Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s1: 1. Is Buddha human?

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s1

Language
English

1. Is Buddha human?

v2.c34.s1.1

In Vasumitra’s treatise the Buddhas are described as *lokottara* (supramundane), and as such he is made of *anāsrava dharmas*¹ (pure qualities, without sleep or dream which are concomitants of *sāsrava dharmas*). Buddhas have unlimited *rūpa-kāyas* (material bodies), powers (*balas*), length of life (*āyu*), etc.

v2.c34.s1.2

¹ Masuda renders it as “no sāsrava dharmas.” The rendering, I would prefer, is “anāsrava dharmas,” i.e. Buddhas are embodiment of anāsrava dharmas, viz., silaskandha, samādhisk., prajñāsk., vimuktisk. and vimuktijñānadarśanask. not of rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa which are sāsrava dharmas. See my *Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna* (henceforth indicated as *Aspects*), p. 108.

v2.c34.s1.3

In the *Kathāvatthu* (XVII. 1 & 2) the above doctrines are attributed to the Vetulyakas, according to whom the Buddha does not live in the world of men neither should he be located anywhere and it is his created form (*abhinimmito jino*) that delivered the religious discourses. The Theravādins account for this heresy by saying that it is due to the literal but wrong interpretation of the passage: *Bhagavā loke jāto loke sambuddho lokam abhibhuyya viharati anupalitto lokenā ti* (Buddha, born and enlightened in this world, overcame this world and remained untouched by the things of the world—*Sam. Nik.*, iii. 140). This is supplemented by further discussions in the *Kvu.*, (XVIII. 1, 2 & XXI. 6) relating to the heresies also attributed to the Vetulyakas, viz., *Na vattabbam*, “*Buddho Bhagavā manussaloke aṭṭhāsī*” ti (It should not be said that Buddha lived in the world of men—XVIII. 1); *Sabbā disā Buddhā tiṭṭhantī ti*¹ (Buddhas exist in all corners of the world—XXI. 6) and *Abhinimmitena desito ti* (the discourses are delivered by created forms—XVIII. 2). These show that according to the opponents of the Theravādins the Buddha is omnipresent and as such is beyond the possibility of location in any particular direction or sphere and that all the preaching of Buddhism has been done by the apparitional images of Buddha.

v2.c34.s1.4

¹ This is the opinion of the Mahāsanghikas only according to the *Kvu.*

v2.c34.s1.5

Buddhaghosa with his usual naïvety understood the Vetulyakas as holding the opinion that Buddha remained always in the Tusita heaven, where he was before he came to this world. The discussions in the *Kathāvatthu* as also the terse statements of Vasumitra leave no doubt about the fact that the Mahāsanghikas (specially their offshoots,—the Vetulyakas and the Lokottaravādins) regarded Buddha as transcendental. Masuda suggests that the *sambhogakāya* of Buddha is referred to in the heresies, but the time of emergence of the conception of *sambhogakāya* is still a matter of controversy.¹ From the discussion in the *Kathāvatthu* (XXI. 5) concerning "atthi Buddhānaṃ Buddhehi hinātirekatā ti (whether Buddhas mutually differ?) it seems that the Andhakas (another offshoot of the Mahāsaṅghikas) were still concerned with the *Sambhogakāya* and had not yet arrived at the conception of the *Dharmakāya*. Buddhaghosa says that the Andhakas hold that Buddhas differ from one another in some qualities other than attainments like *satipaṭṭhāna*, *sammāppadhāna*, etc., the orthodox school holding that Buddhas may differ in respect of *sarīra* (body), *āyu* (length of life) and *pabhāva* (radiance) but not in regard to the attainments mentioned above. The discussion in the *Kvu.* (XVIII. 3) shows that the Uttarāpathakas held the views that Buddhas can have no *karuṇā* (compassion), and that Buddha's body is made of *anāsrava dharmas*. In the *Mahāvastu* (I, p. 167-8) the conception of *lokottara* Buddha appears thus:—Transcendental are the practices of Bhagavān, and so are his *kuśalamūlas*, his eating, drinking and such other daily actions. He follows the ways of the world just as much as he follows the transcendental ways.² He makes a show of standing, walking and other *iriyāpathas*, but he never gets tired. He washes his feet or body though there is no dirt to wash; he cleanses his teeth though his mouth smells like a lotus;¹ he eats though he has no hunger, and so forth. These are all due to his being an embodiment of the effects of good actions.² There is nothing in common between Him and the beings of the world. Everything of the great ṛṣi is transcendental including his advent into the world.³

v2.c34.s1.6

¹ Masuda's opinion, however, can be supported by the fact that in the *Mahāvastu* (I, p. 169) Buddha's *kāya* is equated to *niṣyandakāya* rendered into Chinese by *pao sheng* which is also the rendering of *sambhogakāya*, see my *Aspects*, pp. 117, 120.

