Reading section 12

I-Ching observes that both Vehicles agree in prescribing the same discipline, in prohibiting the same offences and enjoining the practice of the noble truths. His views, which are substantially those of Hsuean Chuang,[257] must be those current in the seventh century when the Hinayana was allowing the Mahayana to overgrow it without resistance, but the relations of the two creeds are sometimes stated differently. For instance the Angulimaliya sutra,[258] known only in a Tibetan translation, states that whereas for the Hinayana such formulae as the four truths and the eightfold path are of cardinal importance, the Mahayana does not recognize them, and it is undoubtedly true that the Vaipulya sutras frequently ignore the familiar doctrines of early Buddhism and hint that they belong to a rudimentary stage of instruction.

I-Ching makes no mention of persecution but he deplores the decay of the faith. "The teaching of the Buddha is becoming less prevalent in the world from day to day" he says. "When I compare what I have witnessed in my younger days and what I see to-day in my old age, the state is altogether different and we are bearing witness to this and it is hoped we shall be more attentive in future." Though he speaks regretfully of lax or incorrect discipline, he does not complain of the corruption of the faith by Tantrism and magical practices. He does however deprecate in an exceedingly curious passage the prevalence of religious suicide.[259]

Except for progressive decay, the condition of Indian Buddhism as described by the two pilgrims is much the same. Meals were supplied to monks in the monasteries and it was no longer usual to beg for food in the streets, since the practice is mentioned by I-Ching as exceptional. On Upavasatha days it was the custom for the pious laity to entertain the monks and the meal was sometimes preceded by a religious service performed before an image and accompanied by music. I-Ching describes the musical services with devout enthusiasm. "The priests perform the ordinary service late in the afternoon or in the evening twilight. They come out of the monastery and walk three times round a stupa, offering incense and flowers. Then they all kneel down and one of them who sings well begins to chant hymns describing the virtues of the great Teacher and continues to sing ten or twenty slokas. They then return to the place in the monastery where they usually assemble and, when all have sat down, a reciter mounting the lion-seat (which is near the head priest) reads a short sutra. Among the scriptures for such an occasion the 'Service in three parts' is often used. This is a selection of Asvaghosha. The first part contains ten slokas of a hymn. The second part is a selection from some scripture consisting of the Buddha's words. Then there is an additional hymn as the third part of the service, of more than ten slokas, being prayers that express the wish to bring one's merits to maturity. After the singing the assembled Bhikshus exclaim Subhashita or Sadhu, that is well-said or bravo. The reader descends and the Bhikshus in order salute the lion-seat, the seats of Bodhisattvas and Arhats, and the superior of the monastery."[260]

I-Ching also tells us of the ceremonial bathing of images and prefaces his description by the remark that "the meaning of the Truths is so profound that it is a matter beyond the comprehension of vulgar minds while the ablution of the holy images is practicable for all. Though the Great Teacher has entered Nirvana yet his image exists and we should worship it with zeal as though in his presence. Those who constantly offer incense and flowers to it are enabled to purify their thoughts and those who perpetually bathe his image are enabled to overcome the sins that involve them in darkness."[261] He appears to contemplate chiefly the veneration of images of Sakyamuni but figures of Bodhisattvas were also conspicuous features in temples, as we know not only from archaeology but from the biography of Hsuean Chuang, where it is said that worshippers used to throw flowers and silk scarves at the image of Avalokita and draw auguries from the way they fell.

Monasteries were liberally decorated with statues, carvings and pictures.[262] They often comprised several courts and temples. Hsuean Chuang says that a monastery in Magadha which he calls Ti-lo-shi-ka had "four courts with three storeyed halls, lofty terraces and a succession of open passages.... At the head of the road through the middle gate were three temples with disks on the roof and hung with small bells; the bases were surrounded by balustrades, and doors, windows, beams, walls, and stairs were ornamented with gilt work in relief." In the three temples were large images representing the Buddha, Tara and Avalokita.

