Indian forms was particularly devotional. Any such no-
tion should have been easily dispelled by even a quick
reading of the Mulamadhyamakakarikaof NAGARJUNA,
the figure who has been taken—whatever his actual
date—as the earliest individually named spokesman
for the Mahayana in India. This is a work that is, in
fact, decidedly scholastic, focused exclusively on a nar-
row band of doctrine, arcane, and very far from easily
accessible: Even with long and laborious commen-
taries, both ancient and modern, much of it remains
elusive. If it is, in fact, representative of the early forms
of the Mahayana in India, then whatever that Ma-
hayana was it could hardly have been a broad-based,
easily accessible, lay-oriented, devotional movement.
What seems to hold for Nagarjuna’s Karikas,more-
over, would seem to hold for much of Mahayana
sutra literature. Much of it also cannot be described as
easily accessible, and most of it, perhaps, would only
have been of interest to a certain type or types of
monks.
The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines,
for example, as well as its ever-lengthening compan-
ion pieces in 10,000, 18,000, 25,000, and 100,000 lines,
sometimes seem to be little more than unrelenting rep-
etitions of long lists of technical doctrinal categories—
that would, presumably, have been known by or of
interest to only very learned monks—which are, again
unrelentingly, said to be “empty.” It is also not just the
Perfection of Wisdomthat can be so described. The
Ka ́yapaparivartas (Chapter of Kas ́yapa), another Ma-
hayana text that might be early, although it differs
somewhat in format, is much the same in content: The
whole first part of it consists of a long list of doctrinal
items arranged in groups of fours. Some Mahayana
sutras—the SAMDHINIRMOCANA-SUTRA(Sutra of the
Explanation of Mysteries), for instance—can hardly be
distinguished from technical treatise or s ́astras.There
are, of course, exceptions. The Vimalaklrtinirdes ́a
(Teaching of Vimalaklrti), for example, is commonly
cited as one, but even then its atypicality is always
noted and the contrast with other Mahayana sutras
emphasized. In contrast to the authors of other Ma-
hayana sutras its author, says Étienne Lamotte, “does
not lose himself in a desert of abstract and impersonal
doctrine” (p. v). There are also occasional lively vi-
gnettes elsewhere—for instance, the scene in the
Drumakinnararajapariprccha (Questions of the Spirit
King Druma) where when the austere monk MAHAK-
AS ́YAPAis so charmed by some heavenly music he can-
not help himself and jumps up and dances, or the
stories in the Ratnakaranda-sutra(Sutra of the Basket
of Jewels) where Mañjus ́rmakes MARAcarry his beg-
ging bowl, or spends the rains-retreat in the King’s
harem—but these appear to be rare. What narrative or
story elements occur in known Mahayana texts appear
to be either polemics intended to make fun of other
monks, as in the Questions of Druma,the Basket of Jew-
els,and in the Teaching of Vimalaklrti; or are simply
unintegrated add-ons, like the story of Ever-Weeping
in the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines; or
wholesale borrowings, as in the first part of the Rastra-
palapariprccha (Questions of Rastrapala). Even with
these possible exceptions, and bearing in mind that
only a limited corpus of Mahayana sutra literature has
so far been studied, much of what has been studied
seems positively dreary and is commonly said to be so
in the scholarly backroom. Not only is there little nar-
rative or story, there is also a very great deal of doc-
trinal, meditative and ascetic minutia—Lamotte’s
“desert.” To learned monks—indeed very learned
monks—this might have had great attraction, but how
it would have struck anyone else remains imaginable,
but unclear. What is clear, however, is that the scholas-
ticism found from the beginning of Mahayana litera-
ture did not abate or go away, and already in India the
Mahayana produced some very impressive, even
mind-boggling, “philosophical” systems, like those
lumped together under the heading Yogacara. Works
ascribed to the monk ASAN ̇GAplay a key role in the
Yogacara, and a story preserved in BU STON’s History
of Buddhismabout the reaction of Asan ̇ga’s younger
brother—himself a scholastic of the first order—might
be instructive. He is supposed to have said:Alas, Asan ̇ga, residing in the forest,
has practiced meditation for 12 years.
Without having attained anything by this
meditation,
he has founded a system, so difficult and bur-
densome,
that it can be carried only by an elephant.The Mahayana and the move away from de-
votion and cult
None of this, of course, squares very well with the no-
tion that the Mahayana was in India a popular devo-
tional movement—if even learned monks found its
scholasticism off-putting, any laity would almost cer-
tainly as well. But this is not the only thing that does
not square. There is, for example, surprisingly little ap-
parent interest in devotional or cult practice in the Ma-MAHAYANA