detail Anālayo 2017b.

A discourse addressed to Anāthapiṇḍika takes up the topic of giving and culminates in the Buddha praising the eminent householder for giving to all equally and thus with the mental attitude of a bodhisattva.[n.35] [37] EĀ 10.5 at T II 565a20: 善哉, 善哉, 長者, 汝乃以菩薩心, 專精一意而廣 惠施; the uddāna at T II 566a22 just notes that the present text is one of two discourses on dāna, 施. Eulogies of giving with the attitude of a bodhisattva can also be found in EĀ 48.5 at T II 792c17 (a discourse which also mentions the three yānas, T II 792b12f and 792c9, and which concludes by reporting that the householder protagonist of the discourse attained stream-entry while looking at the Buddha, T II 792c28) and in EĀ 52.6 at T II 826b25. Behind this praise stands an already developed notion of the path of a bodhisattva and of the proper kind of attitude with which a lay bodhisattva should undertake the practice of giving.

The Ekottarika-āgama is not concerned only with lay bodhisattvas, however, as the path of a monastic bodhisattva forms the background of another discourse. This discourse highlights great compassion as the power of the Buddha, and then exhorts the monks that they should also cultivate great compassion.[n.36] [38] EĀ 38.1 at T II 717b25: 是故, 比丘, 常念修行此大慈悲. 如是, 諸比丘, 當作是學. The parallel AN 8.27 at AN IV 223,16 does not refer to compassion at all, let alone "great compassion", a notion not found in the Pāli discourses, but only in later Pāli literature, cf., e.g., Paṭis I 126,17, where this refers to a quality of the Buddha, not to something his disciples should cultivate. The bodhisattva path in general then manifests in other discourses in the Ekottarika-āgama, according to which one of the deeds that a Buddha will accomplish is to make beings cultivate the bodhicitta.[n.37] [39] EĀ 35.2 at T II 699a7: 未發菩薩意, 使發菩薩心 and EĀ 36.5 at T II 703b18: 未發菩薩心, 令發菩薩意. EĀ 24.5 at T II 622c14 speaks of guiding worldlings so that they become established in the practice of a bodhisattva, 導凡夫 人立菩薩行. In each discourse this is one of five aspects that accompany the appearance of a Tathāgata in the world; a comparable listing of five such aspects can be found in the Mahāvastu, Senart 1882b: 51,3. EĀ 35.2 concludes with the Buddha enjoining the monks that, for this reason, they should have an attitude of mettā towards the Tathāgata.

A term reflecting a mature stage of the bodhisattva ideal can be found among the Twos of the Ekottarika-āgama. The discourse in question begins by praising the act of caring for one's father and mother and concludes with an injunction to the monks that they should train in always recalling their filial duty and in caring for their father and mother.[n.38] [40] EĀ 20.10 at T II 601a7: 諸比丘, 常念孝順供養父母. 如是, 諸比丘, 當作 是學. This final instruction gives the impression that the reason why this discourse came to be placed among the Twos was because it referred to these two, namely one's father and mother.

This does not hold for the preceding section of the discourse, however, since after the initial instruction to care for one's parents the discourse presents as an alternative the caring for an ekajātipratibaddha bodhisattva.[n.39] [41] EĀ 20.10 at T II 601a4: 若復供養一生補處菩薩. In regard to the present instance, Huyên-Vi 2002: 49 note 4 comments that "here, as in numerous other places, there is ample evidence in EĀ for Mahāyāna influence." Another occurrence of the same concept in the abbreviated rendering 補處菩薩 makes its appearance in EĀ 42.3 at T II 749c15; for a Sanskrit fragment parallel cf. Waldschmidt 1948/1967: 148. Since this concept is not taken up in the final instruction, the discourse gives the impression that the notion of a bodhisattva, qualified as being only one lifetime away from becoming a Buddha, may have been added to an instruction that was originally only concerned with caring for one's parents.

