Manavaa MAHAYANA ‘There are, it scems, very few things that can be said with certainty about Mahayina Buddhism. Its certain that the term Mahaytina (which means “great or large \ehicle”} was in origin a polemical label used by only ‘one side—and perhaps the least significant side—of protracted, if uneven, Indian debate about what the real teachings of the Buddha were, that might have be- gun just before, or just after, the beginning of the com- mon era in India. Its, however, not clear how soon this label was actually used outside of texts to desig nate a self-conscious, independent religious move- ment. The term does not occur in Indian inscriptions, for example, until the fifth or sixth century. Iti also certain that Buddhist groups and individuals in China, Korea, Tibet, and Japan have in the past, as in the very recent present, identified themselves as Mahiyina Buddhists, even if the polemical or value claim em- bedded in that term was only dimly felt, ifat all. ‘But apart from the fact that it can be said with some certainty that the Buddhism embedded in China, Ko- rea, Tibet, and Japan is Mahayana Buddhism, it is no longer clear what else can be said with certainty about ‘Mahayana Buddhism itself, and especially about its earlier, and presumably formative, period in India. While itis true that scholars not so long ago made a series of confident claims about the Mahayana, it is ‘equally clear that now almost every one of those claims is seriously contested, and probably no one now could, in good faith, confidently present a general character- ization of it. In part, of course, this is because it has become increasingly clear that Mahayina Buddhism vwas never one thing, but rather, it seems, a loosely bound bundle of many, and—like Walt Whitman— ‘was large and could contain, in both senses of the term, contradictions, or at least antipodal elements. But in part, too, the crumbling of old confidences isa direct, result of the crumbling of old “historical” truisms about Buddhism in general, and about the Maha} in particular. A few examples must suffice. The old linear model and the date of the “ori- gin” of the Mahéyéna, The historical development of Indian Buddhism used to be presented as simple, straightforward, and suspi- ciously linear. It started with the historical Buddha ‘whose teaching was organized, transmitted, and more dr less developed into what was referred to as early Budathism. This Early Buddhism was identified as Hiwavana (the “small,” or even “inferior vehicle”), wm ‘THERAVADA (the teaching of the elders), or simply “monastic Buddhism” (what to call it remains a prob: lem). A little before or alittle after the beginning of the common era this early Buddhism was, according to the model, followed by the Mahayina, which was seen as a major break or radical transformation, Both the linear model and the thetoric used to construct it left the distinct impression that the appearance of the Mahayana meant as well the disappearance of Early Buddhism or Hinayana, that in effect, the former re- placed the later Ifthe development was in fact linear, it could, of course, not have been otherwise. Unfortu- nately, at least for the model, we now know that this was not true. The emergence of the MahBy3na was a far more complicated affair than the linear model al- lowed, and “Early” Buddhism or Hinayana or what some now call perhaps correctly —mainstream Bud- dhism, not only persisted, but prospered, long after the beginning of the common era. ‘The most important evidence—in fact the only evidence—for situating the emergence of the Ma haydna around the beginning of the common era was not Indian evidence at all, but came from China. Al- ready by the last quarter of the second century C.1 there was a small, seemingly idiosyncratic collection of substantial Mahayana sitras translated into what Erik Zarcher ealls “broken Chinese” by an Indoscythian, whose Indian name has been reconstructed as Lokaksema. Although a recent scholar has suggested that these translations may not have been intended for a Chinese audience, but rather for a group of return- ing Kushan immigrants who were no longer able to read Indian languages, and although there is no Indian evidence that this assortment of texts ever formed a group there, still, the fact that they were available to some sort of Central Asian or Chinese readership by the end of the second century must indicate that they were composed sometime before that. The recent pub- lication of, unfortunately, very small fragments of a Kushan manuscript of one of these texts—the Astasdhasrika Prajidparamita (Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines)—also points in the same diec- tion. But the difficult question remains how long be- fore they were translated into “broken Chinese” had these texts been composed, and here the only thing that, can be said with some conviction is that, to judge by their contents, the texts known to Lokakgema cannot represent the earliest phase or form of Mahiyiina thought or literature. They seem to presuppose in fact a more or les long development of both style and doc- tine, a development that could have easily taken a cen- EncYcLorenia