INDIAN BUDDHISM AS SEEN BY THE CHINESE PILGRIMS
About the time of Vasubandhu there existed four schools of Indian
Buddhism called Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Madhyamika and Yoga or
Yogacara.[230] They were specially concerned with philosophy and
apparently cut across the older division into eighteen sects, which at
this period seem to have differed mainly on points of discipline.
Though not of great practical importance, they long continued to play
a certain part in controversial works both Buddhist and Brahmanic. The
first two which were the older seem to have belonged to the Hinayana
and the other two even more definitely to the Mahayana. I-Ching[231]
is quite clear as to this. "There are but two kinds of the so-called
Mahayana" he says, "first the Madhyamika, second the Yoga.... These
two systems are perfectly in accordance with the noble doctrine. Can
we say which of the two is right? Both equally conform to truth and
lead us to Nirvana" and so on. But he does not say that the other two
systems are also aspects of the truth. This is the more remarkable
because he himself followed the Mula-sarvastivadins. Apparently
Sarvastivadin and Vaibhashika were different names for the same
school, the latter being applied to them because they identified
themselves with the commentary (Vibhasha) already mentioned whereas
the former and older designation came to be used chiefly with
reference to their disciplinary rules. Also there were two groups of
Sarvastivadins, those of Gandhara and those of Kashmir. The name of
Vaibhashika was applied chiefly to the latter who, if we may find a
kernel of truth in legends which are certainly exaggerated,
endeavoured to make Kashmir a holy land with a monopoly of the pure
doctrine. Vasubandhu and Asanga appear to have broken up this
isolation for they first preached the Vaibhashika doctrines in a
liberal and eclectic form outside Kashmir and then by a natural
transition and development went over to the Mahayana. But the
Vaibhashikas did not disappear and were in existence even in the
fourteenth century.[232] Their chief tenet was the real existence of
external objects. In matters of doctrine they regarded their own
Abhidharma as the highest authority.[233] They also held that Gotama
had an ordinary human body and passed first into a preliminary form of
Nirvana when he attained Buddhahood and secondly into complete Nirvana
at his death. He was superhuman only in the sense that he had
intuitive knowledge and no need to learn. Their contempt for sutras
may have been due to the fact that many of them discountenance the
Vaibhashika views and also to a knowledge that new ones were
continually being composed.
I-Ching, who ends his work by asserting that all his statements are
according to the Arya-mula-sarvastivada-nikaya and no other, gives an
interesting summary of doctrine.
"Again I say: the most important are only one or two out of eighty
thousand doctrines of the Buddha: one should conform to the worldly
path but inwardly strive to secure true wisdom. Now what is the
worldly path? It is obeying prohibitive laws and avoiding any crime.
What is the true wisdom? _It is to obliterate the distinction between
subject and object_, to follow the excellent truth and to free oneself
from worldly attachments: to do away with the trammels of the chain of
causality: further to obtain merit by accumulating good works and
_finally to realize the excellent meaning of perfect reality_."
Such a statement enables us to understand the remark which he makes
elsewhere that the same school may belong to the Hinayana and Mahayana
in different places, for, whatever may be meant by wisdom which aims
at obliterating the difference between subject and object, it is
clearly not out of sympathy with Yogacara doctrines. In another place
where he describes the curriculum followed by monks he says that they
learn the Yogacarya-sastra first and then eight compositions of Asanga
and Vasubandhu. Among the works prescribed for logic is the
Nyayadvara-sastra attributed to Nagarjuna. The monk should learn not
only the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivadins but also the Agamas,
equivalent to the Sutra-pitaka. So the study of the sutras and the
works of Asanga and Vasubandhu is approved by a Sarvastivadin.
The Sautrantikas,[234] though accounted Hinayanists, mark a step in
the direction of the Mahayana. The founder of the school was
Kumaralabdha, mentioned above. In their estimation of scripture they
reversed the views of the Vaibhashikas, for they rejected the
Abhidharma and accepted only the sutras, arguing that the Abhidharma
was practically an extract from them. As literary criticism this is
correct, if it means that the more ancient sutras are older than the
oldest Abhidharma books. But the indiscriminate acceptance of sutras
led to a creed in which the supernatural played a larger part. The
Sautrantikas not only ascribed superhuman powers to the Buddha, but
believed in the doctrine of three bodies. In philosophy, though they
were realists, they held that external objects are not perceived
directly but that their existence is inferred.[235]
Something has already been said of the two other schools, both of
which denied the reality of the external world. The differences
between them were concerned with metaphysics rather than theology and
led to no popular controversies.
