Buddhism. It soon developed new and distinct forms
of the religion.
The wide range of subjects one finds in early Ma-
hayana sutras is suggestive of the diverse origins from
which it arose. These sutras show that Mahayanists
were concerned with reforming Buddhism on a num-
ber of fronts: doctrinal, sociological, soteriological,
cultic, and mythological. Some severely criticize Bud-
dhists who do not take the bodhisattva vow, while oth-
ers contain no such polemic; some speak to a monastic
milieu, while others champion lay bodhisattvas. This
early Mahayana was heterogeneous, with bodhisattvas
even disputing other bodhisattvas in an open-ended
process of decentralized change.
Institutionalization of the Mahayana (second to
twelfth century C.E.)
Although sutras provide the first evidence for the Ma-
hayana’s existence, few contemporaneous material
artifacts show their influence. That is to say, archaeo-
logical data do not suggest that the Mahayana directly
affected monastic life, patronage, ritual, or even edu-
cation during the first, second, or third centuries C.E.
Only in the fifth century is there significant public ev-
idence of Mahayana Buddhism in India.
The “underground” nature of Mahayana at its in-
ception is one factor in this slow transition from spir-
itual movement to public institution. But an important
catalyst toward change came in 320 C.E., when Can-
dragupta I founded a dynasty that united north India
as a single state for the first time since As ́oka. The
changes initiated by Candragupta’s ascension are so
numerous that 320 C.E. is often cited as the first in a
new era of Indian history. For explaining the Ma-
hayana’s institutionalization, however, the most pro-
found development was economic.
Before the Guptas, monetary exchange formed the
basis of the north Indian economy. A money-economy
circulates wealth through direct transactions between
people. Nikaya-Buddhism was well suited to such a
system because the nikayasemphasized the worth of
the monks (or the stupas they controlled) as recipients
of donation. Indeed, Buddhism gained such promi-
nence in the centuries after S ́akyamuni’s death in large
part because its ideology justified the accumulation of
money, and provided a way to benefit from that accu-
mulation even after death. Beginning with the Gupta
dynasty, however, this money-economy began to give
way to one based upon ownership of land. The Gup-
tas did not attempt to govern their entire territory di-
rectly from their capital city. Rather, as “Lords of the
Earth,” the Guptas permitted petty kings to retain
residual control over their regions, and gave fields and
villages to Brahmins, who then administered those
lands. Thus, beginning with the Guptas, wealth became
less associated with amassing money than with hold-
ing jurisdiction over a quasi-independent territory;
one did not have prestige because one could enter into
many exchange relationships, but due to one’s close al-
liance with the imperial suzerain.For Buddhism this meant that the wealth, position,
and surplus resources of the merchants who had made
up the bulk of the religion’s early lay followers were
diminished, leaving only members of the royalty and
Buddhists themselves as donors. As possession of land
became essential for Buddhism’s survival, Buddhist in-
stitutions were ever more dependent upon direct royal
patronage. This required Buddhists to adjust the tenor
and focus of their religious productions, and directly
address royal concerns in Buddhist media.The Mahayana was particularly well suited to this
new economy. Its sutras had long used royal imagery
when speaking of buddhas and bodhisattvas. Thus, the
PRAJN
APARAMITALITERATURE(Perfection of Wisdom
texts) describes bodhisattvas as fearless heroes, wear-
ing armor while mounted on the great vehicle. Bud-
dhas, similarly, are presented by the Mahayana as
lords, each of his own personal buddha-land, sur-
rounded by divine retinues; they engage in demon-
strations of mutual admiration and support; they send
bodhisattva emissaries to one another. In the fifth cen-
tury, these literary tropes begin to make their mark on
public art and inscriptions, revealing the symbolic ma-
neuvers by means of which Mahayana Buddhism be-
came prominent in India.The institutionalization of Indian Mahayana Bud-
dhism reached its apogee in the great monastery at
Nalanda, which, as a center for higher education,
attracted students to Northern India from through-
out Asia. As delineated by the seventh-century pilgrim
XUANZANG (ca. 600–664), Nalanda’s foundation
dated to the imperial Guptas. In the early fifth cen-
tury, one king built a monastery at a lucky spot in this
town. Over the next century, subsequent Gupta rulers
added to that establishment. Eventually, devout rulers
from other parts of India, and even other countries,
made their own donations of buildings and resources.
By Xuanzang’s day, Nalanda had become the pre-
eminent Buddhist university. Its endowment included
several hundred villages; its dormitories housedINDIA