CHAPTER XXII
FROM KANISHKA TO VASUBANDHU
Tradition, as mentioned above, connects the rise of the Mahayana with the reign of Kanishka. Materials for forming a picture of Indian life under his rule are not plentiful but it was clearly an age of fusion.
His hereditary dominions were ample and he had no need to spend his reign in conquests, but he probably subdued Kashmir as well as Khotan, Yarkand and Kashgar.[187] Hostages from one of these states were sent to reside in India and all accounts agree that they were treated with generosity and that their sojourn improved the relations of Kanishka with the northern tribes. His capital was Purushapura or Peshawar, and the locality, like many other features of his reign, indicates a tendency to amalgamate India with Persia and Central Asia. It was embellished with masterpieces of Gandharan sculpture and its chief ornament was a great stupa built by the king for the reception of the relics of the Buddha which he collected. This building is described by several Chinese pilgrims[188] and its proportions, though variously stated, were sufficient to render it celebrated in all the Buddhist world. It is said to have been several times burnt, and rebuilt, but so solid a structure can hardly have been totally destroyed by fire and the greater part of the monument discovered in 1908 probably dates from the time of Kanishka. The base is a square measuring 285 feet on each side, with ma.s.sive towers at the corners, and on each of the four faces projections bearing staircases. The sides were ornamented with stucco figures of the Buddha and according to the Chinese pilgrims the super-structure was crowned with an iron pillar on which were set twenty-five gilded disks. Inside was found a metal casket, still containing the sacred bones, and bearing an inscription which presents two points of great interest. Firstly it mentions "Agisala the overseer of works at Kanishka"s vihara," that is, probably Agesilaus, a foreigner in the king"s service. Secondly it states that the casket was made "for the acceptance of the teachers of the Sarvastivadin sect,"[189] and the idea that Kanishka was the special patron of the Mahayana must be reconsidered in the light of this statement.
Legends ascribe Kanishka"s fervour for the Buddhist faith not to education but to conversion. His coinage, of which abundant specimens have been preserved, confirms this for it presents images of Greek, Persian, Indian and perhaps Babylonian deities showing how varied was the mythology which may have mingled with Gandharan Buddhism. The coins bearing figures of the Buddha are not numerous and, as he undoubtedly left behind him the reputation of a pious Buddhist, it is probable that they were struck late in his reign and represent his last religious phase.[190] Hsuan Chuang[191] repeats some legends which relate that he was originally anti-Buddhist, and that after his conversion he summoned a council and built a stupa.
The substance of these legends is probable. Kanishka as a barbarian but docile conqueror was likely to adopt Buddhism if he wished to keep abreast of the thought and civilisation of his subjects, for at that time it undoubtedly inspired the intellect and art of north-western India. Both as a statesman and as an enquirer after truth he would wish to promote harmony and stop sectarian squabbles. His action resembles that of Constantine who after his conversion to Christianity proceeded to summon the Council of Nicaea in order to stop the dissensions of the Church and settle what were the tenets of the religion which he had embraced, a point about which both he and Kanishka seem to have felt some uncertainty. Our knowledge of Kanishka"s Council depends chiefly on the traditions reported by Hsuan Chuang[192] which present many difficulties. He tells us that the king, acting in consultation with Parsva, issued summonses to all the learned doctors of his realm. They came in such crowds that a severe test was imposed and only 499 Arhats were selected. There was some discussion as to the place of meeting but finally Kashmir[193] was selected and the king built a monastery for the Brethren. When the Council met, there arose a question as to whether Vasumitra (who is not further described) should be admitted seeing that he was not an Arhat but aspired to the career of a Bodhisattva. But owing to the interposition of spirits he was not only admitted but made president.
