Reading section 9

The earliest known work in which the theory of Maya and the Advaita philosophy are clearly formulated is the metrical treatise known as the Karika of Gaudapada. This name was borne by the teacher of Sankara's teacher, who must have lived about 700 A.D., but the high position accorded to the work, which is usually printed with the Mandukya Upanishad and is practically regarded as[185] a part of it, make an earlier date probable. Both in language and thought it bears a striking resemblance to Buddhist writings of the Madhyamika school and also contains many ideas and similes which reappear in the works of Sankara.[186] On the other hand the Lankavatara Sutra which was translated into Chinese in 513 and therefore can hardly have been composed later than 450, is conscious that its doctrines resemble Brahmanic philosophy, for an interlocutor objects that the language used in it by the Buddha about the Tathagatagarbha is very like the Brahmanic doctrine of the Atman. To which the Buddha replies that his language is a concession to those who cannot stomach the doctrine of the negation of reality in all its austerity. Some of the best known verses of Gaudapada compare the world of appearance to the apparent circle of fire produced by whirling a lighted torch. This striking image occurs first in the Maitrayana Upanishad (VI. 24), which shows other indications of an acquaintance with Buddhism, and also in the Lankavatara Sutra.

A real affinity unites the doctrine of Sankara to the teaching of Gotama himself. That teaching as presented in the Pali Pitakas is marked by its negative and deliberately circumscribed character. Its rule is silence when strict accuracy of expression is impossible, whereas later philosophy does not shrink from phrases which are suggestive, if not exact. Gotama refuses to admit that the human soul is a fixed entity or Atman, but he does not condemn (though he also does not discuss) the idea that the whole world of change and becoming, including human souls, is the expression or disguise of some one ineffable principle. He teaches too that the human mind can grow until it develops new faculties and powers and becomes the Buddha mind, which sees the whole chain of births, the order of the world, and the reality of emancipation. As the object of the whole system is practical, Nirvana is always regarded as a _terminus ad quem_ or an escape (nissaranam) from this transitory world, and this view is more accurate as well as more edifying than the view which treats Brahman or Sunyata as the origin of the universe. When the Vedanta teaches that this changing troubled world is merely the disguise of that unchanging and untroubled state into which saints can pass, it is, I believe, following Gotama's thought, but giving it an expression which he would have considered imperfect.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 163: Translated by Schiefner, 1869. Taranatha informs us (p. 281) that his chief authorities were the history of Kshemendrabhadra, the Buddhapurana of Indradatta and Bhataghati's history of the succession of the Acaryas.]

[Footnote 164: The Tibetans generally translate instead of transliterating Indian names. It is as if an English history of Greece were to speak of Leader of the People instead of Agesilaus.]

[Footnote 165: They place Kanishka, Vasishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva before Kadphises I and Kadphises II.]

[Footnote 166: _E.g._ Stael Holstein who also thinks that Kanishka's tribe should be called Kusha not Kushan. Vincent Smith in his latest work (_Oxford History of India_, p. 130) gives 120 A.D. as the most probable date.]

[Footnote 167: My chief difficulty in accepting 78-123 A.D. as the reign of Kanishka is that the Chinese Annals record the doings of Pan Ch'ao between 73 and 102 in Central Asia, with which region Kanishka is believed to have had relations, and yet do not mention his name. This silence makes it _prima facie_ probable that he lived either before or after Pan Ch'ao's career.

The catalogues of the Chinese Tripitaka state that An-Shih-Kao (148-170 A.D.) translated the Margabhumi-sutra of Sangharaksha, who was the chaplain of Kanishka. But this unfortunately proves nothing except that Kanishka cannot have been very late. The work is not a scripture for whose recognition some lapse of time must be postulated. An-Shih-Kao, who came from the west, may very well have translated a recent and popular treatise.]

[Footnote 168: In this connection we may remember Taranatha's statement that Kanishka's Council put an end to dissentions which had lasted about a century. But he also states that it was after the Council that Mahayanist texts began to appear. If Kanishka flourished about 50 A.D. this would fit in with Taranatha's statements and what we know of the history of Buddhism.]

[Footnote 169: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, 339-390. Satischandra Vidyabhushana arrived at the same conclusion in _J.A.S.B._ 1905, p. 227.]