The great centres of Buddhist learning and monastic life, mentioned by both pilgrims, were Valabhi or Balabhi in Gujarat and Nalanda. The former was a district rather than a single locality and contained 100 monasteries with 6000 monks of the Sammitiya school. Nalanda was in Magadha not far from Gaya. The date of its foundation is unknown but a great temple (though apparently not the first) was built about 485 A.D.[263] Fa-Hsien mentions a village called Nala but without indicating that it was a seat of learning. Hence it is probable that the University was not then in existence or at least not celebrated. Hsuean Chuang describes it as containing six monasteries built by various kings and surrounded by an enclosing wall in which there was only one gate. I-Ching writing later says that the establishment owned 200 villages and contained eight halls with more than 3000 monks. In the neighbourhood of the monastery were a hundred sacred spots, several marked by temples and topes. It was a resort for Buddhists from all countries and an educational as well as a religious centre. I-Ching says that students spent two or three years there in learning and disputing after which they went to the king's court in search of a government appointment. Successful merit was rewarded not only by rank but by grants of land. Both pilgrims mention the names of several celebrities connected with Nalanda. But the worthies of the seventh century did not attain to more than scholastic eminence. The most important literary figure of the age is Santideva of whose life nothing is known. His writings however prove that the Buddhism of this period was not a corrupt superstition, but could inspire and nourish some of the most beautiful thoughts which the creed has produced.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 230: See Vasilief, _Le Bouddhisme_, Troisieme supplement, pp. 262 ff. Koeppen, _Rel. des Buddha_, I. 151. Takakusu in _J. Pali Text Society_, 1905, pp. 67-146.]

[Footnote 231: _Records_, translated by Takakusu, p. 15.]

[Footnote 232: They are mentioned in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha.]

[Footnote 233: Kern (_Indian Buddhism_, p. 126) says they rejected the authority of the Sutras altogether but gives no reference.]

[Footnote 234: See Vasilief, pp. 301 ff. and various notices in Hsuean Chuang and Watters. Also de la Vallee Poussin's article in E.R.E.]

[Footnote 235: Hsuean Chuang informs us that when he was in Srughna he studied the Vibhasha of the Sautrantikas, but the precise significance of this term is not plain.]

[Footnote 236: Fa-Hsien's _Travels_, chap. XVI.]

[Footnote 237: This figure is probably deduced from some artificial calculation of possible heresies like the 62 wrong views enumerated in the Brahma-Jala sutra.]

[Footnote 238: He must have lived in the fourth century as one of his works (Nanjio, 1243) was translated between 397 and 439.]

[Footnote 239: Watters, _Yuean Chwang_, II. 221-224. Nanjio, 1237. The works of Gunamati also are said to show a deep knowledge of the Sankhya philosophy.]

[Footnote 240: For the history of logic in India, see Vidyabhusana's interesting work _Mediaeval School of Indian Logic_, 1909. But I cannot accept all his dates.]

[Footnote 241: Dinnaga's principal works are the Pramana-samuccaya and the Nyaya-pravesa. Hsuean Chuang calls him Ch'en-na. See Watters, II. 209. See Stcherbatskoi in _Museon_, 1904, pp. 129-171 for Dinnaga's influence on the development of the Naiyayika and Vaiseshika schools.]

[Footnote 242: His personal name is said to have been P'u-ti-to-lo and his surname Ch'a-ti-li. The latter is probably a corruption of Kshatriya. Hsiang-Chih possibly represents a name beginning with Gandha, but I can neither find nor suggest any identification.]

[Footnote 243: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, pp. 379 ff.]

[Footnote 244: His evil deeds are several times mentioned by Hsuean Chuang. It required a miracle to restore the Bo tree.]

[Footnote 245: See Ettinghausen, _Harshavardhana_, Appendix III.]

[Footnote 246: The appearance of Gauri as a _dea ex machina_ at the end hardly shows that Harsha's Buddhism had a Saktist tinge but it does show that Buddhists of that period turned naturally to Sivaite mythology.]

[Footnote 247: Harshacarita, chap. VII. The parrots were expounding Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa. Bana frequently describes troops of holy men apparently living in harmony but including followers of most diverse sects. See Kadambari, 193 and 394: Harshacar. 67.]

[Footnote 248: It is curious that Bana (Harshacarita, VII.) says of this prince that from childhood he resolved never to worship anyone but Siva.]

[Footnote 249: The Rashtra-pala-paripriccha (Ed. Finot, pp. ix-xi, 28-33) inveighs against the moral degeneration of the Buddhist clergy. This work was translated into Chinese between 589 and 618, so that demoralisation must have begun in the sixth century.]