Up to this point the history of Indian Buddhism has proved singularly
nebulous. The most important dates are a matter of argument, the chief
personages half mythical. But when the records of the Chinese pilgrims
commence we are in touch with something more solid. They record dates
and facts, though we must regret that they only repeat what they heard
and make no attempt to criticize Indian traditions or even to weave
them into a connected chronicle.
Fa-Hsien, the first of these interesting men, left China in 399 and
resided in India from 405 to 411, spending three years at Pataliputra
and two at Tamralipti. He visited the Panjab, Hindustan and Bengal and
his narrative leaves the impression that all these were in the main
Buddhist countries: of the Deccan which he did not visit he heard that
its inhabitants were barbarous and not Buddhists, though it contained
some Buddhist shrines. Of the Middle Kingdom (which according to his
reckoning begins with Muttra) he says that the people are free and
happy and neither kill any living creature nor drink intoxicating
liquor.[236] He does not hint at persecution though he once or twice
mentions that the Brahmans were jealous of the Buddhists. Neither does
he indicate that any strong animosity prevailed between Maha and
Hinayanists. But the two parties were distinct and he notes which
prevailed in each locality. He left China by land and found the
Hinayana prevalent at Shen-shen and Wu-i (apparently localities not
far from Lob-Nor) but the Mahayana at Khotan. Nearer India, in
countries apparently corresponding to parts of Kashmir and Gilgit, the
monks were numerous and all Hinayanist. The same was the case in
Udyana, and in Gandhara the Hinayanists were still in the majority. In
the Panjab both schools were prevalent but the Hinayana evidently
strong. In the district of Muttra the Law was still more flourishing,
monasteries and topes were numerous and ample alms were given to the
monks. He states that the professors of the Abhidharma and Vinaya made
offerings to those works, and the Mahayanists to the book
Prajna-paramita, as well as to Manjusri and Kwan-shih-yin. He found
the country in which are the sacred sites of Sravasti, Kapilavastu and
Kusinara sparsely inhabited and desolate, but this seems to have been
due to general causes, not specially to the decay of religion. He
mentions that ninety-six[237] varieties of erroneous views are found
among the Buddhists, which points to the existence of numerous but not
acutely hostile sects and says that there still existed, apparently in
Kosala, followers of Devadatta who recognized three previous Buddhas
but not Sakyamuni. He visited the birth-places of these three Buddhas
which contained topes erected in their honour.
He found Magadha prosperous and pious. Of its capital, Patna, he says
"by the side of the topes of Asoka has been made a Mahayana monastery
very grand and beautiful, there is also a Hinayana one, the two
together containing 600 or 700 monks." It is probable that this was
typical of the religious condition of Magadha and Bengal. Both schools
existed but the Mahayana was the more flourishing. Many of the old
sites, such as Rajagriha and Gaya, were deserted but there were new
towns near them and Bodh Gaya was a place of pilgrimage with three
monasteries. In the district of Tamralipti (Tamluk) on the coast of
Bengal were 22 monasteries. As his principal object was to obtain
copies of the Vinaya, he stayed three years in Patna seeking and
copying manuscripts. In this he found some difficulty, for the various
schools of the Vinaya, which he says were divided by trivial
differences only, handed down their respective versions orally. He
found in the Mahayanist monastery one manuscript of the Mahasanghika
rules and considered it the most complete, but also took down the
Sarvastivadin rules.
After the death of Vasubandhu few names of even moderate magnitude
stand out in the history of Indian Buddhism. The changes which
occurred were great but gradual and due not to the initiative of
innovators but to the assimilative power of Hinduism and to the
attractions of magical and emotional rites. But this tendency, though
it doubtless existed, did not become conspicuous until about 700 A.D.
The accounts of the Chinese pilgrims and the literature which has been
preserved suggest that in the intervening centuries the monks were
chiefly occupied with scholastic and exegetical work. The most
distinguished successors of Asanga were logicians, among whom Dinnaga
was pre-eminent. Sthiramati[238] and Gunamati appear to have belonged
to the same school and perhaps Bhavaviveka[239] too. The statements as
to his date are inconsistent but the interesting fact is recorded that
he utilized the terminology of the Sankhya for the purposes of the
Mahayana.
