Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c42: Chapter XVI: Popular Buddhism

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c42

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XVI: Popular Buddhism

v2.c42.2

Aśoka as a ruler gave preference to the popular religious ideal, producing good citizens, and not to the spiritual, making the people unsocial. It cannot be ascertained how far Aśoka had a hand in the matter of making Buddhism popular but the history of the religion shows that after the days of Aśoka, it developed new aspects which became so very popular that the reoriented religion spread all over India, marking every notable spot with magnificent structures of rare artistic value, and ultimately reaching countries beyond the borders of India. Early Buddhism of the pre-Aśokan days, though propagated in different provincial dialects, was not appreciated by the common-folk.¹ The insistence on retirement from worldly life was a great handicap in the way of its popularity; so during the first century of its existence, it remained confined to the recluses and monasteries, and hardly reached the home and the hearth. It was perhaps about a century after Buddha's death that the religion became dynamic, assimilating some of the ideas and thoughts current around and stepped down from its high pedestal of exclusiveness and abstruse ideals to appeal to the more intellectual and faithful among the common-folk. This move towards popularity too did not proceed far as we find that it just allowed a little scope for rituals of a sober character, a little of faith and worship, and a slight relaxation from the stringency of disciplinary rules. There are, in fact, two stages in the course of its attainment of popularity, one of the pre-Aśokan days and other of the post-Aśokan.

v2.c42.3

¹ Cf. Grünwedel, *Buddhist Art in India*, p. 67: "Originally, Buddhism was only a philosophy, no religion; but therein consisted the weakness of the Buddha doctrines, which speedily became unpopular on that account."

1. Pre-Aśokan Period

v2.c42.s1.1

The pre-Aśokan form of the religion provided no scope for emotion, nor for devotion or worship, not to speak of rituals. Its dry-as dust ethical principles and doctrinal teachings based on so-called reason hardly attracted the attention of the common-folk. Among the householders it was only the cultured few like Anāthapiṇḍika and Visākhā, Jīvaka and Āmrapālī, Citta and Nakulapitā who took interest in the religion and worked for its success. Among the recluses and intellectuals also there were not very many who could dive deep into the truths of the religion, and it was probably this lack of appreciation of his teachings that made Buddha hesitate to preach the religion to one and all.

Ecclesiastical Rituals

v2.c42.s1.t1.1

In course of time, however, there was some accretion of rituals in the form of (i) *tisaraṇa*, (ii) lower and higher ordinations, (iii) observance of *uposatha*, (iv) *vassāvāsa*, *pavāraṇā*, and *kaṭhina*. These rituals attracted some converts of a mediocre type and appreciably helped the enlargement of the body hitherto known as Śākyaputtiya Samaṇas. Around this body grew up a number of house-holders, who impressed by the saintly character of some of the monks as also by the simple ethical teachings of the religion, and the rituals of *Tisaraṇa*, and other ecclesiastical functions like *Pavāraṇā* requiring the services of laymen, avowed themselves as *upāsakas* and *upāsikās*.¹ It is rather remarkable that the religion did not yield to the wishes of the mass any further, by providing objects of worship or by allowing the laymen to take any part in the ecclesiastical functions.

v2.c42.s1.t1.2

¹ See Vol. I, chap. xii.

v2.c42.s1.t1.3

(i) *Trisaraṇa*. There was no form of prayer except an expression of faith in the *Triratna*. The three articles of faith, compulsory for every monk and nun or layman and lay woman was the thrice utterance of the formula,—
(i) *Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi*
(ii) *Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi* and (iii) *Saṃghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi*.

v2.c42.s1.t1.4

There has been a good deal of discussion among the Buddhist scholiasts about the meaning of *saraṇa* and *Buddha*, *Dharma* and *Saṅgha*. The best and the earliest interpretation is found in a few couplets preserved in the canonical texts.² These are.—

v2.c42.s1.t1.5

² *Dhammapada*, pp. 188-192; *Udānavarga*, xxvii, 28-30; *Divyāvadāna*, p. 164; *Abhidharmakośa*, iv, 80, etc. See L. de la Vallée Poussin, *Doctrine des Réfuges*, in *Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques*, i, (1931-32), p. 75.

v2.c42.s1.t1.6

बहवः शरणं यान्ति पर्वतांश्च वनानि च ।
आरामचैत्यवृक्षांश्च मनुष्या भयताजिताः ॥
न ह्येतच्छरणं श्रेष्ठं नैतच्छरणमुत्तमम् ।
नैतच्छरणमागम्प सर्वदुःखात् प्रमुच्यते ॥
यस्तु बुद्धं च धर्मं संघं च शरणं गतः ।
आर्यसत्यानि चत्वारि पश्यति प्रज्ञया सदा ॥
दुःखं दुःखसमुत्पादं दुःखस्य समतिकमम् ।
आर्यं चाष्टाङ्गिकं मार्गं क्षेमं निर्वाणगामिनम् ॥
एतद्धि शरणं श्रेष्ठं एतच्छरणमुत्तमम् ।
एतच्छरणमागम्प सर्वदुःखात् प्रमुच्यते ॥

v2.c42.s1.t1.7

In these couplets, *saraṇam* means ‘seeking protection’ from evils. In the formulae of *Triratna*, the protection that one seeks is not from the worldly evils but from the suffering to which a human being is destined.¹ Such protection can be secured by developing faith in Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha, and by realising the four truths and the eightfold path, and not by leading solitary meditative life in the hills or forests nor by visiting temples and shrines (*caityas*).

v2.c42.s1.t1.8

¹ Sumaṅgala Vilāsini, I, p. 230.

v2.c42.s1.t1.9

The faith in the *Triratna* is usually expressed in these terms:

v2.c42.s1.t1.10

(i) *Iti pi so Bhagavā araham sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidu anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānam.*

v2.c42.s1.t1.11

(Bhagavā, the enlightened, is endowed with knowledge and good conduct, he is the knower of the world, the guide in disciplining men, the incomparable, the teacher of men and gods).

v2.c42.s1.t1.12

(ii) *Svakkhāto Bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi.*

v2.c42.s1.t1.13

(The Dhamma preached by Bhagavā produces fruit in his life, invites everybody, has no limitation of time, leads one to the goal and is realisable only by the wise within one’s ownself).

v2.c42.s1.t1.14

(iii) *Supaṭipanno Bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho yad idam cattāri purisayugāni aṭṭhapurisapuggalā, esa Bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho āhuṇeyyo pāhuṇeyyo dakkhiṇeyyo añjalikaraṇīyo anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassa.*

v2.c42.s1.t1.15

(The Saṅgha consists of monks, who are in one of the four stages of sanctification, are righteous, exerting for knowledge, observing good conduct, who are worthy of gifts, praise and respects, and who are fit recipients of gifts from laymen).