The notion of the bodhisattva's path to Buddhahood stands behind a discourse found among the Fours. In reply to a question by the bodhisattva Maitreya, the Buddha expounds four things to be undertaken by a bodhisattva mahāsattva for the purpose of accomplishing the six perfections.[n.40] [42] EĀ 27.5 at T II 645b3, which has already been noted as one of several instances of "definite Mahāyānist influences" by Harrison 1997: 280. Here the ideas inherent in the discourse to Anāthapiṇḍika mentioned above find a more explicit formulation, with the difference that this appears to be a discourse in its own right, not a reworking of an earlier discourse.[n.41] [43] At times Maitreya does, however, occur as part of what looks as if it could be the result of a reworking of an early discourse. An example is the listing of the eight thoughts of a great man in EĀ 42.6, which at T II 754b17 illustrates the quality of making an effort with the example of Maitreya bodhisattva's striving for thirty aeons in order to become a Buddha. The parallels AN 8.30 at AN IV 234,7 and MĀ 74 at T I 541c24 instead explain the quality of energy by describing the effort to overcome what is unwholesome and develop what is wholesome; cf. also T 46 at T I 836a24. This makes it quite possible that the reference to Maitreya in EĀ 42.6 is the result of a reworking of the discourse. This impression finds support in the circumstance that the other seven qualities do not receive a detailed illustration in EĀ 42.6, comparable to the length of its passage on Maitreya. Another instance where Maitreya occurs as an illustration of making an effort is EĀ 20.6 at T II 600a20.

A case that gives the impression that an early discourse has been expanded with later material can be found among the Sixes. In this case, the first part of the discourse appears to be a product of later times.

This first part begins with the Buddha seated on a golden lotus flower with a stalk made of the seven jewels.[n.42] [44] EĀ 37.2 at T II 709a2: 世尊坐金蓮華, 七寶為莖. After some narrative episodes, Mahāmoggallāna eventually visits another Buddha in a different Buddha field.[n.43] [45] EĀ 37.2 at T II 709c28. He then leads five hundred monks from that other realm to Sakyamuni Buddha, who gives them a teaching. This teaching is a basic exposition of the six elements and the six sense-spheres that culminates in the eradication of the fetters and underlying tendencies and the attainment of Nirvāṇa.[n.44] [46] EĀ 37.2 at T II 710b13.

The Buddha then asks Mahāmoggallāna to lead the five hundred monks back to their realm. The discourse concludes with the Buddha praising Mahāmoggallāna for being foremost among his disciples in supernormal power.[n.45] [47] EĀ 37.2 at T II 710c2.

Besides narrative details like the Buddha being seated on a golden lotus, the co-existence of another Buddha is quite an obvious indication of a later stage in the development of Buddhist thought.[n.46] [48] Early Buddhist doctrine holds that only one Buddha at a time can be found in the world; cf., e.g., MN 115 at MN III 65,14 and its parallels MĀ 181 at T I 724a1, T 776 at T XVII 713b18, T 1537 at T XXVI 502b14, D 297 sha 300a7 or Q 963 lu 329a4, and D 4094 ju 188b3 or Q 5595 tu 215b2. Other such references can be found in DN 19 at DN II 225,3 and its parallels DĀ 3 at T I 31a15 and the Mahāvastu, Senart 1897: 199,10; or else in DN 28 at DN III 114,23 and its parallel DĀ 18 at T I 79a7, and again in AN 1.15 at AN I 27,36. According to Guang Xing 2005: 62, however, "'contemporaneous Buddhas' are mentioned many times in the extant Chinese translations of the Āgamas such as the Dīrgha, the Saṃyukta and the Ekottara", p. 205 note 49 giving the following references in support of his suggestion: "*Dīrghāgama: T1, 76c, 163b, 255b; *Saṃyuktāgama: T2, 131a, 322a, 410a; *Ekottarāgama, T2, 708c–710a, 773a". Whereas the first of the two references to the Ekottarika-āgama given by him is to EĀ 37.2, the discourse under discussion at present, a perusal of the other references brings to light that they do not support the claim made: DĀ 18 at T I 76c20, T 18 at T I 255b9, SĀ 498 at T II 131a1, SĀ 1188 at T II 322a22, and SĀ2 101 at T II 410a20 refer to "Buddhas of past, future, and present" with the expressions 過去, 未來, 現在諸佛 or 過去, 當來, 今現在諸 佛 or 過去等正覺, 及未來諸佛, 現在佛 or 三世諸佛. The same expression is found in their parallels DN 28 at DN III 100,23 and SN 47.12 at SN V 160,15: atītānāgatapaccuppannesu … sammāsambuddhesu, whereas SN 6.2 at SN I 140,11 takes the form: ye ca atītā (Ce: cabbhatītā) sambuddhā, ye ca buddhā anāgatā, yo cetarahi sambuddho (singular!). A similar reference in T 5 at T I 163b8 to 過去, 當來, 現在諸佛 has no counterpart in the corresponding part of DN 16 at DN II 93,11. Nevertheless the point made in T 5 is simply that all beings are mortal, even Buddhas of past, future, and present times. EĀ 45.5 at T II 773a25 also just speaks of Buddhas of the three times, 三世諸佛, although its lateness is evident in the fact that it proclaims they all teach the three yānas, 盡當說三乘之法. None of these references to Buddhas of the three times implies a substantial difference in doctrinal outlook compared to the discourses mentioned at the outset of this note. EĀ 37.2 is the only one out of these passages that does reflect the notion that Buddhas can exist simultaneously. In contrast to these late elements, the instruction given to the five hundred monks reads like any other early discourse and can safely be assumed to have been the part of the text that was originally found in this section of the Ekottarika-āgama collection.[n.47] [49] EĀ 37.2 at T II 709a17 reports a contest in supernormal powers between Sāriputta and Mahāmoggallāna, a tale that is quoted in T 2121 at T LIII 73a29. T 2121 at T LIII 73c1 indicates that at the time of quotation this story was found in the 27th fascicle of the Ekottarika-āgama, whereas now EĀ 37.2 is in the 29th fascicle; for a study of such quotations from the Ekottarika-āgama in T 2121 cf. Su 2013.