Throughout the middle ages the study of logic was pursued but
Buddhists and Jains rather than by Brahmans.[240] Vasubandhu composed
some treatises dealing exclusively with logic but it was his disciple
Dinnaga who separated it definitely from philosophy and theology. As
in idealist philosophy, so in pure logic there was a parallel movement
in the Buddhist and Brahmanic schools, but if we may trust the
statements of Vacaspatimisra (about 1100 A.D.) Dinnaga interpreted
the aphorisms of the Nyaya philosophy in a heterodox or Buddhist
sense. This traces the beginnings of Indian logic to a Brahmanic
source but subsequently it flourished greatly in the hands of
Buddhists, especially Dinnaga and Dharmakirti. The former appears to
have been a native of Conjevaram and a contemporary of Kalidasa. Both
the logician and the poet were probably alive in the reign of
Kumaragupta (413-455). Dinnaga spent much time in Nalanda, and though
the Sanskrit originals of his works are lost the Tibetan
translations[241] are preserved.
The Buddhist schools of logic continued for many centuries. One
flourished in Kashmir and another, founded by Candragomin, in Bengal.
Both lasted almost until the Mohammedan conquest of the two countries.
From about 470 to 530 A.D. northern India groaned under the tyranny of
the Huns. Their King Mihiragula is represented as a determined enemy
of Buddhism and a systematic destroyer of monasteries. He is said to
have been a worshipper of Siva but his fury was probably inspired less
by religious animosity than by love of pillage and slaughter.
About 530 A.D. he was defeated by a coalition of Indian princes and
died ten years later amid storms and portents which were believed to
signify the descent of his wicked soul into hell. It must have been
about this time that Bodhidharma left India for he arrived in Canton
about 520. According to the Chinese he was the son of a king of a
country called Hsiang-Chih in southern India[242] and the
twenty-eighth patriarch and he became an important figure in the
religion and art of the Far East. But no allusion to him or to any of
the Patriarchs after Vasubandhu has been found in Indian literature
nor in the works of Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching. The inference is that he
was of no importance in India and that his reputation in China was not
great before the eighth century: also that the Chinese lists of
patriarchs do not represent the traditions of northern India.
Religious feeling often ran high in southern India. Buddhists, Jains
and Hindus engaged in violent disputes, and persecution was more
frequent than in the north. It is easy to suppose that Bodhidharma
being the head of some heretical sect had to fly and followed the
example of many monks in going to China. But if so, no record of his
school is forthcoming from his native land, though the possibility
that he was more than an individual thinker and represented some
movement unknown to us cannot be denied. We might suppose too that
since Nagarjuna and Aryadeva were southerners, their peculiar
doctrines were coloured by Dravidian ideas. But our available
documents indicate that the Buddhism of southern India was almost
entirely Hinayanist, analogous to that of Ceylon and not very
sympathetic to the Tamils.
The pilgrims Sung-Yuen and Hui-Sheng[243] visited Udyana and Gandhara
during the time of the Hun domination (518-521). They found the king
of the former a pious Buddhist but the latter was governed by an
Ephthalite chieftain, perhaps Mihiragula himself, who was a worshipper
of demons. Of the Yetha or Ephthalites they make the general
observation that "their rules of politeness are very defective." But
they also say that the population of Gandhara had a great respect for
Buddhism and as they took back to China 170 volumes, "all standard
works belonging to the Great Vehicle," the Ephthalite persecution
cannot have destroyed the faith in north-western India. But the evil
days of decay were beginning. Henceforward we have no more pictures of
untroubled piety and prosperity. At best Buddhism receives royal
patronage in company with other religions; sectarian conflicts
increase and sometimes we hear of persecution. About 600 A.D. a king
of Central Bengal named Sasanka who worshipped Siva attempted to
extirpate Buddhism in his dominions and destroyed the Bo tree at Bodh
Gaya.[244] On the other hand we hear of the pious Purnavarman, king
of Magadha, who made amends for these sacrileges, and of Siladitya,
king of the country called Mo-lo-po by the Chinese, who was so careful
of animal life, that he even strained the water drunk by his horses
and elephants, lest they should consume minute insects.
We know more of Indian Buddhism in the seventh century than in the
periods which precede or follow it. The epoch was marked by the reign
of the great king, or rather emperor, Harsha-Vardhana (606-648 A.D.),
and the works written by Bana, Bhartrihari and others who frequented
his court have come down to us. Also we are fortunate in possessing
the copious narrative of Hsuean Chuang, the greatest of the Chinese
pilgrims, who spent sixteen years (629-645) in India as well as the
work known as the "Record of the Buddhist religion as practised in
India and the Malay Archipelago," composed by I-Ching who travelled in
those countries from 671 to 695. I-Ching also wrote the lives of sixty
Chinese pilgrims who visited India during the seventh century and
probably there were many others of whom we have no record.