v2.c42.s1.t1.16

The Buddhist scholiasts who were imbued with the principles of early Buddhism, were at a loss to justify the avowal of these three articles of faith. Some of them, who looked upon Buddha's mortal body as impure, said that 'Buddha' in the formulae implied a collection of dharmas and not Buddha the individual; Dharma implied the last two truths only viz., duḥkhanirodha and the aṣṭāṅgikamārga, which are pure, and not the other two which are impure dharmas. Saṅgha in the formulae implied śīlas or the mortal duties which make a person an arhat, and not merely a member of the order. It is doubtful how far this interpretation of the scholiasts appealed to the common-folk. We know that the utterance of the Tri-saraṇa formulae was made compulsory for both monks and laity, and that this utterance alone transformed a non-Buddhist to a

v2.c42.s1.t1.17

¹ See L. de la Vallée Poussin, Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques, (1931-32). In the Jñānaprasthāna sūtra, we find the following exposition:—

v2.c42.s1.t1.18

(i) The real dharmas, which have for name or appellation or designation the expression 'Buddha'—those who take refuge in the Asaīkṣadharmas, which make the Buddha, are said to take refuge in Buddha.

v2.c42.s1.t1.19

(ii) The real dharmas, which have for their name, appellation or designation the word 'Dharma'—those who take refuge in the removal of thirst, i.e., destruction, detachment, Nirvāṇa, are said to have taken refuge in Dharma.

v2.c42.s1.t1.20

(iii) The real dharmas, which have for their name, appellation or designation the word 'Saṅgha'—those who take refuge in both the Saiksa and Asaīksa-dharmas, are said to have taken refuge in the Saṅgha.

v2.c42.s1.t1.21

Buddhist.¹ Hence, we may safely state that these three articles of faith served as a means of popularising the religion, and these were also looked upon as spells (paritta) for protection from evils or evil destiny.

v2.c42.s1.t1.22

¹ See *ante*., ch. XII.

v2.c42.s1.t1.23

The utterance of the *Trisaraṇa* is usually followed nowadays by taking the vow of observing the first five *śīlas* and then by chanting the *Maṅgala Sutta*. In the canonical texts, however, there is no indication of this procedure.

v2.c42.s1.t1.24

(ii) *Uposatha*. It is admitted in the Vinaya² that the idea of holding fortnightly meeting was suggested to Buddha by Bimbisāra whose object was that the monks should deliver religious discourses to the people at large on certain days of the month. These assemblies however soon turned into ritualistic institutions, requiring monks to be present at the meetings and confess their sins, if any committed during the preceding fortnight, after the formal recital of the Pātimokkha rule.³ This ceremony undoubtedly gave satisfaction to a class of monks who viewed the observance of Pātimokkha rules as more important than the inner spiritual development and attracted some men of the mediocre type.

v2.c42.s1.t1.25

² Vinaya, i, p. 617.

v2.c42.s1.t1.26

³ For details, see Vol. I, pp. 289-f.

v2.c42.s1.t1.27

(iii) *Pabbajjā* and *Upasampadā*. The ceremony of ordination was originally a very simple affair. It was done by Buddha by the mere utterance of *ehi bhikkhu*. Gradually it turned into a fairly long ceremony with two ordinations, one lower (*pabbajjā*) and the other higher (*upasampadā*).⁴ This ceremony, which required shaving of head, donning of yellow robes and living in a monastery, attracted some men who could not fully comprehend the philosophical teachings. In the *Sāmaññaphala Sutta* there are also some hints about the gains and honour received by an ordained person, e.g. it is said that the immediate gain of a person, whatever his status might be before his ordination, is that he is respected by kings and nobles, and obtains robes, food, bed, medicine and other requisites.¹

v2.c42.s1.t1.28

⁴ *Ibid*., pp. 280-281.

v2.c42.s1.t1.29

¹ *Digha*, i p. 61-62

v2.c42.s1.t1.30

(iv) *Vassāvāsa*, *Pavāraṇā* and *Kaṭhina*.² The other ceremonial functions which gradually crept into the religion were the formal observance of the rainy season retreat. The monks were required to stay during the three months of the rainy season at a fixed abode. At the close of the retreat, the monks performed the *Pavāraṇā* ceremony, which is similar to the *Uposatha*, but on account of the occasion on which it is performed, special importance was attached to it, and householders were told that gifts made on this particular occasion were more meritorious than at other times. With this *Pavāraṇā* ceremony was associated another ceremony called *Kaṭhina* in which the making of robes formed the chief object. These two ceremonies *Pavāraṇā* and *Kaṭhina* served to popularise the religion not only among those who wanted to join the order but also among the householders, who patiently waited for these days for making their gifts, particularly robes, and thereby assured their happiness in this existence and rebirth in the heavens.

v2.c42.s1.t1.31

² For details, see Vol I p 292-3

v2.c42.s1.t1.32

The ceremonies mentioned above were no doubt useful for the spiritual development of a person, but strictly speaking, were not in consonance with the principles laid down for the attainment of spiritual perfection. It has got to be admitted that these ceremonies were introduced in imitation of, or competition with, other contemporary religious systems in order to secure more converts, and it is not improbable that by these ceremonies, the religion attracted more men than it would otherwise have done.

Worship of Cetiya and Stūpa

v2.c42.s1.t2.1

Neither in the Vinaya nor in the Sutta-piṭaka, except the Mahāparinibbānasutta there is any direction for making and worshipping Cetiyas and Stūpas. In the Vinaya there is mention of two Cetiyas¹ where Buddha stopped, while in the Pāṭikasuttanta² as also in the Mahāparinibbānasutta,³ there are references to the Cetiyas situated around Vesāli, viz., Gotamaka-cetiya on the south, Sattamba-cetiya on the west, Bahuputta-cetiya on the north. The other Cetiyas mentioned in the Mahāparinibbānasutta are Udena, Sarandada, Cāpāla,⁴ Ānanda,⁵ (in Bhoganagara), and Makuṭabandhana⁶ of the Mallas.

v2.c42.s1.t2.2

¹ Vinaya, i, p. 35: Supatiṭṭha cetiya near Rājagaha; ii, p 172: Aggālavacetiya at Ālavi.

v2.c42.s1.t2.3

² Digha, iii, p. 9-10.

v2.c42.s1.t2.4

³ Ibid., ii, pp. 102-3, 118

v2.c42.s1.t2.5

⁴ Ibid.

v2.c42.s1.t2.6

⁵ Ibid., pp. 123, 126.

v2.c42.s1.t2.7

⁶ Ibid., p. 160-1.

v2.c42.s1.t2.8

From the list of cetiyas given above, it is apparent that long before Buddhism made its appearance, there was the prevalence of worship of cetiyas, which might be a tree, a stone and a spot believed to be sanctified or haunted by a good or evil spirit.⁷ The existence of Cetiyas is taken as an admitted fact by Buddha himself.

