Mahayana Buddhism-

In his work Archaeology and Buddhism in South Asia, Himanshu Prabha Ray emphasize on the

diversity of Buddhist practices, whether speaking of the sangha or the laity. More so, rather than

present the sangha and the laity as wholly separate, Ray carefully demonstrates the ways that

their religious practices and beliefs both diverged and overlapped over time. Ray tracks these

issues in five chapters, each focusing on a different theme. In the first two chapters, she

examines the spread of Buddhism throughout South Asia, primarily in terms of how specific

Buddhist sects competitively expanded into new areas while simultaneously developing the core

concepts of the Buddhist dhamma (a difficult term to define, but sometimes glossed as "law" or

"teachings"). Rather than a unified, generic form of dhamma, Ray stresses the differences

between the 16 sects of Buddhism and the importance of inscriptions for understanding the lived

practices, both ritual and otherwise, of the sangha. Overall, Ray credits Buddhist sangha with the

spread of Buddhism from its heartland in the Gangetic Plain of North India. the material

expressions of Buddhism are no less expressions of the dhamma than the canonical texts that

have long been the focus of research.

In terms of relics, Ray argues for the centrality of relic veneration in the ritual lives of both the

sangha and lay-Buddhists. More so, she sees the frequent disinterment, division, and reinterment

of relics in new regions as central to the spread of Buddhism across South Asia. Within this

context, the Buddha's relics were viewed as the living presence of the Buddha, and devotees...

When Europeans first began to study Indian Buddhism systematicaily there

were already two bodies of data available to them, and the same is true coday.

There was, and is, a large body of archaeological and epigraphical material,
material that can be reasonably weil located in time and space, and material

that is largely unedited and much of which was never intended to be "read.

This material records or reflects at least apart of what Buddhists-both lay

people and monks-actually practiced and believed. There was, and is, an

egually large body of literary material that in most cases cannot actually be

dated4 and that survives only in very recent manuscript traditions.) It has been

heavily edited, it is considered canonical or sacred, and ie was intended-at the

very least-to inculcate an idea1. This material records what a smail, atypical

part of the Buddhist community wanted ehat community co believe or practice.

Both bodies of material, it is important co note, became available co Western

scholars more or less simultaneously. The choice of sources for the scholar

interested in knowing what Indian Buddhism had been would seem obvious.

But the choice made was, apparently, not based on an assessment of the two

kinds of sources as hiscorical witnesses, but on so me other kind of an assumption.

This assumption, it appears, more than anything else has determined the status

and use of archaeological and epigraphical sources in the study of Indian Buddhism,

and this assumption, apparently, accounts for the fact that an overriding

textual orientation was in place very early in Buddhist studies.

In discussing Burnouf, who died in 1852 and whom he calls "the brilliant

founder of the study of Buddhism," de Jong, hirnself the most recent historian

of Buddhist studies, says: "Burnouf stressed the fact that Indian Buddhism had

co be studied on the basis of the Sanskrit texts from Nepal and the Päli texts

from Ceylon .... Burnouf was weIl aware of the fundamental importance of the
study of texts for the hiscory of Buddhism. His idea with regard co India at the

time of the Buddha, the doctrine of the Buddha and its later development, the

relation of Buddhism to caste, etc., which he develops in the lntroduction. are all

based on a careful study of the texts" (emphasis added),

De Jong hirnself has made a number of statements that clearly indicate that

the position he ascribes co Burnouf in the first half of the nineteenth century is

very much his own position in the second half of the twentieth: "Each of these

vehicIes [the three main "divisions" of BuddhismJ has produced a rich literature.

Undoubtedly, this literature is the most important source of knowledge of

Buddhism. Buddhist art, inscriptions, and coins have supplied us with useful

data, but generally they cannot be fully understood without the support given

by the texts. Consequently, the study of Buddhism needs first of all co be

concentrated on the texts ... ."

De Jong's statement is of interest both because it is recent and representative

and because it makes explicit some of the assertions and assumptions that lie

behind it. Notice first that de Jong gives a variant version of the all-too-common,

simplistic view of archaeology as "the hand maiden of history." But he goes

even further: not only must archaeology be the handmaiden of literary sources,

it and the evidence it brings forth can only be "fully understood" with "the

support given by the texts"; not only must archaeology support and amplify the

literary sources, it must also be supported and amplified by them; otherwise, it

has no real use. Ir cannot be an independent witness. It cannot, therefore, tell

a different story.
But notice coo that this position, which gives overriding primacy co textual

sources, does not even consider the possibility that the texts we are to study to

arrive at a knowledge of "Buddhism" may not even have been known to the

vast majority of practicing Buddhists-both monks and laity. Ir is axiomatically

assumed that the texts not only were known but were also important, not only

were read but were also fully implemented in actual practice. But no evidence

in support of these assumptions, or even arguments for them, is ever presented.