oF BUDDHISM ‘tmeintaamo ona icine inntam ncetury oF more and, therefore, would throw the cacliest phase of ths literature back to about the beginning of the common era, The emergence of the Mahayina hhas—mostly as a matter of convention—thereiore bboen placed there. But even apart from the obvious weaknesses inherent in arguments ofthis kind there is here the tacit equation of a body of literature with a teligious movement, an assumption that evidence for the presence of one proves the existence of the otver, and this may be a serious misstep. The evidence for the Mehayéna outside of texts Until fairly recently scholars were content to discuss the emergenee of the Mahsyna almost exclusively in terms of literary developments, and as long as they did not look outside of tests the emergence of a Mahayina indeed be placed—at least conventionally— around the beginning of the common era, But when. they began to look outside of texts, in art historical or inscriptional or historical sources, for evidence of the Mahayana as a religious movement, or for evidence of actual Mahiyana groups or cuts in India, this became much more difficult, A good illustration of the issues involved here might be seen in the Indian evidence for what became first in China, and then in Japan, a ma- jor form of Mahayana Buddhism, One of the Mahyéna texts translated by Loka~ gema is called in Sanskrit the Sukhdvatieyihasitra, and a Chinese translation of it came to be a central text for Bast Asian PoRE LaND Butsbatisw, According to the line of thought sketched above, since this text was translated already at the end of the second cen- ary it must have been composed in India sometime carlier and, by convention, around the beginning of the common era, Thus, ifwe limited ourselves to tex tual evidence, this form of Mahyna Buddhism must have emerged in india at that time. If, however, we look outside of texts there is simply no evidence for this, There is a large body of archaeological, art his torical, and inscriptional evidence for Buddhist cult practice for this period, but absolutely nothing in it would suggest anything like Fast Asian Pare Land Buddhism, and no trace of the Buddha AsurAnsa, the contral figure and presumed abject of devotion in this, Buddhism. In the hundreds of Buddhist donative in- scriptions that we have in India for the whole of the fst five centuries of the common era, in fact, thee is only’ a single certain, utterly isolated and atypical, ref erence {e Amitatbha, and it fs as late as the second half of the second century. Among the hundreds of sur- ENcyCLOPEDIA oF BuoouIsst Manzvana viving images from the same period, images that tes- tify to the overwhelming presence of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni as the focus of attention, there is again a single certain isolated image of Amitabh. ‘There is a very small number of images or reliefs from Northwestern India (Gandhara) that some scholars have taken as representations of Amitabha and his Pore Land, bur there is no agreement here, and the images or reliefs in question may dace from as late a the fifth century: In other words, once nontextual ev- idence is taken into account the picture changes dra~ ‘matically. Rather than being datable to the beginning of the common era, this strand of Mahayina Bud: dirism, at least, appeared to have no visible impact on Indian Buddhist cult practice until the second century, and even thea what impact it had was extremely iso- lated and marginal, and had no lasting or long-term consequencet—there were no further references £0 Amitabha in Indian image inscriptions. Almost exactly the same pattern occurs on an even broader scale when nontextual evidence is considered The Mahdyéna and monastic Buddhism in the middle period Although the history of Buddhism ins India isin ger ral not well documented, stil, for the period trom the beginning of the common era to the fifth to sixth ‘centuries —precisely the period that according to the ‘od scheme should be the “period of the Mahayana” — we probably have beiter sources than for almost any ‘other period, Certainly, we have for this period an ex- tensive body of inscriptions trom virtually all parts of India. These records document the religious aspira- tions and activities of Buddhist communities through fut the period at sites all aeross the Indian landscape, and they contain scores of references to named Bud ddhist groups and “schools.” But nowhere in this ex- tensive body of maierial is there any reference, prior to the fifth century, toa named Mahayana, There are oon the other hand, scores of references to what used. to be called Hinaydna groups—the Sarvastivadins, ‘Mahasamghikas, and so on, From this point of views atleast, this was not “the period of the Mahayana,” but “the period of the Hinayna.” Moreover, itis the religious aspirations and goals of the Hinayna that are expressed in these dacaments, not those of a Ma- hayana, There is, for example, a kind of general con- sensus that if there isa single defining characteristic of the Mahayéina itis that for Mahayana the ultimate re- Tigious goal is no longer NixvA34, but rather the at- tainment of full awakening