The selected passages surveyed so far are at times far removed from early Buddhist thought.[n.48] [50] On the probable date of closure of the discourses in the four Pāli Nikāyas, as far as doctrinal developments are concerned, cf. Anālayo 2012e. A setting where the Buddha expounds the course of action to be taken by a bodhisattva is something alien to the early discourses, which also do not yet know the notion of needing to accomplish certain qualities reckoned as "perfections", pāramitā.[n.49] [51] For a survey of different lists of the perfections cf., e.g., Har Dayal 1932/1970: 165–269. Besides, in the early discourses the person qualified as a bodhisattva is usually Sakyamuni Buddha in the time preceding his awakening, not any of his contemporaries.[n.50] [52] On the beginning stages in the evolution of motif of Maitreya as a bodhisattva cf. Anālayo 2010b: 95–113. Therefore a setting where the Buddha addresses a bodhisattva is a foreign element in early Buddhist thought.

Lateness is also fairly evident in the way the protagonists are described in the instances surveyed above. Anāthapiṇḍika has become a good lay bodhisattva, Sāriputta receives teachings that are beyond the ken of Hīnayānists, and Mahāmoggallāna teleports monks from another Buddha field so that they can receive teachings from Sakyamuni Buddha. The Buddha himself then makes others cultivate the bodhicitta, tells his monks to care for the ekajātipratibaddha bodhisattva, and teaches the six perfections to the bodhisattva Maitreya. The same change of perspective involves Ānanda as well, whom the introduction to the Ekottarika-āgama depicts as reflecting that those who have no confidence in the practice of bodhisattvas are fools.[n.51] [53] EĀ 1 at T II 550a29: 阿難自陳有是念: 菩薩之行, 愚不信. The present quote, as well as the one below, shows a stylistic feature noted by Nattier 2012: 10, where the introduction throughout uses "seven-character verse; elsewhere Zhu Fonian uses five-character verse, with rare instances in four characters."

The introduction in fact already has most of the notions related to Mahāyāna thought mentioned above. Besides an occurrence of Maitreya, who has come down from heaven to applaud Ānanda's recitation at the first saṅgīti,[n.52] [54] EĀ 1 at T II 550a10: 彌勒稱善快哉說. one can find references to the six perfections,[n.53] [55] The six pāramitās are listed at EĀ 1 at T II 550a13, followed by a more detailed exposition of their significance. to the three yānas,[n.54] [56] EĀ 1 at T II 550b29 refers to the three yānas, 三乘, and at T II 551a20 lists the teachings of each yāna individually, 佛之教, 及辟支佛, 聲聞之教. to the wish to become a Buddha like Sakyamuni,[n.55] [57] EĀ 1 at T II 552b10: 若欲成佛者, 猶如釋迦文. to bodhisattvas, and to the Mahāyāna.[n.56] [58] EĀ 1 at T II 550a12: 菩薩發意趣大乘. Two more references to the Mahāyāna can be found in the introduction at T II 550b4 and 550c10; one reference occurs outside of the introduction in EĀ 19.8 at T II 595b13. Together with the reference to the Hīnayāna mentioned above, these occurrences testify to a fully developed stage in the formation of Mahāyāna self-identity and polemics.

