1 Buddhist History and the Development of Layered Identities
Legend has it that after Prince SiddhÄrtha had lived out his joyful youth within the seclusion of his fatherâs palace, divine interaction brought him into contact with an old man, a diseased man, and a corpse. When he, on a fourth tour through the country, saw a mendicant holy man, the contrast of this sight with the three previous encounters is then said to have made him realize that only renunciation of worldly life could lead to spiritual enlightenment. Legend goes on that he summoned his charioteer Channa to saddle his horse Kaá¹á¹haka and to secretly flee from the palace. Having reached the bank of a river, he is then said to have cut off his hair, changed his marvellous outfit for monkâs robes, and, having sent his charioteer and horse back to the palace, set forth to start his life as a seeker of truth. It is here that the life story of Prince SiddhÄrtha is likely to cross from legend into history, as from this point on his life is connected to figures whom we may regard as historical persons.1
The historical Buddha is recorded to have first studied meditative techniques under the yoga masters ÄḷÄra KÄḷÄma (ArÄá¸a KÄḷÄma) and Udraka RÄmaputra and, dissatisfied with what he had learned, to have set out to seek enlightenment on his own. Having practiced severe self-mortification and starvation for some six years, he realized that this did not bring him to the desired goal of enlightenment. He hereupon left the five followers who had accompanied him in his practices, and started his life as a mendicant. According to tradition, he reached spiritual enlightenment at the age of thirty-five and preached his doctrine for the next forty-five years. A growing group of Buddhist adherents soon followed him in his teaching practice. They spread the Buddhaâs teachings through sermons and by example.2
The importance of the partially legendary Buddha story is that it connectsâ as is the case for all religious traditions in the worldâthe origins of the Buddhist doctrine with divine intervention, and portrays the Buddhist adepts as inheritors and, therefore, as protectors of this divine tradition. The identity of the Buddhist adepts as inheritors of the doctrine and members of a divine tradition preached by the Buddha is alluded to in some vinaya texts that state that the Buddha-word (Buddhavacana) was also spoken by, among others, gods (deva) andâon an equal footingâhis disciples (ÅrÄvaka).3 Also, the persisting tradition of the disappearance of the Buddhist doctrine at the end of time reminds the Buddhist adepts of their divine function as protectors of the doctrine. The AbhidharmamahÄvibhÄá¹£ÄÅÄstra (Apidamo da piposha lun) concludes the description of the disappearance of the doctrine as follows:
When seven days and nights will have passed, heaven and earth will grow dark, but the world will still not know that the good doctrine (saddharma) has disappeared. [â¦] When seven days will have passed, the earth will quake and a rain of meteors will scorch all regions and sub-regions. In the air, the drums of the gods will beat their extremely frightening sound. The god MÄra and his retinue will be very joyful. A great white veil will be spread in the air, and the sound of chanting will again fill the air: âAs from today, the good doctrine of the great á¹á¹£i of the ÅÄkyas will have disappeared forever.â4
After the Buddhist doctrine will have disappeared from the surface of the earth, a new Buddha will have to be awaited. In the same way that the origin of the Buddhist doctrine is connected to the realm of the divine, its disappearance (and re-emergence) is thus also accompanied by divine intervention.5
That legend and the divine are interwoven in the life story of the Buddha and the history of the Buddhist faith is important in the sense that legend and the divineâas is religion an sichâare important identity markers and dynamic elements in the creation of âimagined communities,â i.e., identity groups that share overall subjective feelings of belonging.6 For the creation of such identity groups, myths, memories, heritage and symbols are important instruments, as these have the ability to trace an identity group back to an imagined or unimagined, albeit specific, place, time, and ancestor. Such an ideological lineage also is the premise on which future actions and eventsâsuch as the disappearance of the âgood doctrineâ just mentionedâare justified.7
Group identities take shape in interaction with other groups. Likewise Buddhist self-identification, the result of a dynamic process, was from the outset determined by the relationship of the early Buddhist followers with members of the society of the time of the historical Buddha in general, and with members of other religious groups in particular. In the region of Magadha, i.e. the region where the first Buddhist community was active, both the Jainas and ÄjÄ«vakas, especially, were present.8 As the Jaina and ÄjÄ«vaka traditions were, just as the Buddhist tradition was, primarily concerned with release from rebirth, the Jainas and, to a lesser extent, the ÄjÄ«vakas, were important religious competitors of the Buddhists, and the Buddhists had to, from the outset, convince their opponents of their truth.9
