Vastu-shastra (Vol. I: Hindu Science of Architecture; Vol. II: Hindu Canons of Iconography and Painting) v2.c75.s3.11

v2.c75.s3.11

With this a very brief introduction to the philosphical background of Buddhist iconography, let us persue it further in its evolution. That is how did this conception of Mahāsukha creep into Mahāyāna-Vajrayāna? The tackling of this question brings us to the fundamental differences of the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna. The pivot of distinction between them lies in the question of Nirvāṇa. The Hinayanist whether a Śrāvaka or Pratyeka always would strive for his own emancipation or Nirvāṇa, the Mahayanist on the other hand takes, just the opposite view. He stands for the emancipation of all and makes Karuṇā (Compassion) his motto. Both differ in the divinity of Buddha and his order of superiority in relation to the Dharma and Saṅgha For the former Buddha comes first and Dharma or Law and Saṅgha come next, the latter changes the order into Dharma, Buddha and Saṅgha, to whom Dharma or Prajñā is eternal and the highest object and Buddha is only Upāya or means of obtaining that knowledge, which is diffused into the masses through him. ‘This idea’, says Bhattacharya ‘bears a close resemblance to the Hindu conception of the Mantras, which are supposed to be eternal of which only a glimpse was obtained by the Vedic Ṛṣis.’ As regards the nature of Nirvāṇa there arose a baffling controversy resulting in many schools in Mahāyanism itself, the two principal schools amongst which being Yogācāras (the Vigñānavādins) and the Mādhyamikas. Buddhism, we know, was a mass religion and therefore as already pointed out that these abtruse philosophical teachings of Vijñānavāda in relation to Nirvāṇa could not become fit for easy grasp of the masses. The priest found a great deal of difficulty in making the masses understand the meaing of Nirvāṇa, to the attainment of which every Buddhist strives. Nirvāṇa, which was Śūnya, was said to be Nirātmā, that is, something in which the soul is lost :— ‘The Bodhicitta merges in Nirātmā and there remains in eternal bliss and happiness, (Mahāsukha-vāda). The word ‘Nirātma’, it may be noted, is in the feminine; the Nirātmā is therefore a Devī, in whose embrace the Boddhicitta, remains. The masses well understood the significance of Nirātmā, and the feminine aspect, an outcome of Mahāsukhavāda, in the doctrine of Nirvāṇa, gave rise to what is known as Vajrayāna'—Bhattacharya.