Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature c6: Chapter II. Origin and Development of the Bodhisattva Doctrine

The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. Origin and Development of the Bodhisattva Doctrine

c6.1

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

I

c6.s1.1

The *bodhisattva* doctrine may be regarded as the final outcome of the tendencies that were at work in India during several centuries after Gautama Buddha's death. These may be grouped and classified as follows :—

c6.s1.2

(1) The natural tendencies of development within the Buddhist Church.

c6.s1.3

(2) The influence of other Indian religious sects like the Bhāgavatas and the Çaivas.

c6.s1.4

(3) The influence of Persian religion and culture.

c6.s1.5

(4) The influence of Greek art.

c6.s1.6

(5) The necessities of propaganda among new semi-barbarous tribes.

c6.s1.7

(6) The influence of Christianity.

c6.s1.8

These different factors, that contributed to the rise and growth of the new doctrine, may be considered in detail.

(1) Natural Development of Buddhism

c6.s1.t1.1

The most important factor was the natural and inevitable tendency of Buddhism to grow and develop in the changing circumstances of the age. A great religion is not a dead static formula of salvation and ethics : it is always a living, dynamic, self-evolving and self-adjusting spiritual movement. The founder's disciples try to render explicit all that was implicit in the original teaching, and they also contribute new ideas and ideals. Only an ultra-orthodox Mahāyānist would support S. Kimura's contention that the philosophers of the Mahāyāna really expounded Gautama Buddha's own " ontological and introspectional principles ", which were not communicated to the ordinary disciples.¹ This is an unwarranted assumption. Gautama Buddha took pride in being free from the fault, that was described as *ācārya-muṣṭi* (Pāli : *ācariya-muṭṭhi*, “the teacher’s fist, close-fistedness, keeping things back, esotericism”). His teaching was open to all, like the light of the sun and the moon.² The fiction of an “esoteric” Buddhism need not be invoked in order to explain the natural development of Buddhism after the death of the founder.

c6.s1.t1.2

The *bodhisattva* doctrine was the necessary outcome of two movements of thought in early Buddhism, viz. the growth of *bhakti* (devotion, faith, love) and the idealisation and spiritualisation of the Buddha. *Bhakti* was at first directed towards Gautama Buddha. But he was soon idealised, spiritualised and universalised, as has already been indicated. He then became an unsuitable and unattractive object for the pious Buddhist’s *bhakti*. That deep-rooted feeling found an outlet in the invention and adoration of the *bodhisattvas*.

c6.s1.t1.3

The ideal of *bhakti* arose and flourished among the Buddhists. Some scholars are of opinion that it originated in the Hindu sects and was subsequently adopted by the Buddhists. They think that the *bhakti* literature of the Buddhists is an imitation of Hindu scriptures like the *Bhagavad-gītā*. M. Winternitz says : “It was under the influence of the *bhakti* doctrine of the *Bhagavad-gītā*, . . . that the Mahāyāna Buddhism was developed.”³ H. Kern finds that “the *Sad. Pu.* is full of un-Buddhistic notions, allied with, if not directly taken from, the *Gītā*.”⁴ E. Senart writes : “La tradition bouddhique se meut certainement dans une atmosphère Krishnaite.”⁵ He also thinks that the Buddhists borrowed the idea of *bhakti* from the *Bhāgavata* sect.⁶ K. J. Saunders has tried to show that the author of the *Sad. Pu.* borrowed much from the *Bhagavad-gītā*.⁷ L. de la Vallée Poussin thinks that Buddhism in its entirety is only a form or aspect of Hinduism : “une modalité de l’Hindouisme,” “une cristallisation particulière de l’Hindouisme.”⁸ This view is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the history of religion.

c6.s1.t1.4.1

It is almost certain that the Buddhists were the originators and innovators in several new developments, and the Hindus followed suit. If Buddhism were only a “modality” of Hinduism, the Buddhists would have adopted the whole Hindu pantheon of gods and goddesses instead of exercising their ingenuity and imagination to invent the class of beings known as the *bodhisattvas*. Buddhism had its own independent genius, which kept it distinct from Hinduism during many centuries, as is evident from the oft-recurring significant phrase, “*çramaṇas* and *brāhmaṇas*.” The Hindus priests of India resolutely refused to preserve Buddhist literature or to acknowledge Buddhist metaphysics as an “orthodox” system. Hinduism absorbed the *Bhāgavatas* and other new sects, but Buddhism and Jainism could resist its assimilating power. Buddhism has spread among other Asiatic nations, because it is universal in spirit, like Christianity and Islam; but Hinduism is a national religious and social system, like Confucianism and Judaism. Buddhism borrowed some ideas and institutions from Hinduism, and the latter was indebted to Buddhism for fundamental changes in its ethics and ritual. But both maintained their individuality as systems of doctrine and discipline. The idea of *bhakti* was not a borrowed feather, with which Buddhism adorned itself. It was an integral part of the Buddhist ideal from the earliest times.

c6.s1.t1.4.2

In fact, the very word *bhakti*, as a technical religious term, occurs for the first time in Indian literature in a Buddhist treatise and not in a Hindu scripture. The *Theragāthā* speaks of *bhatti*: “*so bhattimā nāma ca hoti paṇḍito ñatvā ca dhammesu visesi assa*” (p. 41, lines 1-2). This anthology contains verses that go back to the earliest period of the history of Buddhism, and its final redaction took place in the middle of the third century B.C.⁹ But the idea of *bhakti* is found in the ancient Pāli *Nikāyas*: it was called *saddhā* in the fifth century B.C. *Saddhā* was a very important concept in early Buddhism. Faith in the Buddha is repeatedly declared to be essential for the spiritual development of the monks and the laymen.¹⁰ It can even lead to rebirth in a heaven. A novice must “take refuge” first in the Buddha and then in the Doctrine and the Confraternity. It is a great mistake to underestimate the importance of *saddhā* in early Buddhism, which has been wrongly represented as a dry “rationalistic” system of precepts and theories.¹¹ Even in the Pāli canon, the impression left on the reader’s mind is that Gautama Buddha is the centre of the whole movement, and that the Doctrine derives its vitality and importance from his personality. This is true of all great religions and churches.