v2.c42.s1.t2.9

⁷ See the gāthās cited above p. 277-8. Also Gisbert Combaz, *L'evolution du stūpa en Asie* in *Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques*, ii (1932-33), pp. 168 ff.

v2.c42.s1.t2.10

Apart from the Cetiyas, there was also the ancient custom of erecting mounds (*stūpas*) on the relics of saintly persons or distinguished kings, princes and nobles as also over the sites sanctified by a saint’s presence. It was this ancient custom which we find re-iterated in the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta*. Buddha is made to say that *stūpas* should be erected on the relics of (i) a Tathāgata, (ii) a Paccekabuddha, (iii) a Tathāgatasāvaka and (iv) a monarch (*cakkavatti*) evidently with a view to make the Buddhists refrain from erecting and worshipping any mound sanctified by a spirit or a non-Buddhist saint. The most suitable site recommended for the erection of *stūpa*, is the crossing of four highways. Worship of such four kinds of *stūpas* by garlands, scents, or coloured powders was regarded as meritorious, as it gave an expression to one’s deep faith in the religion. Along with these directions, there is the description of the manner in which the earthly remains of a Tathāgata should be cremated. The erection of *stūpas* over Buddha’s relics has created history, and even today the sight of the relics deposited in some of the monasteries is a matter of awe and inspiration to the devotees.

v2.c42.s1.t2.11

The whole account of the erection and worship of *stūpas*, particularly over Buddha’s relics and the merit accruing therefrom was undoubtedly incorporated into the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta* after Buddha’s demise and had nothing to do with the great Teacher, who evidently could not have thought of what would become of his relics and who would be their claimants. This idea of erection and worship of *stūpas* was undoubtedly a post-Buddha development. The interpolator, who put in the directions for worshipping *cetiyas* and held out the hope that by such worship one would be reborn in the heavens, realised the inconsistency with the principles of the religion, and immediately corrected himself by adding the remark that the advanced monks were not to occupy themselves with such worship of stūpas, and that they must exert to attain the goal while the worship of stūpas should be left to the laity alone, the wise brāhmaṇas, khattiyas and gahapatis.¹ The traditions about Aśoka's zeal to collect the relics and erect stūpas over them also prove that the stūpa-worship became widely prevalent. It is very likely that by Aśoka's time, the stūpa-worship became a regular feature of the religion.²

v2.c42.s1.t2.12

¹ Digha, ii, p. 141. 2 See the account in the Divyāvadāna, pp. 389 ff. 3 Digha, ii, p. 138: Na kho Ānanda ettavatā Tathāgato sakkato vā hoti garukato vā mānito vā pūjito vā apacito vā etc. 4 Cf. Mahāvastu, X, p.

Four Places of Pilgrimage

v2.c42.s1.t3.1

Like the worship of cetiyas and stūpas, it must be some-time after Buddha's parinirvāṇa that the idea of pilgrimage came into the minds of some Buddhist monks, at whose instance, some imaginary discourses attributed to Buddha were incorporated into the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta. A religious teacher like Buddha, who was all along averse to any form of worship³ and taught attadīpo attasaraṇo anañña-saraṇo dhammadīpo dhammasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo⁴ (depend on your own self as the light, as the refuge and not on anything else; depend on the dhamma as the light, as the refuge and not on anything else) could not have admonished his disciples to earn merit by visiting the four places sanctified by his (i) birth, (ii) attainment of bodhi, (iii) promulgation of dhamma-cakka and (iv) parinirvāṇa. The inconsistency is at once apparent in the fact that one of the places recommended for visit is the site of his demise. Hence, there can be no doubt that the idea of pilgrimage was not that of Buddha but was of his disciples and of a time when Buddha had passed away. The idea, however, caught the imagination of the people, particularly, of the lay-disciples. The most remarkable an instance is that of Aśoka who paid a visit to the birthplace of Buddha, evidently with the hope of earning some merit. Throughout the history of Buddhism since the days of Aśoka, the idea of pilgrimage appealed strongly to the Buddhists, both monks and laymen, and even today the Buddhist devotees from far off countries like Burma and Ceylon, China and Japan regard this pilgrimage as an act of great merit.

v2.c42.s1.t3.2

³³⁴ Also compare आत्मा हि आत्मनो नाथः को नु नाथः परो भवेत् । आत्मा हि सुदानेन स्वर्गं प्राप्नोति पण्डितः ॥ quoted in the Bodhicaryāvatāra, p 483.

Nirvāṇa through Faith

v2.c42.s1.t4.1

In the earliest form of monastic Buddhism the only means recommended for the attainment of emancipation was perfection in the *śīlacitta-paññā* practices.¹ Occasionally perfection in the *satipaṭṭhāna* practices was recognised as another means for reaching the goal,² but nowhere *saddhā* and practice of *brahmavihāra* were recognised as such. It is therefore striking that we should find in the *Majjhima Nikāya* a discourse³ in which *saddhā* is made the basic, and perfection in the *brahmavihāras* as the ultimate, factors for the attainment of *Nirvāṇa*. This new path, which attached less importance to the observance of the Pātimokkha rules, was definitely a step towards making the religion popular among a certain section of the people, who were not able to lead the life of a bhikkhu.

v2.c42.s1.t4.2

¹ See Vol. I, pp 199 f.

v2.c42.s1.t4.3

² *Majjhima*, i, p. 55: Ekāyano ayaṃ bhikkhave maggo sattānaṃ visuddhiyā yad idaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhanā.

v2.c42.s1.t4.4

³ Vatthupamasutta, *Majjhima*, i, p. 36 f.

v2.c42.s1.t4.5

*Saddhā* (faith),¹ as expressed in the formulae *Trisaraṇa*,² is mentioned as an essential element for spiritual progress, but that *saddhā* was looked upon only as an antidote to inclination to non-Buddhist religious faith. It was an antidote to *vicikicchā* or doubt about the greatness of Buddha, excellence of his teaching and uprightness of his disciples. In the *Vatthupamasutta*,³ the process of attainment of *Nibbāna* through *saddhā* is detailed thus:—

v2.c42.s1.t4.6

¹ For an exhaustive exposition of *Saddhā*, see B. M Barua, ‘Faith in Buddhism’ in *Buddhistic Studies*, p. 329. Cf. *Saddhāya tarati ogham appamādena aṇṇavaṃ* *viriyena dukkhaṃ acceti paññāya parisujjhati.* *Suttanipāta*, v. 184.

v2.c42.s1.t4.7

² See above, p. 278.

v2.c42.s1.t4.8

³ *Majjhima*, i, p. 36f

v2.c42.s1.t4.9

(i) An adept should first get rid of the mental impurities, such as *abhijjhā* (undue desire for gain), *macchariya* (miserliness), *makkha* (hypocrisy), *māyā* (deceitfulness) *sāṭheyya* (double-dealing), *thambho-sārambho* (pride and haughtiness), *māno-atimāno* (conceit and over-conceit), *mada* (pride or excitement caused by attachment to one’s own acquisitions), and *pamāda* (carelessness).