Particularly telling is a passage in the introduction where the mahāsattva Maitreya tells the bodhisattvas of the present auspicious aeon that they should encourage all kulaputtas and kuladhītās to memorize and recite the teaching of the Ekottarika and spread it widely so that gods and men will receive it respectfully. Once this has been said, devas, humans, gandhabbas, asuras, garuḍas, mahoragas, and kinnaras each declare that they will afford complete protection to the good man or good woman who memorizes and recites the teachings of the Ekottarika and spreads them widely, so that they will not be discontinued.[n.57] [59] EĀ 1 at T II 550c23: 是時, 彌勒大士告賢劫中諸菩薩等: 卿等勸勵諸族姓 子, 族姓女, 諷誦受持增一尊法, 廣演流布, 使天人奉行. 說是語時, 諸天, 世 人, 乾沓和, 阿須倫, 伽留羅, 摩休勒, 甄陀羅等, 各各白言: 我等盡共擁護 是善男子, 善女人, 諷誦受持增一尊法, 廣演流布, 終不中絕 (adopting the variant 摩休勒 instead of 摩睺勒).

The similarities between this passage and the way Mahāyāna texts tend to ensure their own preservation is striking.[n.58] [60] Nattier 2012: 13 notes similarities between the reference, in the passage quoted above, to the promise of protection to the good man or good woman who memorizes and recites the Ekottarika-āgama, 我等 … 護是善男子, 善女 人, 諷誦, and a similar passage in Mokṣala's Larger Prajñāpāramitā, T 221 at T VIII 43c9: 我等當護是善男子, 善女人 … 諷誦. Another similarity between these two works, noted by Nattier 2012: 14, concerns Ānanda's advising Uttara to memorize and recite the Ekottarika-āgama well, EĀ 1 at T II 551a1: 囑累 汝, 善諷誦 (adopting a variant without 於), where in T 221 at T VIII 105a3 Ānanda is told in similar terms to preserve this text, 囑累汝 … 善諷誦. This passage exemplifies an agenda evident throughout the introduction to present the Ekottarika-āgama as something so special that its transmission to future generations has been recommended to bodhisattvas by none less than Maitreya, the one who is about to become the next Buddha. Such a transmission then can safely be expected to take place under the benevolent protection of a range of various extraordinary beings.

In sum, the Ekottarika-āgama shows clear signs of having integrated material of a Mahāyāna orientation. Although a full study of all the passages mentioned above is not possible within the confines of this chapter, in what follows I will examine one example, namely the reference to the Hīnayānists.

Before examining this reference, however, I would like to note that the Ekottarika-āgama at times contains presentations that appear to be earlier than their Pāli canonical counterparts.[n.59] [61] Kuan 2009: 172 explains that the Ekottarika-āgama "is profoundly influenced by the Mahāyāna, but it nevertheless contains very old sources, some of which may be more original than their parallels in other recensions"; cf. also Bareau 1987: 36f. Case studies where Ekottarika-āgama discourses have preserved presentations that seem to be earlier than their Pāli discourse parallels can be found in previous chapters of this book. In other words, my presentation is not meant to give the impression that the Ekottarika-āgama is late in its entirety.

---

A Reference to the Hīnayāna

The passage that employs the term Hīnayāna reads as follows:

Sāriputta, you should know that there are four unthinkable things of the Tathāgata that the Hīnayānists are unable to understand. What are the four? The world element is unthinkable, living beings are unthinkable, nāgas are unthinkable, and the domain of the field of a Buddha is unthinkable. Sāriputta, these are reckoned to be the four unthinkables.[n.60] [62] EĀ 26.9 at T II 640a4: 舍利弗當知, 如來有四不可思議事, 非小乘所能 知. 云何為四? 世界不可思議 (adopting a variant that adds 界 after 世), 眾生 不可思議, 龍不可思議, 佛土境界不可思議. 是謂, 舍利弗, 有四不可思議.

That the domain of a Buddha and his knowledge are beyond being comprehended by others is a recurrent theme in Buddhist texts. According to the Sampasādanīya-sutta and its Dīrgha-āgama and Saṃyukta-āgama parallels, Sāriputta had to admit that the virtue, wisdom, and liberation of past, present, and future Buddhas were beyond his ken.[n.61] [63] DN 28 at DN III 99,15, DĀ 18 at T I 76c6, and SĀ 498 at T II 130c15. As the Cūlahatthipadopama-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel clarify, to know the Buddha's wisdom one would have to be his equal.[n.62] [64] MN 27 at MN I 175,23 and MĀ 146 at T I 656b1.

The same theme continues in Mahāyāna works such as, for example, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, according to which the Buddha informed Sāriputta that the knowledge of a Buddha is profound, difficult to understand, and difficult to comprehend.[n.63] [65] Kern and Nanjio 1884/1992: 29,1: atha khalu bhagavān … āyuṣmantaṃ śāriputramāmantrayate sma: gambhīraṃ śāriputra durdṛśaṃ duranubodhaṃ buddhajñānaṃ.

