Skip to content
Browse articles

Mahavana and Hinayana Works Known to Nagarjuna

By R. Kimura

Vol. 3 · No. 2June - 1927pp. 413–417English

Summary

The article surveys the Buddhist texts that the philosopher Nāgārjuna may have known when composing his seminal works. It first distinguishes between the Mahāyāna treatises attributed to him—such as the Mūlamadhyamaka‑kārikā—and later commentaries falsely ascribed to him. The author argues that although Nāgārjuna is celebrated as a Mahāyāna thinker, he was well versed in Hīnayāna (Theravāda) literature. References in his writings suggest familiarity with the Agamas, the early collections of sūtras, as well as with Abhidharma doctrines. The article notes that one of Nāgārjuna’s lost works was a commentary on the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and that he may have written glosses on the Ten Bhūmis section of the Avataṃsaka‑sūtra. By comparing citations and doctrinal parallels, the author reconstructs Nāgārjuna’s intellectual milieu as one in which Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna ideas were not yet rigidly separated. This challenges the view that Nāgārjuna’s philosophy was a radical departure from earlier Buddhism. Instead, he emerges as a scholar synthesising diverse scriptural traditions.

AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.

Conclusion

The article concludes that Nāgārjuna’s writings show knowledge of both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna texts. Recognising his eclectic sources helps us appreciate the continuity between early and later Buddhist thought and cautions against portraying Nāgārjuna as an isolated innovator.

Key passages

Chosen by AI from the article's text. Each one is checked word for word against the text before it is shown.

  • “The former 15 the commentary on Makiaprajiaparamiti-Sutra and the latter ૦0 the first two of the ten Bhiimis of the Dadabhtimi- - જઈન of the Avatamsaka class,”
  • “Those Hinayanic and Mahdyanic Siitras which have been men- tioned in the Dasibkiimivibkasa-Sastra are as follows : —”
  • “The above facts sufficiently convince us that 1002 before the time of Niagirjuna many Mahiyinic Sutras were in exsistence.”

AI guide

Discuss this record

Ask about the article, its topics, issue context, selected passages, or reading strategy.

Start with the record

I can unpack the summary, turn it into study questions, explain a selected passage, or compare it with the other articles in this issue.

Article order

In this issue

Vol. 3 · No. 2

Original PDF

Inline viewer

Checking source PDF

The viewer will load here if the archive file is reachable.

Same author

More by R. Kimura

All articles →
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Date of Kaniska

By R. Kimura

September - 1925
The Indian Historical Quarterly

Oriental Studies in Japan

By R. Kimura

March - 1925