The reign of Harsha is thus illustrated by a number of contemporary
dateable works unusual in India. The king himself wrote some Buddhist
hymns,[245] and three dramas are ascribed to him but were probably
composed by some of the literary men whom he patronized. For all that,
the religious ideas which they contain must have had his approval. The
Ratnavali and Priyadarsika are secular pieces and so far as they have
any religious atmosphere it is Brahmanic, but the Nagananda is a
Buddhist religious drama which opens with an invocation of the Buddha
and has a Jataka story for its plot.[246] Bana was himself a devout
Brahman but his historical romance Harshacarita and his novel called
Kadambari both describe a mixture of religions founded on observation
of contemporary life. In an interesting passage[247] he recounts the
king's visit to a Buddhist ascetic. The influence of the holy man
causes the more intelligent animals in his neighbourhood, such as
parrots, to devote themselves to Buddhist lore, but he is surrounded
by devotees of the most diverse sects, Jains, Bhagavatas, Pancaratras,
Lokayatikas with followers of Kapila, Kanada and many other teachers.
Mayura, another literary protege of Harsha's, was like Bana a Brahman,
and Subandhu, who flourished a little before them, ignores Buddhism in
his romance called Vasavadatta. But Bhartrihari, the still popular
gnomic poet, was a Buddhist. It is true that he oscillated between the
court and the cloister no less than seven times, but this vacillation
seems to have been due to the weakness of the flesh, not to any change
of convictions. For our purpose the gist of this literature is that
Hinduism in many forms, some of them very unorthodox, was becoming the
normal religion of India but that there were still many eminent
Buddhists and that Buddhism had sufficient prestige to attract Harsha
and sufficient life to respond to his patronage.
About 600 A.D. India was exhausted by her struggle with the Huns.
After it there remained only a multitude of small states and obscure
dynasties, but there was evidently a readiness to accept any form of
unifying and tranquillizing rule and for nearly half a century this
was provided by Harsha. He conquered northern India from the Panjab to
Bengal but failed to subdue the Deccan. Though a great part of his
reign was spent in war, learning and education flourished. Hsuean
Chuang, who was his honoured guest, gives a good account of his
administration but also makes it plain that brigandage prevailed and
that travelling was dangerous.
After 643 Harsha, who was growing elderly, devoted much attention to
religion and may be said to have become a Buddhist, while allowing
himself a certain eclectic freedom. Several creeds were represented
among his immediate relatives. Devotion to Siva was traditional in the
family: his father had been a zealous worshipper of the Sun and his
brother and sister were Buddhists of the Sammitiya sect. Harsha by no
means disowned Brahmanic worship, but in his latter years his
proclivity to Buddhism became more marked and he endeavoured to
emulate the piety of Asoka. He founded rest houses and hospitals, as
well as monasteries and thousands of stupas. He prohibited the taking
of life and the use of animal food, and of the three periods into
which his day was divided two were devoted to religion and one to
business. He also exercised a surveillance over the whole Buddhist
order and advanced meritorious members.
Hsuean Chuang has left an interesting account of the religious fetes
and spectacles organized by Harsha. At Kanauj he attended a great
assembly during which a solemn procession took place every day. A
golden image of Buddha was borne on an elephant and Harsha, dressed as
Indra, held a canopy over it, while his ally Raja Kumara,[248] dressed
as Brahma, waved a fly-whisk. It was subsequently washed by the king's
own hands and in the evening his Majesty, who like Akbar had a taste
for religious discussion, listened to the arguments of his Chinese
guest. But the royal instructions that no one was to speak against the
Master of the Law were so peremptory that even his biographer admits
there was no real discussion. These edifying pageants were interrupted
by disagreeable incidents which show that Harsha's tolerance had not
produced complete harmony. A temporary monastery erected for the fetes
caught fire and a fanatic attempted to stab the king. He confessed
under examination that he had been instigated to the crime by Brahmans
who were jealous of the favours which the Buddhists received. It was
also established that the incendiaries were Brahmans and, after the
ringleaders had been punished, five hundred were exiled. Harsha then
proceeded to Allahabad to superintend a quinquennial distribution of
alms. It was his custom to let treasure accumulate for five years and
then to divide it among holy men and the poor. The proceedings lasted
seventy-five days and the concourse which collected to gaze and
receive must have resembled the fair still held on the same spot.
Buddhists, Brahmans and Jains all partook of the royal bounty and the
images of Buddha, Surya and Siva were worshipped on successive days,
though greater honour was shown to the Buddha. The king gave away
everything that he had, even his robes and jewels, and finally,
arrayed in clothes borrowed from his sister, rejoiced saying "all I
have has entered into incorruptible and imperishable treasuries."