This statement is followed by the clarification that such knowledge is beyond the ken of arahants as well as of bodhisattvas.[n.64] [66] Stanza 2.8 in Kern and Nanjio 1884/1992: 31,7: ye cāpi te lokavidusya śrāvakāḥ kṛtādhikārāḥ sugatānuvarṇitāḥ, kṣīṇāsravā antimadehadhāriṇo na teṣa viṣayo 'sti jināna jñāne, which indicates that the knowledge of the victor is beyond the domain of the disciples of the knower of the world, who have done their duty and are praised by the well-gone one, who have eradicated the influxes and bear their last body. Stanza 2.17 in Kern and Nanjio 1884/1992: 32,11: avivartikā ye bhavi bodhisattvā analpakā yathariva gaṅgavālikāḥ, ananyacittāśca vicintayeyusteṣāṃ pi cāsmin viṣayo na vidyate, which proclaims that (the knowledge of the victor) does not fall into the domain of irreversible bodhisattvas as many as the [grains of] sand in the Ganges who might [try to] examine it with a mind free from distraction.

The Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra proclaims that the domain of a Buddha is unthinkable,[n.65] [67] Stanza 2.23, Nobel 1937: 17,13: acintyaṃ buddhaviṣayam asamāś ca tathāgatāḥ. and Tathāgatas are without equal, similarly to the reasoning proposed in the Cūlahatthipadopama-sutta and its parallel. The Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra then declares that all beings are indeed unable to know the infinite qualities of a Buddha.[n.66] [68] Stanza 3.68, Nobel 1937: 36,9: buddhasya guṇā hy anantā, na śakya jñātuṃ khalu sarvasattvaiḥ.

Again, according to the Sukhāvatīvyūha only a Buddha can understand the qualities of a Buddha, unlike devas, nāgas, asuras, yakṣas, disciples, or even Pratyekabuddhas.[n.67] [69] Fujita 2011: 77,1: buddho hi buddhasya guṇā prajānate na devanāgāsurayakṣaśrāvakāḥ pratyekabuddhāna pi ko gatīpatho.

Rawlinson (1977: 8f) distinguishes between the idea in these passages that all beings are unable to know the qualities or domain of a Buddha and what he identifies as a later development, where the possibility of such knowledge is attributed to bodhisattvas. An example noted by him is the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā, which reports that a particular bodhisattva was indeed able to know the domain and the knowledge of the Buddha.[n.68] [70] Finot 1901: 4,9: atha khalu prāmodyarājo bodhisattvo mahāsattvo … acintyaṃ buddhagocaramanuvicārayamāṇaḥ, sarvadharmadhātuprasṛtaṃ tathāgatajñānamanucintayamānaḥ, asamasamaṃ buddhaviṣayaṃ saṃpaśyamānaḥ, according to which the bodhisattva Prāmodyarāja, the great being was considering the inconceivable range of the Buddha, reflecting on the knowledge of the Tathāgata which spreads over the entire Dharma element, and inspecting the unequalled domain of the Buddha.

The Ekottarika-āgama passage quoted above reflects a development in this direction, since the specification that Hīnayānists are unable to understand qualities related to the Tathāgata implies that those who are not Hīnayānists stand a chance of understanding them. That is, this reference to the Hīnayāna appears to belong to a stage of development not yet attested in the passages mentioned above from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, the Suvarṇabhāsottama-sūtra, and the Sukhāvatīvyūha.

This is a significant indication that the Ekottarika-āgama passage under discussion testifies to a developed stage of doctrinal evolution of Mahāyāna thought. In fact, the very occurrence of the term hīnayāna on its own is a clear sign of lateness, be this in the present passage or elsewhere.[n.69] [71] Harrison 1987: 80 notes that in early Chinese translations of Mahāyāna sūtras the term hīnayāna occurs only rarely.

Elsewhere in the same section of Fours in the Ekottarika-āgama, in which the above passage is found, another discourse takes up the four unthinkables in nearly the same terms. After noting that the Buddha was staying at Jeta's Grove, where he addressed the monks, the relevant passage runs as follows:[n.70] [72] EĀ 29.6 at T II 657a19: 有四事終不可思議 (adopting the variant 議 instead of 惟). 云何為四? 眾生不可思議, 世界不可思議, 龍國不可思議, 佛國 境界不可思議. 所以然者, 不由此處得至滅盡涅槃.

There are four things that are after all unthinkable. What are the four? Living beings are unthinkable, the world element is unthinkable, the field of nāgas is unthinkable, and the sphere of the field of a Buddha is unthinkable. The reason is that this is of no use for progress to the complete cessation of Nirvāṇa."