v2.c42.s1.t4.10

(ii) After the removal of the above-mentioned impurities, the adept is required to develop unflinching faith (*saddhā*) in the *Triratna*.

v2.c42.s1.t4.11

(iii) The more the mental impurities are removed the stronger becomes his faith (*saddhā*) in Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha. Such faith produces in his mind the satisfaction that he has achieved something good. Such satisfaction in turn produces joy and deep pleasure (*pīti*) which makes the body calm and the mind serene, and ultimately leads to mental concentration.

v2.c42.s1.t4.12

(iv) After developing perfect concentration of mind, the adept is required to practise the four *brahmavihāras*, in other words, he must practise *mettā* (love), *karuṇā* (compassion), *muditā* (feeling of joy at others' success) and *upekkhā* (equanimity) towards all beings of all corners of the world.¹

v2.c42.s1.t4.13

¹ See infra and Vol. I, p. 228 f.

v2.c42.s1.t4.14

(v) After attaining perfection in the four *brahmavihāras*, the adept realises the four truths, removes the three impurities (*āsavas*) viz., *kāma* (desire), *bhava* (desire for rebirth) and *avijjā* (ignorance of the truth). He then feels convinced that he has completed his task, and will have no more rebirth, i.e., he attains *Nirvāṇa*. Thus we see that by *saddhā* and *brahmavihāra* one could achieve *Nibbāna* and this path could be taken by the householders as there was no question of renunciation or observance of *Pātimokkha* rules. This new process was really a move to make the religion popular among the householders and a product of a time in between Buddha and Aśoka.

v2.c42.s1.t4.15

It may be argued that *saddhā* is not devotion (*bhakti*)² and hence it has no fitting place in the popular form of the religion. There is some force in this argument, but what is needed to be pointed out is that *saddhā* eliminates the long process of observance of *śīlas*, i.e., the *pātimokkha* rules, and the process dealt with above eliminates many of the arduous tasks imposed upon a monk to attain perfection in the four *jhānas*, and to comprehend the *anattā* and *anicca* theories. It brings a new element, the *brahmavihāras*, which so far had no place in early Buddhism. In short, it is a new and shorter process suited to a person who is not necessarily a monk or nun, and that it was meant so is clear from the remarks in the above mentioned sutta that a person taking recourse to this new process may take luxurious food as that of a householder and that it would not stand in his way of attaining the goal. This is significant of the fact that the process was intended more for the laity than for the recluses, and actually we find this particular course recommended to the householder, Mahānāma,¹ who was addressed by Buddha in these words: "O Mahānāma, when you bear in mind that you have unflinching faith in the *Tri-ratna*, when you realise that you have observed the precepts fully, when you are convinced that you are great in charity and when you feel assured that you possess *saddhā*, *sīla*, *suta*, *cāga* and *paññā* as that of the gods, you would surely be reborn as a god. Again, when your mind becomes free from attachment (*rāga*), hatred (*dosa*) and delusion (*moha*) and you will feel that you have achieved something good, you will have joy and serene pleasure, which in turn will make your body calm and at ease and your mind will get concentrated." In another discourse² the same Mahānāma was told that an upāsaka by firm faith could become quick-witted (*bāsapaññā javanapaññā*) and attain emancipation by the realisation of *akiñcaññā* (desirelessness whether for heavenly life or Nibbāna), *suññatā* (essencelessness of worldly objects) and *animittatā* (characteristiclessness of worldly objects). In the *Majjhima Nikāya*,³ however, it is pointed out that some monks by *saddhā* attain the Anāgāmi stage only, because they regard Bhagavā as omniscient and that his teaching excellent and they exert strenuously so that their bodies become dried up into skin, bones and sinews. It seems, therefore, that *saddhā* gradually rose in the estimation of the Buddhist monks and came to be recognised as a means to the goal. The importance of *saddhā* in the life of laymen has already been dealt with; it assured them rebirth in one of the heavens, and it was only a step further that *saddhā* combined with the perfection in *brahmavihāras* brought them full emancipation.

v2.c42.s1.t4.16

² Contrast Har Dayal's remarks in his *Bodhisattva Doctrine*, p. 32.

v2.c42.s1.t4.17

¹ *Anguttara*, v pp 320-332.

v2.c42.s1.t4.18

² *Samyutta*, v, pp 376 f.

v2.c42.s1.t4.19

³ *Majjhima*, i, p. 480-481.

v2.c42.s1.t4.20

The early Buddhists were aware of the practice of *brahmavihāras*, which they classed as *appamaññās* (immeasurables). By this practice one developed a sublime mental state,—in which, he could look upon all beings of the world with the same feeling of love and compassion as one would have towards his son;—in which, he felt happy at the spiritual or material success of every person, be he a friend or foe; and —in which, he remained unmoved by weal or woe. The *brahmavihāras*, however, were not included in the list of thirty-seven *bodhipakkhiya* and other *dhammas* which Buddha declared as his own teaching.¹ In the *Visuddhimagga*, their place is given after the four *jhānas* (meditations) and before the four *samāpattis* (higher trances),² but in any case, their practice was not regarded as compulsory for the attainment of Nibbāna. The trend of the remarks in the Pāli texts³ is that their practice led to rebirth in one of the Brahmalokas only, i.e., the highest form of existence in the constituted sphere, in other words, it did not conduce to Nibbāna. These remarks point to the fact that practice of *brahmavihāras* did not form a part of original Buddhism.

v2.c42.s1.t4.21

¹ *Majjhima*, ii p. 11 f.

v2.c42.s1.t4.22

² See Vol I. p. 228 f.

v2.c42.s1.t4.23

³ *Majjhima*, ii, p. 76; *Dīgha* i, p. 251; *Aṅguttara*, ii, p. 129.

v2.c42.s1.t4.24

Mrs. Rhys Davids, it seems, was justified in writing that it was taught by the "unknown co-founder of Buddhism."⁴

v2.c42.s1.t4.25

⁴ C. A. F. Rhys Davids, *Gotama*, p. 180; *IRAS*., 1928. p. 271

v2.c42.s1.t4.26

The fact that these practices appear also in the Yogasūtra of Patañjali leads us to infer that these originated among the non-Buddhist or pre-Buddhist thinkers. The nature of mental practices envisaged in the brahmavihāras also suggests that these were meant more for the householders than for the recluses. In the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka¹ the practice of brahmavihāras is given a place next to the pāramitās. While in the Mahāvastu² it is stated that a monk can attain nirvāṇa by practising the four brahmavihāras. In the Daśabhūmikasūtra, the practice of brahmavihāras is placed next to the four dhyānas in the exercises prescribed for the attainment of the third bhūmi.³ A bodhisattva is expected to continue this practice of four brahmavihāras up to the seventh bhūmi,⁴ in which he realises the tathatā, and goes beyond the training stage.

v2.c42.s1.t4.27

¹ p. 142.

v2.c42.s1.t4.28

² iii, p. 421.

v2.c42.s1.t4.29

³ Aspects of Mahāyāna, etc. p. 267.

v2.c42.s1.t4.30

⁴ Ibid., Ch. IV.