c6.s1.t1.4.3

When the Christians love and exalt Jesus Christ and the Moslems praise and glorify their Prophet, they evince personal *bhakti*, which can be thoroughly justified by an appeal to history and psychology. Even if the Buddha had advanced no extraordinary claims on his own behalf, his greatness as a man would have given rise to the cult of *bhakti* for him. The disciples of a wise and virtuous teacher must love and revere him personally, even though he should modestly declare that his personality is of no importance. It is Personality that secures the triumph of a religious movement; the dogmas and precepts shine in the light reflected from Personality. Bhakti cannot arise without the historical fact of the life and work of a great man. For this reason, it could not have originated among the metaphysicians of the Upaniṣads, as A. B. Keith has assumed.¹² There was no great man like Buddha or Mahāvīra among them. Apart from the irresistible influence of Personality, the absence of any other objects of adoration led the Buddhists to concentrate their love and devotion on the Buddha. They did not hold the ancient devas in high esteem. They could not have any devotional feeling for them or pray to them. The devas were regarded by the Buddhists as glorified super-men, who enjoyed bliss and power, but who were subject to the law of death and rebirth and needed wisdom and liberation as much as the human beings on earth. They were far inferior to the Buddha in character and knowledge.

c6.s1.t1.4.4

They visited him as disciples and suppliants, and even rendered menial service to him.¹³ Having reduced the great devas of Hinduism to such a subordinate position, the Buddhists had no object of love and devotion except the Buddha himself. They, like all men and women, had hearts as well as brains; and the heart will not be denied its rights, whatever the logicians may say. Man is not merely "a reasoning self-sufficing thing, an intellectual all-in-all". As the Buddhists despised the devas, they put the Buddha in their place. It was therefore quite natural that the ideal of bhakti should first grow and flourish among the Buddhists, and not among the Hindus. As a matter of fact, Viṣṇu and Çiva are mentioned only as secondary deities in the list of devas in the Dīgha-Nikāya (Veṇhu and Isāna).¹⁴ They are not regarded as the equals of the old devas, Brahmā and Çakra. Their cults could not have been very important at that period (fifth century B.C.). Bhakti was chiefly associated in Hinduism with the sects devoted to these two devas. The Bhagavad-gītā also belongs to a much later period (200 B.C. to A.D. 200). It may therefore be inferred on a priori grounds, and also on the basis of historical data, that Buddhism originated the idea of bhakti and did not borrow it from Hinduism. If we find similar epithets applied to Gautama Buddha and Kṛṣṇa in the Sad. Pu.

c6.s1.t1.4.5

and the Bhagavad-gītā,¹⁵ we must conclude that they were first invented by the Buddhists and subsequently adopted and adapted by the Hindu sectarian leaders. The latter tried to find some heroes in their own tradition and discovered Kṛṣṇa and Rāma for their cult of *bhakti*.

c6.s1.t1.5

This stage in the evolution of Buddhism is represented by the two treatises, the *Sad. Pu.* and the *Su. Vy.* In the *Sad. Pu.*, Gautama Buddha is described as the loving Father of all creatures, and all pious Buddhists are exhorted to worship and adore him.¹⁶ The *Su. Vy.* promises rebirth in the Buddha Amitābha’s paradise (*buddha-kṣetra*) to all who should think of him and utter his name with love and devotion.¹⁷ The larger *Su. Vy.* excludes from this privilege all sinners, who have committed any of the five heinous, mortal sins (*ānantaryāṇi*). But the *Amitāyur-dhyāna-sūtra* abolishes this restriction and offers a happy rebirth (not *nirvāṇa*) to all creatures as the reward of *bhakti*.¹⁸ *Bhakti* is directed towards a Buddha at this period.

c6.s1.t1.6.1

The conception of Buddhahood was widened and elaborated under the influence of Jainism and Hindu theology and metaphysics, as has been indicated above. As a consequence, a Buddha ceased to appeal to the popular imagination as an object of devotion. He had been de-humanised and universalised. He was also theoretically far removed from this world of change and sin. He lost Personality and became cosmic Law. As the Hindus could not love or adore the metaphysical *Brahman* of the *Upaniṣads*, but needed deities of flesh and blood for their cult, so the Buddhists too could not approach the idealised and transcendental Buddha of the Mahāyāna with prayer and worship. He had become too great, vast, nebulous, impersonal and incomprehensible for such relations. The Mahāyānists turned in their need to the earlier history of Gautama Buddha, when he was not the remote metaphysical Buddha, but only a charitable, patient and wise *bodhisattva*, a married citizen and a denizen of this work-aday world. As a *bodhisattva*, he had helped many men and women with gifts of wealth and knowledge. He was a more humane and lovable figure at that stage of his career. The pious worshippers could pray to a *bodhisattva* for health, wealth and mundane blessings, and that was all that they really wanted. The cult of *bhakti* is partly an expression of egoism, as it involves supplication for selfish interests.

c6.s1.t1.6.2

Ordinary men and women are more anxious to secure welfare and happiness in this world than to strive for the distant and doubtful goal of Buddhahood. The *bodhisattvas* were thus chosen for worship and adoration in order to satisfy the needs of the devout and pious Buddhists. The *bodhisattva* doctrine may be said to have been the inevitable outcome of the tendency towards *bhakti* and the new conception of Buddhahood. This view seems to be confirmed by the fact that the Hīnayānists, who did not de-humanise and universalise the Buddha, did not feel the necessity of inventing and adoring the *bodhisattvas*. The analogy of other religious movements also proves that uneducated men and women require some attributes of human personality in the superhuman beings, whom they are willing to worship. They feel more at home with such helpers. They shrink from the measureless immensity and unapproachable sublimity of the universal Spirit, whether it is called Brahman, *Dharma-kāya*, Allah or God. The development of saint-worship in Islam and Christianity was due to the same causes as led to the cult of the *bodhisattvas* in Buddhism. Both Islam and Christianity teach that God has personality and love and answers prayers; but millions of Moslems and Christians have found solace in the worship of the saints. They have felt the need of these human intercessors as intermediate objects of worship. They have placed them between God and Man.