or buddhabood by all. This 483Manavans, goal in one form or another and, however nuanced, attenuated, or temporally postponed, characterizes virtually every form of Mahiyana Buddhism that we know. But, again, there is hardly a trace of this aspi- ration prior to the fifth century anywhere in the large body of indian Buddhist inscriptions that have sur- vived. Even more mediate goals associated with the Mahayana are nowhere represented. There is, for ex- ample, not a single instance anywhere in Indian in- setiptions of a donor aspiring to REsIRTH in a Puze Land, and this is in starting contrast with what oc- ‘curs in countries or communities—like LONGMEN in China—where Mabiyina Buddhism was actually practiced and was important. What is particularly disconcerting here is the dis connect between expectation and reality: We know from Chinese translations that large numbers of Ma- hayana stitras were being composed in the period be tween the beginning of the common era and the fifth century. These texts were constructing, defining, and debating competing versions of a, or the, Mahayana, and articulating Mahayana religious ideas and aspira- tions, But outside of texts, at least in India, at exactly the same period, very different—in fact seemingly ‘older—ideas and aspirations appear to be motivating actual behavior, and old and established Hinayna {groups appear to be the only ones that are patronized and supported. In India at least, in an age when Ma~ hayana Buddhas like Amitabha and AKSODIvA might have been expected to dominate, it is, in fact, the old Buddha Sakyamuni who everywhere remains the focus of attention—it is his image, for example, that is eas- ily and everywhere found. The Mohéyéna and the role of the laity ‘What to make of this disconnect remains, of course, a major conundrum for any attempt to characterize the ‘Mahayana o to track its history and development— ‘much of which might, infact, have taken place outside India, But this is by no means the only disconnect that is encountered in trying to get a handle on the Ma- hayina, One of the most frequent assertions about the Mahdyna—to cite another example—is that it was a lay-influenced, or even lay-inspited and dominated, ‘movement that arose in response to the increasingly closed, cold, and scholastic character of monastic Bud- hism. This, however, now appears to be wrong on all counts. While itis true that as it developed outside of India Mahayana Buddhism appears to have taken on at least the appearance of a more lay-oriented move- ment, a good deal of this appearance may be based on ers a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the estab- lished monastic Buddhism it was supposed to be re- acting to. Is, in fact, becoming increasingly clear that far from being closed or cut off from the lay world, monastic, Hinaydna Buddhism—especially in its In- dian, Sanskritic forms—was, very much like medieval Christian monasticism, deeply embedded in and con- cemed with the lay world, mach of its program being in fact intended and designed to allow laymen and women and donors the opportunity and means to make religious merit. This in many ways remains the function of monastic Buddhism even today in modern ‘Theravada countries. Ironically, then, ifthe Mahayaina was reacting to monastic Buddhism at all, it was prob- ably reacting to what it—or some of its proponents— took to be too great an accommodation to lay needs and values on the part of monastic Buddhism, too pro- nounced a preoccupation with providing an arena for lay religious practices and all that that involved— acquiring and maintaining property, constructing in- stitutions that would survive over time, and so on. The ‘Mahayana criticism of monastic Hinayfina Buddhisms may have been, in effect, that they had moved too far away from the radically individualistic and ascetic ideals that the proponents of the Mahayana favored. ‘This view is finding increasing support in Mahaysna sfitra literature itself. ‘The old characterization of the Mahayana as a lay- inspired movement was based on a selective reading of a very tiny sample of extant Mahay’na sitra literature, ‘most of which was not particularly early. As scholars have moved away from this limited corpus, and have begun to explore a wider range of such sitras, they have stumbled on, and have started to open up, & literature that is often stridently ascetic and heavily en- gaged in reinventing the forest ideal, an individualis- tic, antisocial, ascetic ideal that is encapsulated in the apparently resurrected image of “wandering alone like a rhinoceros.” This, to be sure, isa very different Ma- haya that is emerging. But its exploration is now still a work in progress. At this point we can only postu- late that the Mahayana may have had a visible impact in India only when, in the fifth century, it had become what it had originally most strongly objected to: a fully landed, sedentary, lay-oriented monastic institution— the first mention of the Mahayana in an Indian in- scription occurs, in fact, in the record of a large grant ofland to a Mahayina monastery. In the meantime the Mahayana may well have been cither a coliection of marginalized