CHAPTER XVII 
BODHISATTVAS
Let us now consider these doctrines and take first the worship of
Bodhisattvas. This word means one whose essence is knowledge but is
used in the technical sense of a being who is in process of obtaining
but has not yet obtained Buddhahood. The Pali Canon shows little
interest in the personality of Bodhisattvas and regards them simply as
the preliminary or larval form of a Buddha, either Śākyamuni[5]
or some of his predecessors. It was incredible that a being so
superior to ordinary humanity as a Buddha should be suddenly produced
in a human family nor could he be regarded as an incarnation in the
strict sense. But it was both logical and edifying to suppose that he
was the product of a long evolution of virtue, of good deeds and noble
resolutions extending through countless ages and culminating in a
being superior to the Devas. Such a being awaited in the Tushita
heaven the time fixed for his appearance on earth as a Buddha and his
birth was accompanied by marvels. But though the Pali Canon thus
recognizes the Bodhisattva as a type which, if rare, yet makes its
appearance at certain intervals, it leaves the matter there. It is not
suggested that saints should try to become Bodhisattvas and Buddhas,
or that Bodhisattvas can be helpers of mankind.[6]
But both these trains of thought are natural developments of the older
ideas and soon made themselves prominent. It is a characteristic
doctrine of Mahayanism that men can try and should try to become
Bodhisattvas.
[8]
In the Pali Canon we hear of Arhats, Pacceka Buddhas, and perfect
Buddhas. For all three the ultimate goal is the same, namely Nirvana,
but a Pacceka Buddha is greater than an Arhat, because he has greater
intellectual powers though he is not omniscient, and a perfect Buddha
is greater still, partly because he is omniscient and partly because
he saves others. But if we admit that the career of the Buddha is
better and nobler, and also that it is, as the Introduction to the Jātaka
recounts, simply the result of an earnest resolution to school himself
and help others, kept firmly through the long chain of existences,
there is nothing illogical or presumptuous in making our goal not the
quest of personal salvation, but the attainment of Bodhisattvaship,
that is the state of those who may aspire to become Buddhas. In fact
the Arhat, engrossed in his own salvation, is excused only by his
humility and is open to the charge of selfish desire, since the
passion for Nirvana is an ambition like any other and the quest for
salvation can be best followed by devoting oneself entirely to others.
But though my object here is to render intelligible the Mahayanist
point of view including its objections to Hinayanism, I must defend
the latter from the accusation of selfishness. The vigorous and
authoritative character of Gotama led him to regard all mankind as
patients requiring treatment and to emphasize the truth that they
could cure themselves if they would try. But the Buddhism of the Pali
Canon does not ignore the duties of loving and instructing others;[7]
it merely insists on man's power to save himself if properly
instructed and bids him do it at once: "sell all that thou hast
and follow me." And the Mahayana, if less self-centred, has also
less self-reliance, and self-discipline. It is more human and
charitable, but also more easygoing: it teaches the believer to lean
on external supports which if well chosen may be a help, but if
trusted without discrimination become paralyzing abuses. And if we
look at the abuses of both systems the fossilized monk of the Hinayana
will compare favourably [9]
with the tantric adept. It was to the corruptions of the Mahayana
rather than of the Hinayana that the decay of Buddhism in India was
due.
The career of the Bodhisattva was early divided into stages (bhūmi)
each marked by the acquisition of some virtue in his triumphant
course. The stages are variously reckoned as five, seven and ten. The
Mahāvastu,[8]
which is the earliest work where the progress is described, enumerates
ten without distinguishing them very clearly. Later writers commonly
look at the Bodhisattva's task from the humbler point of view of the
beginner who wishes to learn the initiatory stages. For them the
Bodhisattva is primarily not a supernatural being or even a saint but
simply a religious person who wishes to perform the duties and enjoy
the privileges of the Church to the full, much like a communicant in
the language of contemporary Christianity. We have a manual for those
who would follow this path, in the Bodhicaryāvatāra of Śāntideva,
which in its humility, sweetness and fervent piety has been rightly
compared with the De Imitatione Christi. In many respects the virtues
of the Bodhisattva are those of the Arhat. His will must be strenuous
and concentrated; he must cultivate the strictest morality, patience,
energy, meditation and knowledge. But he is also a devotee, a bhakta:
he adores all the Buddhas of the past, present and future as well as
sundry superhuman Bodhisattvas, and he confesses his sins, not after
the fashion of the Pātimokkha, but by accusing himself before these
heavenly Protectors and vowing to sin no more.
