Buddhism in India

Transitoriness and Transformations 109

had showed the way to others. However, since Mahayana (and

Vajrayana) had partly developed in reaction to the scholasticism of

Theravada and its radical separation of nibbanaand the world of

births-and-deaths, an important social-philosophical base existed for

a new version of Buddhism. Thus they could attract adherents and

co-exist with Theravada for several centuries in India.

The development of the doctrine of Bodhisattvas filled with

universal compassion and aiming at the liberation of all beings was

also connected with the notion of the transfer of merit. Some kind of

notion of transferring merit is essential for any saviour religion, and

Mahayana thus appears as one of many saviour religions that was

spreading throughout the world at that time, others being Christianity

and Mithraism. Along with this arose the worship of other Buddhas—

Manjusri, Avalokiteshwara, Amitabha. The ‘transfer of merit,’ and

the shift towards seeing an eternal heaven as a goal almost equivalent

to Nirvana, is seen in the Pure Land sect. However sinful a person

may be, the uttering of the name of Amitabha at the time of death is

sufficient for that person to be reborn into the Pure Land. This was

no doubt an evidence of universal compassion, for Amitabha is

depicted as a Buddha who had vowed rebirth and endurance of

suffering again and again so that all beings should be able to attain

liberation. At the same time, while Sukhavati (literally ‘realm of bliss’)

is theologically said to be the ideal realm with conditions due to which

Nirvana can be automatically attained (Skilton 1994: 104), it is

presented in such a way as to make it almost a goal in itself.

Mahayana also seems to have introduced ‘goddess’ worship in

Buddhism. Its leading philosopher, Nagarjuna, born in the

Vidarbha region of what is now Maharashtra, trained at Nalanda

in Bihar and said to have died in Andhra, was associated with the

Satavahana kings of this region. According to Samuel Beal, writing

on the basis of evidence from the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang,

‘the worship of Durga was the central feature in the spirit of

Nagarjuna’s teaching [and] the fusion between Buddhism and the

native worship of hill gods dates from Nagarjuna’s time, and was

brought about by his influence’ (Beal 1983: II, 224n).

The ambiguity of the elements in Mahayana can be seen in a

text called the Srimalasimhanada Sutra, ‘The Lion’s Roar of Queen

Srimala’, which was a very popular early Mahayana text propagating

the doctrine of the tathagatagarbha, the idea that there is a

potentiality of Buddhahood in all sentient beings (‘garbha’ means

With Mahayana, it began to vanish from doctrine as well. The
notion of lokottaravada, the Buddha’s existence beyond the material
world, was put forward by the Mahasanghikas and formalised by
the Yogacara school of Mahayana, beginning around the Gupta
period, in the notion of the ‘three bodies’. One which is also the
most important, is the sambhogakaya, the pure body of enjoyment
which is the Buddha in the celestial Pure Lands, the Buddha that
teaches the Mahayana scriptures, the Buddha of visionary experience.
The nirmanakaya, the historically existing Gotama, who could feel
pain from a splinter, is only a projection of this; and finally, the
dharmakayawhich is the body of doctrine (Skilton 1994: 127–28).
This teaching ‘puts in its place’ the Buddha of the Theravada,
transforming him into a being above gods. It also downplays the
role of the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis as men and women who could
emulate the Buddha.
Sangharakshata quite succinctly brings out the essentialism
implied in these developments:

According to [the three bodies] doctrine, the Buddha is not merely a

human being but Reality Itself. This Reality, being not only Wisdom

but Compassion, for the purpose of preaching the Dharma to all

beings assumes innumerable forms. These forms, of which Gautama

Buddha is the one best known to us, are all identical with Reality and

hence themselves wholly transcendental. Human birth and death are

nothing but appearances. In reality the Buddha is never born and never

dies. He never attains Enlightenment; for he is eternally enlightened,

and in any case, according to the profoundest Mahayana teaching,

Enlightenment is in the ultimate sense unattainable. His ‘attainment’

under the Bodhi-tree at Gaya was, like all the other events of his

earthly career, merely a skillful device for the encouragement of the

ignorant (Sangharakshata 1987: 278).

Thus earlier, more ‘limited’ Theravada teachings, indeed almost any
doctrine of classical Buddhism, was transcended/denied by
seeing these as a ‘skilful’ way of appealing to men and women with
limited visions. This was in many ways an immense shift; and it is
not too surprising that this Buddhist absolute could be identified
with the Vedantic Brahma. Theravada Buddhist schools and scholars
opposed this development staunchly, particularly the Sautrantikas
with their opposition to ‘added’ scriptures and essentialism of all kinds,
and their insistence that the Buddha was a great historical figure who

108 Buddhism in India