ascetic groups living in the forest, or groups of cantankerous and malcontent conservatives ENcyctorepia oF Buoparsmembedded in mainstream, socially engaged monaster- ies, all of whom continued pouring out pamphlets es- ppousing their views and values, pamphlets that we now know as Mahiyana sOtras. We simply do not know. The Mch@ydna and the misrepresentation of non-Mahayéna literature If, then, the notion of the Mahayana as a lay-inspired or oriented movement now seems untenable, the no- tion that it was a reaction to a narrow scholasticism ‘on the part of monastic, Hinaydna, Buddhism should. have scemed silly from the start, Such a view was only even possible by completely ignoring an enormous collection of what are almost certainly the most cul- turally vibrant and influential forms of Buddhist erature, The representation of Hinayana Buddhism as narrowly scholastic rests almost entirely on a com- pletely disproportionate, and undeserved, emphasis ‘on the ABHIDHARMA. The abhidharma was almost cer- tainly important to a narrow circle of monks. But abhidharma texts were by no means the only things ‘that Hinayna monks wrote or read. They also wrote especially it seems in what should have been “the Mahayna period” —an enormous number of stories, and they continued writing them apparently long af- ter the early Mahayana sitras were in production. Some ofthese stories are specifically called JATAKA and. |AVADANA and they have come down to us as separate collections—the Pali jatakas, for example, which in bulk afone equals the ablidhaama, and the Sanskrit AVADRNASATAKA—or embedded in vinayas or monas- tic codes, as is the case particularly in the enormous -MGLasaRvAsrivana-vinava where such monastic sto- ries predominate, The amount of space given over to these stories in this vinaya alone makes the ABHi- DDHARMAKOSABHAGYA look like a minor work Given the great amount of monastic energy that went into the composition, redaction, and transmis- sion of this literature, and given its great impact on Indian Buddhist art, especially in what should have been “the Mahayana period,” it is particularly surpris- ing that the system or set of religious ideas that it ar ticulates and develops has never really been taken seriously as representative of monastic Buddhism in India from the first to the fifth century. It contains— variously expressed and modulated—an uncompli- cated, if not always consistent, doctrine of KARMA {actioN) and merit that supports a wide range of re- ligious activities easily available to both monks and lay men. It takes asa given the possibility of both monks and laymen interacting with and assisting the dead. It ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BUDDHISM Many ina articulates in almost endless permutations what must have been a highly successful system of exchange and reciprocity between laymen and monks. It presents a very rich and textured conception of the Buddha in which he appears as almost everything from a power- ful miracle worker to a compassionate nurse for the sick, but is also always the means to “salvation” oF a better rebitth. The religious world of Buddhist story literature in addition offered to both monks and lay- men easily available objects of worship—relics, stapas, and images—and, again contrary to the old model, a fully developed conception and cult of the Buddha-as- Bodhisattva. The fact that all of this, and a great deal more that is religiously significant, is delivered in a simple, straightforward story form that was easily ac~ cessible makes it abundantly clear that a very large part of Hinayana monastic literature is anything but nar- rovly scholastic and off-putting. Indeed, in compari son with most Mahayana stra literature it appears to be positively welcoming, and it seems that the charac terization “narrowly scholastic” fits fer better with the Mahayana texts themselves. Its, for example, hard to imagine anyone but a confirmed scholastic reading the Perfection of Wisdorn in Eight Thousand Lines for plea- sure, and almost impossible to imagine anyone con- fusing it—or the vast majority of other Mahayana siutras—with real literature, And yet, already long ago the French scholar Sylvain Lévi was able to character- ize the enormous repository of monastic tales that is the Milasarvdstivida-vinaya as not only a “master piece” of Buddhist literature, but of Sanskrit literature asa whole. Many of the issues here, however, involve something more than just literary form or style. The scholasticism of the Mahéydna Both the assertion of the lay orientation of the Ma- hayana and of an increasingly inaccessible, scholastic monastic Buddhism, for example, are clearly linked to another of the early and persistent characterizations of both: Monastic Hinayana Buddhism was from very early on said to have been uninvolved in—indeed op- posed fo—ritual and devotion and focused exclusively ‘on meditative practice and doctrine, The Mahayana, ‘on the other hand, was somehow supposed to be the ‘opposite, and to have been particularly marked by de votion. But while itis true that certain strands of the Mahayana in their later and largely extra-Indian developments came to be cast