[Footnote 250: See Rhys Davids in _J.R.A.S._ 1891, pp. 418 ff.]

[Footnote 251: Hsuean Chuang was not disposed to underrate the numbers of the Mahayana for he says that the monks of Ceylon were Mahayanists.]

[Footnote 252: See the beginning of the Kathavatthu. The doctrine is formulated in the words Puggalo upalabbhati saccikatthaparamatthenati, and there follows a discussion between a member of the orthodox school and a Puggalavadin, that is one who believes in the existence of a person, soul or entity which transmigrates from this world to another.]

[Footnote 253: Sam. Nik. XXII. 221.]

[Footnote 254: This use of Nikaya must not be confused with its other use to denote a division of the Sutra-Pitaka. It means a group or collection and hence can be used to denote either a body of men or a collection of treatises. These Nikayas are also not the same as the four schools (Vaibhashikas, etc.), mentioned above, which were speculative. Similarly in Europe a Presbyterian may be a Calvinist, but Presbyterianism has reference to Church government and Calvinism to doctrine.

There were in India at this time (1) two vehicles, Maha-and Hinayana, (2) four speculative schools, Vaibhashikas, etc., (3) four disciplinary schools, Mula-sarvastivadins, etc. These three classes are obviously not mutually exclusive. Thus I-Ching approved of (_a_) the Mahayana, (_b_) the Madhyamika and Yogacara, which he did not consider inconsistent and (_c_) the Mula-sarvastivada.]

[Footnote 255: I-Ching, transl. Takakusu, p. 186.]

[Footnote 256: Three Asankhya Kalpas. I-Ching, Takakusu's transl. pp. 196-7. He seems to regard the Mahayana as the better way. He quotes Nagarjuna's allusions to Avalokita and Amitayus with apparent approval; he tells us how one of his teachers worshipped Amitayus and strove to prepare himself for Sukhavati and how the Lotus was the favourite scripture of another. He further tells us that the Madhyamika and the Yoga systems are both perfectly correct.]

[Footnote 257: Hsuean Chuang speaks of Mahayanists belonging to the Sthavira school.]

[Footnote 258: Quoted by Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, pp. 196 ff.]

[Footnote 259: Chaps. XXXVIII and XXXIX. He seems to say that it is right for the laity to make an offering of their bodies by burning but not for Bhikshus. The practice is recognized and commended in the Lotus, chap. XXII, which however is a later addition to the original work.]

[Footnote 260: I-Ching, transl. Takakusu, pp. 153-4 somewhat abridged. I-Ching (pp. 156-7) speaks of Matricheta as the principal hymn writer and does not identify him with Asvaghosha.]

[Footnote 261: I believe the golden image in the Arakan Pagoda at Mandalay is still washed with a ceremonial resembling that described by I-Ching.]

[Footnote 262: I-Ching says that monasteries commonly had a statue of Mahakala as a guardian deity.]

[Footnote 263: By the Gupta king, Narasinha Gupta Baladitya. Much information about Nalanda will be found in Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana's _Mediaeval School of Indian Logic_, pp. 145-147. Hsuean Chuang (_Life_, transl. Beal, p. 111) says that it was built 700 years before his time, that is, in the first century B.C. He dwells on the beauty of the buildings, ponds and flowers.]

CHAPTER XXIV

DECADENCE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA

The theme of this chapter is sad for it is the decadence, degradation and ultimate disappearance of Buddhism in India. The other great religions offer no precise parallel to this phenomenon but they also do not offer a parallel to the circumstances of Buddhism at the time when it flourished in its native land. Mohammedanism has been able to maintain itself in comparative isolation: up to the present day Moslims and Christians share the same cities rather than the same thoughts, especially when (as often) they belong to different races. European Christianity after a few centuries of existence had to contend with no rival of approximately equal strength, for the struggle with Mohammedanism was chiefly military and hardly concerned the merits of the faiths. But Buddhism never had a similarly paramount and unchallenged position. It never attempted to extirpate its rivals. It coexisted with a mass of popular superstition which it only gently reprobated and with a powerful hereditary priesthood, both intellectual and pliant, tenacious of their own ideas and yet ready to countenance almost any other ideas as the price of ruling. Neither Islam nor Christianity had such an adversary, and both of them and even Judaism resemble Buddhism in having won greater success outside their native lands than in them. Jerusalem is not an altogether satisfactory spectacle to either Christians or Jews.[264]

Still all this does not completely explain the disappearance of Buddhism from India. Before attempting to assign reasons, we shall do well to review some facts and dates relating to the period of decadence. If we take all India into consideration the period is long, but in many, indeed in most, districts the process of decay was rapid.