After this, adds Hsuean Chuang, the king's vassals offered him jewels
and robes so that the treasury was replenished. This was the sixth
quinquennial distribution which Harsha had held and the last, for he
died in 648. He at first favoured the Hinayana but subsequently went
over to the Mahayana, being moved in part by the exhortations of Hsuean
Chuang.
Yet the substance of Hsuean Chuang's account is that though Buddhism
was prospering in the Far East it was decaying in India. Against this
can be set instances of royal piety like those described, the fame
enjoyed by the shrines and schools of Magadha and the conversion of
the king of Tibet in 638 A.D. This event was due to Chinese as well as
Indian influence, but would hardly have occurred unless in
north-eastern India Buddhism had been esteemed the religion of
civilization. Still Hsuean Chuang's long catalogue of deserted
monasteries[249] has an unmistakable significance. The decay was most
pronounced in the north-west and south. In Gandhara there were only a
few Buddhists: more than a thousand monasteries stood untenanted and
the Buddha's sacred bowl had vanished. In Takshasila the monasteries
were numerous but desolate: in Kashmir the people followed a mixed
faith. Only in Udyana was Buddhism held in high esteem. In Sind the
monks were numerous but indolent.
No doubt this desolation was largely due to the depredations of
Mihiragula. In the Deccan and the extreme south there was also a
special cause, namely the prevalence of Jainism, which somewhat later
became the state religion in several kingdoms. In Kalinga, Andhra and
the kingdom of the Colas the pilgrim reports that Jains were very
numerous but counts Buddhist monasteries only by tens and twenties. In
Dravida there were also 10,000 monks of the Sthavira school but in
Malakuta among many ruined monasteries only a few were still inhabited
and here again Jains were numerous.
For all Central India and Bengal the pilgrim's statistics tell the
same tale, namely that though Buddhism was represented both by
monasteries and monks, the Deva-temples and unbelievers were also
numerous. The most favourable accounts are those given of Kanauj,
Ayodhya and Magadha where the sacred sites naturally caused the devout
to congregate.
The statistics which he gives as to sects are interesting.[250] The
total number of monks amounted to about 183,000. Of these only 32,000
belonged definitely to the Mahayana: more than 96,000 to the Hinayana,
and 54,500 studied both systems or at any rate resided in monasteries
which tolerated either course of study. Some writers speak as if
after our era Mahayanism was predominant in India and the Hinayana
banished to its extreme confines such as Ceylon and Kashmir. Yet about
A.D. 640 this zealous Mahayanist[251] states that half the monks of
India were definitely Hinayanist while less than a fifth had equally
definite Mahayanist convictions. The Mahayana laid less stress on
monasticism than the Hinayana and therefore its strength may have lain
among the laity, but even so the admitted strength of the Hinayana is
remarkable. Three Hinayanist schools are frequently mentioned, the
Sthaviras, Sarvastivadins and Sammitiyas. The first are the well-known
Sinhalese sect and were found chiefly in the south (Conjeevaram) and
in East Bengal, besides the monks of the Sinhalese monastery at Gaya.
The Sarvastivadins were found, as their history would lead us to
expect, chiefly in the north and beyond the frontiers of India proper.
But both were outnumbered by the Sammitiyas, who amounted to nearly
44,000 monks. The chief doctrine[252] of this sect is said to have
been that individuals (puggalo) exist as such in the truest sense.
This doctrine was supported by reference to the sutra known as the
Burden and the Burden bearer.[253] It does not assert that there is a
permanent and unchangeable soul (atta) but it emphasizes the reality
and importance of that personality which all accept as true for
practical purposes. It is probable that in practice this belief
differed little from the ordinary Brahmanic doctrine of metempsychosis
and this may be one reason for the prevalence of the sect.
I-Ching, though he does not furnish statistics, gives a clear
conspectus of Buddhist sects as they existed in his time. He starts
from the ancient eighteen sects but divides them into four groups or
Nikayas. (_a_) The Arya-Mahasanghika-nikaya. This comprised seven
subdivisions but was apparently the least influential school as it was
not predominant anywhere, though it coexisted with other schools in
most parts. The Lokottaravadins mentioned by Hsuean Chuang as existing
at Bamiyan belonged to it. They held that the Buddha was not subject
to the laws of nature. (_b_) Arya-Sthavira-nikaya. This is the school
to which our Pali Canon belongs. It was predominant in southern India
and Ceylon and was also found in eastern Bengal. (_c_) The
Arya-Mula-sarvastivada-nikaya with four subdivisions. Almost all
belonged to this school in northern India and it was nourishing in
Magadha. (_d_) The Arya-Sammitiya-nikaya with four subdivisions
flourished in Lata and Sindhu. Thus the last three schools were
preponderant in southern, northern and western India respectively. All
were followed in Magadha, no doubt because the holy places and the
University of Nalanda attracted all shades of opinion, and Bengal
seems to have been similarly catholic. This is substantially the same
as Hsuean Chuang's statement except that I-Ching takes a more
favourable view of the position of the Sarvastivada, either because it
was his own school or because its position had really improved.