[Footnote 170: Chap. IV.]

[Footnote 171: Mahaparinib. Sut. III.]

[Footnote 172: Majj. Nik. 72.]

[Footnote 173: Udana. VIII. 1-4.]

[Footnote 174: Accariyabbhutasuttam. Majj. Nik. 123.]

[Footnote 175: Chap. XVI.]

[Footnote 176: That of Rudradaman at Girnar, dated 72 in the Saka Era, has hitherto been considered the oldest, but it is now said that one discovered at Isapur near Muttra is older. See _J.R.A.S_ 1912, p. 114.]

[Footnote 177: _E.g._ Kadphises II and Vasudeva.]

[Footnote 178: Chaps. XII, XIII.]

[Footnote 179: The last section (42) as translated by Teitaro Suzuki in the _Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot_ may seem an exception, for it contains such statements as "I consider the doctrine of sameness as the absolute ground of reality." But the translation seems to me doubtful.]

[Footnote 180: Sec. 11.]

[Footnote 181: Just as all gods and worlds are seen within Krishna's body, so we are told in the Karanda-vyuha (which is however a later work) that in the pores of Avalokita's skin are woods and mountains where dwell saints and gods.]

[Footnote 182: Bhag. G. VIII. 5.]

[Footnote 183: _Commentary on Dhammapada_, P.T.S. edition, pp. 25 ff. especially p. 33.]

[Footnote 184: See Ramanuja, Sribhashya, II. 2, 27 and Padma-Purana uttarakanda 43 (quoted by Suhtankar in _Vienna Oriental Journ._ vol. XXII. 1908). Mayavadam asacchastram pracchannam bauddham ucyate. The Madhvas were specially bitter in their denunciation of Sankara.]

[Footnote 185: Or as itself forming four separate Upanishads. For other arguments in favour of an early date see Walleser, _Aelterer Vedanta_, pp. 14 ff. He states that the Karika is quoted in the Tibetan translations of Bhavaviveka's _Tarkajvala_. Bhavaviveka was certainly anterior to the travels of Hsuean Chuang and perhaps was much earlier. But if he died about 600 A.D. a work quoted by him can hardly have been later than 550 and may be much earlier. But see also Jacobi in _J.A.O.S._ April, 1913, p. 51.]

[Footnote 186: For the resemblances to Nagarjuna see _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 136 ff. Especially remarkable are II. 32 na nirodho na cotpattir, etc., and IV. 59 and the whole argument that causation is impossible. Noticeable too is the use of Buddhist terms like upaya, nirvana, buddha and adibuddha, though not always in the Buddhist sense.]

CHAPTER XXII

FROM KANISHKA TO VASUBANDHU

Tradition, as mentioned above, connects the rise of the Mahayana with the reign of Kanishka. Materials for forming a picture of Indian life under his rule are not plentiful but it was clearly an age of fusion. His hereditary dominions were ample and he had no need to spend his reign in conquests, but he probably subdued Kashmir as well as Khotan, Yarkand and Kashgar.[187] Hostages from one of these states were sent to reside in India and all accounts agree that they were treated with generosity and that their sojourn improved the relations of Kanishka with the northern tribes. His capital was Purushapura or Peshawar, and the locality, like many other features of his reign, indicates a tendency to amalgamate India with Persia and Central Asia. It was embellished with masterpieces of Gandharan sculpture and its chief ornament was a great stupa built by the king for the reception of the relics of the Buddha which he collected. This building is described by several Chinese pilgrims[188] and its proportions, though variously stated, were sufficient to render it celebrated in all the Buddhist world. It is said to have been several times burnt, and rebuilt, but so solid a structure can hardly have been totally destroyed by fire and the greater part of the monument discovered in 1908 probably dates from the time of Kanishka. The base is a square measuring 285 feet on each side, with massive towers at the corners, and on each of the four faces projections bearing staircases. The sides were ornamented with stucco figures of the Buddha and according to the Chinese pilgrims the super-structure was crowned with an iron pillar on which were set twenty-five gilded disks. Inside was found a metal casket, still containing the sacred bones, and bearing an inscription which presents two points of great interest. Firstly it mentions "Agisala the overseer of works at Kanishka's vihara," that is, probably Agesilaus, a foreigner in the king's service. Secondly it states that the casket was made "for the acceptance of the teachers of the Sarvastivadin sect,"[189] and the idea that Kanishka was the special patron of the Mahayana must be reconsidered in the light of this statement.