The discourse continues by providing a more detailed exposition of the four unthinkables.[n.71] [73] In relation to the fourth unthinkable, EĀ 29.6 at T II 657b20 brings up the topic of the lifespan of a Tathāgata: 如來壽為短耶? 此亦不可思議. This is the topic that immediately precedes the reference to the Hīnayānists in EĀ 26.9 at T II 640a3: 然復眾生不能知如來壽命長短. The exposition on the four unthinkables recurs also in the 分別功德論, which shows awareness of the formulation in EĀ 26.9, as in relation to the fourth unthinkable T 1507 at T XXV 31b14 mentions the inability in this respect of the two yānas, 二乘所不能思 議; on T 1507 cf. above p. 193f note 98. According to a parallel to this discourse in the Aṅguttara-nikāya, thinking about the four unthinkables will even lead to madness:[n.72] [74] AN 4.77 at AN II 80,13.

Monks, there are these four unthinkables, which one should not think about; thinking about them one will partake of madness or frustration. What are the four?

Monks, the Buddha-domain of Buddhas is unthinkable, which one should not think about; thinking about it one will partake of madness or frustration. Monks, the domain of absorption of one who is meditating is unthinkable, which one should not think about; thinking about it one will partake of madness or frustration. Monks, the result of karma is unthinkable, which one should not think about; thinking about it one will partake of madness or frustration. Monks, thoughts about the world are unthinkable, which one should not think about; thinking about them one will partake of madness or frustration.

Monks, these are the four unthinkables, which on should not think about; thinking about them one will partake of madness or frustration.

Another parallel is found in the Abhidharmakośopāyikāṭīkā, preserved in Tibetan translation:[n.73] [75] D 4094 ju 100a4 or Q 5595 tu 114b2; the passage provides the context for the following quote in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 2.62, Pradhan 1967: 99,10: acintyo hi buddhānāṃ buddhaviṣaya; cf. also Pāsādika 1989: 46 (§138).

As for these four unthinkable topics, thinking about them will lead to madness, confusion, and an agitated mind. What are the four? Thinking about the self, thinking about the world, the ripening of the deeds of beings, and the Buddha-field of Buddhas.

In addition to the three parallels translated above, a discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama takes up one of the four unthinkables mentioned in the other versions. According to this discourse, thinking about the world will not result in wisdom and awakening, and does not accord with Nirvāṇa.[n.74] [76] SĀ 407 at T II 109a3: 世間思惟非義饒益, 非法饒益, 非梵行饒益, 非智, 非覺, 不順涅槃.

Judging from these discourses the point of setting out the four unthinkables was to demarcate topics not fit for reflection, as thinking about them would not lead to Nirvāṇa or could even result in madness. [n.75] [77] The notion of a particular topic leading to going mad and becoming mentally disturbed acquires a somewhat different dimension in a passage in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, Harrison and Watanabe 2006: 132, where such effects are associated with the attempt to describe the quantity of merit to be acquired. Harrison 2006: 152 note 79 comments that "the likely point here … seems to be that it is those beings who are to take up the Vaj [i.e. the Vajracchedikā] in the last days who would become unhinged by their excitement at the prospect of their future gains if they were to be spelled out in full." In other words, whereas in the discourse passages quoted above the notion of going mad serves a warning, in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā passage it functions as an encouragement. With the Ekottarika-āgama passage on the Hīnayānist, however, the four unthinkables become merely something that is beyond the ken of adherents of the Hīnayāna.

According to a standard pattern typical of orally transmitted discourses and found repeatedly in the Pāli discourses and their Āgama parallels, an introductory statement of the type "there are so and so many of such and such a quality" (e.g., "there are four unthinkables") will be followed by a detailed explanation, after which the introductory statement will be repeated in a similarly worded concluding statement of the type "these are the so and so many of such and such a quality" (e.g., "these are the four unthinkables").[n.76] [78] This pattern is so much standard that variations can be a sign of transmission errors; for a case study cf. Anālayo 2012f: 134–137. In the passage under discussion, however, the concluding statement does not repeat the full introductory statement. Placing the two side by side, the introductory and concluding statements read:

"Sāriputta, you should know that there are four unthinkable matters of the Tathāgata that the Hīnayānists are unable to understand."

"Sāriputta, these are reckoned to be the four unthinkables."

The conclusion does not relate the four unthinkables to the Tathāgata, nor does it mention the Hīnayānists. This makes it probable that the remark on the Hīnayānists was added in a written medium. Had such an addition happened during the oral transmission of the Ekottarika-āgama, prior to its translation, it can safely be assumed that both statements would have been affected. Since during oral transmission the reciter(s) would naturally tend to repeat the full statement just recited earlier, the conclusion would have read like this:

"Sāriputta, these are the four unthinkable matters of the Tathāgata that the Hīnayānists are unable to understand."