It would seem that in the estimation of both pilgrims the Maha-and
Hinayana are not schools but modes in which any school can be studied.
The Nikaya[254] or school appears to have been chiefly, though not
exclusively, concerned with the rule of discipline which naturally had
more importance for Buddhist monks than it has for European scholars.
The observances of each Nikaya were laid down in its own recension of
the scriptures which was sometimes oral and sometimes in writing.
Probably all the eighteen schools had separate Vinayas, and to some
extent they had different editions of the other Pitakas, for the
Sarvastivadins had an Abhidharma of their own. But there was no
objection to combining the study of Sarvastivadin literature with the
reading of treatises by Asanga and Vasubandhu[255] or sutras such as
the Lotus, which I-Ching's master read once a day for sixty years.
I-Ching himself seems to regard the two Vehicles as alternative forms
of religion, both excellent in their way, much as a Catholic
theologian might impartially explain the respective advantages of the
active and contemplative lives. "With resolutions rightly formed" he
says "we should look forward to meeting the coming Buddha Maitreya. If
we wish to gain the lesser fruition (of the Hinayana) we may pursue it
through the eight grades of sanctification. But if we learn to follow
the course of the greater fruition (of the Mahayana) we must try to
accomplish our work through long ages."[256]
I-Ching observes that both Vehicles agree in prescribing the same
discipline, in prohibiting the same offences and enjoining the
practice of the noble truths. His views, which are substantially
those of Hsuean Chuang,[257] must be those current in the seventh
century when the Hinayana was allowing the Mahayana to overgrow it
without resistance, but the relations of the two creeds are sometimes
stated differently. For instance the Angulimaliya sutra,[258] known
only in a Tibetan translation, states that whereas for the Hinayana
such formulae as the four truths and the eightfold path are of cardinal
importance, the Mahayana does not recognize them, and it is
undoubtedly true that the Vaipulya sutras frequently ignore the
familiar doctrines of early Buddhism and hint that they belong to a
rudimentary stage of instruction.
I-Ching makes no mention of persecution but he deplores the decay of
the faith. "The teaching of the Buddha is becoming less prevalent in
the world from day to day" he says. "When I compare what I have
witnessed in my younger days and what I see to-day in my old age, the
state is altogether different and we are bearing witness to this and
it is hoped we shall be more attentive in future." Though he speaks
regretfully of lax or incorrect discipline, he does not complain of
the corruption of the faith by Tantrism and magical practices. He does
however deprecate in an exceedingly curious passage the prevalence of
religious suicide.[259]
Except for progressive decay, the condition of Indian Buddhism as
described by the two pilgrims is much the same. Meals were supplied to
monks in the monasteries and it was no longer usual to beg for food in
the streets, since the practice is mentioned by I-Ching as
exceptional. On Upavasatha days it was the custom for the pious laity
to entertain the monks and the meal was sometimes preceded by a
religious service performed before an image and accompanied by music.
I-Ching describes the musical services with devout enthusiasm. "The
priests perform the ordinary service late in the afternoon or in the
evening twilight. They come out of the monastery and walk three times
round a stupa, offering incense and flowers. Then they all kneel down
and one of them who sings well begins to chant hymns describing the
virtues of the great Teacher and continues to sing ten or twenty
slokas. They then return to the place in the monastery where they
usually assemble and, when all have sat down, a reciter mounting the
lion-seat (which is near the head priest) reads a short sutra. Among
the scriptures for such an occasion the 'Service in three parts' is
often used. This is a selection of Asvaghosha. The first part contains
ten slokas of a hymn. The second part is a selection from some
scripture consisting of the Buddha's words. Then there is an
additional hymn as the third part of the service, of more than ten
slokas, being prayers that express the wish to bring one's merits to
maturity. After the singing the assembled Bhikshus exclaim Subhashita
or Sadhu, that is well-said or bravo. The reader descends and the
Bhikshus in order salute the lion-seat, the seats of Bodhisattvas and
Arhats, and the superior of the monastery."[260]
I-Ching also tells us of the ceremonial bathing of images and prefaces
his description by the remark that "the meaning of the Truths is so
profound that it is a matter beyond the comprehension of vulgar minds
while the ablution of the holy images is practicable for all. Though
the Great Teacher has entered Nirvana yet his image exists and we
should worship it with zeal as though in his presence. Those who
constantly offer incense and flowers to it are enabled to purify their
thoughts and those who perpetually bathe his image are enabled to
overcome the sins that involve them in darkness."[261] He appears to
contemplate chiefly the veneration of images of Sakyamuni but figures
of Bodhisattvas were also conspicuous features in temples, as we know
not only from archaeology but from the biography of Hsuean Chuang, where
it is said that worshippers used to throw flowers and silk scarves at
the image of Avalokita and draw auguries from the way they fell.