c6.s1.t1.6.3

Saint-worship was firmly established in the Christian Church as early as the fourth century A.D., as P. Dörfler and H. Thurston have pointed out.¹⁹ The Moslems, too, are fervent worshippers of their saints. R. A. Nicholson says: “ In Mohammedan religious life, the *walī* occupies the same middle position: he bridges the chasm which the Koran and scholasticism have set between man and an absolutely transcendent God. He brings relief to the distressed, health to the sick, children to the childless, food to the famished. . . . His favour confers blessing.”²⁰ W. M. Patton writes: “ Every neighbourhood in the Muslim world has its patron saint. . . . Since the days of al-Ghazālī (twelfth century A.D.), the Sunnite branch of Islam (excepting the Hanbalite school) has given its approval to the cult of the saints. . . . In reality, the saint is a far more real God to them than Allah is . . . . The Shiahs are enthusiastic worshippers of the saints.”²¹ M. Horten expresses the same opinion: “ Der Heiligen-kultus hat im islamischen Volke eine ungeheure Ausdehnung gewonnen, von der die zahllosen heiligen Stätten (die Gräber von Heiligen), Feste und sonstige Gebräuche ein beredtes Zeugnis ablegen.”²² The universal practice of saint-worship shows that it has satisfied certain fundamental needs of human nature at a certain stage of intellectual development.

c6.s1.t1.7

The Buddhists invented their class of saints (*bodhisattvas*) chiefly by personifying the different virtues and attributes of Gautama Buddha’s personality. They also took up certain epithets that were applied to Gautama Buddha, and converted them into the names of some *bodhisattvas*. The *bodhisattvas* thus derive their existence and attributes from the central historical fact of Gautama Buddha’s life and work. The two chief *bodhisattvas*, Mañjuçrī and Avalokiteçvara, are personifications of Wisdom (*prajñā*) and Mercy (*karuṇā*) respectively. Maitreya typifies *maitrī* (friendliness). Some other *bodhisattvas* owe their names to the adjectives that were first employed to describe the great Teacher. Buddha is spoken of as “*samantato bhadraka*” and “*samanta-bhadra-kāya*” (auspicious or excellent in all ways) in the *Ava. Ça.* and the *Lal. V.*; and we find that Samantabhadra is the name of a *bodhisattva*.23 Even “Mañjuçrī” may perhaps be derived from *mañju-ghoṣa* and *mañju-svara*, as these two epithets are used to describe Buddha’s voice.24 Çāntideva in fact refers to this *bodhisattva* as “*ajita-mañju-ghoṣa*” (*B.C. Ava.* ii, 13). In other cases, the descriptive titles of the Hindu *devas* have been transferred to the *bodhisattvas*. Thus Brahmā is described as “*mahā-bala-sthāma-prāpta*” in the *Da. Bhū.* (81.31), and an important *bodhisattva* is called Mahāsthāma-prāpta (having great strength).25 Such names as Vajra-pāṇi and Kṣiti-garbha also suggest the influence of Hindu mythology.

(2) The Influence of Hinduism

c6.s1.t2.1

Although the idea of *bhakti* originated among the Buddhists and was adopted in self-defence by the Hindus, yet the new sects, which arose after the fifth century B.C., exercised a profound influence on the further development of Buddhism. They established the cults of certain *devas* and deified heroes, and the Buddhists were compelled to endow their Buddhas and *bodhisattvas* with similar attributes and powers.

c6.s1.t2.2

The *Bhāgavata* sect, which was probably founded in the fifth century B.C. in the west of India, inculcated the worship of Bhagavat (the Adorable) as the supreme Deity and was almost monotheistic. In course of time, the *Bhāgavatas* came to identify Vāsudeva with Bhagavat and the ancient sun-god Viṣṇu. This name *Vāsudeva* has been explained as referring to Kṛṣṇa, who is mentioned as a hero and also as a divine Incarnation in the *Mahābhārata*. He is also supposed to have been the disciple of Ghora Āṅgirasa, the sage mentioned in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*. It is not relevant to our purpose to discuss whether Kṛṣṇa was a warrior, a religious leader, a tribal god, a solar deity or the spirit of vegetation.²⁶ But the existence of a sect of *Vāsudeva*-worshippers at this period explains certain features of the *bodhisattva* doctrine. This sect is mentioned in the *Mahāniddesa* (vol. i, p. 89, lines 19–20 : “*Vāsudeva-vattikā vāhonti*”). *Vāsudeva* as a deity is also spoken of by Pāṇini in his grammar (“*Vāsudevārjunābhyāṃ vun*,” iv, 3, 98, page 198; *bhaktiḥ*, iv, 3, 95, page 197). Several inscriptions of the second century B.C. also refer to the cult of *Vāsudeva*, e.g.

c6.s1.t2.3

“*Devadevāsa Vā(sude)vasa garuḍadhvaj(ō)ayam.*”
(Besnagar inscription, J.R.A.S., 1909, p. 1055, line 16.)
(Epigraphia Indica X, H. Lüder’s list, No. 669.)
“*janā bhagavabhyā sakaṣaṇa-vāsudevābhyām.*”
(Ghasundi inscription, J.R.A.S., 1887, vol. lvi, Part I, page 78, line 10.) (Epigraphia Indica X, H. Lüder’s list, No. 6.)