Śāntideva lived in the seventh century[9]
but tells us that he follows the scriptures and has nothing new to
say. This seems to be true for, though his book being a manual of
devotion presents its subject-matter in a dogmatic form, its main
ideas are stated and even elaborated in the Lotus. Not only are
eminent figures in the Church, such as Sāriputra and Ānanda, there
designated as future Buddhas, but the same dignity is predicted
wholesale for five hundred and again for two thousand [10]monks
while in Chapter x is sketched the course to be followed by
"young men or young ladies of good family" who wish to
become Bodhisattvas.[10]
The chief difference is that the Bodhicaryāvatāra portrays a more
spiritual life, it speaks more of devotion, less of the million shapes
that compose the heavenly host: more of love and wisdom, less of the
merits of reading particular sūtras. While rendering to it and the
faith that produced it all honour, we must remember that it is typical
of the Mahayana only in the sense that the De Imitatione Christi is
typical of Roman Catholicism, for both faiths have other sides.
Śāntideva's Bodhisattva, when conceiving the thought of Bodhi
or eventual supreme enlightenment to be obtained, it may be, only
after numberless births, feels first a sympathetic joy in the good
actions of all living beings. He addresses to the Buddhas a prayer
which is not a mere act of commemoration, but a request to preach the
law and to defer their entrance into Nirvana. He then makes over to
others whatever merit he may possess or acquire and offers himself and
all his possessions, moral and material, as a sacrifice for the
salvation of all beings. This on the one hand does not much exceed the
limits of dānam or the virtue of giving as practised by Śākyamuni
in previous births according to the Pali scriptures, but on the other
it contains in embryo the doctrine of vicarious merit and salvation
through a saviour. The older tradition admits that the future Buddha (e.g.
in the Vessantara birth-story) gives all that is asked from him
including life, wife and children. To consider the surrender and
transfer of merit (pattidāna in Pali) as parallel is a natural though
perhaps false analogy. But the transfer of Karma is not altogether
foreign to Brahmanic thought, for it is held that a wife may share in
her husband's Karma nor is it wholly unknown to Sinhalese Buddhism.[11]
After thus deliberately rejecting all personal success and selfish
aims, the neophyte makes a vow (praṇidhāna) to acquire
enlightenment for the good of all beings and not to swerve from the
rules of life and faith requisite for this end. He is then a "son
[11]of
Buddha," a phrase which is merely a natural metaphor for saying
that he is one of the household of faith[12]
but still paves the way to later ideas which make the celestial
Bodhisattva an emanation or spiritual son of a celestial Buddha.
Asanga gives[13]
a more technical and scholastic description of the ten bhūmis
or stages which mark the Bodhisattva's progress towards complete
enlightenment and culminate in a phase bearing the remarkable but
ancient name of Dharmamegha known also to the Yoga philosophy. The
other stages are called: muditā (joyful): vimalā
(immaculate): prabhākarī (light giving): arcismatī
(radiant): durjaya (hard to gain): abhimukhī (facing,
because it faces both transmigration and Nirvana): dūramgamā
(far-going): acalā (immovable): sādhumatī (good
minded).
The incarnate Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Tibet are a travesty of
the Mahayana which on Indian soil adhered to the sound doctrine that
saints are known by their achievements as men and cannot be selected
among infant prodigies.[14]
It was the general though not universal opinion that one who had
entered on the career of a Bodhisattva could not fall so low as to be
reborn in any state of punishment, but the spirit of humility and
self-effacement which has always marked the Buddhist ideal tended to
represent his triumph as incalculably distant. Meanwhile, although in
the whirl of births he was on the upward grade, he yet had his ups and
downs and there is no evidence that Indian or Far Eastern Buddhists
arrogated to themselves special claims and powers on the ground that
they were well advanced in the career of Buddhahood. The vow to
suppress self and follow the light not only in this life but in all
future births contains an element of faith or fantasy, but has any
religion formed a nobler or even equivalent picture of the soul's
destiny or built a better staircase from the world of men to the
immeasurable spheres of the superhuman?