Monasteries were liberally decorated with statues, carvings and
pictures.[262] They often comprised several courts and temples. Hsuean
Chuang says that a monastery in Magadha which he calls Ti-lo-shi-ka
had "four courts with three storeyed halls, lofty terraces and a
succession of open passages.... At the head of the road through the
middle gate were three temples with disks on the roof and hung with
small bells; the bases were surrounded by balustrades, and doors,
windows, beams, walls, and stairs were ornamented with gilt work in
relief." In the three temples were large images representing the
Buddha, Tara and Avalokita.
The great centres of Buddhist learning and monastic life, mentioned by
both pilgrims, were Valabhi or Balabhi in Gujarat and Nalanda. The
former was a district rather than a single locality and contained 100
monasteries with 6000 monks of the Sammitiya school. Nalanda was in
Magadha not far from Gaya. The date of its foundation is unknown but a
great temple (though apparently not the first) was built about 485
A.D.[263] Fa-Hsien mentions a village called Nala but without
indicating that it was a seat of learning. Hence it is probable that
the University was not then in existence or at least not celebrated.
Hsuean Chuang describes it as containing six monasteries built by
various kings and surrounded by an enclosing wall in which there was
only one gate. I-Ching writing later says that the establishment owned
200 villages and contained eight halls with more than 3000 monks. In
the neighbourhood of the monastery were a hundred sacred spots,
several marked by temples and topes. It was a resort for Buddhists
from all countries and an educational as well as a religious centre.
I-Ching says that students spent two or three years there in learning
and disputing after which they went to the king's court in search of a
government appointment. Successful merit was rewarded not only by rank
but by grants of land. Both pilgrims mention the names of several
celebrities connected with Nalanda. But the worthies of the seventh
century did not attain to more than scholastic eminence. The most
important literary figure of the age is Santideva of whose life
nothing is known. His writings however prove that the Buddhism of this
period was not a corrupt superstition, but could inspire and nourish
some of the most beautiful thoughts which the creed has produced.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 230: See Vasilief, _Le Bouddhisme_, Troisieme supplement,
pp. 262 ff. Koeppen, _Rel. des Buddha_, I. 151. Takakusu in _J. Pali
Text Society_, 1905, pp. 67-146.]
[Footnote 231: _Records_, translated by Takakusu, p. 15.]
[Footnote 232: They are mentioned in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha.]
[Footnote 233: Kern (_Indian Buddhism_, p. 126) says they rejected the
authority of the Sutras altogether but gives no reference.]
[Footnote 234: See Vasilief, pp. 301 ff. and various notices in Hsuean
Chuang and Watters. Also de la Vallee Poussin's article in E.R.E.]
[Footnote 235: Hsuean Chuang informs us that when he was in Srughna he
studied the Vibhasha of the Sautrantikas, but the precise significance
of this term is not plain.]
[Footnote 236: Fa-Hsien's _Travels_, chap. XVI.]
[Footnote 237: This figure is probably deduced from some artificial
calculation of possible heresies like the 62 wrong views enumerated in
the Brahma-Jala sutra.]
[Footnote 238: He must have lived in the fourth century as one of his
works (Nanjio, 1243) was translated between 397 and 439.]
[Footnote 239: Watters, _Yuean Chwang_, II. 221-224. Nanjio, 1237. The
works of Gunamati also are said to show a deep knowledge of the
Sankhya philosophy.]
[Footnote 240: For the history of logic in India, see Vidyabhusana's
interesting work _Mediaeval School of Indian Logic_, 1909. But I cannot
accept all his dates.]
[Footnote 241: Dinnaga's principal works are the Pramana-samuccaya
and the Nyaya-pravesa. Hsuean Chuang calls him Ch'en-na. See Watters,
II. 209. See Stcherbatskoi in _Museon_, 1904, pp. 129-171 for
Dinnaga's influence on the development of the Naiyayika and
Vaiseshika schools.]
[Footnote 242: His personal name is said to have been P'u-ti-to-lo and
his surname Ch'a-ti-li. The latter is probably a corruption of
Kshatriya. Hsiang-Chih possibly represents a name beginning with
Gandha, but I can neither find nor suggest any identification.]