The time of the Buddha was a time of important religious developments in India. The absence of yogic doctrines in the á¹g Veda suggests that the Jaina, ÄjÄ«vaka, and Buddhist yogic traditions must originally have been independent from the Vedic tradition.10 This is important with respect to the following: as group identities take shape in interaction with other groups, they are subject to changes brought about by changing relations with such other groups. When during the AÅokan reign Brahmans could freely travel through the countries ruled by the latter ruler, the early Buddhists must have âparticipated in a critical and creative movement to synthesize ancient, traditional worldviews which vied for the collective heart of Indiaâ.11 It therefore must have been in the AÅokan period that Brahmans began to be the major opponents of the Buddhists,12 and that the perception of an unchanging (Buddhist) identityâthe result of a constructed (hi)story, a ânarrative about the selfââmust have started to take shape.13
The importance of the relation between Buddhists, Jainas, and Brahmans definitely involves the issues of philosophical, religious, and ritual borrowings, but of undoubtedly equal importance, however, is the issue of transmittance of the doctrine and the impact that the way the doctrine was transmitted has had on the creation of a Buddhist âcanonâ as identity-marker. When some vinayas state that not only did the Buddha proclaim the doctrine, but also his disciples, this relates to the originally overall oral/aural literary tradition that characterizes the period of major cultural and religious developments in which Buddhism originated.14 In this context of oral transmission, the correctness of the transmitted Buddha-word was secured by large meetings of monksâthe so-called Buddhist synods (saá¹gÄ«ti). As these meetings were intra-Buddhist meetings, the oral recitation of Buddhist texts within the context of these synods must have served a self-identifying function. In contrast to the oral transmission of the Vedic texts that was primarily aimed at delivering a message to the realm of the gods, and of the BrÄhmaá¹a prose texts and the Upaniá¹£ads that were aimed at people of equal religious belief, preaching the Buddha-word was, in a wider context, also aimed at convincing opponents of the Buddhist truthâone is, after all, not born a Buddhist. That is to say, contrary to the Vedic texts and to the BrÄhmaá¹a prose texts and the Upaniá¹£ads that render revealed truth, Buddhist texts also have the purpose of revealing the (Buddhist) truth.15 Both with respect to their function of self-identification and with respect to their function of converting others, it is important that texts can be claimed to be of undisputable origin. This explains why the first recitation of Buddhist texts is projected back in time to the moment just after the demise of the Master, and is connected to two direct disciples of the BuddhaâÄnanda and UpÄliâwho could thus be credited with having heard the Buddhist doctrine and monastic code from the Buddha himself.16 Here, we can also refer the redactional rules that are evident from a section of the Ká¹£udrakavastu of the MÅ«lasarvÄstivÄdin tradition and that, according to Gregory Schopen (1997a: 573â579) may be as late as the 4th or 5th century
The sermons which were delivered according to occasions for the sake of gods and people were compiled in the EkottarÄgama. This is what preachers esteem. For intelligent persons profound doctrines were set forth. They were compiled in the MadhyamÄgama. This is what scholars esteem. Various kinds of meditation were set forth. They were compiled in the Saá¹yuktÄgama. This is what meditation-practitioners esteem. To refute various heterodoxies is the purpose of the DÄ«rghÄgama.18
It is with the tradition of the first synod, supposedly held in RÄjagá¹ha (contemporary Rajgir), ancient capital of Magadha, and with Änanda and UpÄli, that we touch upon the issue of the adeptâs âmulti-layered Buddhist identity.â As mentioned, during the first synod Änanda is said to have recited the sÅ«tra texts and UpÄli is said to have recited the vinaya texts as they had heard them from the Buddha himself. Even a cursory reading of the extant vinaya texts shows, however, that at the time of the Buddha no vinaya of the complexity, casuistic variety, and preciseness of which the extant vinayas witness can have existed. The extant vinaya texts also reveal that they are part of a more advanced social organisation than can have existed at the time of the historical Buddha.19 In-depth research into the canonization process of the vinayas thus shows that these texts must be the result of a longer developmental period, and their finalisation has, to all probability, to be dated in the first centuries of the Common Era.20 Also the extant sÅ«tra