Transitoriness and Transformations 115If there seem to be profound differences between the different
‘ways’ (yana) of Buddhism, it can also be argued that there are equally
profound differences among texts and thinkers classified within each
of the main traditions. For instance, the Sinhala-American philoso-
pher David Kalupahana’s latest work on Buddhist philosophy stresses
the ‘absolutism’ of later commentaries on Pali texts (according to him,
beginning specifically with Buddhaghosha in the 5th century) in con-
trast to what he calls ‘early Buddhism’; at the same time he sees the
earliest ‘Mahayana’ discourses such as the Vajracchedika-prajna-
paramita-sutraand the great philosopher Nagarjuna as representing
the genuine ‘middle path’ of Buddhism. In other words, the opposition
between genuine Buddhism and an essentialist-absolutist interpreta-
tion does not coincide with the Theravada-Mahayana distinction but
lies within each tradition. Kalupahana concludes with the argument
that the bitterness arising between the two—with many Mahayanists
describing Theravada as ‘hin’ (low) and the Theravadists calling the
Mahayanists ‘heretics’—arises precisely because of ignoring the
Buddha’s injunction to avoid extreme attachment to ‘views’
(Kalupahana 1994: 237–39). Deep scholarly study of the Vajrayana
tradition would undoubtedly also uncover vast differences among
those professing it.
Finally, the question of whether there is an underlying ‘Buddhism’
common to all its historical forms can be answered in three major
ways (see also Gombrich 1997: 6–7, 163–64). One is self-identification:
those who call themselves Buddhists are Buddhists, whatever type
they may be; no one outside the tradition has the right to deny this
identification. Second, it can be said, as Gombrich does, in the line of
paticca samuppada, that there is a historical though contingent con-
nection: one grows out of another. And third, it can be argued that
there are core characteristics, specifically the notion of compassion/
ethics and the idea of the liberation from enslavement to passions as
the goal.^4 It might be appropriate, then, to conclude with Gombrich’s
own argument about Vajrayana:between shocking in order to awaken a person and actually endorsing
questionable behaviour.
But with all of these problematic elements, Vajrayana main-
tained prajnaor the understanding that would lead to liberation
from the world of craving, sorrow and rebirth as it goal. This
constitutes a crucial difference with ‘Hindu’ Tantra which focused
on shaktior the acquisition of powers. The eradication of passion
was still a goal, even if it was now to be attained through magical
and conventionally ‘impure’ means. The continuing emphasis on
compassion also indicated the specifically ‘Buddhist’ element.
What is Buddhism?
Returning to the question of the transformations of Buddhism, the
difference between Vajrayana, Mahayana and Theravada may
appear tremendous, and there are also huge differences of opinions
about them. Devotees of one form may condemn the others, subtly
or with polemical force. For instance, the Rhys Davids could see
Mahayana and its doctrine of reliance on the Bodhisattvas as saviours
as a weed-like growth covering up the early teachings of self-control
and training that eventually lead to the downfall of Buddhism
(introduction in Digha Nikaya II, 1941: 1), while in contrast, admirers
like Sangharakshata could argue that Mahayana only brings out
the glory of original Buddhism:
The Mahayana emancipates Buddhism from its comparative drab ter-
restial and historical context and transfers it to a celestial context of
dazzling beauty and irresistible emotional appeal; it mounts the price-
less jewel of the Dharma in a ring of gold...Buddhism, though the off-
spring of the Eternal Truth and Law, had for some time to wear the
coarse habiliments of its apparent place of origin; it was the
Mahayana who wove for it the sumptuous robes befitting its true
birth (Sangharakshata 1987: 207).Strikingly it is the earlier one who appears more pragmatic, the
latter more mystical and idealistic. In any case, such varying view-
points could be duplicated almost anywhere, undoubtedly also
among the earliest followers of the Buddha.
114 Buddhism in India
(^4) It might also be noted that there is a ‘negative’ aspect to this: that notions of
karma/rebirth appear almost throughout, in Pali texts and in later texts classified as
Mahayana, for instance the popular ‘letters to a friend’ attributed to Nagarjuna
(Suhrllekha1996). Whether or not karma/rebirth is a core concept will be taken up
in the conclusion.