c6.s1.t2.4

These inscriptions date from the second century B.C. Megasthenes, who lived as an ambassador at the court of Candragupta about 300 B.C.,²⁷ declared that the Indians worshipped Herakles : “This Herakles is held in especial honour by the Sourasenoi, an Indian tribe who possess two large cities, Methora and Cleisobora.”²⁸ As Mathurā was a centre of Kṛṣṇa-worship, it is supposed that Megasthenes refers to Kṛṣṇa as “Herakles”. Historical evidence thus establishes the existence of the powerful *bhakti*-cult of the worshippers of *Vāsudeva* in the centuries that followed the rise of Buddhism. The Çaiva sect was making progress during the same period. Çiva is spoken of in the *Çvetāçvatara Upaniṣad* as *bhagavān*, and devotion to him is inculcated.

c6.s1.t2.5

“*sarva-vyāpī sa bhagavāṃs tasmāt sarva-gataḥ çivaḥ*”
(iii, 11, page 50).
“*devam ātma-buddhi-prakāçam . . . çaraṇam aham prapadye*” (vi, 18, page 73).

c6.s1.t2.6

This Upaniṣad is assigned to a date posterior to Buddhism. Çiva is also praised in the Mahābhārata, but the chronology of that immense poetical encyclopædia is uncertain.²⁹ Patañjali mentions a Çaiva sect in his commentary on Pāṇini’s grammar (about 150 B.C.—“Kim yo ayaḥ-çūlen-anvicchati sa ayaḥ-çūlikaḥ kim cātaḥ Çiva bhāgavate prāpnoti,” v, 2, 76; vol. ii, page 387—“apanya ity-ucyate tatr-edam na sidhyati çivaḥ skandaḥ viçākha iti,” v. 3, 99; vol. ii, page 429). The Çaivas are also mentioned along with the Vāsudeva-worshippers in the Milinda-pañha (p. 191, lines 6 ff., “sivā vāsudevā ghanikā”). The sect of the Pāçupatas, who worshipped Çiva, existed in the second century B.C., if not earlier.³⁰ Megasthenes wrote that the Indians also worshipped “Dionysos”: “The Indians worship the other gods, and Dionysos himself in particular, with cymbals and drums . . . he instructed the Indians to let their hair grow long in honour of the god.”³¹ This “Dionysos” has been identified with Çiva. The cumulative evidence of all these historical data points to the existence of a vigorous sect of Çiva-worshippers, who had chosen the ancient Rudra and Içāna of the Veda as their deity.

c6.s1.t2.7

These sects were soon controlled and assimilated by the Hindu priests, who were exerting themselves to stem the tide of Buddhism. The great revival of Hinduism under the Çunga dynasty in the second century B.C. obliged the Buddhists to develop new methods of popular propaganda. As E. W. Hopkins has pointed out, the second century B.C. was a critical period in the history of Buddhism.³² The palmy days of royal patronage had ended with the fall of the Maurya dynasty in 184 B.C.,³³ and Buddhism had to fight for its life against the Brahmins, who had converted the Bhāgavatas and the Çaivas into their allies. The arhats were becoming too meditative and inert. The Buddhist leaders, who inaugurated the Mahāyāna movement, saved Buddhism from shipwreck by popularising it and inventing compassionate bodhisattvas as Buddhist counterparts of the Hindu deities and their Incarnations. Their methods bear a strong resemblance to the devices employed by the Christian Church in its struggle against the other religions of the Roman Empire.

(3) Persian Religion and Culture

c6.s1.t3.1

Persia was a great empire from the time of Cyrus to the invasion of Alexander, and Darius I annexed the valley of the Indus about 518 B.C.³⁴ Persian culture continued to exercise considerable influence on the nations of Asia during many centuries. Persia and India were close neighbours, and the Persians were in many respects more advanced in civilisation than the Indians. D. B. Spooner’s fantastic theory of the Persian origin of the Çākyas and the Mauryas is now dead and buried;³⁵ but India certainly borrowed much from Persia during this period. The lion-capital of Aço-ka’s pillar at Sārnāth, the architecture of the palaces at Pāṭaliputra and certain usages of the Maurya court point to the influence of Persian culture.³⁶ Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia, may also have contributed to the rise of the bodhisattva doctrine in India. We know that it supplied a great deal of mythology to Judaism. Its fravashis and amesa-spentas bear a certain resemblance to the bodhisattvas.³⁷ The six amesa-spentas (immortal holy or beneficent ones, archangels), who are associated with Ahura-Mazdah, are personified abstractions, and the chief bodhisattvas are also really personifications of Wisdom and Love. The amesa-spentas are asa (Truth, Order, Right), vohu manah (Good Thought), aramaiti (Piety), hauravatāt (Welfare, Salvation, Wholeness), Kshathra or Kshathra-vairya (Dominion) and amèrètat (Immortality). The fravashis may be compared to the bodhisattvas in the Tuṣita heaven. Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Buddhism more directly through the cult of sun-worship, which was introduced into India in the third century B.C.³⁸ Sun-worship is referred to in the Dīgha-Nikāya (i, 11, line 21), and it is ridiculed in the Ādiccupatthāna-jātaka (Jātaka ii, pp. 72-3). Many familiar names of the Mahāyāna are suggestive of sun-worship, e.g. Amitābha (Measureless Light), Vairocana (the Brilliant One), Dīpaṅkara (Light-maker). Gautama Buddha himself is called āditya-bandhu (Kinsman of the Sun).³⁹ The Magas (Magi) are mentioned in Indian literature as the priests of the temples of the Sun in north-western India.⁴⁰ It is probable that they established an organised sect of sun-worshippers on the basis of Zoroastrianism and the ancient Indian domestic rites of sun-worship. The solar myth penetrated deep into every phase of Buddhism, and many bodhisattvas were endowed with solar attributes.