v2.c34.s1.7

² *Mahāvastu*, I, p. 168: लोकानुवर्तनां बुद्धा अनुवर्तन्ति लौकिकौ । प्रज्ञप्रिमनुवर्तन्ति यथा लोकोत्तरामापि ॥

v2.c34.s1.8

¹ Cf. Kvu. XVIII. 4: Buddhassa Bhagavato uccārapassāvo ativiya aññe gandhajāte adhigaṇhātīti—opinion of some Andhakas and Uttarāpathakas.

v2.c34.s1.9

² Mtu., I, p. 169: बुद्धानां शुभनिष्यन्दानां एषा लोकानुवर्तना। Cf. Laṅkā. pp. 28, 34: निष्यन्दबुद्धा।

v2.c34.s1.10

³ Mtu., I, p. 159.

v2.c34.s1.11

If the transcendence of Buddha be admitted, then it follows as a matter of course that his length of life would be unlimited and that he could not be subject to sleep or dream, as he could have no fatigue, and one who is without sleep and ever awake has nothing to do with dream. It is worth noting here that even in the Pāli suttas like the Mahāparinibbānasutta⁴ there are hints to the effect that a Buddha, if he wishes, can extend his life-limit up to a Kalpa or the end of a Kalpa thus revealing that the transcendental conception has taken roots in the minds of the Buddhists at a very early date.

v2.c34.s1.12

⁴ Dīgha, II, p. 103. yassa kassaci cattāro iddhipādā bhāvitā—so ākaṅkhamāno kappam vā tiṭṭheyya kappāvasesam vā.

v2.c34.s1.13

In the Kathāvatthu⁵ the discussion resting with the topic: Buddhassa Bhagavato vohāro lokuttaro ti reveals that the Andhakas, to whom the above opinion is ascribed, held that Buddha’s actions (vohāro) are lokuttara and that they are treated as lokiya (mundane) and lokuttara (supramundane) according as the object of the action is lokiya or lokuttara. Mr. Shwe Zan Aung prefers to confine the sense of the word “vohāro”⁶ to “speech”, and we think there is good reason for it.¹ In Vasumitra’s treatise an opinion of this nature is attributed to the Mahāsanghikas in contrast to the Sarvāstivādins, viz., the sūtras (or discourses) preached by the Buddha are all perfect in themselves (nītārtha). Buddhas speak of nothing but dharma (doctrines), as such their teaching is concerned only with paramārtha-satya (paramatthasacca), i.e., not with saṃvṛtisatya (sammuti-sacca).² The paramārthasatya cannot be normally expressed by words. It can be explained only by silence or at the most by an exclamation—which idea, I think, is expressed in Vasumitra’s treatise thus: “The Buddha can expound all the doctrines with a single utterance and that there is nothing which is not in conformity with the truth in what has been preached by the World-honoured one.”³ In the Upāyakauśalyaparivarta of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka it has been shown that for training up deluded beings in his doctrines, Buddha did take recourse to various expedients which were false, i.e., unreal (saṃvṛti or sammuti), and that through such teachings he led the deluded beings to the truth—paramārtha. So it follows that all his teachings collected in the Piṭakas are merely saṃvṛti or sammuti (unreal) and hence they are not his real teachings.⁴

v2.c34.s1.14

⁵ Kvu., II, 10.

v2.c34.s1.15

⁶ Sans. Vyavahāra

v2.c34.s1.16

¹ Cf. M.Vṛ., p. 494. व्यवहारमनाश्रित्य परमार्थो न देश्यते ।

v2.c34.s1.17

² Paramārtha-satya means the highest truth while saṃvṛti-satya means the so-called truths as used in every day usage by the people in general. For detailed treatment see my Aspects, pp. 216 ff.

v2.c34.s1.18

³ Asia Major, II, p. 19.

v2.c34.s1.19

⁴ Aspects, p. 198.

v2.c34.s1.20

According to the Mahāsanghikas, Vasumitra says, Buddhas have both kṣayajñāna and anutpādajñāna⁵ always present in their mind, the Sarvāstivāda holding that all Arhats may have kṣaya-jñāna but a few only have anutpādajñāna; the Theravādins, however, do not make such a distinction.