collectionsâthe PÄli NikÄyas and the Chinese Ägamasâare the result of a longer editorial process that is, moreover, connected to later school formation.21 It is therefore unclear what the precise content of the âoriginalâ sÅ«tra and vinaya texts may have been,22 and the first synod most probably has to be assigned to the realm of legend. It is very likely that the synod of RÄjagá¹ha was invented to legitimate the occurrence of the second Buddhist synod that took place in VaiÅÄlÄ« (contemporary Besarh) under the reign of the already mentioned king AÅoka, 100/110 years after the demise of the historical Buddha. When the legend of the first synod became established around the time of the synod of VaiÅÄlÄ«, the âritual exclamation of authenticity by which a teacher or local Saá¹gha declared a certain body of material to be valid: âThis is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the teaching of the teacher âeá¹£a dharma eá¹£a vinaya idaá¹ ÅÄstuḥ ÅÄsanamâ,â must also have become codified.23
Descriptions of the synod of VaiÅÄli narrate the events that have led to the first schism in the Buddhist community. Two Buddhist groupsâthe later SthaviravÄdins and MahÄsÄá¹ghikasâare said to have argued over matters of religious conduct.24 As the two groups tenaciously held to their respective sets of monastic rules, king AÅoka is said to have been asked to settle the matter. He decided in favour of the majorityâwhence the name MahÄsÄá¹ghika (âlarge saá¹ghaâ)âafter which the two groups continued to exist as separate Buddhist communities. As noticed by Heinz Bechert (1982: 67), king AÅokaâs decision was not meant to unite the community on dogmatic questions, but only concerned monastic matters. This shows that, as the Buddhist communities shared their identity as followers of the Buddha-word, it indeed were practical, i.e., vinaya matters, that could lead to a schism.25 The vinaya forms a normative identity within the divine Buddhist faith, and following a different vinaya cannot and does not infringe on the adeptâs identity as a Buddhist, i.e., one who believes in the divine word of the Buddha. Ãtienne Lamotte (1958: 179) phrased this as follows: while the vinaya section of what was to become the Buddhist tripiá¹aka is only a convention (saá¹vá¹ti) adopted as a code of conduct, the Dharma as propounded in the sÅ«tras is the absolute truth. A remarkable textual passage that corroborates the preeminence of the Buddha-word over monastic rules is the following: In the MahÄyÄna MahÄsaá¹nipÄtasÅ«tra (Dafangdeng daji jing), a text translated between 414 and 421, we read the following prediction by the Buddha:
After I will have reached NirvÄá¹a, all my disciples will receive and retain the TathÄgataâs scriptures in twelve categories.26 They will recite and copy them. They will interpret them completely and extensively, into five collections of scriptures. [â¦] Although these five collections will differ, none of them will hinder the world of the Buddhist doctrine (dharmadhÄtu) or the great NirvÄá¹a.27
In their commentaries on this passage, Sengyou å§ç¥ (445â518), Huijiao æ §ç (497â554), and Fayun æ³é² (1088â1158) claim that the leaders of these five groups are vinaya masters who thus formed the Dharmaguptaka, SarvÄstivÄda, KÄÅyapÄ«ya, MahÄ«ÅÄsaka, VÄtsÄ«putrÄ«ya, and MahÄsÄá¹ghika schools.28
The accepting of the Buddha-word over adhering to a particular vinaya reveals two layers of Buddhist identity. But this is not the end of the story. After the initial schisms had occurred on grounds of vinaya difference, different interpretations of the doctrine developed within these vinaya schools,29 whereby monks and nuns who were ordained according to a peculiar vinaya could easily disagree on specific interpretations of the doctrine with some of their fellow vinaya monastics. Also, these scholastic abhidharma discussions did not infringe on the Buddha-word as such.30 Some abhidharma texts even claim that they merely expound what was not clearly explained in the sÅ«tras. This can be illustrated with the following passage of the Sanlun xuanyi jianyou ji, ParamÄrthaâs (499â569) commentary on Vasumitraâs Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Yibuzong lun lun) that explains how different scholastic groups developed within the earlier mentioned MahÄsÄá¹ghika monastic community:
In the course of the second two hundred years [after the parinirvÄá¹a of the Buddha], three schools issued from within the MahÄsÄá¹ghikas [â¦] The [MahÄsÄá¹ghika] school recited [â¦] MahÄyÄna sÅ«tras. In this school, there were some who believed these sÅ«tras and some who did not. Those who did not believe them said that such sÅ«tras are made by man and are not proclaimed by the Buddha [â¦] that the disciples of the Lesser Vehicle only believe in the tripiá¹aka, because they did not personally hear the Buddha proclaim the Greater Vehicle. Among those who believed these sÅ«tras, there were some who did so because they had personally heard the Buddha proclaim the Greater Vehicle and therefore believed these sÅ«tras; others believed them because it can be known through logical analysis that there is this principle [of the Greater Vehicle]; and some believed them because they believed their masters. Those who did not believe [them] did so because these sÅ«tras were self-made and because they were not included in the five Ägamas [â¦].31