(4) Greek Art

c6.s1.t4.1

The art of Gandhāra in north-western India was based on the ideals and methods of Hellenic sculpture as applied to the representation of Buddhist subjects. The figure of Buddha appears first in Gandhāra art; he was represented only by symbols at Bharhut and Sāñchī. The Greek invaders, immigrants and sculptors thus taught the Buddhists the value of clear-cut definite personality, and the Buddhists invented their pantheon of bodhisattvas in order to worship half-divine half-human beings, such as the Hellenic gods were.⁴¹

(5) Propaganda Among New Tribes

c6.s1.t5.1

During the centuries that followed Alexander's invasion of India, the north-western part of India was repeatedly overrun by foreign invaders like the Pahlavas, the Çakas and the Kuṣāṇas. It was a real meeting-place of nations. The Kuṣāṇas established a vast empire. H. G. Rawlinson says: “These great rulers, about whom we know only too little, built up a vast empire, comprising a variety of nationalities. In the Panjāb were semi-Asiatic Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, Hindus. In Afghanistan and Baktria, besides the remnants of the older Scythian and Iranian settlers, were Greeks, Parthians, and their own countrymen from Central Asia.” ⁴² This international atmosphere favoured the introduction of new ideas in Buddhism. The Buddhists grappled with the task of converting these sturdy and semi-barbarous tribes to their faith. Polytheism had to be tolerated and even rendered attractive. The bodhisattva doctrine exalted Love and Activity and peopled the heavens with gracious Beings, who could be worshipped. It is likely that some deities of the new tribes were adopted as bodhisattvas. This period in the history of Buddhism corresponds to the mediæval period of Christianity, when the Teutons of Central Europe were converted.

(6) Christianity

c6.s1.t6.1.1

As the bodhisattva doctrine was formulated before the advent of Christianity, there can be no question of Christian influence with regard to the origin of the new ideal. Christianity certainly influenced the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism at a later period and was also influenced by Buddhism to some extent. There were several channels of communication between the Buddhists and the Christian countries of Western Asia, Africa and Europe. The Buddhists could establish intercourse with the Christians in Alexandria, Southern India and Central Asia. Clement of Alexandria (*c.* A.D. 150–*c.* 215) mentions the presence of Indians at Alexandria and also refers to Buddha and the "Samanas".⁴³ Porphyry, the Neo-Platonist (233–*c.* 304), gives interesting details from the lost work of Bardesanes, the Gnostic teacher, who wrote about the Indian monasteries.⁴⁴ St. Jerome (*c.* A.D. 340–420) speaks of Buddha in connection with the dogma of the virgin-birth.⁴⁵ The Gnostics, who were numerous in the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era, borrowed some ideas from Buddhism, though one need not regard the word "gnosis" as the equivalent of *bodhi* or compare their three "qualities" to the *guṇas* of the *Sāṅkhya* system.⁴⁶ Analogy does not always imply a common source. But it is certain that the Indian religion was not unknown to the leaders of the Christian Church during the second and succeeding centuries. Further, there is the tradition that St.

c6.s1.t6.1.2

Thomas visited India and preached to King Gondophares. It is not possible to determine if this legend is true or false. R. Garbe rejects it, but A. E. Medlycott is of opinion that "the Apostle Thomas had entered King Gondophares' dominions in the course of his apostolic career". E. W. Hopkins also regards the tradition as worthy of credit.⁴⁷ But the story of the Apostle's martyrdom is intrinsically improbable, as the Indians did not approve of religious persecution. They have always been very tolerant and broad-minded, and there is no reason why a solitary innocent preacher should have been put to death. The Indians were free from the fanaticism of the Jews and the calculating cruelty of the Roman imperialists. Another missionary, St. Pantaenus (second century A.D.), is mentioned by Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian.⁴⁸ Apart from these doubtful traditions, the existence of a Christian community in Southern India during the sixth century is attested by the Egyptian writer, Kosmas Indikopleustes.⁴⁹ G. A. Grierson indeed thinks that India learned the *bhakti* doctrine from this Christian Church;⁵⁰ but *bhakti* was inseparably associated with early Buddhism, as has been indicated above. It was not, however, in Alexandria or the Deccan that Christianity and Buddhism exercised that mutual influence, which cannot be doubted or denied. They met and mingled in Central Asia and Syria.

c6.s1.t6.1.3

Açoka sent Buddhist missionaries to Bactria and Syria in the third century B.C.,⁵¹ and Buddhism was known in those regions during the centuries that witnessed the rise and growth of the Mahāyāna. Buddhism and Christianity borrowed much from each other. Diligent investigators have discovered many striking parallels between Christian and Buddhist legends, rites, miracles and precepts, which need not be discussed in detail.⁵² Many of these alleged analogies are very superficial and unconvincing. But two great religious systems, which were in close contact with each other, must have exercised some mutual influence, as is evident from the fact that the very word *bodhisattva* has been taken over by the Greek and Roman Churches in the name of “St. Josaphat”⁵³. It is not the right method to collect isolated passages from the *Bhagavad-gītā* and then proceed to trace them to Christian influence, as E. W. Hopkins and F. Lorinser have done.⁵⁴ Even if we could find precisely similar phrases in the Gospels and the *Gītā*, the fact would remain that the spirit of the Gospels is not the spirit of the *Gītā*. The ideals of life taught by the two scriptures are fundamentally different. The *Gītā* teaches pantheism, caste-duty, asceticism, war and intellectual insight; the Gospels inculcate monotheism, loving service, social equality, peace and faith. In the same way, it is idle to compare the two parables of the lost son in the *Sad.

