Bodhisattva Cults, Cosmology and Iconography

Perhaps not surprisingly, then, given how difficult the levels were to achieve (see the last post), those who attained the higher levels came to be viewed as great teachers and almost as gods. Level ten must have been virtual Buddha status and thus must have not been seen much. Much of this adoration ran in parallel with a similar trend in the Hindu Bhakti movement. Krsna was the prime Hindu example of a god on earth that came to be worshipped in a similar way.

A number of beliefs arose concerning the lives of various of the greatest Bodhisattvas and their current whereabouts and degree of contactibility. They were venerated and indeed contacted (allegedly). The realm of earth into which Siddhartha came is called Saha for these purposes. By its nature it only permitted Siddhartha to teach for about 50 years as he was a man on earth.

As I mentioned in a recent post, however, Mahayana Buddhists learn there are other better purer realms in which Buddhas and Bodhisattvas now live and sometimes they rule that entire realm and are able to teach for hundreds of years. Amitabha is the best known and apparently the greatest (as I mentioned in an earlier post). His name in Japanese is Amida (for those who were wondering - since in an earlier post I mentioned the alleged supernatural power of repeating his name in Japanese). He rules the Western pure Buddha-realm also called the ‘full of bliss’ realm (Sukhavati). The Pure Land scriptures that I’ve mentioned contain the most details of all of this.

The order of the development of cults is interesting. The first object of worship was the coming Buddha, Maitreya, but his cult has been overtaken by others. Next came the great Amitabha. His cult is still going strong. Avalokitesvara is a Buddha (or a Bodhisattva, depending on who you ask) and the 14^th Dalai Lama is believed by his followers to be a re-birth of Avalokitesvara (as are the 1^st to the 13^th). Avalokitesvara seems to be believed to have manifested himself in many forms (and again, depending on whom you ask, he may himself be a manifestation of Amitabha or Amitabha may be a manifestation of him).

There are thought to be five ‘families’ of Buddhas and Siddhartha is regarded as being of the "Lotus" family.

Also icons of various Bodhisattvas came to be standardised so you could tell (if you knew the iconography) who was being depicted and why. For example the fat Buddha we know isn’t Siddhartha (i.e. the historical Buddha). He hasn’t yet become a Buddha and will be known as Maitreya in about 8,000 years once he is born on earth. In earlier posts I’ve given images of the Buddas Manjusri and Amitabha. Manjusri is usually depicted with the sword as in the image I provided. Avalokitesvara is often depicted with many heads and many arms with eyes on them. In some cases, one of the heads is thought to be the head of Amitabha. Here is one e.g:

Avalokitesvara with many heads and arms (from Vietnam and Wikipedia)

Tara is a female Buddha (or, again, possibly a Bodhisattva). She, too, is said to have manifested herself many times incarnately as indeed we all have (around 21 or 22 known times at least in Tara's case). You will usually see her depicted with green skin as in the following image from Wikipedia. She is also usually depicted (as here) moving her foot down so she can get up from her lotus position and help people. She’s another Tibetan favourite:

If you see a red Buddha it’s likely to be Amida (the Japanese version of Amitabha) (see below) but the Tibetans also have a love affair with him as one can imagine given his relationship with Avalokitesvara:

Mahayana V Theravada discussion again (this time with the advantage of knowing a bit more about both)

I will now, cautiously, re-examine the alleged contrasts between ‘the earlier Buddhism’ and Mahayana Buddhism, to some extent in the light of the intervening information that I’ve been posting. If I could trust that I knew how to put workable tables on this blog I would but I don’t so I’ll just go through the dichotomies one by one.

The earlier Buddhism seems to have had an individualist orientation as opposed to the group orientation of Mahayana. The ideal was essentially the aloof quest to become an Arhat whereas with Mahayana it became a quest motivated by compassion to become the Bodhisattva ideal.