[Footnote 243: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, pp. 379 ff.]
[Footnote 244: His evil deeds are several times mentioned by Hsuean
Chuang. It required a miracle to restore the Bo tree.]
[Footnote 245: See Ettinghausen, _Harshavardhana_, Appendix III.]
[Footnote 246: The appearance of Gauri as a _dea ex machina_ at the
end hardly shows that Harsha's Buddhism had a Saktist tinge but it
does show that Buddhists of that period turned naturally to Sivaite
mythology.]
[Footnote 247: Harshacarita, chap. VII. The parrots were expounding
Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa. Bana frequently describes troops of
holy men apparently living in harmony but including followers of most
diverse sects. See Kadambari, 193 and 394: Harshacar. 67.]
[Footnote 248: It is curious that Bana (Harshacarita, VII.) says of
this prince that from childhood he resolved never to worship anyone
but Siva.]
[Footnote 249: The Rashtra-pala-paripriccha (Ed. Finot, pp. ix-xi,
28-33) inveighs against the moral degeneration of the Buddhist clergy.
This work was translated into Chinese between 589 and 618, so that
demoralisation must have begun in the sixth century.]
[Footnote 250: See Rhys Davids in _J.R.A.S._ 1891, pp. 418 ff.]
[Footnote 251: Hsuean Chuang was not disposed to underrate the numbers
of the Mahayana for he says that the monks of Ceylon were
Mahayanists.]
[Footnote 252: See the beginning of the Kathavatthu. The doctrine is
formulated in the words Puggalo upalabbhati saccikatthaparamatthenati,
and there follows a discussion between a member of the orthodox school and
a Puggalavadin, that is one who believes in the existence of a person, soul
or entity which transmigrates from this world to another.]
[Footnote 253: Sam. Nik. XXII. 221.]
[Footnote 254: This use of Nikaya must not be confused with its other
use to denote a division of the Sutra-Pitaka. It means a group or
collection and hence can be used to denote either a body of men or a
collection of treatises. These Nikayas are also not the same as the
four schools (Vaibhashikas, etc.), mentioned above, which were
speculative. Similarly in Europe a Presbyterian may be a Calvinist,
but Presbyterianism has reference to Church government and Calvinism
to doctrine.
There were in India at this time (1) two vehicles, Maha-and Hinayana,
(2) four speculative schools, Vaibhashikas, etc., (3) four
disciplinary schools, Mula-sarvastivadins, etc. These three classes
are obviously not mutually exclusive. Thus I-Ching approved of (_a_)
the Mahayana, (_b_) the Madhyamika and Yogacara, which he did not
consider inconsistent and (_c_) the Mula-sarvastivada.]
[Footnote 255: I-Ching, transl. Takakusu, p. 186.]
[Footnote 256: Three Asankhya Kalpas. I-Ching, Takakusu's transl. pp.
196-7. He seems to regard the Mahayana as the better way. He quotes
Nagarjuna's allusions to Avalokita and Amitayus with apparent
approval; he tells us how one of his teachers worshipped Amitayus and
strove to prepare himself for Sukhavati and how the Lotus was the
favourite scripture of another. He further tells us that the
Madhyamika and the Yoga systems are both perfectly correct.]
[Footnote 257: Hsuean Chuang speaks of Mahayanists belonging to the
Sthavira school.]
[Footnote 258: Quoted by Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, pp. 196 ff.]
[Footnote 259: Chaps. XXXVIII and XXXIX. He seems to say that it is
right for the laity to make an offering of their bodies by burning but
not for Bhikshus. The practice is recognized and commended in the
Lotus, chap. XXII, which however is a later addition to the original
work.]
[Footnote 260: I-Ching, transl. Takakusu, pp. 153-4 somewhat abridged.
I-Ching (pp. 156-7) speaks of Matricheta as the principal hymn writer
and does not identify him with Asvaghosha.]
[Footnote 261: I believe the golden image in the Arakan Pagoda at
Mandalay is still washed with a ceremonial resembling that described
by I-Ching.]
[Footnote 262: I-Ching says that monasteries commonly had a statue of
Mahakala as a guardian deity.]
[Footnote 263: By the Gupta king, Narasinha Gupta Baladitya. Much
information about Nalanda will be found in Satis Chandra
Vidyabhusana's _Mediaeval School of Indian Logic_, pp. 145-147. Hsuean
Chuang (_Life_, transl. Beal, p. 111) says that it was built 700 years
before his time, that is, in the first century B.C. He dwells on the
beauty of the buildings, ponds and flowers.]