Notice too that no mention is made of the fact that the vast majority of

the textual sources involved are "scriptural," that is to say, formal literary expressions

of normative doctrine. Notice, finally, that no thought is given to the

fact that even the most artless formal narrative text has a purpose, and that in

"scriptural" texts, especially in India, that purpose is almost never "historical"

in our sense of the term. In fact, what this position wants to take as adequate

reflections of historical reality appear to be nothing more or less than carefully

contrived ideal paradigms. This is particularly clear, for example, in regard to

what these canonical texts say about the monk. But in spite of this, scholars

of Indian Buddhism have taken canonical monastic rules and formal literary

descriptions of the monastic ideal preserved in very late manuscripts and treated

them as if they were accurate reflections of the religious life and career of actual

practicing Buddhist monks in early India. Such a procedure has, of course, placed

archaeology and epigraphy in a very awkward position. If, then, archaeology and

epigraphy are to be in the service of a "history" based on written sources of this

kind, then they are going to have co "support and amplify" something that very
probably did not exist: they are going to have to sit quietly in the corner spinning

cloth for the emperor's new clothes.

That this is largely what has happened and continues to happen is again

not difficult to document. We might, as a simple example, cite a series of

passages ftom a variety of scholars that address in one way or another the

question of whether individual monks owned personal property-a quest ion of

considerable importance, since it bears on the character of Buddhist monasticism

and because Buddhism has been presented as "the world-renouncing religion

par excellence.)

Bühler, in discussing the second or first century B.C.E. donative inscriptions

from Sänchi, said: "Proceeding to the inscriptions which mention donations made

by monks and nuns, the first point, which must strike every reader, is their

great number, ... As the Buddhist ascetics could not possess any prope1"ty, they must

have obtained by begging the money required for making the rails and pillars.

This was no doubt permissible, as the purpose was a pious one" (emphasis

added). Discussing the Bhärhut donative inscriptions, which may slightly

predate those from SäficT, Lüders said much the same thing: "It is perhaps

striking to find monks and nuns making donations, as they were forbidden to

any personal pleasures besides some ordinary requisites. Probably we have to suppose

that they collected the money required for some pious purpose by begging it

from their relatives and acquaintances" (emphasis added).

The element of bhakti made its impact on Buddhism with rites of worship similar to those

practised in Hindu shrines. The philosophical basis of the pantheon of Buddhas and bodhisattvas
that became objects of popular worship was the Mahayana doctrine of the Tri-kaya (Three

bodies).

According to this, Buddhahood had three aspects—the Nirmana-kaya, Sambhoga-kaya, and

Dharma-kaya. The Nirmana-kaya (Transformation body) refers to the different forms assumed

by the Buddha on the earth out of compassion for people, in order to teach them. The Sambhoga-

kaya (Enjoyment Body) comprised the limitless forms that could be adopted by a Buddha to

appear before and teach the bodhisattvas for their enjoyment. Each Sambhoga Buddha was

supposed to preside over his own Bud-dha land (Buddha kshetra). The Dharma-kaya (Dhar-ma-

body) included the Jnana-kaya (Knowledge body) and Svabhavika-kaya (Self-existent body).

The former consisted of perfect wisdom and spiritual attainments through which a bodhisattva

became a Buddha. The Svabhava-kaya consisted of the ultimate and essential Buddhaness.

Among the countless Buddhas and bodhisattvas, a few became the especial focus of monastic

and lay worship. These included the heavenly Buddha named Amitabha (infinite radiance). The

heavenly bodhisattvas included Maitreya (the kind one). The bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (the

lord who looks down, i.e., with compassion) was supposed to be one of Amitabha’s assistants

and was considered the epitome of compassion. This aspect is best reflected in the fact that he is

supposed to

have refused to take the final step into Buddhahood because he wanted to help all beings attain

this state. In his fully evolved iconography in later sculpture and painting, Avalokiteshvara wears

royal clothes and a crown in which is embedded an image of Amitabha; the lotus bud he holds in

one of his hands symbolizes the beauty of his compassion. Sometimes his hands are cupped

around a chintamani (wish-granting jewel). Manjushri (sweet glory) was supposed to be an

assistant of the heavenly Buddha Shakyamuni and was associated closely with wisdom. His
images show him holding a lotus on which there is a copy of the Prajnaparamita Sutra; he also

wields a flaming sword, which stands for the wisdom with which he cuts through delusion.

Vajrapani was a bodhisattva whose symbol was the vajra (thunderbolt); he was considered a

protector of snakes and a guardian of the elixir of life. The goddess Tara was the feminine

personification of compassion.

Tradition describes her either as born out of Avalokiteshvara’s teardrop (he was shedding tears

of despair at the enormous task of liberating all sentient beings) or from a lotus that grew in his

tears. Tara was supposed to save people from eight great fears—lions, elephants, fires, serpents,

robbers, water, imprisonment, and demons