One aspect of the story of Sākyamuni and his antecedent births
thus led to the idea that all may become Buddhas. An [12]
equally natural development in another direction created celestial and
superhuman Bodhisattvas. The Hinayana held that Gotama, before his
last birth, dwelt in the Tushita heaven enjoying the power and
splendour of an Indian god and it looked forward to the advent of
Maitreya. But it admitted no other Bodhisattvas, a consequence
apparently of the doctrine that there can only be one Buddha at a
time. But the luxuriant fancy of India, which loves to multiply
divinities, soon broke through this restriction and fashioned for
itself beautiful images of benevolent beings who refuse the bliss of
Nirvana that they may alleviate the sufferings of others.[15]
So far as we can judge, the figures of these Bodhisattvas took shape
just about the same time that the personalities of Vishnu and Śiva
were acquiring consistency. The impulse in both cases is the same,
namely the desire to express in a form accessible to human prayer and
sympathetic to human emotion the forces which rule the universe. But
in this work of portraiture the Buddhists laid more emphasis on moral
and spiritual law than did the Brahmans: they isolated in
personification qualities not found isolated in nature. Śiva is
the law of change, of death and rebirth, with all the riot of
slaughter and priapism which it entails: Vishnu is the protector and
preserver, the type of good energy warring against evil, but the unity
of the figure is smothered by mythology and broken up into various
incarnations. But Avalokita and Mańjuśrī, though they had not
such strong roots in Indian humanity as Śiva and Vishnu, are
genii of purer and brighter presence. They are the personifications of
kindness and knowledge. Though manifold in shape, they have little to
do with mythology, and are analogous to the archangels of Christian
and Jewish tradition and to the Amesha Spentas of Zoroastrianism. With
these latter they may have some historical connection, for Persian
ideas may well have influenced Buddhism about the time of the
Christian era. However difficult it may be to prove the foreign origin
of Bodhisattvas, few of them have a clear origin in India and all of
them [13]
are much better known in Central Asia and China. But they are
represented with the appearance and attributes of Indian Devas, as is
natural, since even in the Pali Canon Devas form the Buddha's retinue.
The early Buddhists considered that these spirits, whether called
Bodhisattvas or Devas, had attained their high position in the same
way as Śākyamuni himself, that is by the practice of moral and
intellectual virtues through countless existences, but subsequently
they came to be regarded as emanations or sons of superhuman Buddhas.
Thus the Kāraṇḍa-vyūha relates how the original Ādi-Buddha
produced Avalokita by meditation and how he in his turn produced the
universe with its gods.
Millions of unnamed Bodhisattvas are freely mentioned and even in
the older books copious lists of names are found,[16]
but two, Avalokita and Mańjuśrī, tower above the rest, among
whom only few have a definite personality. The tantric school counts
eight of the first rank. Maitreya (who does not stand on the same
footing as the others), Samantabhadra, Mahāsthāna-prāpta and above
all Kshitigarbha, have some importance, especially in China and Japan.