This passage not only refers to the fact of âhaving heard the scriptures from the mouth of the Buddha himselfââwhich further corroborates what was claimed aboveâbut also shows that it is the possibility to differ on scholastic matters that is at the basis of the development of the MahÄyÄna movement from within ÅrÄvakayÄna schools. The primacy of the acceptance of the Buddha-word and the adherence to a particular monastic code over scholastic issues also explains the possible coexistence of ÅrÄvakayÄna and MahÄyÄna monks in one and the same monastery, a matter witnessed by, among others, Xuanzang çå¥ in his account of his travels in the âWestern regions.â32 These so-called abhidharmaâincluding MahÄyÄnaâdevelopments can therefore be regarded as a third layer of Buddhist identity: where a Buddhist adherentâs core identity is his acceptance of the Buddha-word, the precise vinaya according to which he is ordained and that is the guideline for his daily life as a Buddhist forms a first layer around this core identity, and the abhidharmic interpretation is the outer layer of his Buddhist identity. It is also this layerâas we will show furtherâthat contains the possibility for ânetworking.â This is also corroborated by the following: Above, I have mentioned the issue of the decline of the doctrine. The passage of the AbhidharmamahÄvibhÄá¹£ÄÅÄstra (Apidamo da piposha lun) on this topic, quoted above, is preceded by the story of how a certain tripiá¹aka master, Åiá¹£yaka, is invited by the karmadÄna of the same assembly to recite the prÄtimoká¹£a in public. Åiá¹£yaka accepts, but when he declares that he will only recite it in brief, the following happens:
At that moment, the arhat Surata rose from his seat. He threw his cloak over one shoulder, prostrated himself before the tripiá¹aka master [Åiá¹£yaka], brought the palms of his hands together, and said: âI only wish that the elder (sthavira) would explain the tripiá¹aka in full for the community.â [The tripiá¹aka master Åiá¹£yaka] replied: âI invite that [monk] in this assembly who is capable of observing all the precepts of the prÄtimoká¹£a to request me to explain it in full.â The arhat said: âI am able to observe the fine details (prÄntakoá¹i) of the rules (ÅÄ«ká¹£Äpada) observed by all bhiká¹£us when the Buddha was in the world. If this is what you mean by âobserving [the prÄtimoká¹£a] completely,â then [I am the one who] wants [you] to explain [the tripiá¹aka] completely.â When he had thus spoken, the disciples of the trepiá¹aka were angry, and thereupon they reviled him, saying: âWho is the bhiká¹£u who opposes our master in front of the assembly and who does not accept his teaching?â Hereupon they beat the arhat to death. From that moment on, the good doctrine in the absolute sense (paramÄrthasaddharma) had disappeared. Then, the gods (deva), nÄgas and yaká¹£as who respected the arhat got angry, and they killed that trepiá¹aka. [â¦] From that moment on, the good doctrine in the conventional sense (saá¹vá¹tisaddharma) had disappeared.33
This passage not only corroborates that the prÄtimoká¹£a is the nucleus around which the vinayas gradually developed,34 but also testifies the preeminence of vinaya over scholasticism: the death of the Arhat Surata is the end of the Good Doctrine in absolute sense, the death of the tripiá¹aka master Åiá¹£yaka is the end of the Good Doctrine in conventional sense. This order is also confirmed in the fact that Daoxuan é宣 (596â667) advocated that a restoration of the Buddhaâs doctrine could only be achieved through rigorous practice of monastic discipline, i.e., the establishment of the Disciplinary School (Lüzong).35
2 Layered Identities and the Development of a Buddhist Canon
Above, I have mentioned the uncertainty of the precise content and format of the earliest Buddhist texts used for oral recitation and preaching. Elsewhere, I have argued that also the use of numerical listsâcalled mÄtikÄ in PÄli and mÄtá¹kÄ in Sanskritâmust have started as a mnemotechnic aid in oral transmission, and that these lists âhave served to structure and expound the doctrineâ and âhave become the vehicle of doctrinal development and the matrix for the textual format in which the doctrine is outlined.â36 The oral origin of what was to become the third section of the tripiá¹aka, the abhidharma, is referred to in the MahÄsÄá¹ghikavinaya, more precisely in a passage that mentions the ârecitationâ of the sÅ«tra, the vinaya and the mÄtá¹kÄ.37 The importance of this is that a separate authoritative collection of mÄtá¹kÄsâa MÄtá¹kÄpiá¹akaâmust have existed prior to the moment when orally transmitted texts were submitted to writing. The ârecitationâ of the sÅ«tra, the vinaya and the mÄtá¹kÄ as authoritative collections of texts brings us to the issue of the development of the Buddhist canon. Although, as remarked by Oliver Freiberger (2000: 20), only very little is known about the composition of texts into a canon before the (PÄli) AluvihÄra redaction of the 1st century