The earlier Buddhism, too, was focused on the role and separation of the religious orders in contrast with the many upaya that gave many laypeople more roles in Mahayana Buddhism than they ever might have possessed earlier. Some of the Mahayana sutras may be read as actually being anti-clerical. One sutra lauded the wisdom of a 12 year old girl in a story (in a hint of contrast with its relative lack in many monks – this also hints at a less sexist Buddhism (though the earlier Buddhism wasn't especially sexist either)).

The new system even had a third role or way (yana) in the Tibetan rites, that of the yogi hermit – neither lay nor bound by any rules of the vinaya (usually seeking Arhathood). Even within lay Tibetan ranks, certain high roles were also able to be established so that in a sense a post-Vatican II-like era of formalised lay involvement in “Church” government began.

It is reasonable to argue that a similar transformation appears to be occurring today and over the last 200 odd years in the Theravada-tradition countries although its inspiration is apparently recent and arguably Western. The idea of permitting married priests has still also arisen only in the Mahayana tradition (in parts of East Asia).

The earlier Buddhism was focused on psychology somewhat to the exclusion of cosmological questions whereas the Mahayana Buddhists were taught cosmology in substantially greater detail.

Self-effort was a teaching that stood out in the earlier Buddhism. The goal was to be one’s own philosopher. Mahayana Buddhism in various forms provided one on the other hand with useful incantations that might make it possible to commune with and learn from mystic teachers in other realms. So Buddhism became an easier religion to get on in, then, with the aid of others (even in other realms).

The very earliest Buddhism also (mostly) resisted ritual whereas the Mahayana rite embraced it much more fully.

The final contrast was cultural. The earlier Buddhism was conservative and exclusive but Mahayana Buddhism was liberal and inclusive. Its very existence was counted a liberal change by the conservative earlier forms. New skilful means were permitted to be learned from other religions, as alluded to in an earlier post. It is still possible in the Theravada tradition, however, though less common, to also have other religions. Exchanges arguably might even occur between Mahayana Buddhism and Western psychology (and do, in fact, with either side contributing to undermining ‘blockages’ in the other).

The reality is that there are progressive and conservative forces in both traditions but the contrasts do stand up to at least some extent. But the final picture is of course much more complex.

Classes of Mahayana Scriptures

For the purposes of study, it may be useful to list the types of scripture that exist and then discuss some of their class histories in the coming posts (groupings courtesy of Rupert Gethin):

“Perfection of Wisdom (Prajnaparamita)” Scriptures (that teach about the “emptiness” and Compassion of the Bodhisattva life)

Scriptures such as the “Dasabhumika Sutra” and “Bodhisattva-pitaka” (that set out stages on the Bodhisattva path)

Meditation Sutras (that teach about meditation)

“Mind-Only” Scriptures (that stress the way the mind “constructs” the world and getting past the self)

“Embryo of Tathagata” or “Buddha Nature” Scriptures (that teach of the Buddha within all of us – their taxonomy overlaps somewhat with that of the “Mind-Only” group)

Scriptures Central to East Asian Buddhism, especially (such as the Saddharmapundarika Sutra)

“Pure Land” Scriptures (regarding the “pure land” of Amitabha, the Buddha of Boundless Light)

The class believed to be the oldest in origin is the Prajnaparamita class and the oldest of the class is probably the “Perfection in 8,000 Lines (Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita)” being first written in 8,000 lines of Sanskrit. Paramita means perfection, Prajna means wisdom and the class is collectively called the Prajnaparamita sutras. They don’t have the clear historical moorings of any of the Tripitaka Canon (especially the first two pitaka) and their style is more poetic, certainly, than the 3^rd pitaka, the abhidharma, against the intellectualism of and scholasticism related to which they are thought, in part, to be a criticism. The style is also visionary and there is much allusion and reference to mythology and cosmology. We can regard it as somewhat breaking the so-called “noble silences” of Siddhartha concerning such things as I mentioned in an earlier post. It directly teaches the ultimate nature of reality in a less intellectualising and more intuitive way than the abhidharma does and promotes this form of teaching over the way of the scholastics. The symbol of the sword as seen in pictures and statues of the Buddha Manjusri as below is often used in its imagery:

This sword possibly symbolises the radical and heroic nature of Mahayana Buddhism and also the tool (prajña) required to ‘cut away’ all illusion. The realisation expected in this state of prajña is that all is nothingness or no thing-ness (sunyata) so in effect the sword, too, is an illusion. It is the ineffable true nature of ‘things’ that there is no thing. Those who developed these ideas realised that this would be regarded (and perhaps disparaged) as nihilism (and suggest that prospect as the reason it wasn’t the first thing that Siddhartha taught). It’s more radical even than non-self. The world is likened to things like a dream or a flame. Even nirvana is so regarded and, in case we think there is anything or anywhere else that could exist or not or both or neither, we’re told there isn’t anything else that isn’t no thing-ness, too.

Traditionally, these teachings were withheld until a Bodhisattva was well into the Bodhisattva path. Anyone else, proponents argued, would certainly misuse them. They are taught as the answer but only for the so-initiated. The powers (cittis) that are said to come from meditation in the jhanas for such people include the ability to walk through walls, teleport, fly and read minds but are themselves taught as being unwanted distractions (at best) from arriving at the final truth of sunyata. They are in fact temptations that may lead to pride, which is certainly undesirable. The cittis are really regarded as quite dangerous for those reasons.

It is unclear how literally this belief in no thing-ness is meant to be taken. Perhaps the idea is simply meant to make ‘letting go’ of ‘things’ easier (since if they don’t really exist in the first place it can’t make sense to ‘hold on’ to ‘them’). Letting go is after all what ‘the doctor (Siddhartha)’ ordered.

Mahayana sutras say things like ‘awakening is openness’, ‘awakening is liberation rather than negation’ and ‘awakening is radiance, awareness and beauty’ so it can’t really be nothing. It may be both nothing and something, though. No opinion (drsti) of this can be anything other than limited, of course, because all of our elaborations (prapancas) of the world are limited of necessity. The ideas are regarded as quite scary from a normal human perceptual viewpoint. Sunyata is the basic focus of the second turning.

The “Mind-Only” class (and the classes below) are regarded as firmly within the third turning.

The “Mind-Only” sutras, especially, are about ‘getting over ourselves’, basically.

The “Embryo of Tathagata” or “Buddha Nature” class are all about us having the same kind of mind as Siddhartha’s and other Buddhas’ and the consequence that we all have the potential to be Buddhas.

As I wrote above, the group I’m calling “Scriptures Setting out the Stages of the Bodhisattva Path” includes the Dasabhumika Sutra. This sutra sets out ten stages (bhumas) on the Bodhisattva Path each perfecting a different Buddha quality. On this scale Prajnaparamita is only stage six. Stage seven (perfecting upaya) is how we learn to teach others the first six. Whether the stages need to be undergone in order isn’t entirely clear, although it seems likely. Here are the names of the ten in order from one to ten:

Perfection of: Name of Stage:

Generosity Joyous

Good Conduct Stainless

Patience Radiant

Vigour Resplendent

Meditative Concentration (Dhyana) Invincible

Wisdom Face-to-Face

Upaya Far-Reaching

Determination Unshaking

Strength Excellent

Knowledge Cloud of Dharma

The scriptures central to East Asian Buddhism, especially, include the well-known sutra “Lotus of the True Dharma” or simply the Lotus Sutra.

The “Pure Land” sutras discuss at least one other realm (perhaps more) that one may get in touch with/get to in order to progress to Buddhahood faster and/or more easily. Some Japanese “Pure Land” sects teach that reciting the Japanese version of Amitabha (the name of the Buddha that rules a “Pure Land” realm – he may be regarded by many as the head of all the Buddhas) will lead to rebirth in his realm. Here ‘he’ is (with my obligatory feminist ‘scare quotes’):

Amitabha in Japan (from Wikipedia)

The meditation sutras are about just that (meditation). The Pratyuptpanna-buddha-samukhavasthita-samadhi Sutra teaches how to get to meet the Buddhas face-to-face during meditation (and that’s basically the meaning of the long title).