The impression that an addition took place in the written Chinese medium can be further supported with the help of the part of the discourse that immediately follows, where a recapitulation of the Buddha's exposition by Sāriputta reads as follows: "Indeed, Blessed One, there are four unthinkables", 如是, 世尊, 有四不可 思議.[n.77] [79] EĀ 26.9 at T II 640a8. In comparison, the Buddha's original statement that "there are four unthinkable matters of the Tathāgata that the Hīnayānists are unable to understand" reads as follows: 如來有四不可思議事, 非小乘所能知.[n.78] [80] EĀ 26.9 at T II 640a4. Removing the punctuation from the Chinese and thus leaving the bare text in the way it would have been in the original brings to light the following parallelism:

世尊有四不可思議 如來有四不可思議 Keeping in mind that a copyist or reviser can be expected to read an entire paragraph before copying it character by character, it seems to me possible that the formulation 世尊有四不可思議 found later in the discourse inspired the addition of 如來 to 有四 不可思議 in the earlier part. Together with the addition of 事非 小乘所能知 this would have led to the formulation 如來有四不 可思議事, 非小乘所能知.

Although it is of course impossible to be sure what really happened, this hypothesis would explain the coming into being of the puzzling statement that relates the four unthinkables to the Tathāgata, even though only one of these can truly be considered a quality of the Tathāgata. Whereas the four unthinkables listed in the Ekottarika-āgama – the world element, living beings, nāgas, and the domain of a Buddha – make sense as a list of topics unfit for reflection, only the last of these four could be reckoned an unthinkable matter of the Tathāgata. The other three are not qualities of the Tathāgata.

This gives the impression that the original passage just listed the four unthinkables, to which the idea that these are in some way related to the Tathāgata and something the Hīnayānists are unable to understand was added later. In fact a literal translation of the Chinese would be "the Tathāgata has four unthinkable matters", 如來有四不可思議事, which does not make much sense.

If my hypothesis about the coming into being of this formulation should be correct, then such an expansion of the text would have taken place in the Chinese medium, as the juxtaposition of the two passages above shows. In contrast, it would be rather improbable for the same to happen in an Indic original, where the fact that the Buddha is addressed in the vocative would not naturally give rise to the idea of relating the term tathāgata (如來) to the four unthinkables.

In sum, it seems to me that the above indications make it fairly probable that the reference to the Hīnayānists is an addition to the discourse that took place in China.

This suggestion is in fact nothing new. In what to my knowledge is the first discussion of this particular passage in Western scholarship, such a conclusion has already been suggested by Deeg (2006), who commented that the degrading of the Hīnayāna in the present passage in the Ekottarika-āgama is probably a Chinese interpolation.[n.79] [81] Deeg 2006: 112: "daher haben wir es hier wohl mit einer chinesischen Interpolation zu tun".

---

The Introduction to the Ekottarika-āgama

The introduction to the Ekottarika-āgama already provides a canonical placing for Mahāyāna texts on their own in the Khuddhaka collection.[n.80] [82] EĀ 1 at T II 550c10; which brings to mind the conception of a bodhisattva-piṭaka, on which cf. Pagel 1995. Thus there would be little need to continue adding Mahāyāna ideas to the Ekottarika-āgama just in order to give them canonical status. Now a theme quite prominent in the introduction is the need to ensure the transmission of the Ekottarika-āgama. The recurrent emphasis on the great value of the Ekottarika-āgama and on the importance of it being remembered and recited employs strategies similar to other Mahāyāna texts to ensure their own transmission, as already mentioned above.

When viewed from the perspective of fourth- and fifth-century China, the translation efforts during these times clearly document that Mahāyāna texts were seen as highly interesting and worthy of any effort at translation and study. Considered against this background, the addenda of Mahāyāna ideas to the Ekottarika-āgama would make sense as an attempt to enhance the value of the Ekottarika-āgama in the contemporary Chinese setting, making it more probable that this collection would be considered worth the effort of being copied and passed on.[n.81] [83] The same would hold in general for places where Buddhism had recently arrived and where the Mahāyāna was predominant. Since according to Dào'ān's introduction to the Ekottarika-āgama, T II 549a10 (cf. also T 2059 at T L 328b19), the reciter of the Ekottarika-āgama, Dharmanandin/Dharmananda, came from Central Asia, a scenario of this type could also have had an impact on the collection previous to its arrival in China; on the predominance of Mahāyāna in Southern Central Asia cf. Martini 2013.