The texts of the Tripitaka were collected and the Council "composed 100,000 stanzas of Upadesa Sastras explanatory of the canonical sutras, 100,000 stanzas of Vinaya-vibhasha Sastras explanatory of the Vinaya and 100,000 of Abhidharma-vibhasha Sastras explanatory of the Abhidharma. For this exposition of the Tripitaka all learning from remote antiquity was thoroughly examined; the general sense and the terse language (of the Buddhist scriptures) was again and again made clear and distinct, and learning was widely diffused for the safe-guiding of disciples. King Kanishka caused the treatises when finished to be written out on copper plates and enclosed these in stone boxes which he deposited in a tope made for the purpose. He then ordered spirits to keep and guard the texts and not to allow any to be taken out of the country by heretics; those who wished to study them could do so in the country. When leaving to return to his own country, Kanishka renewed Asoka"s gift of all Kashmir to the Buddhist Church."[194]
Paramartha (499-569 A.D.) in his _Life of Vasubandhu_[195] gives an account of a council generally considered to be the same as that described by Hsuan Chuang, though the differences in the two versions are considerable. He says that about five hundred years[196] after the Buddha"s death (_i.e._ between 87 B.C. and 13 A.D. if the Buddha died 487 B.C.) an Indian Arhat called Katyayani-putra, who was a monk of the Sarvastivadin school, went to Kipin or Kashmir. There with 500 other Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas he collected the Abhidharma of the Sarvastivadins and arranged it in eight books called Ka-lan-ta (Sanskrit _Grantha_) or Kan-tu (Pali _Gantho_). This compilation was also called Jnana-prasthana. He then made a proclamation inviting all who had heard the Buddha preach to communicate what they remembered.
Many spirits responded and contributed their reminiscences which were examined by the Council and, when they did not contradict the sutras and the Vinaya, were accepted, but otherwise were rejected. The selected pieces were grouped according to their subject-matter. Those about wisdom formed the Prajna Grantha, and those about meditation the Dhyana Grantha and so on. After finishing the eight books they proceeded to the composition of a commentary or Vibhasha and invited the a.s.sistance of Asvaghosha. When he came to Kashmir, Katyayani-putra expounded the eight books to him and Asvaghosha put them into literary form. At the end of twelve years the composition of the commentary was finished. It consisted of 1,000,000 verses.... Katyayani-putra set up a stone inscribed with this proclamation. "Those who hereafter learn this law must not go out of Kashmir. No sentence of the eight books, or of the Vibhasha must pa.s.s out of the land, lest other schools or the Mahayana should corrupt the true law." This proclamation was reported to the king who approved it. The sages of Kashmir had power over demons and set them to guard the entrance to the country, but we are told that anyone desirous of learning the law could come to Kashmir and was in no way interrupted.
There follows a story telling how, despite this prohibition, a native of Ayodhya succeeded in learning the law in Kashmir and subsequently teaching it in his native land. Paramartha"s account seems exaggerated, whereas the prohibition described by Hsuan Chuang is intelligible. It was forbidden to take the official copies of the law out of Kashmir, lest heretics should tamper with them.
Taranatha[197] gives a singularly confused account of the meeting, which he expressly calls the third council, but makes some important statements about it. He says that it put an end to the dissensions which had been distracting the Buddhist Church _for nearly a century_ and that it recognized all the eighteen sects as holding the true doctrine: that it put the Vinaya in writing as well as such parts of the Sutra-pit?aka and Abhidharma as were still unwritten and corrected those which already existed as written texts: that all kinds of Mahayanist writings appeared at this time but that the Sravakas raised no opposition.
It is hard to say how much history can be extracted from these vague and discrepant stories. They seem to refer to one a.s.sembly regarded (at least in Tibet) as the third council of the Church and held under Kanishka four or five hundred years[198] after the Buddha"s death. As to what happened at the council tradition seems to justify the following deductions, though as the tradition is certainly jumbled it may also be incorrect in details.
(_a_) The council is recognized only by the northern Church and is unknown to the Churches of Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It seems to have regarded Kashmir as sacred land outside which the true doctrine was exposed to danger. (_b_) But it was not a specially Mahayanist meeting but rather a conference of peace and compromise. Taranatha says this clearly: in Hsuan Chuang"s account an a.s.sembly of Arhats (which at this time must have meant Hinayanists) elect a president who was not an Arhat and according to Paramartha the a.s.sembly consisted of 500 Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas who were convened by a leader of the Sarvastivadin school and ended by requesting Asvaghosha to revise their work. (_c_) The literary result of the council was the composition of commentaries on the three Pitakas. One of these, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasha-sastra, translated into Chinese in 437-9 and still extant, is said to be a work of encyclopaedic character, hardly a commentary in the strict sense. Paramartha perhaps made a confusion in saying that the Jnana-prasthana itself was composed at the council.