Avalokita[17]
in many forms and in many ages has been one of the principal deities
of Asia but his origin is obscure. His main attributes are plain. He
is the personification of divine mercy and pity but even the meaning
of his name is doubtful. In its full form it is Avalokiteśvara,
often rendered the Lord who looks down (from heaven). This is an
appropriate title for the God of Mercy, but the obvious meaning of the
participle avalokita in Sanskrit is passive, the Lord who is
looked at. Kern[18]
thinks it may mean the Lord who is everywhere visible as a very
present help in trouble, or else the Lord of View, like the epithet
Dṛishtiguru applied to Śiva. Another form of the name is
Lokeśvara or Lord of the world and this suggests that avalokita
may be a synonym of loka, meaning the visible universe. It has
also been suggested that the name may refer to the small image of Amitābha
which is set in his diadem and thus looks down on him. But such small
images set in the head of a larger figure are not distinctive of
Avalokita: they are found [14]
in other Buddhist statues and paintings and also outside India, for
instance at Palmyra. The Tibetan translation of the name[19]
means he who sees with bright eyes. Hsüan Chuang's rendering Kwan-tzǔ-tsai[20]
expresses the same idea, but the more usual Chinese translation Kuan-yin
or Kuan-shih-yin, the deity who looks upon voices or the region of
voices, seems to imply a verbal misunderstanding. For the use of Yin
or voice makes us suspect that the translator identified the last part
of Avalokiteśvara not with Īśvara lord but
with svara sound.[21]
Avalokiteśvara is unknown to the Pali Canon and the Milinda Pańha.
So far as I can discover he is not mentioned in the Divyāvadāna, Jātakamālā
or any work attributed to Aśvaghosha. His name does not occur in
the Lalita-vistara but a list of Bodhisattvas in its introductory
chapter includes Mahākaruṇācandin, suggesting Mahākaruna, the
Great Compassionate, which is one of his epithets. In the Lotus[22]
he is placed second in the introductory list of Bodhisattvas after Mańjuśrī.
But Chapter XXIV, which is probably a later addition, is dedicated to
his praises as Samantamukha, he who looks every way or the
omnipresent. In this section his character as the all-merciful saviour
is fully developed. He saves those who call on him from shipwreck, and
execution, from robbers and all violence and distress. He saves too
from moral evils, such as passion, hatred and folly. He grants
children to women who worship him. This power, which is commonly
exercised by female deities, is worth remarking as a hint of his
subsequent transformation into a goddess. For the better achievement
of his merciful deeds, he assumes all manner of forms, and appears in
the guise of a Buddha, a Bodhisattva, a Hindu deity, a goblin, or a
Brahman and in fact in any shape. This chapter was translated into
Chinese before 417 A.D. and therefore can hardly be later than 350. He
is also mentioned in the Sukhāvatī-vyūha. [15]
The records of the Chinese pilgrims Fa-Hsien and Hsüan Chuang[23]
indicate that his worship prevailed in India from the fourth till the
seventh century and we are perhaps justified in dating its beginnings
at least two centuries earlier. But the absence of any mention of it
in the writings of Aśvaghosha is remarkable.[24]
Avalokita is connected with a mountain called Potala or Potalaka.
The name is borne by the palace of the Grand Lama at Lhassa and by
another Lamaistic establishment at Jehol in north China. It reappears
in the sacred island of P“u-t“o near Ningpo. In all these cases the
name of Avalokita's Indian residence has been transferred to foreign
shrines. In India there were at least two places called Potala or
Potalakaone at the mouth of the Indus and one in the south. No
certain connection has been traced between the former and the
Bodhisattva but in the seventh century the latter was regarded as his
abode. Our information about it comes mainly from Hsüan Chuang[25]
who describes it when speaking of the Malakuta country and as near the
Mo-lo-ya (Malaya) mountain. But apparently he did not visit it and
this makes it probable that it was not a religious centre but a
mountain in the south of which Buddhists in the north wrote with
little precision.[26]
There is no evidence that Avalokita was first worshipped on this
Potalaka, though he is often associated with mountains such as Kapota
in Magadha and Valavatī in Katāha.[27]
In fact the connection of Potala with Avalokita remains a mystery.