v2.c34.s1.21

⁵ Masuda, pp. 21, 42.
(a) Kṣayajñāna means cognizance of the fact that all the āsavas are destroyed;

v2.c34.s1.22

Among the other attributes of this lokottara Buddha, Vasumitra’s treatise speaks of his powers (balas)¹ as unlimited while the Mahāvastu of his five eyes (cakṣus)² as uncommon

v2.c34.s1.23

(b) Anutpādajñāna means cognizance of the fact that one will not be reborn again. Cf. Kośa, VI, 67; Aṭṭhasālinī, p. 54. Cf. Aspects, p. 106 fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.24

1 The ten balas are,— (Mahāvastu, pp. 159-160). (Kathāvatthu and Majjhima Nikāya).

v2.c34.s1.25

1. स्थानास्थानं वेत्ति 1. Ṭhānāṭhānaṃ jānāti.
2. सर्व्वगामिनीं च प्रतिपदं वेत्ति 2. Sabbatthagāminīpaṭipadaṃ jānāti
3. नानाधातुकं लोकं विदन्ति 3. Anekadhātuṃ nānādhātuṃ lokaṃ jānāti.
4. अधिमुक्तिनानात्वं वेत्ति 4. Sattānaṃ nānādhimuttikataṃ jānāti.
5. परपुरुषचरितकुशलानि वेत्ति 5. Parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ indriya-paropariyattaṃ yathābhūtaṃ jānāti.
6. कर्मबलं प्रतिजानन्ति शुभाशुभम् 6. Atītānāgatapaccuppannānaṃ hetuso vipākaṃ jānāti.
7. क्लेशव्यवधानं वेत्ति 7. Jhānavimokkhasamādhisamāpattinaṃ saṅkilesaṃ vodānaṃ voṭṭhānaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.
8. पूर्व्वनिवासं वेत्ति 8. Anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarati.
9. परिशुद्धदिव्यनयना भवन्ति 9. dibbena cakkhunā satte passati cavamāne upapajjamāne etc.
10. सर्व्वक्लेशविनाशं प्राप्नोन्ति 10. āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ ceto-vimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭhe va dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.

v2.c34.s1.26

2 By eyes, the text means all the five, viz., māṃsacakṣu, divyac., prajñāc., dharmac., and buddhac.

v2.c34.s1.27

(asādhāraṇa) and excelling those of Pratyekabuddhas, Arhats and others. This particular topic—tathāgatabalaṃ sāvakasādhāraṇaṃ ti has been taken up for discussion in the Kathāvatthu (III. 1), but strangely enough the position taken by the compiler of the Kathāvatthu is not that of a Theravādin but of a Lokottaravādin Mahāsanghika as against the Andhakas, i.e., the Śaila schools. In Vasumitra’s treatise this topic appears in a slightly different form.

v2.c34.s1.28

The Theravādins do not regard Buddha as lokottara but attribute to him almost all the powers and qualities of a lokottara Buddha and this discussion reveals one of such instances. The ten special balas (powers) of a Tathāgata appear not only in the Mahāvastu (I, pp. 159-160) but also in old Pāli works like the Majjhima Nikāya (i, pp. 69 ff.). The contention of the Andhakas is that there is a certain degree of difference between the Buddhas and the Arhats regarding the acquisition of the ten balas, and as such, Buddhas and Arahats are not on the same level (asādhāraṇaṃ). In the Mahāvastu and the Pāli works this view is accepted with this reservation that Buddhas are sarvākārājña, i.e., they possess a complete and detailed knowledge of everything, while an Arhat can at the utmost have sectional knowledge.¹ The Pāli school, i.e., the Theravādins hold that as far vimutti is concerned there is no difference between a Buddha and an Arhat, and that Buddhas are superior to the Arhats only on account of the fact that the former are promulgators of a new law while the Arhats are only followers of the same.¹

v2.c34.s1.29

¹ Cf. Kvu. Cy., p. 62: Ṭhānāṭhānādini hi sāvakā padesena jānanti. Tathāgatā nippadesena iti. Tāni uddesato sādhāraṇāni; niddesato asādhāraṇāni—niddesato sabbākāravisayataṃ saṃdhāya paṭikkhipati. Cf. Mtu, I, p. 158: बोधिसूलमुपगम्य चापाज्ञायां सर्वाकारज्ञतायां पंचचत्तः समन्वागता भवन्ति। Cf. Aspects, p. 106 fn. 1.

v2.c34.s1.30

¹ This argument is adduced in the *Kvu*. See also *Sam Nik*, III, p. 66.

Cites (8)