c6.s1.t6.1.4

Pu.* and the New Testament, as the moral of the stories is not the same. They are intended to illustrate quite different ideas. If we apply this test, we should not attach much importance to the Madonna-worship, the fish-symbol, the story of the temptation, the episodes of Simeon and Asita, the miracles of walking on the water or multiplying food, Nathanael’s fig-tree, the scenes of transfiguration, and other such external and secondary matters as have been discussed by van der B. van Eysinga and R. Seydel.⁵⁵ We should try to discover where and how the Mahāyāna was really influenced by Christian ideas and ideals. A religion is distinguished and defined only by its *spirit*. We may safely assert that the spirit of the later Mahāyāna is not the same as that of the earlier Mahāyāna. Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu follow the real Indian tradition in attaching equal importance to Wisdom and Love, and even stressing the former more than the latter. But Çāntideva seems to ignore *prajñā* (Wisdom) altogether, though he offers lip-homage to it. He moves in an entirely different atmosphere: he talks with genuine feeling of sin and service, confession and forgiveness. His ideal of perfection is different from that of the earlier Mahāyānists. He seems to have drunk deep at some other fountain. *If* Christianity has at all influenced Indian thought, we shall look in vain for that influence in the *Bhagavad-gītā* or the *Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka*.

c6.s1.t6.1.5

We shall perhaps find it in that remarkable poem, the *Bodhi-cary-āvatāra*. It has been compared to Thomas à Kempis’s “Imitation of Christ”, but it is more Christian in spirit than that manual of a mere monk. Here, if anywhere, we may discern some traces of external influence, as a new spirit is in evidence. The Mahāyāna was true to its genius in thus assimilating foreign ideals, which were very similar to its own. There is indeed much in common between Christianity and the later Mahāyāna, though it is not quite correct to speak of “theistic Buddhism”,56 a misleading phrase coined by J. E. Carpenter.

Phases of Development of the Doctrine

c6.s2.1

The *bodhisattva* doctrine probably originated in the second century B.C. The word *bodhisatta* is very old and occurs in the *Pāli Nikāyas*. Gautama Buddha speaks of himself as a *bodhisatta*, when he refers to the time before the attainment of Enlightenment. This seems to be the earliest signification of the word. It was applied to Gautama Buddha as he was in his last earthly life before the night of Enlightenment. The following clause recurs frequently in the *Majjhima-Nikāya*: “In the days before my Enlightenment, when as yet I was only a *bodhisatta*, etc.”57 The word also seems to be used only in connection with a Buddha’s last life in the *Mahāpadāna-sutta* (*Dīgha-Nikāya* ii, 13) and the *Acchariya-abbhuta-dhamma-sutta* (*Majjhima-Nikāya* iii, 119). In the *Kathā-vatthu*, certain questions are raised with regard to the *bodhisatta*’s actions; the signs on his body, his rebirth in a state of woe, and the possibility of his harbouring heretical opinions or practising asceticism are discussed.58 It is clear that the previous lives of Gautama Buddha and other saints have now begun to excite interest and speculation. But there was no new systematic doctrine in the middle of the third century B.C., when the *Kathā-vatthu* was composed. The idea of a *bodhisattva*’s renunciation of personal *nirvāna* is stated clearly and unequivocally in the *Pr. Pā Aṣṭa.*; and *bodhi* is set up as the new ideal in the *Sad. Pu.* These treatises belong mainly to the first century B.C. We may infer that the Mahāyāna doctrine in its earliest form was definitely formulated in the second century B.C. This was also the period of the Hindu revival under the Śuṅga dynasty. Most scholars are of opinion that the Mahāyāna doctrine originated in the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. M. Walleser says: “Welchen Umfang die Herstellung von Mahāyānasūtras zur zeit des dritten Konzils des Kaniṣka . . . . . erreicht hat, erhellt aus der Notiz des Tāranātha, dass damals die 1,000 Abschnitte umfassende Ratnakūtagruppe und das ebenso umfangreiche Avataṃsaka entstanden sein . . . . . . so ist andererseits doch nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass die grosse Masse der Mahāyānasūtras noch in die vorchristliche Zeit zurückreicht.” 59 W. McGovern writes: “The religious aspect of the Mahāyāna developed sometime immediately prior to the Christian era.” K. Saunders assigns the date 50 B.C.–A.D. 50 to what he calls “the half-way Mahāyāna”. S. Dutt suggests 100 B.C. for the first beginnings of the Mahāyāna. We may regard the second century B.C. as the chronological starting-point for the development of the bodhisattva doctrine.

c6.s2.2

In the course of several centuries (second century B.C. to seventh century A.D.), the bodhisattva doctrine was modified in its essential features. The chief lines of development may be indicated as follows :—

c6.s2.3

(1) In the early Mahāyāna, the bodhisattvas are inferior and subordinate to the Buddhas; but they acquire greater importance in course of time till they are at last regarded as equal to the Buddhas in many respects. They are also endowed with ten balas, four vaiçāradyas and eighteen āveṇika-dharmas.60 They are to be worshipped like the Buddhas, or even in preference to them. This gradual exaltation of the bodhisattvas at the expense of the Buddhas culminates in the apotheosis of Avalokiteçvara, who is declared to be a kind of “Buddha-maker”. He helps others to acquire Buddhahood, while he himself remains the eternal bodhisattva.

c6.s2.4

(2) In the early Mahāyāna, Wisdom and Mercy are regarded as equally important, and a bodhisattva must possess the double Equipment of Knowledge and Merit (jñāna-sambhāra, puṇya-sambhāra).61 In fact, Wisdom is considered to be somewhat more important than Mercy. Mañjuçrī, who represents Wisdom, is invoked in the opening verses of several treatises, and he is praised in the *Sad. Pu.* The glorification of Wisdom reaches its climax in the writings of the *Mādhyamika* school of philosophy, which was founded by Nāgārjuna in the second century A.D. *Prajñā* is extolled *ad nauseam*, while Mercy (*karuṇā*) is not discussed in detail. But the later Mahāyāna emphasizes Mercy more than Wisdom. It is emotional rather than argumentative. It sometimes seems to ignore and discard Wisdom altogether, as when it declares that *karuṇā* is the one thing needful for a *bodhisattva*.62 As this ideal gains ground, the *bodhisattva* Avalokiteçvara increases in importance till he becomes the supreme and unique *bodhisattva*. The Mahāyāna slowly passes from the ascendancy of Mañjuçrī to the reign of Avalokiteçvara.