Discussing the relation between sÅ«tra and vinaya, Charles Prebish (1974b: 170) has drawn our attention to it that in usages that seem to be very old, the prÄtimoká¹£a rulesâthe nucleus around which the other parts of the vinaya have grownâwere called sÅ«tras, and that the explanation of these rules was called sÅ«travibhaá¹ ga. In the sense that sÅ«tras are rules of behaviour,41 they serve to differentiate the Buddhist community from other religious communities, but also to differentiate one Buddhist community from another. Vinayas thus have a âcanonizingâ function,42 or, as suggested by Oliver Freiberger (2000: 24), a canon attains authority through censorship, that is, isolation from what is alien, unreal or false. From this, it is an easy step to also apply the term sÅ«tra to the true word of the Buddha. This also conforms to what Aleida and Jan Assmann (1987: 26) called âcensorship in order to profile the canon against what is apocryphal.â43 When the sÅ«tras and the vinayas were, at some point in time, finalized, the abhidharma literature and with that, the MahÄyÄna literature, kept on developing. âCanonisationâ as defined by Aleida and Jan Assmann thus primarily applies to the vinaya and the sÅ«tra collections of the tripiá¹aka, not to the abhidharma section.44 Although, as remarked by Ãtienne Lamotte (1947: 303â304), the SarvÄstivÄdins sought to legitimize the seven works of their Abhidharmapiá¹aka as ÅÄkyamuniâs own statements and in order to do so claimed that these texts had been recited at the first Buddhist council, it is, given the very nature of the abhidharma, highly improbable that these texts could be âcanonisedâ in the true sense of the word.45 The above, again, implies that the Buddhist identity is a layered one, and that it is precisely because of its layered structure that Buddhist ânetworkingâ becomes possible.
Literature, it has to be remarked, is an important identity marker, and the value of canonisation therefore must have increased tremendously when texts were committed to writing. It therefore appears to be very plausible that the motive to commit oral texts to writing may have been the rise of the MahÄyÄna,46 and that it was when Buddhist texts were committed to writing that the idea of a closed canon was established. Heinz Bechert (1992: 52) in this respect indicated that writing down texts may not have had the purpose of preserving old texts and can even have raised opposition by conservative monks. This also explains why the MahÄyÄna was from the outset a written tradition.47 That the rise of the MahÄyÄna may have provided the motive to commit oral texts to writing further corroborates the fact that it is especially in times of perceived insecurity that âgoing back to an imagined past by using reconstructed symbols and cultural reference pointsâ gains extra value.48 With the gradual decrease of the importance of orality, the value of a closed written corpus of texts may have further come to the fore.49 It is thus no surprise that the extant abhidharma texts appear to be the product of an increasingly written tradition.
Canonical texts are normative and are seen as authoritative in the sense that they depict the idealized image of an âimagined communityâ.50 Canonization forms oneâs self-identity, and informs oneâs relations with other individuals and groups. Also seen from this angle, we can discern a layered Buddhist identity, with the sÅ«tra collection of the tripiá¹aka as the most authoritative word of the Buddha, followed by the vinaya collection that identifies oneself as a Buddhist vis-à -vis the outside world and as a member of one particular Buddhist group vis-à -vis other Buddhist groups, and the abhidharma collection that is the most recent and most volatile part of oneâs Buddhist identity.
3 Layered Identities and Networking
History not only knows Buddhist kings allegedly modelled after king AÅoka and the creation of state monasteries, but also, and more significantly, scholar-monks who worked in the service of government.51 It is to this phenomenon of political networking that we turn our attention in the last section of this contribution.
Given the layered nature of oneâs Buddhist identity, ânetworkingââan act in which part of oneâs identity is entrusted to another individual or group in order to make relations possibleâis particularly restricted to the âscholastic layer,â i.e., the layer of philosophical Buddhist debate which is also the least âcanonisedâ part of oneâs Buddhist identity. It is the scholastic and philosophical layer that is, by its very nature, also the layer that is most adaptable for political discussion and networking. In the Indian case, this makes an approach of Buddhists to Brahmans possible, and in the Chinese case a connection of Buddhists with Confucian officialdom.