Legends ascribe Kanishka's fervour for the Buddhist faith not to education but to conversion. His coinage, of which abundant specimens have been preserved, confirms this for it presents images of Greek, Persian, Indian and perhaps Babylonian deities showing how varied was the mythology which may have mingled with Gandharan Buddhism. The coins bearing figures of the Buddha are not numerous and, as he undoubtedly left behind him the reputation of a pious Buddhist, it is probable that they were struck late in his reign and represent his last religious phase.[190] Hsuean Chuang[191] repeats some legends which relate that he was originally anti-Buddhist, and that after his conversion he summoned a council and built a stupa.

The substance of these legends is probable. Kanishka as a barbarian but docile conqueror was likely to adopt Buddhism if he wished to keep abreast of the thought and civilisation of his subjects, for at that time it undoubtedly inspired the intellect and art of north-western India. Both as a statesman and as an enquirer after truth he would wish to promote harmony and stop sectarian squabbles. His action resembles that of Constantine who after his conversion to Christianity proceeded to summon the Council of Nicaea in order to stop the dissensions of the Church and settle what were the tenets of the religion which he had embraced, a point about which both he and Kanishka seem to have felt some uncertainty. Our knowledge of Kanishka's Council depends chiefly on the traditions reported by Hsuean Chuang[192] which present many difficulties. He tells us that the king, acting in consultation with Parsva, issued summonses to all the learned doctors of his realm. They came in such crowds that a severe test was imposed and only 499 Arhats were selected. There was some discussion as to the place of meeting but finally Kashmir[193] was selected and the king built a monastery for the Brethren. When the Council met, there arose a question as to whether Vasumitra (who is not further described) should be admitted seeing that he was not an Arhat but aspired to the career of a Bodhisattva. But owing to the interposition of spirits he was not only admitted but made president.

The texts of the Tripitaka were collected and the Council "composed 100,000 stanzas of Upadesa Sastras explanatory of the canonical sutras, 100,000 stanzas of Vinaya-vibhasha Sastras explanatory of the Vinaya and 100,000 of Abhidharma-vibhasha Sastras explanatory of the Abhidharma. For this exposition of the Tripitaka all learning from remote antiquity was thoroughly examined; the general sense and the terse language (of the Buddhist scriptures) was again and again made clear and distinct, and learning was widely diffused for the safe-guiding of disciples. King Kanishka caused the treatises when finished to be written out on copper plates and enclosed these in stone boxes which he deposited in a tope made for the purpose. He then ordered spirits to keep and guard the texts and not to allow any to be taken out of the country by heretics; those who wished to study them could do so in the country. When leaving to return to his own country, Kanishka renewed Asoka's gift of all Kashmir to the Buddhist Church."[194]

Paramartha (499-569 A.D.) in his _Life of Vasubandhu_[195] gives an account of a council generally considered to be the same as that described by Hsuean Chuang, though the differences in the two versions are considerable. He says that about five hundred years[196] after the Buddha's death (_i.e._ between 87 B.C. and 13 A.D. if the Buddha died 487 B.C.) an Indian Arhat called Katyayani-putra, who was a monk of the Sarvastivadin school, went to Kipin or Kashmir. There with 500 other Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas he collected the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivadins and arranged it in eight books called Ka-lan-ta (Sanskrit _Grantha_) or Kan-tu (Pali _Gantho_). This compilation was also called Jnana-prasthana. He then made a proclamation inviting all who had heard the Buddha preach to communicate what they remembered. Many spirits responded and contributed their reminiscences which were examined by the Council and, when they did not contradict the sutras and the Vinaya, were accepted, but otherwise were rejected. The selected pieces were grouped according to their subject-matter. Those about wisdom formed the Prajna Grantha, and those about meditation the Dhyana Grantha and so on. After finishing the eight books they proceeded to the composition of a commentary or Vibhasha and invited the assistance of Asvaghosha. When he came to Kashmir, Katyayani-putra expounded the eight books to him and Asvaghosha put them into literary form. At the end of twelve years the composition of the commentary was finished. It consisted of 1,000,000 verses.... Katyayani-putra set up a stone inscribed with this proclamation. "Those who hereafter learn this law must not go out of Kashmir. No sentence of the eight books, or of the Vibhasha must pass out of the land, lest other schools or the Mahayana should corrupt the true law." This proclamation was reported to the king who approved it. The sages of Kashmir had power over demons and set them to guard the entrance to the country, but we are told that anyone desirous of learning the law could come to Kashmir and was in no way interrupted.