Relaxation of Disciplinary Rules

v2.c42.s1.t5.1

There is a hint, in the path of saddhā and brahmavihāra, that for the attainment of Nirvāṇa, one need not always be a strict observer of the monastic rules of discipline (see above). Buddha no doubt laid more emphasis on the control of the mind than on the control of body and speech,⁵ though it was far from his intention that his followers should show laxity in observing monastic rules. A century after Buddha's death, appeared the Mahāsanghikas who put a new interpretation on Buddha's directions, and set on foot a movement against the rigid orthodoxy of the earlier disciples, whose over-zealousness for the observance of monastic rules led to the sacrifice of essentials. It is an indication that a group of thinkers attached more value to the purification of body and mind and the study of logic than to the punctillious observance of Vinaya rules. We have on the authority of Paramārtha, the following statement attributed to the Kaukulikas an off-shoot of the Mahāsanghikas that "a bhikṣu may or may not have three robes for covering his body; may or may not reside in a monastery; and may or may not take his meal within the time limit. The Vinaya rules about residence and food were abrogated by Buddha; it is clear that the real teaching of Buddha was not Vinaya but the study of the logical principles (nyāya),¹ i.e., Abhidharma." According to the Dharmaguptas, the Prātimokṣa rules were lost when the saddharma disappeared hence there are no more rules, sīmābandha and karmānta.²

v2.c42.s1.t5.2

⁵ Majjhima, 1. p. 372: Imesam tiṇṇaṃ kammānaṃ evam paṭivibhattānaṃ manokammaṃ mahāsāvajataram paññāpemi.

v2.c42.s1.t5.3

¹ See Paul Demieville, *L'origine des sects bouddhiques* in *Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques*, vol. I, (1931-32), pp. 19, 46.

v2.c42.s1.t5.4

² *Abhidharmakośa*, iv. 39.

v2.c42.s1.t5.5

It is not improbable that this new viewpoint attracted a large number of recruits and helped to increase its followers. The relaxation in the monastic rules, of course, had nothing to do with the laity, and so whatever appeal, it could have, was confined to the monks and nuns.

v2.c42.s1.t5.6

We may now sum up the factors that made Buddhism popular in the pre-Aśokan period thus:—
(i) Trisaraṇa came to be regarded as the three articles of faith.
(ii) The ecclesiastical ceremonies gave satisfaction to the less philosophically minded disciples.
(iii) Worship of Caityas and Stūpas allowed some scope for the expression of devotion (bhakti).

v2.c42.s1.t5.7

(iv) Visits to the four places of pilgrimage were looked upon as attractive means of earning merit.
(v) *Saddhā* and *brahmavihāra* practices were regarded by some persons as the simpler and shorter means for the attainment of Nibbāna. And lastly,
(vi) Relaxation in the stringency of the Vinaya rules appealed to a class of persons who did not approve the rigid orthodoxy of the earlier schools of disciples.

II. Post-Aśokan Period

v2.c42.s2.1

The few deviations from the earliest principles of Buddhism dealt with above were hardly enough to make the religion popular. The persons who took to *saddhā* and *brahmavihāra* path for emancipation were few and far between; the emphasis was still on the monastic life. The cult of *cetiya*- and *stūpa*-worship made very little progress and the householders with their *Trisaraṇa* and other rituals still remained outside the Buddhist fold as mere suppliers of material needs of the monks and nuns and as faithful listeners to the moral discourses delivered to them by the monks on certain occasions. The Aśokan edicts reveal no change in this austere attitude of the early Buddhists—the only relieving feature being that Aśoka favoured the view that the people should not care very much for recluse-life and should perform good deeds (*kuśalakarmapathas*) to ensure them an after-life in the heavens. Hence we may say that the real move to make the religion popular among the common-folk was taken after Aśoka. This movement consisted mainly in the following five directions:—

v2.c42.s2.2

(i) Deification of Buddha.
(ii) Compilation of Jātaka-literature.
(iii) Sanction of Image-worship.

v2.c42.s2.3

(iv) Introduction of Pāramitā-cult. And
(v) Promulgation of Bodhisattva Doctrine.

Deification of Buddha

v2.c42.s2.t1.1

In the pre-Aśokan days, Buddha had already come to be looked upon as the highest god superior to Brahmā, Viṣṇu or Śiva. This deification should be attributed first to the Mahāsaṅghikas and the Andhakas, and then to the Sarvāstivādins. It has been shown¹ while discussing the doctrines of the Mahāsaṅghikas and their off-shoots that Buddha had been given all the attributes of the highest god, whose apparitional body occasionally appeared in this world. This body took birth as Siddhārtha Gautama, went through all the ways of a householder and ultimately renounced the world to become a saint just in order to follow the ways of the world (*lokānuvartana*).² Buddha was supramundane (*lokottara*) and was made of pure *dharmas*. Everything of the great *ṛṣi* was transcendental including his advent into the world. In the *Mahāvastu*, he is described thus:—

v2.c42.s2.t1.2

¹ Sec ante, pp. 63, 75 f.

v2.c42.s2.t1.3

² *Mahāvastu*, I, p. 167-8.

v2.c42.s2.t1.4

लोकोत्तरं भगवतो चर्या लोकोत्तरं कुशलमूलम् ।
गमनं स्थितं निषणं शयितं लोकोत्तरं मुनिनो ॥
यत् तत् सुगतशरीरं भवते भवस्य बन्धनक्षयकरणम् ।
लोकोत्तरं तदपि भो इत्यत न संशयः कार्यो ॥
चीवरधरणं मुनिनो लोकोत्तरं अत्र संशयो नास्ति ।
आहारहरणमयो लोकोत्तरमेव सुगतस्य ॥
देशना नरनागानां सर्वलोकोत्तरा मता ।
यथातथं प्रवक्ष्यामि माहात्म्यं वरबुद्धिनाम् ।
देशकालवशं प्राप्य परिपाकं च कर्मणाः ।
सत्यं वा अभिनिर्वृत्तं धर्मं देशन्ति नायकाः ॥

v2.c42.s2.t1.5

लोकानुवर्तनां बुद्धा अनुवर्तन्ति लोकिकीम् । प्रज्ञप्तिमनुवर्तन्ति यथा लोकात्तरामपि ॥ etc.

v2.c42.s2.t1.6

The above and other passages in the *Mahāvastu* leave no room for doubt that about the time of its composition (i.e., 2nd century B.C.),¹ Buddha had already become the highest god, at least, to a large section of the Buddhists.