As already pointed out by Nattier (2012: 9), the Mahāyāna elements in the Ekottarika-āgama "are not evenly distributed throughout the āgama … they are especially prominent in the introductory portion of the text."

This pattern can be exemplified by a digital search for occurrences of key terminology in the collection. Table 3 below lists occurrences of the term bodhisattva, 菩薩 (except for instances where this refers to the pre-awakening period of a specific Buddha), and references to the three yānas, 三乘, including also references to the Mahāyāna or the Hīnayāna, 大乘 or 小乘.[n.82] [84] Regarding references to the Mahāyāna, it is noteworthy that the same term, 大乘, also occurs once in the Dīrgha-āgama by the same translator Zhú Fóniàn (竺佛念), DĀ 2 at T I 12c28, a version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, where it forms part of a stanza that has no counterpart in the parallel versions; cf. Waldschmidt 1944: 65.

The references are placed in the right-hand column, whereas the left-hand column indicates the fascicle in which they are found (fascicles without any occurrence are not included). In each case, I give only the first reference for a particular column (a, b, or c) of each term, leaving out repetitions of the same term within the same column in order to provide a survey that is not too much influenced by repetitive occurrences within the same paragraph.

Even a quick glance at table 3 below shows that the highest frequency of occurrences of the selected terms is indeed located in the introduction, found in the first fascicle of the Ekottarika-āgama, a predominance evident in the fact that the list of occurrences takes up two lines instead of a single one, as is the case for the remainder of the collection.

Table 3: Bodhisattva and Yāna References in T 125

fascicle	references
1	549c09: 菩薩, 550a12: 大乘, 550a12: 菩薩, 550b04: 大乘, 550b29: 三乘, 550c10: 大乘, 550c24: 菩薩
2	554c27: 三乘
4	565a20: 菩薩, 565c18: 菩薩
5	570b16: 三乘
10	595b13: 大乘
11	599a07: 菩薩, 600b12: 菩薩, 601a04: 菩薩
15	622c14: 菩薩
16	625c15: 三乘
18	639c25: 三乘, 640a04: 小乘
19	645b01: 菩薩
24	674a07: 三乘
27	699a07: 菩薩
28	703b19: 菩薩
32	723a18: 菩薩, 723b25: 菩薩
36	749c16: 菩薩
38	757a13: 三乘
41	773a23: 三乘
44	787c06: 菩薩, 788c26: 三乘
45	792b12: 三乘, 792c09: 三乘, 792c17: 菩薩
51	826b25: 菩薩

A prominence of Mahāyāna notions in the introduction would make sense as part of an attempt to enhance the value of the collection and make sure it will be passed on, as such an attempt would naturally focus on the first part to be encountered by the reader who is about to form an opinion of the value and interest of the collection.[n.83] [85] Although obviously more research on this introduction is required before some degree of certainty about its nature can be reached, for the time being a possible scenario would be that this text has as its nucleus a commentarial exposition similar to what is found at the outset of the commentary on the Dīgha-nikāya, Sv I 2,10. This commentarial gloss provides some background to the canonical collection on which it comments with the help of an account of the first saṅgīti, a topic also taken up in the introduction to the Ekottarika-āgama. Dharmanandin/Dharmananda, being a reciter of the Ekottarika-āgama collection, may well have memorized such basic information, in which case it would have been natural to include this as an introduction at the time of translation. This introduction may then have been 'improved' upon during a later revision by way of integrating additional material. Legittimo 2012: 361 comments that the "'first introductory chapter' is highly particular … as if it had been added to the collection to make it attractive and/or to promote it."

Such a scenario would in turn concord with the finding discussed above that a whole discourse appears to have been added to the Ekottarika-āgama in China.[n.84] [86] Cf. above p. 165ff. In view of this precedent, it seems that some of the more evolved Mahāyāna ideas among the passages surveyed in this chapter also could have made their way into the Ekottarika-āgama collection only in China.

---

Conclusion

A perusal of the Ekottarika-āgama brings to light several passages that show the influence of notions related to evolving Mahāyāna thought, in the sense of employing yāna terminology, reflecting the existence of the developed bodhisattva ideal as a viable path in general, referring to Maitreya as a bodhisattva, and testifying to the notion that more than one Buddha can live at the same time, albeit in different Buddha fields.

Closer inspection of one passage that employs the term hīnayāna makes it probable that this passage became part of the Ekottarika-āgama only in China. To the term hīnayāna and its usage I turn in the next chapter.