There follows a story telling how, despite this prohibition, a native of Ayodhya succeeded in learning the law in Kashmir and subsequently teaching it in his native land. Paramartha's account seems exaggerated, whereas the prohibition described by Hsuean Chuang is intelligible. It was forbidden to take the official copies of the law out of Kashmir, lest heretics should tamper with them.

Taranatha[197] gives a singularly confused account of the meeting, which he expressly calls the third council, but makes some important statements about it. He says that it put an end to the dissensions which had been distracting the Buddhist Church _for nearly a century_ and that it recognized all the eighteen sects as holding the true doctrine: that it put the Vinaya in writing as well as such parts of the Sutra-pitaka and Abhidharma as were still unwritten and corrected those which already existed as written texts: that all kinds of Mahayanist writings appeared at this time but that the Sravakas raised no opposition.

It is hard to say how much history can be extracted from these vague and discrepant stories. They seem to refer to one assembly regarded (at least in Tibet) as the third council of the Church and held under Kanishka four or five hundred years[198] after the Buddha's death. As to what happened at the council tradition seems to justify the following deductions, though as the tradition is certainly jumbled it may also be incorrect in details.

(_a_) The council is recognized only by the northern Church and is unknown to the Churches of Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It seems to have regarded Kashmir as sacred land outside which the true doctrine was exposed to danger. (_b_) But it was not a specially Mahayanist meeting but rather a conference of peace and compromise. Taranatha says this clearly: in Hsuean Chuang's account an assembly of Arhats (which at this time must have meant Hinayanists) elect a president who was not an Arhat and according to Paramartha the assembly consisted of 500 Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas who were convened by a leader of the Sarvastivadin school and ended by requesting Asvaghosha to revise their work. (_c_) The literary result of the council was the composition of commentaries on the three Pitakas. One of these, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasha-sastra, translated into Chinese in 437-9 and still extant, is said to be a work of encyclopaedic character, hardly a commentary in the strict sense. Paramartha perhaps made a confusion in saying that the Jnana-prasthana itself was composed at the council. The traditions indicate that the council to some extent sifted and revised the Tripitaka and perhaps it accepted the seven Abhidharma books of the Sarvastivadins.[199] But it is not stated or implied that it composed or sanctioned Mahayanist books. Taranatha merely says that such books appeared at this time and that the Hinayanists raised no active objection.

But if the above is the gist of the traditions, the position described is not clear. The council is recognized by Mahayanists yet it appears to have resulted in the composition of a Sarvastivadin treatise, and the tradition connecting the Sarvastivadins with the council is not likely to be wrong, for they are recognized in the inscription on Kanishka's casket, and Gandhara and Kashmir were their headquarters. The decisions of councils are often politic rather than logical and it may be that the doctors summoned by Kanishka, while compiling Sarvastivadin treatises, admitted the principle that there is more than one vehicle which can take mankind to salvation. Perhaps some compromise based on geography was arranged, such as that Kashmir should be left to the Sarvastivadin school which had long flourished there, but that no opposition should be offered to the Mahayanists elsewhere.

The relations of the Sarvastivadins to Mahayanism are exceedingly difficult to define and there are hardly sufficient materials for a connected account of this once important sect, but I will state some facts about it which seem certain.

It is ancient, for the Kathavatthu alludes to its doctrines.[200] It flourished in Gandhara, Kashmir and Central Asia, and Kanishka's casket shows that he patronized it.[201] But it appears to have been hardly known in Ceylon or Southern India. It was the principal northern form of Hinayanism, just as the Theravada was the southern form. I-Ching however says that it prevailed in the Malay Archipelago.

Its doctrines, so far as known, were Hinayanist but it was distinguished from cognate schools by holding that the external world can be said to exist and is not merely a continual process of becoming. It had its own version of the Abhidharma and of the Vinaya. In the time of Fa-Hsien the latter was still preserved orally and was not written. The adherents of this school were also called Vaibhashikas, and Vibhasha was a name given to their exegetical literature.