In the preceding chapter I have mentioned the accounts of Indian Buddhism which we owe to the Chinese travellers, Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching. The latter frankly deplores the decay of the faith which he had witnessed in his own life (_i.e._ about 650-700 A.D.) but his travels in India were of relatively small extent and he gives less local information than previous pilgrims. Hsuean Chuang describing India in 629-645 A.D. is unwilling to admit the decay but his truthful narrative lets it be seen. It is only of Bengal and the present United Provinces that he can be said to give a favourable account, and the prosperity of Buddhism there was largely due to the personal influence of Harsha.[265] In central and southern India, he tells us of little but deserted monasteries. It is clear that Buddhism was dying out but it is not so clear that it had ever been the real religion of this region. In many parts it did not conquer the population but so to speak built fortresses and left garrisons. It is probable that the Buddhism of Andhra, Kalinga and the south was represented by little more than such outposts. They included Amaravati, where portions of the ruins seem assignable to about 150 A.D., and Ajanta, where some of the cave paintings are thought to be as late as the sixth century. But of neither site can we give any continuous history. In southern India the introduction of Buddhism took place under the auspices of Asoka himself, though his inscriptions have as yet been found only in northern Mysore and not in the Tamil country. The Tamil poems Manimegalei and Silappadigaram, especially the former, represent it as prevalent and still preserving much of its ancient simplicity. Even in later times when it had almost completely disappeared from southern India, occasional Buddhist temples were founded. Rajaraja endowed one at Negapatam about 1000 A.D. In 1055 a monastery was erected at Belgami in Mysore and a Buddhist town named Kalavati is mentioned as existing in that state in 1533.[266] But in spite of such survivals, even in the sixth century Buddhism could not compete in southern India with either Jainism or Hinduism and there are no traces of its existence in the Deccan after 1150.

For the Konkan, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Hsuean Chuang's statistics are fairly satisfactory. But in all this region the Sammitiya sect which apparently was nearer to Hinduism than the others was the most important. In Ujjain Buddhism was almost extinct but in many of the western states it lingered on, perhaps only in isolated monasteries, until the twelfth century. Inscriptions found at Kanheri (843 and 851 A.D.), Dambal (1095 A.D.) and in Miraj (1110 A.D.) testify that grants were made to monasteries at these late dates.[267] But further north the faith had to endure the violence of strangers. Sind was conquered by the Arabs in 712; Gujarat and the surrounding country were invaded by northern tribes and such invasions were always inimical to the prosperity of monasteries.

This is even more true of the Panjab, the frontier provinces and Kashmir. The older invaders such as the Yueeh-chih had been favourably disposed to Buddhism, but those who came later, such as the Huns, were predaceous barbarians with little religion of any sort. In Hsuean Chuang's time it was only in Udyana that Buddhism could be said to be the religion of the people and the torrent of Mohammedan invasion which swept continuously through these countries during the middle ages overwhelmed all earlier religions, and even Hinduism had to yield. In Kashmir Buddhism soon became corrupt and according to the Rajatarangini[268] the monks began to marry as early as the sixth century. King Lalitaditya (733-769) is credited with having built monasteries as well as temples to the Sun, but his successors were Sivaites.

Bengal, especially western Bengal and Bihar, was the stronghold of decadent Buddhism, though even here hostile influences were not absent. But about 730 A.D. a pious Buddhist named Gopala founded the Pala dynasty and extended his power over Magadha. The Palas ruled for about 450 years and supplied a long and devout line of defenders of the faith. But to the east of their dominions lay the principality of Kanauj, a state of varying size and fortunes and from the eighth century onwards a stronghold of Brahmanic learning.