Avalokita has, like most Bodhisattvas, many names. Among the
principal are Mahākaruna, the Great Compassionate one, Lokanātha or
Lokeśvara, the Lord of the world, and Padmapāni, or
lotus-handed. This last refers to his appearance as portrayed in
statues and miniatures. In the older works of art his figure [16]
is human, without redundant limbs, and represents a youth in the
costume of an Indian prince with a high jewelled chignon, or sometimes
a crown. The head-dress is usually surmounted by a small figure of
Amitābha. His right hand is extended in the position known as the
gesture of charity.[28]
In his left he carries a red lotus and he often stands on a larger
blossom. His complexion is white or red. Sometimes he has four arms
and in later images a great number. He then carries besides the lotus
such objects as a book, a rosary and a jug of nectar.[29]
The images with many eyes and arms seem an attempt to represent him
as looking after the unhappy in all quarters and stretching out his
hands in help.[30]
It is doubtful if the Bodhisattvas of the Gandhara sculptures, though
approaching the type of Avalokita, represent him rather than any
other, but nearly all the Buddhist sites of India contain
representations of him which date from the early centuries of our era[31]
and others are preserved in the miniatures of manuscripts.[32]
He is not a mere adaptation of any one Hindu god. Some of his
attributes are also those of Brahmā. Though in some late texts he is
said to have evolved the world from himself, his characteristic
function is not to create but, like Vishnu, to save and like Vishnu he
holds a lotus. But also he has the title of Īśvara, which is
specially applied to Śiva. Thus he does not issue from any local
cult and has no single mythological pedigree but is the idea of divine
compassion represented with such materials as the art and mythology of
the day offered.
He is often accompanied by a female figure Tārā.[33]
In the tantric period she is recognized as his spouse and her images,
common in northern India from the seventh century onwards, [17]
show that she was adored as a female Bodhisattva. In Tibet Tārā is
an important deity who assumes many forms and even before the tantric
influence had become prominent she seems to have been associated with
Avalokita. In the Dharmasangraha she is named as one of the four Devīs,
and she is mentioned twice under the name of To-lo Pu-sa by Hsüan
Chuang, who saw a statue of her in Vaisali and another at Tiladhaka in
Magadha. This last stood on the right of a gigantic figure of Buddha,
Avalokita being on his left.[34]
Hsüan Chuang distinguishes To-lo (Tārā) and Kuan-tzǔ-tsai.
The latter under the name of Kuan-yin or Kwannon has become the most
popular goddess of China and Japan, but is apparently a form of
Avalokita. The god in his desire to help mankind assumes many shapes
and, among these, divine womanhood has by the suffrage of millions
been judged the most appropriate. But Tārā was not originally the
same as Kuan-yin, though the fact that she accompanies Avalokita and
shares his attributes may have made it easier to think of him in
female form.[35]
The circumstances in which Avalokita became a goddess are obscure.
The Indian images of him are not feminine, although his sex is hardly
noticed before the tantric period. He is not a male deity like
Krishna, but a strong, bright spirit and like the Christian archangels
above sexual distinctions. No female form of him is reported from
Tibet and this confirms the idea that none was known in India,[36]
and that the change was made in China. It was probably facilitated by
the worship of Tārā and of Hāritī, an ogress who was converted by
the Buddha and is frequently represented in her regenerate state
caressing a child. [18]
She is mentioned by Hsüan Chuang and by I-Ching who adds that her
image was already known in China. The Chinese also worshipped a native
goddess called T'ien-hou or T'ou-mu. Kuan-yin was also identified with
an ancient Chinese heroine called Miao-shźn.[37]
This is parallel to the legend of Ti-tsang (Kshitigarbha) who, though
a male Bodhisattva, was a virtuous maiden in two of his previous
existences. Evidently Chinese religious sentiment required a Madonna
and it is not unnatural if the god of mercy, who was reputed to assume
many shapes and to give sons to the childless, came to be thought of
chiefly in a feminine form. The artists of the T'ang dynasty usually
represented Avalokita as a youth with a slight moustache and the
evidence as to early female figures does not seem to me strong,[38]
though a priori I see no reason for doubting their existence.
In 1102 a Chinese monk named P'u-ming published a romantic legend of
Kuan-yin's earthly life which helped to popularize her worship. In
this and many other cases the later developments of Buddhism are due
to Chinese fancy and have no connection with Indian tradition.