But the association of the Sarvastivadins with Mahayanists is clear from the council of Kanishka onwards. Many eminent Buddhists began by being Sarvastivadins and became Mahayanists, their earlier belief being regarded as preliminary rather than erroneous. Hsuean Chuang translated the Sarvastivadin scriptures in his old age and I-Ching belonged to the Mulasarvastivadin school;[202] yet both authors write as if they were devout Mahayanists. The Tibetan Church is generally regarded as an extreme form of Mahayanism but its Vinaya is that of the Sarvastivadins.

Though the Sarvastivadins can hardly have accepted idealist metaphysics, yet the evidence of art and their own version of the Vinaya make it probable that they tolerated a moderate amount of mythology, and the Mahayanists, who like all philosophers were obliged to admit the provisional validity of the external world, may also have admitted their analysis of the same as provisionally valid. The strength of the Hinayanist schools lay in the Vinaya. The Mahayanists showed a tendency to replace it by legends and vague if noble aspirations. But a code of discipline was necessary for large monasteries and the code of the Sarvastivadins enjoyed general esteem in Central Asia and China.

Three stages in the history of Indian Buddhism are marked by the names of Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna and the two brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu. It would be easier to give a precise description of its development if we were sure which of the works ascribed to these worthies are authentic, but it seems that Asvaghosha represents an ornate and transitional phase of the older schools leading to Mahayanism, whereas Nagarjuna is connected with the Prajna-paramita and the nihilistic philosophy described in the preceding chapter. Asanga was the founder of the later and more scholastic system called Yogacara and is also associated with a series of revelations said to have been made by Maitreya.

As mentioned above, tradition makes Asvaghosha,[203] one of the most brilliant among Sanskrit writers, live at the court of Kanishka[204] and according to some accounts he was given to the Kushans as part of a war indemnity. The tradition[205] is confirmed by the style and contents of his poems and it has been noted by Foucher that his treatment of legends is in remarkable accord with their artistic presentment in the Gandharan sculptures. Also fragmentary manuscripts of his dramas discovered in Central Asia appear to date from the Kushan epoch. Asvaghosha's rank as a poet depends chiefly on his Buddhacarita, or life of the Buddha up to the time of his enlightenment. It is the earliest example of a Kavya, usually translated as artificial epic, but here literary skill is subservient to the theme and does not, as too often in later works, overwhelm it. The Buddha is its hero, as Rama of the Ramayana, and it sings the events of his earlier life in a fine flow of elaborate but impassioned language. Another of his poems,[206] discovered only a few years ago, treats of the conversion of Nanda, the Buddha's half-brother.

Various other works are ascribed to Asvaghosha and for the history of Buddhism it is of great interest to decide whether he was really the author of _The Awakening of Faith_. This skilful exposition of a difficult theme is worthy of the writer of the Buddhacarita but other reasons make his authorship doubtful, for the theology of the work may be described as the full-blown flower of Mahayanism untainted by Tantrism. It includes the doctrines of Bhuta-tathata, Alaya-vijnana, Tathagatagarbha and the three bodies of Buddha. It would be dangerous to say that these ideas did not exist in the time of Kanishka, but what is known of the development of doctrine leads us to expect their full expression not then but a century or two later and other circumstances raise suspicions as to Asvaghosha's authorship. His undoubted works were translated into Chinese about 400 A.D. but _The Awakening of Faith_ a century and a half later.[207] Yet if this concise and authoritative compendium had existed in 400, it is strange that the earlier translators neglected it. It is also stated that an old Chinese catalogue of the Tripitaka does not name Asvaghosha as the author.[208]

The undoubted works of Asvaghosha treat the Buddha with ornate but grave rhetoric as the hero of an epic. His progress is attended by miracles such as Indian taste demands, but they hardly exceed the marvels recounted in the Pali scriptures and there is no sign that the hero is identified, as in the Ramayana of Tulsi Das or the Gospel according to St. John, with the divine spirit. The poet clearly feels personal devotion to a Saviour. He dwells on the duty of teaching others and not selfishly seeking one's own salvation, but he does not formulate dogmas.