The traditions indicate that the council to some extent sifted and revised the Tripitaka and perhaps it accepted the seven Abhidharma books of the Sarvastivadins.[199] But it is not stated or implied that it composed or sanctioned Mahayanist books. Taranatha merely says that such books appeared at this time and that the Hinayanists raised no active objection.
But if the above is the gist of the traditions, the position described is not clear. The council is recognized by Mahayanists yet it appears to have resulted in the composition of a Sarvastivadin treatise, and the tradition connecting the Sarvastivadins with the council is not likely to be wrong, for they are recognized in the inscription on Kanishka"s casket, and Gandhara and Kashmir were their headquarters.
The decisions of councils are often politic rather than logical and it may be that the doctors summoned by Kanishka, while compiling Sarvastivadin treatises, admitted the principle that there is more than one vehicle which can take mankind to salvation. Perhaps some compromise based on geography was arranged, such as that Kashmir should be left to the Sarvastivadin school which had long flourished there, but that no opposition should be offered to the Mahayanists elsewhere.
The relations of the Sarvastivadins to Mahayanism are exceedingly difficult to define and there are hardly sufficient materials for a connected account of this once important sect, but I will state some facts about it which seem certain.
It is ancient, for the Kathavatthu alludes to its doctrines.[200] It flourished in Gandhara, Kashmir and Central Asia, and Kanishka"s casket shows that he patronized it.[201] But it appears to have been hardly known in Ceylon or Southern India. It was the princ.i.p.al northern form of Hinayanism, just as the Theravada was the southern form. I-Ching however says that it prevailed in the Malay Archipelago.
Its doctrines, so far as known, were Hinayanist but it was distinguished from cognate schools by holding that the external world can be said to exist and is not merely a continual process of becoming. It had its own version of the Abhidharma and of the Vinaya.
In the time of Fa-Hsien the latter was still preserved orally and was not written. The adherents of this school were also called Vaibhashikas, and Vibhasha was a name given to their exegetical literature.
But the a.s.sociation of the Sarvastivadins with Mahayanists is clear from the council of Kanishka onwards. Many eminent Buddhists began by being Sarvastivadins and became Mahayanists, their earlier belief being regarded as preliminary rather than erroneous. Hsuan Chuang translated the Sarvastivadin scriptures in his old age and I-Ching belonged to the Mulasarvastivadin school;[202] yet both authors write as if they were devout Mahayanists. The Tibetan Church is generally regarded as an extreme form of Mahayanism but its Vinaya is that of the Sarvastivadins.
Though the Sarvastivadins can hardly have accepted idealist metaphysics, yet the evidence of art and their own version of the Vinaya make it probable that they tolerated a moderate amount of mythology, and the Mahayanists, who like all philosophers were obliged to admit the provisional validity of the external world, may also have admitted their a.n.a.lysis of the same as provisionally valid. The strength of the Hinayanist schools lay in the Vinaya. The Mahayanists showed a tendency to replace it by legends and vague if n.o.ble aspirations. But a code of discipline was necessary for large monasteries and the code of the Sarvastivadins enjoyed general esteem in Central Asia and China.
Three stages in the history of Indian Buddhism are marked by the names of Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna and the two brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu.
It would be easier to give a precise description of its development if we were sure which of the works ascribed to these worthies are authentic, but it seems that Asvaghosha represents an ornate and transitional phase of the older schools leading to Mahayanism, whereas Nagarjuna is connected with the Prajna-paramita and the nihilistic philosophy described in the preceding chapter. Asanga was the founder of the later and more scholastic system called Yogacara and is also a.s.sociated with a series of revelations said to have been made by Maitreya.