c6.s2.5

(3) The early Mahāyāna attaches equal importance to social life and to ascetic retirement from the world. It is, in fact, inclined to exalt the layman-householder and the women in comparison with the solitary recluses. But the later Mahāyāna reverts to the old ideal of celibacy and forest-life.63 The monk triumphs in the end even in the Mahāyāna, and an inferior position is assigned to family life and to women.

c6.s2.6

(4) Many practices of Yoga are borrowed from external sources by the *Vijñāna-vādin* (or *Yogācāra, Yogācārya*) school of philosophers (fourth century A.D.). A *bodhisattva* is described as the *yogin* par excellence. The number of *samādhis* (modes of Concentration) is increased, and wonderful properties are ascribed to them.64 *Yoga*, which is endemic in India, is accepted as an integral part of the *bodhisattva* doctrine.

c6.s2.7

(5) The quest of *bodhi* (Enlightenment) is relegated to the background, while active Altruism in this world of sin and suffering is regarded as almost sufficient in itself. The early Mahāyāna teaches that altruistic activity is one of the means of attaining Enlightenment, which is the goal. But the later Mahāyāna seems to forget even that far-off destination and prefers to loiter on the way. A *bodhisattva* need not be in a hurry to win *bodhi* and become a Buddha, as he can help and succour all living beings more effectively during his mundane career as a *bodhisattva*.65 This idea also resulted in the subordination of the Buddhas to the *bodhisattvas*. There is a marked tendency to regard Altruism as an end in itself. Avalokiteçvara does not seem to think seriously of becoming a Buddha.

c6.s2.8

(6) The early Mahāyāna recognises an oligarchy of *bodhisattvas*, and eight are mentioned as a group of equal rank.66

c6.s2.9

Perhaps Mañjuçrī is regarded as *primus inter pares*. In the later Mahāyāna, the oligarchy is changed into an absolute monarchy. Avalokiteçvara is first and the rest nowhere. He absorbs all the virtues, powers, functions and prerogatives of the other *bodhisattvas*, because he is the Lord of Mercy. He occupies the supreme position in the Universe and reigns without a rival.

c6.s2.10

Karuṇā (mercy, pity, love, compassion) and its personified symbol, Avalokiteçvara, are all-in-all. This is the last word and the consummation of the Mahāyāna.

c6.s2.11

III.

Mañjuçrī and Avalokiteçvara

c6.s3.1

Many eminent *bodhisattvas* are named in the Sanskrit treatises, e.g. Mañjuçrī, Avalokiteçvara, Samanta-bhadra, Gagaṇa-ganja, Vajra-pāṇi, Vajra-garbha, Sarva-nivaraṇa-viṣkambhī, Kṣiti-garbha, Kha-garbha, Vyūha-rāja, Indra-jālī, Ratna-garbha, etc. But only a few are really important. Mahāsthāma-prāpta is one of the two active ministers in the Buddha *Amitābha's* paradise *Sukhāvatī*, and Vajra-garbha figures in the *Da. Bhū.* Samanta-bhadra promises to protect all preachers (*Sad. Pu.*, chapter 26); Vajra-pāṇi is described as the chief of Buddha's servants (*Çikṣā* 316, 7). But all these are rather shadowy figures. The two most important *bodhisattvas* are Mañjuçrī and Avalokiteçvara.

c6.s3.2

Mañjuçrī ("Gentle Glory," "Sweet Splendour"). He is named in the *Sad. Pu.* (chapter 11), and is regarded as a master of wisdom and knowledge. He has trained and disciplined many *bodhisattvas* (*Sad. Pu.*, p. 261). He has been aptly called "a male Athene, all intellect and chastity".67 The epithet "kumāra" or "kumāra-bhūta" is often applied to him. It has been interpreted as "ever young" or "prince royal, a consecrated heir of the Buddha". S. C. Das explains that he is so called, because he observes celibacy (J.B.T.S., vol. i, p. 39, 1893). But this title does not present any problem, as it is also conferred on other very ordinary *bodhisattvas* (*Pr. Pā. Çata.* 30—*Kar. Pu.* 106—*Sam. Rā*, fol. 95*a*, 4). The passage in the *Kar. Pu.* shows that it means "young", as a *bodhisattva* is said to become a *kumāra*, "twenty years old". E. W. Hopkins thinks that Mañjuçrī was a missionary in northern India 68; but we do not possess any historical data about him, and he is associated with the ocean in the *Sad. Pu.* The title “*kumāra*” is probably nothing more than a complimentary epithet for the *bodhisattvas*, who are regarded as “ever youthful”, and perhaps also as “princes of Buddha’s realm”.

c6.s3.3

Avalokiteçvara. This name has been translated in different ways :—

c6.s3.4

“The Lord, who sees, or looks down.” “The Lord, who is seen or manifested, or is everywhere visible.” “The Lord of what is seen, of the visible world.” “The Lord, who is seen on high” (i.e. by Amitābha Buddha, as a small Buddha-figure is often placed in the head of the statues of Avalokiteçvara). “The Lord, who looks from high” (i.e. from the mountains, where he lives, like Çiva). “The Lord of View.” “Lord of compassionate glances.” “The Lord of the dead and the dying.”