v2.c42.s2.t1.7

¹ Winternitz, *History of Indian Literature*, II, p. 247. ² Cf. also *Mahāvastu*, I, p. 214. ³ R. L. Mitra, *Lalitavistara*, pp. 136, 142.

v2.c42.s2.t1.8

The account of Buddha's life in the *Lalitavistara*, the accredited text of the Sarvāstivādins, does not extol Buddha so much as has been done in the *Mahāvastu*. It is more realistic though it attributes divine and super-divine qualities to the Teacher. It says that Buddha while staying in the womb of his mother was enclosed in a casket and from there he delivered discourses to the gods who paid him visits.² After his birth, he appeared to dwell at the same moment in all the houses built for him by the faithful. He paid the customary visit to the temples but the gods therein bowed down to him. In his boyhood, he was so learned that the teacher staggered in his presence. In his youth, he possessed already all the kingly powers and skill and surpassed everybody in strength. In this text,³ he is eulogized thus:—

v2.c42.s2.t1.9

जातस्य मह्य इय कम्पितः तिसहस्रः ।
शकश्च ब्रह्मा सुराश्च महोरगाश्च ॥
चन्द्रश्च सूर्य तथ वैश्रवणः कुमारो ।
मूर्द्धाकमेषु निपतित्य नमस्यन्ते ॥
कतमोऽन्य देव मम उत्तरियो विशिष्टो ।
यस्मिन् मम प्रणयसे त्वमिहाय अम्ब ॥

v2.c42.s2.t1.10

देवातदेव अहू उत्तम सर्वदेवैः । देवो न मेऽस्ति सदृशः कुत उत्तरो वा ॥ लोकानुवर्तन प्रतीत इति अम्ब यास्ये । दृष्ट्वा विकुर्वित ममा जनता उदग्रा ॥ अधिमात्र गौरव करिष्यति विचिलकारो । ज्ञास्यन्ति देवमनुजा खयमेव देवः ॥

v2.c42.s2.t1.11

शास्त्राणि यानि प्रचरन्ति च देवलोके संख्या लिपिष्च गणनाऽपि च धातुतन्त्रम् । ये शिल्पयोग पृथुलौकिक अप्रमेया- स्तेष्वेबु शिक्षितु पुरा बहुकल्पकोव्यः ॥ किन्तु जनस्य अनुवर्तनतां करोति लिपिशालामगतुं सुशिक्षित-शिक्षणार्थम् । परिपाचनार्थं बहुदारक अग्रयाने अन्यांश्च सत्त्वनियुतानमृते विनेतुम् ॥

v2.c42.s2.t1.12

Though this text maintains a more sober outlook than the *Mahāvastu*, there is no doubt that Buddha was regarded by the Sarvāstivādins as a divine being though not the highest god. Though he was proficient in everything, he followed the ways of the world to educate the people. The time of composition of this work, according to Winternitz, spread over a long period commencing from the early Christian eras.¹ It may therefore be safely stated that in the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C., a certain section of the Buddhists regarded Buddha as the highest god while another section as a great divine being, endowed with all possible virtues and knowledge.

v2.c42.s2.t1.13

¹ See Winternitz, *op. cit.*, p. 255-6: "It is therefore only correct to say that the *Lalitavistara* offers us very old traditions concerning the Buddha legend, as well as some which are centuries later".... ..."It is, however, most informative as regards the development of the Buddha legend from its earliest beginnings when only the chief events in the life of the great founder of the religion are adorned with miracles, down to that boundless deification of the Master, in which, from the beginning to the end of his career he appears mainly as a god above all gods."

v2.c42.s2.t1.14

We need not discuss the conception of the Sthaviravādins, who tried to maintain even at this day that Buddha was after all a human saint but with attributes surpassing those of the gods and that in purity and knowledge he was the highest of all constituted beings.¹ This school of thought maintained the realistic conception throughout its long history but it did not gain the same amount of popularity as the Mahāsanghikas and the Sarvāstivādins did in the southern and northern parts of India respectively. However realistic the Theravādins might have been, they had to yield to the popular demand of Buddha-worship, and in course of time they allowed the placing of images of Buddha in their temples, and in one of their late texts the Mahāvaṃsa, there is also an elaborate description as to how the first image of Buddha was made and how grand were the ceremonies and festivals for putting up the image.

v2.c42.s2.t1.15

¹ Majjhima, i, p. 171:—

Image-Worship

v2.c42.s2.t2.1

In the Mahāvastu and the Lalitavistara Buddha is deified but there are no directions for making images of Buddha. The earliest literary evidence relating to image-making is yielded by the Divyāvadāna, in which Aśoka is found to be consulting Piṇḍola Bharadvāja regarding the features (mahāpuruṣa-

v2.c42.s2.t2.2

Sabbābhibhu sabbavidu'ham asmi
sabbesu dhammesu anupalitta
sabbamjaho taṇhakkhaye vimutto
sayam abhiññāya kam uddiseyyam. Cf. Mahāvastu, iii, p. 326.

v2.c42.s2.t2.3

lakṣaṇa) of the image.¹ In the Mahāvaṃsa² too is recorded a similar attempt of Aśoka who consulted the Nāga king for an account of the image. One need not be so credulous as to take these traditions as authentic, but the fact is that the practice of image-worship was taken up by the Buddhists sometime before the 4th century A.D. about which time the Divyāvadāna and the Mahāvaṃsa were composed. We may now pass on to the monumental evidences. In the Sanchi and Barhut sculptures there are no images of Buddha. The most significant fact is that the seats of Buddha are shown as vacant. The earlier methods of indicating Buddha's place in a scene were by depicting his Vajrāsana, Bodhi tree or pādukā (wooden slippers) or stūpa. If the date of Sanchi and Barhut sculptures be placed in the 2nd and 1st century B.C. we have to admit that image-worship did not prevail at that period. The practice of image-worship therefore came into vogue about the 1st or 2nd century A.D. at the earliest. The Amarāvatī sculptures, belonging to the Mahāsanghikas and their offshoots, are studded with numerous Buddha-images but the dates of these sculptures are placed by the archaeologists in the 2nd century A.D.³

v2.c42.s2.t2.4

¹ Divyāvadāna, p. 400.

v2.c42.s2.t2.5

² Mahāvaṃsa, p. 37

v2.c42.s2.t2.6

³ Buddhist Remains in Andhra, etc. by K. R Subramanian, 1932, p. 15.

v2.c42.s2.t2.7

Though the image of Buddha is wanting in the earlier sculptures there are ample evidences to show the wide prevalence of symbol worship. The artists probably did not make an image of the omniscient refulgent Buddha with all the signs of great men (mahāpuruṣa), but the feeling of adoration to Buddha was there, and this they expressed by concourse of men and gods and even animals, bowing down reverentially to the stūpas, Bodhi-tree or the Vajrāsana, or offering flowers and garlands. In the post-Christian eras, however, the Buddha images not only came into vogue, but practically the Buddhist centres were flooded with such images, some of the most exquisite Gandharan art while others of indigenous local developments. Merit accrued to both the artist and the donor of an image, and so it was quite natural there should be such an exuberance of Buddha-images in the post-Christian eras. Both the Hīnayānists and the Mahāyānists started making images and temples and decorated the stūpas with countless images.