in increasingly devo- tional forms, itis by no means clear that this was so from the beginning, and hard to see how it could ever have been maintained that the Mahayana in its earlier 495Manavana Indian forms was particularly devotional. Any such no- tion should have been easily dispelled by even a quick reading ofthe Milamadhyamakakarika of NAGARIUNA, the figure who has been taken—whatever his actual ddate—as the earliest individually named spokesman for the Mahayana in India, This is a work that is, in fact, decidedly scholastic, focused exclusively on a nar- row band of doctrine, arcane, and very far from easily accessible: Even with long and laborious commen- taries, both ancient and modern, much of it remains lusive. Fit is, in fact, representative of the early forms of the Mahayana in India, then whatever that Ma- hayana was it could hardly have been a broad-based, easily accessible, lay-oriented, devotional movement. What seems to hold for Nagarjuna’s Karikas, more- over, would seem to hold for much of Mahayana séitra literature, Much of it also cannot be described as easily accessible, and most of it, perhaps, would only. have been of interest to a certain type or types of monks. ‘The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, for example, as well as its ever-lengthening compan ion pieces in 10,000, 18,000, 25,000, and 100,000 lines, sometimes seem to belittle more than unrelenting rep- ctitions of long lists of technical doctrinal categories— that would, presumably, have been known by or of interest to only very learned monks—which are, again tunrelentingly, said to be “empty.” Iti also not just the Perfection of Wisdom that can be so described. The Kasyapaparivarta (Chapter of Kasyapa), another Ma- hhayana text that might be early, although it differs somewhat in format, is much the same in content: The whole first part of it consists ofa long list of doctrinal items arranged in groups of fours. Some Mahaylna stiteas—the SAMDHTRIRMOCANA-SOTRA (Sittra of the Explanation of Mysteries), for instance—can hardly be distinguished from technical treatise or Sistras. There are, of course, exceptions. The Vimalakirinirdesa (Teaching of Vimalakirt), for example, is commonly cited as one, but even then its atypicality is always noted and the contrast with other Mahayana sitras emphasized. In contrast to the authors of other Ma- haydna sltras its author, says Etienne Lamotte, “does rot lose himself in a desert of abstract and impersonal doctrine” (p. v). There are also occasional lively vi- gnettes elsewhere—for instance, the scene in the Drumakinnararajapariprecha (Questions of the Spirit King Druma) where when the austere monk MAHAK- -8vAPA is so charmed by some heavenly music he can- not help himself and jumps up and dances, or the stories in the Ratnakaranda-satra (Stitra of the Basket 486 of Jewels) where ManijusrT makes MARA carry his beg- ing bowl, or spends the rains-retreat in the King’s hharem—but these appear to be rare, What narrative or story elements occur in known Mahayana texts appear to be either polemics intended to make fun of other monks, asin the Questions of Druma, the Basket of Jew= els, and in the Teaching of Vinalakirti, or ate simply uunintegrated add-ons, like the story of Ever-Weeping in the Perfection of Wisdorn in Eight Thousand Lines, or wholesale borrowings, as inthe first part of the Rasira~ pillapariprecha (Questions of Rastrapdla). Even with these possible exceptions, and bearing in mind that only a limited corpus of Mahayana sitra literature has so far been studied, much of what has been studied seems positively dreary and is commonly said to be so in the scholarly backroom, Not only i there little nar- rative oF story, there is also a very great deal of doc- trinal, meditative and ascetic minutia—Lamotte’s “desert.” To learned monks—indeed very learned ‘monks—this might have had great attraction, but how it would have struck anyone else remains imaginable, but unclear. What is clear, however, is that the scholas- ticism found from the beginning of Mahiyina litera~ ture did not abate or go away, and already in India the Mahayana produced some very impressive, even mind-boggling, “philosophical” systems, like those Jumped together under the heading Yogicara, Works ascribed to the monk ASANGA play a key role in the Yogicara, and a story preserved in BU sTOX’s History of Buddhism about the reaction of Asaiga’s younger brother—himself a scholastic ofthe first order—might be instructive. He is supposed to have said Alas, Asafa, residing in the forest, hhas practiced meditation for 12 years. Without having attained anything by this meditation, he has founded a system, so difficult and bur- densome, that it ean be carried only by an elephant The Mahéyéna and the move away from de- votion and cult None of this, of course, squares very well with the no- tion that the Mahayana was in India a popular devo- tional movement—if even learned monks found its scholasticism off-putting, any laity would almost cer- tainly as well. But this is not the only thing that does not square. There is, for example, surprisingly little ap- parent interest in devotional or cult practice in the