As mentioned above, tradition makes Asvaghosha,[203] one of the most brilliant among Sanskrit writers, live at the court of Kanishka[204]
and according to some accounts he was given to the Kushans as part of a war indemnity. The tradition[205] is confirmed by the style and contents of his poems and it has been noted by Foucher that his treatment of legends is in remarkable accord with their artistic presentment in the Gandharan sculptures. Also fragmentary ma.n.u.scripts of his dramas discovered in Central Asia appear to date from the Kushan epoch. Asvaghosha"s rank as a poet depends chiefly on his Buddhacarita, or life of the Buddha up to the time of his enlightenment. It is the earliest example of a Kavya, usually translated as artificial epic, but here literary skill is subservient to the theme and does not, as too often in later works, overwhelm it.
The Buddha is its hero, as Rama of the Ramayana, and it sings the events of his earlier life in a fine flow of elaborate but impa.s.sioned language. Another of his poems,[206] discovered only a few years ago, treats of the conversion of Nanda, the Buddha"s half-brother.
Various other works are ascribed to Asvaghosha and for the history of Buddhism it is of great interest to decide whether he was really the author of _The Awakening of Faith_. This skilful exposition of a difficult theme is worthy of the writer of the Buddhacarita but other reasons make his authorship doubtful, for the theology of the work may be described as the full-blown flower of Mahayanism untainted by Tantrism. It includes the doctrines of Bhuta-tathata, alaya-vijnana, Tathagatagarbha and the three bodies of Buddha. It would be dangerous to say that these ideas did not exist in the time of Kanishka, but what is known of the development of doctrine leads us to expect their full expression not then but a century or two later and other circ.u.mstances raise suspicions as to Asvaghosha"s authorship. His undoubted works were translated into Chinese about 400 A.D. but _The Awakening of Faith_ a century and a half later.[207] Yet if this concise and authoritative compendium had existed in 400, it is strange that the earlier translators neglected it. It is also stated that an old Chinese catalogue of the Tripitaka does not name Asvaghosha as the author.[208]
The undoubted works of Asvaghosha treat the Buddha with ornate but grave rhetoric as the hero of an epic. His progress is attended by miracles such as Indian taste demands, but they hardly exceed the marvels recounted in the Pali scriptures and there is no sign that the hero is identified, as in the Ramayana of Tulsi Das or the Gospel according to St. John, with the divine spirit. The poet clearly feels personal devotion to a Saviour. He dwells on the duty of teaching others and not selfishly seeking one"s own salvation, but he does not formulate dogmas.
The name most definitely connected with the early promulgation of Mahayanism is Nagarjuna.[209] A preponderance of Chinese tradition makes him the second patriarch after Asvaghosha[210] and this agrees with the Kashmir chronicle which implies that he lived soon after Kanishka.[211] He probably flourished in the latter half of the second century. But his biographies extant in Chinese and Tibetan are almost wholly mythical, even crediting him with a life of several centuries, and the most that can be hoped is to extract a few grains of history from them. He is said to have been by birth a Brahman of Vidarbha (Berar) and to have had as teacher a Sudra named Saraha or Rahulabhadra. When the legend states that he visited the Nagas in the depths of the sea and obtained books from them, it seems to admit that he preached new doctrines. It is noticeable that he is represented not only as a philosopher but as a great magician, builder, physician, and maker of images.