Jātakas and Avadānas

v2.c42.s2.t3.1

In the Mahāvastu and the Abhiniṣkramaṇasūtra we have not only a biography of Buddha but also a number of stories dealing with Buddha's supposed previous existences as also other traditions. The underlying object of the stories of Buddha's previous births is to show that each event in this life was the result of a past deed of his. These stories served not only to establish the law of karma which Buddhism had borrowed from the pre-Buddhistic thoughts but also to convince the common folk that any act of theirs would similarly be fruitful, and it may be that some of them might sow the seeds of merit like Siddhārtha Gautama and ultimately attain Buddhahood. In the latter case, they would be Bodhisattvas as was Siddhārtha Gautama in his previous lives. The Lalitavistara refers to the meritorious deeds performed by him in his previous existences¹ but does not give the stories in detail which were to be found partly in the Vinaya piṭaka of the Sarvāstivādins, and partly in the Avadāna collections. The biographies, and particularly the Jātakas, made a strong appeal to the mass, kindled their devotion and gave them an opportunity to express the same by depicting the stories indelibly on stone. These made them feel within their innermost heart that Buddhahood for them was not an impossibility as had so long been preached by the early Buddhists. The task, of course, was arduous and the path long covering several existences and entailing extreme self-sacrifices. This literature therefore gave a new and forceful impetus to the mass, and paved the way for the glorious days which Buddhism had for a long time in the early Christian eras. Observing the effect of the Jātaka stories on the mass, the Sarvāstivādins began to multiply them and produced large collections of these, calling them Avadānas. They incorporated in it stories dealing with the previous birth not only of Buddha but also of his noted disciples. The puritanic Theravādins could not help following them and started making a collection of stories without intermingling them with the biography of Buddha. They however supplied the events of the present life by way of introduction (paccuppannavatthu) and ended the stories by identifying the characters with Buddha and other persons. The object of all these collections was identical, viz., the edification of the mass and popularisation of the religion.

v2.c42.s2.t3.2

¹ Lalitavistara (R. L. Mitra), p. 192:— पुरि तुम सुपुरुष ऋषिवरु यदभूर्ज तव उपगतु भव मम शरणम् । भषि ऋषि द्विजवर नररिपु उपने त्यजि स्वय खकि तनु न च द्विज त्यजसे ॥ खुर ऋषि उपगतु पुरि दुभनिलये रुचि भषि तरुरुह कति इम गष्ये । सुविदित सुगधित यथ तहि किमला तथ तव भवितथ समगिर रचित ॥

v2.c42.s2.t3.3

Strangely enough all these Jātakas and Avadānas are non-Buddhist in character. This have nothing to do with the fundamental teachings of Buddhism—there is not a word about soul, component elements of a being, law of causation, ātman, skandhas, paṭiccasamuppada or nirvāṇa. These stories deal in a general way with moral virtue but not with the śilas, as detailed in the Piṭakas. These speak highly of a retired life but do not discountenance the life of a householder. On the contrary, the stories are concerned mainly with the social life of the householders and not with the unsocial life of a recluse. These do not breathe a word about monks or their life in monasteries. If not for the use of the term ‘Bodhisattva’ in every story, the collections could not have been recognised as forming a part of the Buddhist literature. It is really a universal literature dealing with universal moral principles, and a large number of the stories belongs to the common heritage of the Indians of the pre-Aśokan period. These stories teach more altruistic moral principles than negative ethical ideals (veramaṇis) as was the practice with the Buddhists. The stories well-known to the common folk of the then age were found to be a convenient medium for propagating the Bodhisattva conception and along with it the greatness of the Teacher.

Pāramitā-cult

v2.c42.s2.t4.1

The Jātaka-stories, according to the late Buddhist traditions, had in view Bodhisattva’s attainment of perfection¹ in six or ten virtues, viz., (i) liberality (dāna) (ii) righteousness (śīla) (iii) forbearance or endurance (kṣānti) (iv) mental strength (vīrya) (v) mental concentration (dhyāna) and (vi) realisation of the truth (prajñā). The number was latterly raised to ten by the addition of (i) skilfulness in expedients (upāyakauśalya) (ii) vow or resolution (praṇidhāna) (iii) attainment of certain powers (bala) and (iv) knowledge (jñāna).² The above list is to be found in Buddhist-Sanskrit works while the list in the Pāli texts is slightly different. It agrees with five of the above, viz., dāna, sīla, khanti, viriya and paññā. The remaining five are (i) renunciation (nekkhamma), (ii) truthfulness (sacca), (iii) resolution (adhiṭṭhāna), (iv) love (mettā) and (v) equanimity (upekkhā). Of these five, adhiṭṭhāna may be taken as a synonym of praṇidhāna of the supplementary list. The agreement of the two lists in five of the ten pāramitās indicates their comparative antiquity. It seems that the list was not a pre-meditated one. The stories were originally written just to illustrate that the episodes of Buddha's life were not untoward events but the outcome of the deeds of his previous existences. In course of time these stories were multiplied without any definite plan.

v2.c42.s2.t4.2

¹ Pāramitā, as suggested by Har Dayal should be derived from ‘parama’ (highest, excellent, extreme). A Bodhisattva makes most extreme exertion or sacrifice for acquiring the virtues of gift, etc.

v2.c42.s2.t4.3

² Dr. Har Dayal rightly describes these four as supplementary

v2.c42.s2.t4.4

The earliest mention of the six pāramitās is found in the Mahāvastu (iii, p. 226), Lalitavistara (p. 340), and Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (p. 194) while that of ten in the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṅkāra, Daśabhūmikasūtra, Bodhisattvabhūmi, and Samādhirājasūtra.¹ In the Mahāvastu again, mention of the six pāramitās is few and far between² while the word pāramitā has been used in the ordinary sense (viz. perfection) in compounds like garbhāvakrāntipāramitā³ (the last entrance of the Bodhisattva into the womb), sarvakuśaladharmavaśibhāvapāramitā⁴ (perfect attainment of domain over all good actions) and prajñāpāramitā, (i.e. perfection in Śrāvaka's knowledge).⁵ This shows that

v2.c42.s2.t4.5

¹ See Har Dayal, op. cit., p. 167.

v2.c42.s2.t4.6

² Mahāvastu, i, p. 214; ii, 296; iii, p. 226.

v2.c42.s2.t4.7

³ Mahāvastu, ii, p. 17.

v2.c42.s2.t4.8

⁴ Ibid., ii, p. 261.