Ma~ Encvclarenia oF BuDDuisat “afm rime ree rere sear oR RR RE OT RR RR Re eR NCTE EN NRE aEinti rr some ne a ia Nr AR PO ee teeter ne ae i haydna stitras that can, at least provisionally, be placed in the early centuries ofthe common era, and in what litle there is there is a curiously anticultic stand. One of the most visible characteristics of the Ma- haydna as it developed outside of India may well be an emphasis on a multiplicity of “present” Buddhas other than Sakyamuni, on the Buddhas Amitabha and Bhaigajyaguru in particular, less so on the Buddha AKsonitY, But while there are early Mahayana stitras devoted to the first and third of these that were com posed, presumably, in India, these early texts contain really very little that would suggest any elaborate sys- tem of cult, woRsHtP, or wiTUAL. Iti, in fact, only in the sitra devoted to Bhaisajyaguru, which cannot be carly, that we get clear references to the use of cult im- ages and set, specific ritual forms. There is, moreover, as already mentioned, only the barest certain trace of any devotion to Amitabha in the Indian art historical or inscriptional record, and none at all—or only very late—for Bhaisajyaguru or Aksobhya. Unlike the great bodhisattvas, these buddhas seem never to have cap- tured the Indian religious imagination in an immedi- ate way. Rebirth in Amitabha’s Pure Land was, to be sure, in India—as later in Nepal and Tibet—a gener- alized religious goal, but as such probably differed very little feom other generic positive rebirths It is, however, not just in the early sitras dealing with the new buddhas that itis difficult to find refer- ences to cult practice, to images—once erroneously thought to have been a Mahayana innovation—or ‘even to the stpa cult, They are surprisingly rare in all Mahayana sitras until the latter begin their elusive transformation into TANTRA, and this process must start around the fourth century. The comparative rar- ity of references in this literature to the stdipa cult was particularly damaging to Akira Hirakawa's theory that tied the origin of the Mahayana to this cult, but his theory has been largely set aside on other grounds as well (ie., a serious underestimation of the role of es- tablished monastic Buddhism [Hinayana] in the con- struction and development of the cult). It is in the literature of the latter, in fact, particulary in its vinaya and avadana literatures, that the origin tales, the pro- motion, and the religious ideology of both the stdipa cult and the cult of images occur, not in Mahayana slitras—if they refer to either itis atleast clear that they take both as already established cult forms, and are in fact reacting to them, at first, at least, by attempting to deflect attention away from them and toward some- thing very different. This attempt is most commonly Manavana articulated in passages that assert—to paraphrase— that itis good to fill the world with sttipas made of precious substances, and to worship them with all sorts of perfumes, incenses, and so on, but itis far and away, in fact infinitely, better and more meritorious to take up even a four-line verse of the doctrine, preserve it, recite it teach it and—eventually, it now seems—write or copy it. Virtually the same assertion, using virtwally the same language, is made in regard to religious sgiving—it is good to All the whole world with jewels and give it as a gift to the Buddha, but it is far and away superior to take up, study and instantiate even a small part of the doctrine, or some practice, oF a text. This, for example, isa constant refrain in the DIAMOND SorRA (Vajracchedika). Passages of this sort—and they are legion—are explicitly devaluing precisely what archaeological and inscriptional evidence indicates large numbers of Buddhist monks, muns, and laypeople were doing everywhere in India in the early centuries of the com ‘mon era: engaging in the stipa cult and making reli- ‘gious gifts. They also appear to be inflating the value ‘of what large numbers of Buddhist monks, nuns, and laypeople might well have not been doing, but what the authors or compilers of Mahayana sitras wanted them to: seriously taking up or engaging with the doe- trine, This looks very much like reformist rhetoric— conservative and the opposite of “popular’—and yet it, pethaps more than anything else, seems character- istic ofa great deal and a wide range of Mahayna it~ erature, Here too it is important to note that Gregory Schopen was almost certainly wrong—and his theory too must go the way of Hirakava’s—in seeing in these passages only an attempt by the “new” movement to substitute one similar cult (the cult of the book) for another similar cult (the cult of relics). That such a substitution occurred—and perhaps rather quickly— is likely, but it now appears that it is very unlikely that this was the original or fundamental intention. That intention—however precarious, unpopular, or suc- cessful—was almost certainly to shift the religious fo- cus from cult and giving to doctrine, to send monks, rnuns, and even laymen quite literally back to theit books. That inthis attempt the book itself was—again, it seems, rather early—fetishized may only