c6.s3.5

The Pāli verb *oloketi* means “to look at, to look down or over, to examine, inspect, consider”. The word *avalokita* may have an active signification, and the name would mean, “the lord who sees (the world with pity)”. The Tibetan equivalent is *spyan-ras-gzigs* (the lord, who looks with eyes). The *Kāraṇḍa-vyūha* explains that he is so called, because he regards with compassion all beings suffering from the evils of existence. According to N. D. Mironov, the original form of the name was *avalokita-svara*, which has been found in the fragments of the manuscript of the *Sad. Pu.* brought by Count K. Otani’s expedition from E. Turkestan.69 It is a remarkable fact that Sanghavarman (third century), Dharmarakṣa and other early translators translated the name into Chinese as *kuang-shih-yin* (illuminating the sounds of the world). J. Edkins says : “*Kuan* (looks on), *shih* (the ‘region’ of sufferers), *yin* (whose voices of many tones, all acknowledging misery and asking salvation, touch the heart of the pitiful *Bodhisattva*).” 70 The Chinese equivalent of the form *avalokiteçvara* (*kuan-tzŭ-tsai*) appeared first in Yuan Chwang’s writings in the seventh century. It has been objected that *avalokita-svara* is a queer sort of compound, which would convey no clear meaning to an Indian.71 But the present form is also a puzzling compound which cannot be interpreted with any degree of certainty. It may be inferred that the Chinese knew the form *avalokita-svara*, but it was subsequently changed to *avalokiteçvara* on account of the confusion between *lok-eçvara* and *avalokita-svara*. There was probably some Çivaite influence. A tentative suggestion may be offered: the word *avalokita* may mean "wisdom", as it is employed in the *Mtu.* to denote the essence of Buddha's Enlightenment (*Mtu.*, ii, 294, 2). There is also a *samādhi*, called *avalokita-mudrā* (*Pr. Pā. Çata*, p. 483). In that case, the name would mean "Lord of Wisdom". This interpretation is neither better nor worse than those mentioned above, all of which are unsatisfactory. There is also no valid reason for associating this *bodhisattva* with the dead and the dying: such an idea is not found in the texts that describe his activities.

c6.s3.6

*Avalokiteçvara* is the chief minister in the Buddha *Amitābha*'s paradise (*Sad. Pu.*, chapter xxiv). He is also regarded as an emanation of that Buddha. He is not mentioned by name in the early treatises like the *Mtu.* and the *Lal. V.* But he is prominent in the supplementary portion of the *Sad. Pu.* and in the *Su. Vy.* and the *Kā. Vy.* In the *M. Vy.* (Section 23), he stands at the head of a list of ninety-one *bodhisattvas*. His origin is obscure. K. J. Saunders thinks that he is a sun-god of Central Asia.⁷² M. Winternitz refers to the story of King Vipaçcit in the *Mārkaṇḍeya-purāṇa* and says: "This king is a counterpart, perhaps a forerunner, of the *bodhisattva* *Avalokiteçvara* in Mahāyāna Buddhism".⁷³ He can hardly be a "forerunner", as the Buddhist texts mentioning *Avalokiteçvara* are certainly older than this *purāṇa*. *Avalokiteçvara*'s name, his association with *Amitābha*, his lordly and leisurely movements throughout the Universe, the stress laid on his "eyes" (*Sad. Pu.*, 452, 2), his capacity of illuminating the world (*Su. Vy.*, 56, 5), and his epithet of *samanta-mukha* point to a solar deity. The cult of *Avalokiteçvara* seems to be a Buddhist adaptation of the sun-worship of the Sauras and the Magi.

c6.s3.7

As a *bodhisattva*, *Avalokiteçvara* is the personification of Mercy. He abrogates and nullifies the old law of *karma*, as he visits the purgatory of *avīci* and makes it a cool and pleasant place (*Kā. Vy.*, p. 6). He goes to the realm of the *pretas* and gives them plenty of food and drink; they thus regain a normal figure. The beings, who are liberated from these realms, are reborn in the paradise of *Sukhāvatī*. In the purgatories, he creates a lake of honey and wonderful lotuses, which are as large as chariot-wheels. He visits the demonesses (*rākṣasīs*) in Ceylon and they fall in love with him; but he converts them to the true religion (*Kā. Vy.*, p. 43). In the country of Magadha, he finds that the people have become cannibals on account of a famine: he helps them by raining down water, rice, cereals, clothes and other things (*Kā. Vy.*, p. 47). In Benares, he assumes the shape of a bee and preaches to the worms and insects in their foul and humble abode. They seem to hear this buzzing sound (*ghuṇa-ghuṇāyamānam ṣabdam*): "Salutation to Buddha." They are reborn as *bodhisattvas* in Sukhāvatī. Such are Avalokiteçvara's deeds of mercy.

c6.s3.8

It is distinctly stated in the *Kā. Vy.* that Avalokiteçvara is much greater than the Buddhas in Merit, intelligence and sphere of influence (*Kā. Vy.*, pp. 14, 19, 23). His Merit is incalculable, like drops of rain falling continually for a year (p. 19). He is the father and mother of all (pp. 48, 66). The devotee, who recites his name, is freed from pain; and the man or woman, who worships him with one flower, is reborn as a *deva* (pp. 48, 49).

c6.s3.9

The apotheosis of Avalokiteçvara culminates in identifying him with the Spirit of the Universe and bestowing on him all the attributes of Brahman and Īçvara. He has a hundred thousand arms and several millions of eyes. The sun and moon have sprung from his eyes, Brahmā and other gods from his shoulders, *Nārāyaṇa* from his heart, and *Sarasvatī* from his teeth. He has innumerable pores (*roma-vivara*), which are intangible, like space (p. 62). In each pore there are many Buddhas, gods, mountains of gold and silver, etc. Pious worshippers can be reborn in these pores and attain felicity (p. 67). Above all, they should learn and recite the mysterious formula, "*Om maṇipadme hūṃ*," which is called "the lore of six letters or syllables". It is Avalokiteçvara's special gift to the world and leads to *mokṣa* (Liberation). This seems to be an invocation of a female deity, "the deity of the jewel-lotus." F. W. Thomas and A. H. Francke have shown that the popular interpretation is incorrect (*Om*, "the Jewel in the Lotus").⁷⁴ With this formula, we enter the dark realm of Çakti-worship and Mantra-yāna, which should be clearly distinguished from the historical Mahāyāna.

Cites (30)