More on the Controversy and Mahayana Buddhism

So I’ve referred to the great Buddhist controversy and noted that the Mahayana tradition came out on top in India and eventually North Asia via Tibet and Afghanistan. But let’s examine what the actual controversy meant in real terms. It really comes down to Arhat v Bodhisattva and also to where Siddhartha might be today.

The Mahayanan Lotus Sutra tries to explain why there have needed to be these two Buddhisms. It gives the story of a man talking his children out of a burning building by offering them temptations such as beautifully carved rhinoceros toys as an aid. The idea here is that the idea of nirvana being desirable was the temptation humans needed to persuade us out of our old lives. It is certainly true that we can achieve nirvana but that man probably wouldn’t recommend that his children play with toys all day once the emergency has passed and neither did Siddhartha (in this role as a loving father) recommend that we all seek nirvana even though we may selfishly choose to (in our roles as ignorant children). This splitting also appears to be a feature of at least Christianity and Islam, to an extent (along the lines I mentioned in at least one earlier post – competing morality and wisdom traditions seem to coexist in most religions).

Far from being a simple and invented way out for laypeople to get more of the trinkets, the Mahayana School saw itself as offering the most mature way to be a Buddhist directly approved by Siddhartha. This partly gets to where Siddhartha is now and how there can possibly be new scriptures goes along with that. Apparently monks could still access him after his parinibbana (when they meditated).

I’ve mentioned the idea that the Mahayana view was a cult of some kind. One example of a version of Mahayana that may indeed be viewed as a cult is the mainly Japanese Ni Chi Ren Sho Shu Ha (日蓮系諸宗派 in Japanese) or NiChiRen Buddhism. Ni Chi Ren was a 13^th Century Buddhist who became its inspiration. This sect focuses today on the Lotus Sutra (the sutra from which the ‘burning building’ parable I’ve just discussed came). Pronouncing its short title in Japanese is said to have ‘magical’ results. In some sense this Sutra is also said to actually be Siddhartha (or perhaps some kind of composite of the Buddhas). Tina Turner has been a devotee of this cult. Things like levitation are possible according to various versions of Mahayana Buddhism especially.

A particular effect of the advent of the Mahayana tendency to innovate was that this vaipulya Buddhism could now cross-pollinate with indigenous religions such as Chinese Daoism, Japanese Shinto and Tibetan Bön even more easily. As a matter of authority, however, Mahayana belief is that their Canonical works are teachings of Siddhartha’s “second and third turnings” during his lifetime. What precisely that means isn’t entirely clear today but it appears that the second and third turning teachings were first taught in the order suggested by their names by Siddhartha during his lifetime after he had already been enlightened and teaching the “first turning” (often but not always accepted as the Tripitaka – sometimes Mahayana Buddhists prefer to exclude the abhidharma, often decried as too intellectualising, as any actual teaching of Siddhartha) for 16 years. The sravakas (hearers) were reckoned to only be ready for the idea of striving for Arhathood for the first 16 years. The second turning was apparently taught at one place but the third turning may have been taught much more widely. The Mahayana beliefs include the idea that the written teachings were hidden for many years by semi-divine snake-like beings called nagas (see below):

(From Wikipedia – guarding a temple in Vientiane)

The nagas are also known more generally in Indian religions as keepers of esoteric learning. The tradition continues that in around the year 1 BCE or CE around 500 teachers of what became known as Mahayana Buddhism held a conference at Mount Abu (now in Rajasthan in North West India) and there made the decision to reveal the hidden scriptures and begin to teach their meaning(s). To be continued...