Tārā is a goddess of north India, Nepal and the Lamaist Church
and almost unknown in China and Japan. Her name means she who causes
to cross, that is who saves, life and its troubles being by a common
metaphor described as a sea. Tārā also means a star and in Puranic
mythology is the name given to the mother of Buddha, the planet
Mercury. Whether the name was first used by Buddhists or Brahmans is
unknown, but after the seventh century there was a decided tendency to
give Tārā the epithets bestowed on the Śaktis of Śiva and
assimilate her to those goddesses. Thus in the list of her 108 names[39]
she is described among other more amiable attributes as [19]
terrible, furious, the slayer of evil beings, the destroyer, and Kālī:
also as carrying skulls and being the mother of the Vedas. Here we
have if not the borrowing by Buddhists of a Śaiva deity, at least
the grafting of Śaiva conceptions on a Bodhisattva.
The second great Bodhisattva Mańjuśrī[40]
has other similar names, such as Mańjunātha and Mańjughosha, the
word Mańju meaning sweet or pleasant. He is also Vagīśvara, the
Lord of Speech, and Kumārabhūta, the Prince, which possibly implies
that he is the Buddha's eldest son, charged with the government under
his direction. He has much the same literary history as Avalokita, not
being mentioned in the Pali Canon nor in the earlier Sanskrit works
such as the Lalita-vistara and Divyāvadāna. But his name occurs in
the Sukhāvatī-vyūha: he is the principal interlocutor in the Lankāvatāra
sūtra and is extolled in the Ratna-karaṇḍaka-vyūha-sūtra.[41]
In the greater part of the Lotus he is the principal Bodhisattva and
instructs Maitreya, because, though his youth is eternal, he has known
many Buddhas through innumerable ages. The Lotus[42]
also recounts how he visited the depths of the sea and converted the
inhabitants thereof and how the Lord taught him what are the duties of
a Bodhisattva after the Buddha has entered finally into Nirvana. As a
rule he has no consort and appears as a male Athene, all intellect and
chastity, but sometimes Lakshmī or Sarasvatī or both are described
as his consorts.[43]
His worship prevailed not only in India but in Nepal, Tibet, China,
Japan and Java. Fa-Hsien states that he was honoured in Central India,
and Hsüan Chuang that there were stupas dedicated to him at Muttra.[44]
He is also said to have been incarnate in Atīsa, the Tibetan
reformer, and in Vairocana who introduced Buddhism to Khotan, but,
great as is his benevolence, he is not so much the helper of human
beings, which is Avalokita's special function, as the personification
of thought,[20]
knowledge, and meditation. It is for this that he has in his hands the
sword of knowledge and a book. A beautiful figure from Java bearing
these emblems is in the Berlin Museum.[45]
Miniatures represent him as of a yellow colour with the hands (when
they do not carry emblems) set in the position known as teaching the
law.[46]
Other signs which distinguish his images are the blue lotus and the
lion on which he sits.
An interesting fact about Mańjuśrī is his association with
China,[47]
not only in Chinese but in late Indian legends. The mountain Wu-t'ai-shan
in the province of Shan-si is sacred to him and is covered with
temples erected in his honour.[48]
The name (mountain of five terraces) is rendered in Sanskrit as Pancaśīrsha,
or Pancaśikha, and occurs both in the Svayambhū Purāṇa
and in the text appended to miniatures representing Mańjuśrī.
The principal temple is said to have been erected between 471 and 500
A.D. I have not seen any statement that the locality was sacred in
pre-Buddhist times, but it was probably regarded as the haunt of
deities, one of whomperhaps some spirit of divinationwas
identified with the wise Mańjuśrī. It is possible that during
the various inroads of Gręco-Bactrians, Yüeh-Chih, and other Central
Asian tribes into India, Mańjuśrī was somehow imported into the
pantheon of the Mahayana from China or Central Asia, and he has,
especially in the earlier descriptions, a certain pure and abstract
quality which recalls the Amesha-Spentas of [21]
Persia. But still his attributes are Indian, and there is little
positive evidence of a foreign origin. I-Ching is the first to tell us
that the Hindus believed he came from China.[49]
Hsüan Chuang does not mention this belief, and probably did not hear
of it, for it is an interesting detail which no one writing for a
Chinese audience would have omitted. We may therefore suppose that the
idea arose in India about 650 A.D. By that date the temples of Wu-t'ai-Shan
would have had time to become celebrated, and the visits paid to India
by distinguished Chinese Buddhists would be likely to create the
impression that China was a centre of the faith and frequented by
Bodhisattvas.[50]
We hear that Vajrabodhi (about 700) and Prajńa (782) both went to
China to adore Mańjuśrī. In 824 a Tibetan envoy arrived at the
Chinese Court to ask for an image of Mańjuśrī, and later the
Grand Lamas officially recognized that he was incarnate in the
Emperor.[51]
Another legend relates that Mańjuśrī came from Wu-t'ai-Shan to
adore a miraculous lotus[52]
that appeared on the lake which then filled Nepal. With a blow of his
sword he cleft the mountain barrier and thus drained the valley and
introduced civilization. There may be hidden in this some tradition of
the introduction of culture into Nepal but the Nepalese legends are
late and in their collected form do not go back beyond the sixteenth
century.