be a testa- ‘ment to the strong pressures toward cult and ritual that seem to have been in force in Indian Buddhism from the beginning. The success of this attempt might well account for the fact—otherwise so puzzling—that itis very difficult to find clear and uncontested Mahayana elements in the Indian art historical and inseriptionalMauavana, record: If adherents of the Mahayana had in fact heeded the injunctions in theie own texts, and turned away from cult and giving, they would have left few if any traces outside their large “pamphlet” or “tract” literature, But any success within Mahayana groups would also have to be set alongside the apparent fail- tre to affect the mainstream Indian Buddhist tradi- tion for a very long time: That tradition not only continued, but increased its construction and pro- ‘motion of monastic cult sites and objects of devotion, and became increasingly entangled in religious gifts— land, cash endowments, and business enterprises. All our sources for the first five centuries make this clear. So too, it seems, did the Mahayana: When in the late fifth and early sixth centuries we finally get the first references to the Mahayana by name, it is, again, in association with large grants of land. There are still other possible indications that the Ma form” was not entirely successful even among its own ranks: A Mahayana text like, for example, the Samadhirdja-sitra (King of Concentrations Sittra) is still spending a great deal of space asserting the pri- macy of practice over worship, of realization over re- ligious giving, and stil falminating against the accumulation of donations—preaching to the sup- posedly converted is probably never a good sign. It is also important to note that such assertions are not necessarily unique to the Mahayana. They occur spo- radically (already2) in some Hinayana sources, both siitra and vinaya, and are found even in works like Aryastira’s JATAKAMALA. Such assertions may prove to be only an old Buddhist issue that the Mahayana revived. The Mahéyéna and the new bodhisattvas There is left, lastly, the one clement that is associated with the Mahayana and that appears, perhaps more than anything els, to have had a major and lasting im- pact on Indian religious life and culture. It has already bbeen noted that what evidence we have seems to sug- gest that the new Mahayana buddhas—Amitabha, and even less so Aksobbya and Bhaisajyaguru—may never have really taken root in India, and the same would seem to hold for an almost endless list of Mahayana odhisattvas or “aspirants to awakening,” But two of these latter, starting from the fifth century, clearly caught on: the Bodhisattva Manjusti and the Bo- hisattva Avalokitesvara, especially the latter. The first of these, the Bodhisattva Marijusr,is certainly the ear- lier of the two, He, an exemplification of the new wis- dom and emphasis on doctrine, occurs in some of the 498 ‘Mahayana sitras that can be dated early, but never re- ally as anything other than a model or ideal, and cer tainly not as an object of cult or devotion. It is only much, much later, when his character has changed, that cult images of Manjusri occur, and even then— after the fifth century—they are not particularly numerous, It is quite otherwise with Avalokitesvara. He comes later—perhaps considerably later—than Maiijusr but already in the earliest textual references to him of any detail (probably in a late chapter of the Lotus Sorra [SADDHARMAPUNDARIKA-SOTRA)), and the earliest undisputed art historical representations of him (probably some Gupta images from Sarnath and some reliefs from the western cave monasteries), he ap- pears as a “savior” figure, and he continues in this role, sometimes josting with Tara, a female competitor, un- til the “disappearance” of Buddhism from India. “The bodhisattva concept reflected in the late forms of Manjusri and Avalokitesvara is certainly important, Dut it remains unclear whether it is best seen as an or- ganic development of specifically Mahayana ideas, or, rather, asa part of much larger developments that were occurring in Indian religion as a whole. What seems fairly sure, however, is that there was an earlier and much more prosaic—though none the less heroic— ‘Mahayana conception of the bodhisattva as well. Sim- ply put, this amounted to ordinary monks, nuns, and perhaps very committed laypersons taking a vow to replicate the career of Sakyamuni in all its immensity, committing themselves to, in effect, a long, if not end- less, series of lifetimes spent in working for the bene- fit of others, of postponing their release and full enlightenment for the benefit ofall. This ideal bas had, of course, strong appeal in the modern West, but it also may account, at least in part, for the failure of the early Mahayana in India, At the least it asked too much—think what it would cost an individual just to become Saint Francis; at the worst such an ideal might well have appeared to religious women and men in In- dia as counterintuitive, if not positively silly. What we know of such committed men and women would sug- gest that they were sternly conditioned to flee the very thing, the long cycle of rebirth, that