Nirvana - Deja Vu all over Again

Ultimate wisdom is achieved when entering nirvana, the only unconditioned state. There are three main traditional “doors” to it: the realisation of the all-encompassing unsatisfactoriness of all of samsara, realisation of existence but impermanence of all in samsara and realisation that non-self-being is all there is in samsara. One can realise any of the three first depending upon one’s personality and chance but realising one immediately leads to realisation of the other two. A thus enlightened person is then called an Arya (noble person) as opposed to a Prthagjana (regular ‘Jo/e’). In different contexts, Sangha can mean all Buddhists, all monks and nuns or all of the Arya only.

It’s not possible to be understood with the intellect and must be approached from nearby before it can be ‘seen’. There simply is no remaining craving left to ‘seed’ a rebirth. Buddhas can see ‘their’ past lives which appears strange considering Buddhists believe in rebirth rather than reincarnation. The unconditioned obviously has a relationship with the conditioned but it’s not clear how the unconditioned conditions the conditioned; the conditioned certainly can’t condition the unconditioned. The unconditioned state is achieved by ‘drawing or turning away’ from the conditioned (or perhaps letting go of it). It is ineffable (too subtle for description) but as far from nothingness as one can get, apparently. It is between something and nothing, though. It is more than a mere ending but it certainly is an ending (of something). It is also both never-ending and instantaneous and is not worldly bliss. Its realisation is beyond both positive and negative emotions, it is simply realisation. It is ultimate, sublime, some kind of never-ending bliss. There is no ‘soul’ that obtains it; that could not be Buddhism. Nevertheless, ‘Siddhartha’ lived with it for many years before his parinibbana.

It appears that Arahanthood and nirvana are most likely possible mainly during the earthly life of and in the presence of a Buddha so we’ll probably have to wait until Maitreya arrives in about 8,000 years for our next best chance. There were around 50 Arahants getting around when Siddhartha achieved his parinibbana. Essentially the Arahant is the most senior of the most senior Buddhist ranks of enlightenment short of Buddhahood. The title means "one who has achieved nibbana/nirvana but has not become a Buddha”. Around 24 Buddhas are accepted as having lived before Siddhartha. In the Mahayana view, Siddhartha and other Buddhas are also held to be still working for us in some way as in the light of that view a Mahayana Buddhist would not believe that they are so selfish as to have simply freed themselves only. All must be continually prompted to follow them to nirvana. Buddhas all have to do this. So this also applies to the other 24 earlier Buddhas (it probably even applies to future Buddhas that are now Bodhisattvas).

There you have all I know about nirvana.

Meditation and the Getting of Wisdom (Bhavana)

The getting of wisdom by meditation has various terms including Samadhi (concentration), samatha (peacefulness of mind) and jhana (absorption) and meditators seek Ekagrata (one-pointedness). Meditation and the arrival at wisdom thereby are the second and third parts of the marga following on from the sila of my last post and are all about the clarifying of the mind begun by learning to follow the rules or vinaya.

Siddhartha himself, as I’ve noted, began by following the methods of at least two of the great Sramana teachers of his day in his region but then he added his own steps. He realised that the two teachers only taught the clarifying of the mind for its own sake so his additional step was a thought process designed directly to get wisdom from an apparently already clarified mind. This next stage of wisdom development is called prajña, vipasyana (insight) and smrti (awareness).

The realisation that different traditions may validly differ on how to bring wisdom about relies on the teaching of the Buddhist concept of skilful means (upaya). The idea here is that Siddhartha recognised there were several paths to enlightenment suited to different people depending upon their current states and interests. As always, pragmatism and experimentation were orders of the day. Incidentally some Mahayana teachings include that Siddhartha was actually a Buddha from birth who underwent his own trials and errors merely as an example to us to be prepared to engage in a trial and error approach as we seek knowledge. There are sometimes said to be 84,000 (or 84,000,000) doors or more appropriately, perhaps, doorways (a less literal translation from the Indian would be heaps of doorways) to the house of wisdom. Siddhartha did apparently give the punters options as they sought their own truths. A way of understanding the entrances is said to be via the metaphor that when a finger is pointed at the moon, one is meant to see the moon rather than examine the finger. Here then are a few of the approaches that have arisen:

One approach is that while in an enhanced state the meditator should analyse the theory of non-self taught to her or him as s/he recites it in her or his imagination. This is held to lead to real experience of its truth.