After Avalokita and Mańjuśrī the most important Bodhisattva
is Maitreya,[53]
also called Ajita or unconquered, who is the only one recognized by
the Pali Canon.[54]
This is because he does not stand on the same footing as the others.
They are superhuman in their origin as well as in their career,
whereas Maitreya is simply a being who like Gotama has lived
innumerable lives and ultimately made himself worthy of Buddhahood
which he awaits in heaven. There is no reason to doubt that Gotama
regarded himself as one in [22]
a series of Buddhas: the Pali scriptures relate that he mentioned his
predecessors by name, and also spoke of unnumbered Buddhas to come.[55]
Nevertheless Maitreya or Metteyya is rarely mentioned in the Pali
Canon.[56]
He is, however, frequently alluded to in the exegetical Pali
literature, in the Anāgata-vaṃsa and in the earlier Sanskrit
works such as the Lalita-vistara, the Divyāvadāna and Mahāvastu. In
the Lotus he plays a prominent part, but still is subordinate to Mańjuśrī.
Ultimately he was eclipsed by the two great Bodhisattvas but in the
early centuries of our era he received much respect. His images are
frequent in all parts of the Buddhist world: he was believed to watch
over the propagation of the Faith,[57]
and to have made special revelations to Asaṅga.[58]
In paintings he is usually of a golden colour: his statues, which are
often gigantic, show him standing or sitting in the European fashion
and not cross-legged. He appears to be represented in the earliest
Gandharan sculptures and there was a famous image of him in Udyāna of
which Fa-Hsien (399-414 A.D.) speaks as if it were already ancient.[59]
Hsüan Chuang describes it as well as a stupa erected[60]
to commemorate Sākyamuni's prediction that Maitreya would be his
successor. On attaining Buddhahood he will become lord of a
terrestrial paradise and hold three assemblies under a dragon flower
tree,[61]
at which all who have been good Buddhists in previous births will
become Arhats. I-Ching speaks of meditating on the advent of Maitreya
in language like that which Christian piety uses of the second coming
of Christ and concludes a poem which is incorporated in his work with
the aspiration "Deep as the depth of a lake be my pure and calm
meditation. Let me look for the first meeting [23]
under the Tree of the Dragon Flower when I hear the deep rippling
voice of the Buddha Maitreya."[62]
But messianic ideas were not much developed in either Buddhism or
Hinduism and perhaps the figures of both Maitreya and Kalkī owe
something to Persian legends about Saoshyant the Saviour.
The other Bodhisattvas, though lauded in special treatises, have
left little impression on Indian Buddhism and have obtained in the Far
East most of whatever importance they possess. The makers of images
and miniatures assign to each his proper shape and colour, but when we
read about them we feel that we are dealing not with the objects of
real worship or even the products of a lively imagination, but with
names and figures which have a value for picturesque but conventional
art.
Among the best known is Samantabhadra, the all gracious,[63]
who is still a popular deity in Tibet and the patron saint of the
sacred mountain Omei in China, with which he is associated as Mańjuśrī
with Wu-t́ai-shan. He is represented as green and riding on an
elephant. In Indian Buddhism he has a moderately prominent position.