Many works are attributed to him but they have not the same authenticity as the poems of Asvaghosha. Some schools make him the author of the Prajna-paramita but it is more usually regarded as a revelation. The commentary on it known as Maha-prajna-paramita-sastra is generally accepted as his work. A consensus of tradition makes him the author of the Madhyamika[212] aphorisms of which some account has been given above. It is the princ.i.p.al authority of its school and is provided with a commentary attributed to the author himself and with a later one by Candrakirti.[213] There is also ascribed to him a work called the Suhrillekha or friendly letter, a compendium of Buddhist doctrines, addressed to an Indian king.[214] This work is old for it was translated into Chinese in 434 A.D. and is a homily for laymen. It says nothing of the Madhyamika philosophy and most of it deals with the need of good conduct and the terrors of future punishment, quite in the manner of the Hinayana. But it also commends the use of images and incense in worship, it mentions Avalokita and Amitabha and it holds up the ideal of attaining Buddhahood. Nagarjuna"s authorship is not beyond dispute but these ideas may well represent a type of popular Buddhism slightly posterior to Asvaghosha.[215]
In most lists of patriarchs Nagarjuna is followed by Deva, also called aryadeva, Kan?adeva or Nilanetra. I-Ching mentions him among the older teachers and a commentary on his princ.i.p.al work, the Satasastra, is attributed to Vasubandhu.[216] Little is known of his special teaching but he is regarded as an important doctor and his pupil Dharmatrata is also important if not as an author at least as a compiler, for Sanskrit collections of verses corresponding to the Pali Dhammapada are ascribed to him. aryadeva was a native of southern India.[217]
The next epoch in the history of Buddhism is marked by the names of Asanga and Vasubandhu. The interval between them and Deva produced no teacher of importance, but k.u.maralabdha, the founder of the Sautrantika school and perhaps identical with k.u.marata the eighteenth Patriarch of the Chinese lists, may be mentioned. Hsuan Chuang says[218] that he was carried off in captivity by a king who reigned somewhere in the east of the Pamirs and that he, Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna and Deva were styled the four shining suns.
Asanga and Vasubandhu were brothers, sons of a Brahman who lived at Peshawar. They were both converted from the Sarvastivadin school to Mahayanism, but the third brother Virincivatsa never changed his convictions. Tradition connects their career with Ayodhya as well as with Peshawar and Vasubandhu enjoyed the confidence of the reigning monarch, who was probably Candragupta I. This identification depends on the hypothesis that Vasubandhu lived from about 280 to 360 A.D.
which, as already mentioned, seems to me to have been proved by M.
Peri.[219] The earlier Gupta kings though not Buddhists were tolerant, as is shown by the fact that the king of Ceylon[220] was allowed to erect a magnificent monastery at Nalanda in the reign of Samudragupta (_c_. 330-375 A.D.).
Asanga founded the school known as Yogacara and many authorities ascribe to him the introduction of magical practices and Tantrism. But though he is a considerable figure in the history of Buddhism, I doubt if his importance or culpability is so great as this. For if tradition can be trusted, earlier teachers especially Nagarjuna dealt in spells and invocations and the works of Asanga[221] known to us are characterized by a somewhat scholastic piety and are chiefly occupied in defining and describing the various stages in the spiritual development of a Bodhisattva. It is true that he admits the use of magical formulae[222] as an aid in this evolution but they form only a slight part of his system and it does not appear that the Chen-yen or Shingon sect of the Far East (the Sanskrit Mantrayana) traced its lineage back to him.
Our estimate of his position in the history of Buddhism must depend on our opinion as to the authorship of _The Awakening of Faith_. If this treatise was composed by Asvaghosha then doctrines respecting the three bodies of Buddha, the Tathagatagarbha and the alaya-vijnana were not only known but scientifically formulated considerably before Asanga. The conclusion cannot be rejected as absurd--for Asvaghosha might speak differently in poems and in philosophical treatises--but it is surprising, and it is probable that the treatise is not his. If so, Asanga may have been the first to elaborate systematically (though not to originate) the idea that thought is the one and only reality.
Nagarjuna"s nihilism was probably the older theory. It sounds late and elaborate but still it follows easily if the dialectic of Gotama is applied uncompromisingly not only to our mental processes but to the external world. Yet even in India the result was felt to be fantastic and sophistical and it is not surprising if after the lapse of a few generations a new system of idealism became fashionable which, although none too intelligible, was abstruse rather than paradoxical.
Asanga was alleged to have received revelations from Maitreya and five of his works are attributed to this Bodhisattva who enjoyed considerable honour at this period. It may be that the veneration for the Buddha of the future, the Messiah who would reign over his saints in a pure land, owed something to Persian influence which was strong in India during the decadence of the Kushans.[223] Both Mithraism and Manichaeism cla.s.sified their adepts in various ranks, and the Yogacara doctors who delight in grading the progress of the Bodhisattva may have borrowed something from them.[224] Asanga"s doctrine of defilement (klesa) and purification may also owe something to Mani, as suggested by S. Levi.