One Theravada tradition called vipassana in Pali (vipasyana in Sanskrit) takes leaps of stages directly from basic breath training to promotion of awareness that is held to spark the insight required for the wisdom required to be attained. There are held to be four ways to get there this quickly (to the required state of mindfulness). It’s about first noting the rising and passing of emotions, being fully aware of the emotions, not reacting to the emotion in the habitual way and finally being aware of the result and effect of not reacting in that way. This produces the requisite realisation of the error of the past thoughts and short-circuits the 12 links of dependent arising that I mentioned earlier. All of impermanence, non-self and dukkha can thus be realised by this experience of relative and relatively unobstructed and undistorted clarity of mental ‘vision’. So it’s an intellectual pursuit and it’s about breaking unskilful habits. The Platform Sutta of the Sixth Patriarch discusses this method.

Another method is the well known one of focusing on conundrums (called koens in Zen Buddhism) such as what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Meditating on the five aggregates and the twelve links of dependent arising directly may reveal the truth. The links that I’ve discussed earlier are sometimes divided for this purpose into three aspects of samsara: klesa (defilements – links 1, 8 and 9), karma (actions – links 2 and 10) and dukkha (results – links 3 to 7, and links 11 and 12). The wheels created by especially Tibetan Buddhist artists could be used in the meditation on the 12 links and contained all the information apparently needed for even illiterate monks.

One may choose to use, as a practical form of Bhavana, Metta or Maitra Bhavana (cultivation of loving kindness or friendliness). There is also a Metta Sutra that bears meditation upon. One wishes for the happiness of all beings beginning with one’s friends and eventually getting to strangers and even enemies who hate and want to hurt us. There are a group of related Bhavanas related to this one that are collectively called the divine abodes (brahmavihara) and they include cultivation of things such as compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity (often done first when they are all done together). The name of the next Buddha, Maitreya, evidently points to the belief that s/he is expected to be all about this loving kindness/friendliness lark.

Visualising attributes of Siddhartha and/or of Buddhas generally is another form of Bhavana used (called buddhanusmrti or Buddha remembrance).

In the next posts, I'll discuss the ideas of nirvana, non-self and truth some more before discussing some more history of Buddhist thinking in the lead-up to discussing the major split between what are now called the Mahayana and Theravada traditions of Buddhism.

The Third Noble Truth (Nirvana – the Cessation of Dukkha)

Nirvana is extremely difficult to define but here goes! It is the experience of the cessation of unsatisfactoriness. Was that too easy? Well, you may be right. It is achieved during the lifetime of a person very rarely. When that person dies s/he may or may not achieve parinirvana which means an end to samsara and rebirths. Parinirvana is the final death of a Buddha (such a one will not be reborn in any conventional form).

It is not annihilation, however, despite what Schopenhauer claimed. Weber also thought that Buddhism was a selfish seeking of annihilation. Siddhartha said that he taught nirvana. Buddhists see it as like the blowing out of a candle (the flame thought to be being extinguished is not representative of existence but reflects the impairment only the causes of unsatisfactoriness; nothing is truly extinguished in achieving nirvana just as the flame merely takes another form of existence).

Awareness of the truth is at the heart of this as the prime cause of suffering is delusion concerning the truth of existence. Awareness in itself is effectively becoming unconditioned (asamskrta). This awareness unleashes the purest of freedoms, not any excursion to any heavenly place or time.

Nirvana may be some supreme level of bliss or joy. Early texts generally say that it exists but it isn’t possible to tell in what sense. It is apparently not an event but a continual and realisable reality of experience. A Buddhist is permitted to aspire (chandas) to it but not to crave (trsna) it, as craving is a desire and nirvana is all about the absence of desire. That’s probably as clear as mud and that’s possibly as it should be. Nirvana is not easy. I'll next get into how Buddhists say we can eventually get there.