they were being asked to embrace. In the end, however—and that is where we are—this may simply be yet another thing ‘we do not really know about the Mahayana, See also: Madhyamaka School; Mainstream Buddhist Schools; Merit and Merit-Making; Prajfidparamita Literature; Relics and Relics Cults; Yogacara School Ewevetareoia or Bunpiisar LEE RRL TSA MITT Ea eee RR RR A REN RRRBibliography Bechert, Heinz. "Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and «he Origins of Mahayita.” In German Scholars on ba, Vol. 1. Varanasi, India: Chovskhaniba Sanskrit Series Office, 1975, Boucher, Daniel. “The Textual History of the Ristrapila- pariprcch’: Notey on Its Third-Centiry Chinese Transl tion.” In Annual Report ofthe Internationa Research insite or Advanced Buldkology at Sok Universi for the Academe Yoar 2000. Tokyo: International Research Institute for Ad vanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2001 Conse, Edward, “Mahayana Buddhism.” In The Concise Eney- logeelia of Living Faiths, ed. R. C. Zaebnes, London: Hutchinson, 1959, Deleans, Florin, sn Meditation and the Beginnings of Mabayins Buddhist.” In Annual Report of the ternational Research Institute for Advanced Buddhalgy 11 Soke University forthe Academic Year 1989. Tokyo: Inter national Research Institute for Advanced Buddbology, Soka University, 2000. Preliminary Study Dut, Nalinaksha, Aspects of Mahayana Buddhison and Js Rela tio to Hinayna. London: Luzac, 1980. Harrison, Paul. “Searching for the Origins of the Mahyina.” Enstens Buddhist 28, no, 1 (195): 68-68, Hirakawa, Akira “The Rise of Mabdydna Buddhism and 1 lationship to the Worship of Stas.” Memoirs of the Re- ssarch Department of the Voyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57-106, Lamotte, Frenne. “Sur Ta formation dy Mahsyina,” In Asati: Pesshrift Friedrich Weller Leipaiy, Gurmay: Harrasowitz, 1954 Natier, Jan. A Few Gao! Mon: The Bodhisattva Pat According to the bnguiry of Ug (Lgrapariprecha, Monolal: Univer- sity of Hawaii Pees, 2003. ayy Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study of Baukdhist Values and Oriemations New York and Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1994 Swi, Shizuka, “A Study on the Origin of Mabsyans Bud dhison.” Eastern Bd 30, no. 1 (1997): 79-113, Schapen, Gregory. Figments and Fangments ofa Mehayna Bud- his in India: More Collected Papers. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003 Shimoda, Masabiro. A Study ofthe Mahaparinirsiaitea: With «Focus on the Methodology of the Study of Mahaynastras in Japanese, with English summary). Tokyo: Shusjsha, tos, Silk, Jonathan A, “What, i Anything, Is Mahaying Buddhism? Prullems of Definitions and Classifiations.” Numen 49 22): 76-108, Sicherbatsky, Th. The Conceprion of Buddhist Niripa (1927). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton, 1965, Excvetoreoia oF Bunouism Mannvsna Precerrs iv Janay Willams, Paul. Mahayiina Buddhism: The Doctrinal Founda tons. London and New York: Routledge, 1989, Willams, Paul. Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the India Tradition. London and New York: Rovaledge, 2000, archer, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptin of Buddhism iy Early Medieval China, Leiden, Netherlands Bril, 1959. Grucory ScHoPEN MAHAYANA PRECEPTS IN JAPAN ‘The term Mahiyiina precepts is usually used to differ- centiate lists of PRECEPTS oF rules found in MaHlAVANA, texts from those found in the viNava, the traditional source upon which monastic discipline was based. A. large number of Mahdy3na texts contain such lists, some detailed and others very simple. The history of Mahaydna precepts in Japan was de~ cisively influenced by the country’s geography. Japan isan island country; during the Nara period, it was dif- ficut to reach from the Asian mainland, and therefore difficult for OKDINATIONS to he performed in the or- ‘thodox manner, in rituals presided over by ten monks who had correctly received the precepts. GaNtln (688-763), for example, tried six times to lead a group of monks from China to Japan so that they could con~ duct a proper ordination. As a result, at least some monks resorted to self-ordinations, a Mahayana ritual in which monks would go before an image of the Bud- dha and perform confessions and meditate until they recvived a sign from the Buddha sanctioning their or- dination, a sign that could occur either while they were awake oF ina dream. In addition, government control of ordinations led other monks to use Mahayana pre- cepts to ordain their followers. The most famous ex- ample of this is Gydki (668-749), who used a set of Mahayana precepts, probably from the Yogdcirab- hdmi, to ordain groups of men and women who per- formed social works, such as building bridges and irrigation systems, activities specified in some sets of Mahayana rules. ‘The term Mahayana precepts was frequently used in a polemical manner to criticize the rules of the vinaya. However, most monks who adhered to the Vinaya rates believed that they were following precepts that were largely or completely consistent with Mahayana teachings. Ganjin used an ordination plat- form that included an image of two buddhas sitting 499