He is mentioned in the Dharmasangraha and in one chapter of the Lotus
he is charged with the special duty of protecting those who follow the
law. But the Chinese pilgrims do not mention his worship.
Mahāsthāmaprāpta[64]
is a somewhat similar figure. A chapter of the Lotus (XIX) is
dedicated to him without however giving any clear idea of his
personality and he is extolled in several descriptions of Sukhāvatī
or Paradise, especially in the Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra. Together with
Amitābha and Avalokita he forms a triad who rule this Happy Land and
are often represented by three images in Chinese temples.
Vajrapāṇi is mentioned in many lists of Bodhisattvas (e.g.
in the Dharmasangraha) but is of somewhat doubtful position as Hsüan
Chuang calls him a deva.[65]
Historically his recognition as a Bodhisattva is interesting for he is
merely Indra transformed into a Buddhist. The mysterious personages
called Vajradhara and Vajrasattva, who in later times are even [24]
identified with the original Buddha spirit, are further developments
of Vajrapāṇi. He owes his elevation to the fact that Vajra,
originally meaning simply thunderbolt, came to be used as a mystical
expression for the highest truth.
More important than these is Kshitigarbha, Ti-tsang or Jizō[66]
who in China and Japan ranks second only to Kuan-yin. Visser has
consecrated to him an interesting monograph[67]
which shows what strange changes and chances may attend spirits and
how ideal figures may alter as century after century they travel from
land to land. We know little about the origin of Kshitigarbha. The
name seems to mean Earth-womb and he has a shadowy counterpart in Akāśagarbha,
a similar deity of the air, who it seems never had a hold on human
hearts. The Earth is generally personified as a goddess[68]
and Kshitigarbha has some slight feminine traits, though on the whole
decidedly masculine. The stories of his previous births relate how he
was twice a woman: in Japan he was identified with the mountain
goddess of Kamado, and he helps women in labour, a boon generally
accorded by goddesses. In the pantheon of India he played an
inconspicuous part,[69]
though reckoned one of the eight great Bodhisattvas, but met with more
general esteem in Turkestan, where he began to collect the attributes
afterwards defined in the Far East. It is there that his history and
transformations become clear.
He is primarily a deity of the nether world, but like Amitābha and
Avalokita he made a vow to help all living creatures and specially to
deliver them from hell. The Taoists pictured hell as divided into ten
departments ruled over by as many kings, and Chinese fancy made Ti-tsang
the superintendent of these functionaries. He thus becomes not so much
a Saviour as the kindly superintendent of a prison who preaches to the
inmates and willingly procures their release. Then we hear of six Ti-tsangs,
corresponding to the six worlds of sentient beings, the gracious
spirit being supposed to multiply his personality in [25]
order to minister to the wants of all. He is often represented as a
monk, staff in hand and with shaven head. The origin of this guise is
not clear and it perhaps refers to his previous births. But in the
eighth century a monk of Chiu Hua[70]
was regarded as an incarnation of Ti-tsang and after death his body
was gilded and enshrined as an object of worship. In later times the
Bodhisattva was confused with the incarnation, in the same way as the
portly figure of Pu-tai, commonly known as the laughing Buddha, has
been substituted for Maitreya in Chinese iconography.
In Japan the cult of the six Jizōs became very popular. They
were regarded as the deities of roads[71]
and their effigies ultimately superseded the ancient phallic gods of
the crossways. In this martial country the Bodhisattva assumed yet
another character as Shōgun Jizō, a militant priest riding
on horseback[72]
and wearing a helmet who became the patron saint of warriors and was
even identified with the Japanese war god, Hachiman. Until the
seventeenth century Jizō was worshipped principally by soldiers
and priests, but subsequently his cult spread among all classes and in
all districts. His benevolent activities as a guide and saviour were
more and more emphasized: he heals sickness, he leng thens life, he
leads to heaven, he saves from hell: he even suffers as a substitute
in hell and is the special protector of the souls of children amid the
perils of the underworld. Though this modern figure of Jizō is
wrought with ancient materials, it is in the main a work of Japanese
sentiment.
[26]
|
|