In spite of his literary merits Asanga remains a doctor rather than a saint or poet.[225] His speculations have little to do with either Gotama or Amitabha and he was thus not in living touch with either the old or new schools. His brother Vasubandhu had perhaps a greater position. He is reckoned as the twentieth Patriarch and Tibetan tradition connects him with the worship of Amitabha.[226]
Paramartha"s life of Vasubandhu represents him as having frequented the court of Vikramaditya (to be identified with Candragupta I), who at first favoured the Sankhya philosophy but accorded some patronage to Buddhism. During this period Vasubandhu was a Sarvastivadin but of liberal views[227] and while in this phase wrote the Abhidharma-kosa, a general exposition of the Abhidharma, mainly according to the views of the Vaibhashikas but not without criticism. This celebrated work is not well known in Europe[228] but is still a text-book amongst j.a.panese Buddhist students. It gained the esteem of all schools and we are given to understand that it presupposed the philosophy of the Vibhasha and of the Jnana-prasthana. According to Paramartha the original work consisted of 600 aphorisms in verse which were sent by the author to the monks of Kashmir. They approved of the composition but, as the aphorisms were concise, asked for fuller explanations.
Vasubandhu then expanded his verses into a prose commentary, but meanwhile his views had undergone a change and when he disapproved of any Vaibhashika doctrine, he criticized it. This enlarged edition by no means pleased the brethren of Kashmir and called forth polemics. He also wrote a controversial work against the Sankhya philosophy.
Late in life Vasubandhu, moved by the entreaties of his brother Asanga, became a devout Mahayanist and wrote in his old age Mahayanist treatises and commentaries.[229]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 187: The uncertainty as to the date of Kanishka naturally makes it uncertain whether he was the hero of these conquests. Kashmir was certainly included in the dominions of the Kushans and was a favourite residence of Kanishka. About 90 A.D. a Kushan king attacked Central Asia but was repulsed by the Chinese general Pan-Ch"ao. Later, after the death of Pan-Ch"ao (perhaps about 103 A.D.), he renewed the attempt and conquered Kashgar, Yarkand and Khotan. See Vincent Smith, _Early History of India_, 3rd ed. pp. 253 ff.]
[Footnote 188: See Fa-Hsien, ed. Legge, p. 33, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903 (Sung Yun), pp. 420 ff. Watters, _Yuan Chw.a.n.g_, I. pp. 204 ff. _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 1056, 1912, p. 114. For the general structure of these stupas see Foucher, _L"art Greco-Bouddhique du Gandhara_, pp. 45 ff.]
[Footnote 189: _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 1058. "Acaryanam Sarvastivadinam pratigrah?."]
[Footnote 190: Similarly Harsha became a Buddhist late in life.]
[Footnote 191: Watters, vol. I. p. 203. He places Kanishka"s accession 400 years after the death of the Buddha, which is one of the arguments for supposing Kanishka to have reigned about 50 B.C., but in another pa.s.sage (Watters, I. 222, 224) he appears to place it 500 years after the death.]
[Footnote 192: Watters, vol. I. 270-1.]
[Footnote 193: But Taranatha says some authorities held that it met at Jalandhara. Some Chinese works say it was held at Kandahar.]
[Footnote 194: Walters, _l.c._]
[Footnote 195: Translated by Takakusu in _T"oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 269 ff. Paramartha was a native of Ujjain who arrived at Nanking in 548 and made many translations, but it is quite possible that this life of Vasubandhu is not a translation but original notes of his own.]
[Footnote 196: Chinese expressions like "in the five hundred years after the Buddha"s death" probably mean the period 400-500 of the era commencing with the Buddha"s death and not the period 500-600. The period 1-100 is "the one hundred years," 101-200 "the two hundred years" and so on. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, 356. But it must be remembered that the date of the Buddha"s death is not yet certain. The latest theory (Vincent Smith, 1919) places it in 554 B.C.]