The revolution in Hinduism which definitely defeated, though it did not annihilate Buddhism, is generally connected with the names of Kumarila Bhatta (_c._ 750) and Sankara (_c._ 800). We know the doctrines of these teachers, for many of their works have come down to us, but when we enquire what was their political importance, or the scope and extent of the movement which they championed we are conscious (as so often) of the extraordinary vagueness of Indian records even when the subject might appeal to religious and philosophic minds.[269] Kumarila is said to have been a Brahman of Bihar who abjured Buddhism for Hinduism and raged with the ardour of a proselyte against his ancient faith. Tradition[270] represents him as instigating King Sudhanvan to exterminate the Buddhists. But nothing is known of this king and he cannot have had the extensive empire with which he is credited.

Sankara was a Brahman of the south who in a short life found time to write numerous works, to wander over India, to found a monastic order and build four monasteries. In doctrine and discipline he was more pliant than Kumarila and he assimilated many strong points of Buddhism. Both these teachers are depicted as the successful heroes of public disputations in which the interest at stake was considerable. The vanquished had to become a disciple of the vanquisher or to forfeit his life and, if he was the head of an institution, to surrender its property. These accounts, though exaggerated, are probably a florid version of what occurred and we may surmise that the popular faith of the day was generally victorious. What violence the rising tide of Hinduism may have wrought, it is hard to say. There is no evidence of any general persecution of Buddhism in the sense in which one Christian sect persecuted another in Europe. But at a rather later date we hear that Jains were persecuted and tortured by Saiva princes both in southern India and Gujarat, and if there were any detailed account, epigraphic or literary, of such persecutions in the eighth and ninth centuries, there would be no reason for doubting it. But no details are forthcoming. Without resorting to massacre, an anti-Buddhist king had in his power many effective methods of hostility. He might confiscate or transfer monastic property, or forbid his subjects to support monks. Considering the state of Buddhism as represented by Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching it is probable that such measures would suffice to ensure the triumph of the Brahmans in most parts of India.

After the epoch of Sankara, the history of Indian Buddhism is confined to the Pala kingdom. Elsewhere we hear only of isolated grants to monasteries and similar acts of piety, often striking but hardly worthy of mention in comparison with the enormous number of Brahmanic inscriptions. But in the Pala kingdom[271] Buddhism, though corrupt, was flourishing so far as the number of its adherents and royal favour were concerned. Gopala founded the monastery of Odontapuri or Udandapura, which according to some authorities was in the town of Bihar. Dharmapala the second king of the dynasty (_c._ 800 A.D.) built on the north bank of the Ganges the even more celebrated University of Vikramasila,[272] where many commentaries were composed. It was a centre not only of tantric learning but of logic and grammar, and is interesting as showing the connection between Bengal and Tibet. Tibetans studied there and Sanskrit books were translated into Tibetan within its cloisters. Dharmapala is said to have reigned sixty-four years and to have held his court at Patna, which had fallen into decay but now began to revive. According to Taranatha his successor Devapala built Somapuri, conquered Orissa and waged war with the unbelievers who had become numerous, no doubt as a result of the preaching of Sankara. But as a rule the Palas, though they favoured Buddhism, did not actively discourage Hinduism. They even gave grants to Hindu temples and their prime ministers were generally Brahmans who[273] used to erect non-Buddhist images in Buddhist shrines. The dynasty continued through the eleventh century and in this period some information as to the condition of Indian Buddhism is afforded by the relations between Bengal and Tibet. After the persecution of the tenth century Tibetan Buddhism was revived by the preaching of monks from Bengal. Mahipala then occupied the throne (_c._ 978-1030) and during his reign various learned men accepted invitations to Tibet. More celebrated is the mission of Atisa, a monk of the Vikramasila monastery, which took place about 1038. That these two missions should have been invited and despatched shows that in the eleventh century Bengal was a centre of Buddhist learning. Probably the numerous Sanskrit works preserved in Tibetan translations then existed in its monasteries. But about the same time the power of the Pala dynasty, and with it the influence of Buddhism, were curtailed by the establishment of the rival Sena dynasty in the eastern provinces. Still, under Ramapala, who reigned about 1100, the great teacher Abhayakara was an ornament of the Mahayana. Taranatha[274] says that he corrected the text of the scriptures and that in his time there were many Pandits and resident Bhikshus in the monasteries of Vikramasila, Bodh-Gaya and Odontapuri.