v2.c42.s2.t4.9

⁵ Ibid., iii, p. 67

v2.c42.s2.t4.10

pāramitās. See his Bodhisattva Doctrine etc. pp. 167, 168. See also his remarks re. five pāramitās.

v2.c42.s2.t4.11

the word ‘pāramitā’ did not carry the meaning attributed to it in the later texts. Like pāramim gato in Pāli, there are several uses of the phrase ‘pāramiprāpta’¹ and ‘paramim gato,’² in the Mahāvastu. In speaking of Bodhisattva’s several attainments, perfection in the six pāramitās³ as a condition precedent to a Bodhisattva’s progress from a lower to a higher bhūmi, is not insisted upon,⁴ as has been done in the Daśabhūmikasūtra.⁵ At the time of composition (2nd century B.C.) of the Mahāvastu,⁶ the doctrine of pāramitā, it seems, was not well developed. Unlike the Mahāvastu, we have in the Lalitavistara, not only frequent references to the six pāramitās, but also eulogistic accounts of the deeds of Bodhisattva for attaining perfection in the six pāramitās.⁷ These gāthās imply wide currency of the Jātaka-stories as also a great popularity of the pāramitā-doctrine.⁸ In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, the six pāramitās are systematically mentioned in the enumeration of Bodhisattva’s attainments, with the rider that these perfections are not to be taken as reals⁹ (paramārtha). Thus, we may say that the doctrine of pāramitā was fully developed before the time of composition of the Lalitavistara and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, i.e. about 1st century A.D. and after the date of the Mahāvastu, i.e., 2nd century B.C.

v2.c42.s2.t4.12

¹ Mahāvastu, i, p. 152.

v2.c42.s2.t4.13

² Ibid, i, p. 74, etc.

v2.c42.s2.t4.14

³ Ibid., i, p. 133-4.

v2.c42.s2.t4.15

⁴ Ibid., i, pp. 89 ff.

v2.c42.s2.t4.16

⁵ Cf. Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism etc. (henceforth abbreviated as AMB), pp. 267, 270 f.

v2.c42.s2.t4.17

⁶ Winternitz, History of Indian Literature (Cal. Uni.), II, p. 247.

v2.c42.s2.t4.18

⁷ Cf. e.g. Lalitavistara (R. L. Mitra's ed.) pp. 38, 60, 185, 188, 199, 212, etc.

v2.c42.s2.t4.19

⁸ Cf. e.g. Ibid., p. 60.

v2.c42.s2.t4.20

⁹ See e.g. Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, p. 194.

v2.c42.s2.t4.21

The practice of *pāramitās* occupies an important place in the Mahāyānic code of discipline. In the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*,¹ one of the early Mahāyāna texts, it is repeatedly stated that the teaching for the Śrāvakas consisted of the four truths, law of causation, which put an an end to suffering and led to Nirvāṇa, while the teaching for the Bodhisattvas consisted of the practice of *pāramitās*, leading to the highest knowledge or omniscience. In the *Daśabhūmika-Sūtra*, the practice of a particular *pāramitā* is enjoined for the attainment of a particular *bhūmi*.² Thus we see that the *pāramitās* formed one of the fundamentals of the Mahāyānic code of discipline and spiritual progress.

v2.c42.s2.t4.22

¹ *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*, pp. 17 f. 334 f.

v2.c42.s2.t4.23

² See AMB., ch. iv: *dāna* in 1st *bhūmi* (p. 259), *śīla* in the 2nd (p. 262), *kṣānti* in the 3rd (p. 267), *vīrya* in the 4th (p. 270), *dhyāna* in the 5th (p. 27) and *prajñā* in the 6th (p. 275).

v2.c42.s2.t4.24

The doctrine of *pāramitā* is not mentioned in the early Pāli texts, and was very likely unknown to the early Buddhists.³ The words ‘*pāramiṃ gato* or *pāramippatto*’ (attained perfection) occur in the *Nikāyas*⁴ but nowhere in the Pāli Tripiṭaka, barring the *Khuddakanikāya*, the *pāramitās* are mentioned. The number of *pāramis*, listed in the later Pāli texts, is ten and not six. Dhammapāla, in his commentary on the *Cariyāpiṭaka*, contributes on the ten *pāramis* a long dissertation,⁵ in which he tells us that there were various ways of classifying the *pāramis*. There was also the system of enumerating the *pāramis* as six viz., *dāna-sīla-khanti-viriya-jhāna-paññā*, which is exactly the list as given in the Buddhist-Sanskrit texts. He writes that according to this enumeration, ‘sīla’ includes nekkhama (renunciation) as also sacca (truthfulness), the latter being only an aspect (ekadeso) of sīla; paññā includes ñāṇa while jhāna and paññā together include upekkhā; adhiṭṭhāna he says, is associated with all the six pāramis. Though Dhammapāla was aware of this sixfold classification of pāramis, the Pāli texts usually mention ten and it seems that this list was made out by the Theravādins some time after the currency of the six pāramitās among the sects other than Theravāda. The supplementary four pāramitās of the later Buddhist Sanskrit texts and the Pāli list of ten pāramitās were very likely the products of the same period.

v2.c42.s2.t4.25

³ See AMB., p. 12.

v2.c42.s2.t4.26

⁴ *Suttanipāta*, vv. 1018, 1020; *Majjhima*, iii, p. 28.

v2.c42.s2.t4.27

⁵ *Paramatthadīpanī*, p. 321.

v2.c42.s2.t4.28

This doctrine of pāramitā is evidently a later accretion to the fundamental principles of Buddhism, and this took place about the 1st century B.C. Of the several sects that appeared after the Second Council, the Mahāsanghikas and their offshoots, the Andhakas, were the first to deify Buddha and introduce the conception of Bodhisattvas. The object of this group of sects was not only the deification of Buddha but also to find a place for the laity within the religion, to create an interest among the householders in Buddhism. This doctrine of pāramitā was meant primarily for householders; three of the pāramitās were already included in the duties prescribed for the laity, viz., sīla, cāga (= dāna) and paññā.¹ The remaining three pāramitās are kṣānti, vīrya and dhyāna. These, it will be observed, are included in the subsidiary practices prescribed for the laity. The distinction between the pāramitā-practices which made a Bodhisattva and the practices prescribed for the laity is that the former practices had to be carried to the extreme that one can conceive of, while the latter was meant only as a general moral training. The doctrine of *pāramitā* illustrated by the Jātaka stories made a strong appeal to the common-folk, and became instrumental in propagating the religion among the mass. The success of the Mahāsanghikas and their offshoots in increasing their followers led other schools like the Sarvāstivādins and Dharmaguptas, and later the most orthodox of the schools the Theravādins to incorporate this new doctrine into their code, though it was not consistent with their teachings and ideals. The Sarvāstivādins, however, changed their outlook in the altered circumstances of the day, and produced an extensive literature in the shape of *Avadānas* to popularise this new cult.

First 142 of 214 passages. Read on

Linked texts (29)