As much as the time of the Buddha may, as mentioned above, have been a time of important religious developments in India, in the few centuries postdating the demise of the Buddha, India also knew major political developments. Concomitant with the installation of the AÅokan Empire, the Brahmans installed their caste-class system as social structure, and they attributed to each of these caste-classes their own function. This development was of major importance for upholding state order.52 The AÅokan period has thus been of unprecedented importance for the organization of Indian society and for the position of Brahmanism on the subcontinent. When, during the AÅokan period, the Brahmans began to be the major opponents of the Buddhists, the Buddhists appear to have left state matters to the Brahmans. This attitude was most likely given in by their conviction that there was not only no class difference between human beings, but also that being a true âDharma-kingâ (dharmarÄja) who ruled without using violenceâthe ahiá¹sÄ concept that can be found in Buddhist textsâwas thought to be impossible.53
With the development of the ÅrÄvakayÄna attitude regarding lifeâthat implied that one had to withdraw from societyâtowards the MahÄyÄna, major changes in the possibility for Buddhists to engage in worldly affairs were brought along. This opened the way for Buddhists to move away from their previous attitude of adjusting themselves to the Brahmanical social order, and to start to also take up a role as political advisors. They saw themselves legitimized in this new undertaking through the birth stories (jÄtaka) of the Buddha according to which also the Buddha, before being reborn as ÅÄkyamuni, went through different âordinaryâ lives. The conviction thus grew that also ordinary beings can earn merit while living profane lives and, in the end, become a Buddha in their own turn.54
This attitude gained particular importance in the Chinese cultural sphere. Confucians could not only, in the same way as some Brahmans had become Buddhists, become Buddhist converts,55 but, more importantly, while it may have been impossible for Buddhists to become Brahmans, they could become Confucians in the sense and to the degree that their Buddhist scholastic identity was and could be merged with Confucian state orthodoxy. This process that pertains to what can be identified as a fourth layer of Buddhist identity, did not require them to cast off the fundaments of their Buddhist identity as it was formulated in the threefold refuge (triÅaraá¹a) in Buddha, Dharma and Saá¹
gha (expressed in sūtra and vinaya literature). This development became especially important after the fall of the Han dynasty in 220
Chinese history [â¦] is full of examples of attempts to ideologically control society, to eliminate âfalseâ (heterodox) doctrines and scriptures, and to bestow universal value to the correct interpretation of the world. The elite culture did not only comprise Confucians, but also Buddhists and Daoists. Orthodoxy [â¦] did not exclusively pertain to one of these three traditions, but was shared by all of themâin any case, in so far as they were integrated in elite culture.58
When the country was reunified under the Sui dynasty in 581/589
In the Chinese cultural context in which the literary tradition had such a prominent place, the early geyi æ ¼ç¾© technique to âtranslateâ Buddhist texts attained a new function in this Buddho-Confucian encounter. After a period in which the earliest Central Asian and Chinese translators of Buddhist texts into Chinese had equated Buddhist with traditional Chinese conceptsâthe technique that is usually referred to as âgeyiâ and is translated as âmatching meaningsâ or âmatching conceptsâ by modern scholarship63 âin the 4th and 5th centuries, this technique must have developed as a peculiar type of abhidharma exegesis practiced in circles of learned monks who had enjoyed a traditional Confucian schooling and were well-versed in the Chinese classics. The technique more precisely served to explain the shishu äºæ¸ (numerical categories) that abound in such texts.64 As I have discussed elsewhere, when the technique became criticized in Buddhist circles as not being appropriate to explain the Buddhist doctrine, it is likely to have been adopted by those few âconservativeâ Confucian literati who wanted to redefine Chinese culture in a context of growing influence of Daoism and Buddhism.65 Geyi literature may thus be seen as an instrument to reaffirm the traditional inner-Confucian network.
The Indian Buddhists must also have textually redefined themselves when the road to political participation became open to them with the rise of the MahÄyÄna. This may explain why they adopted Sanskrit as âsacredâ language, the language that had up to that moment been used by the Brahmins in their state affairs, and that also they had used to plead their cause (disagreements concerning proprietorship of monasteries, hermitages and temples) at the royal courtâoccasions where their own disciplinary tradition and/or philosophical position may have been called into question.66 When the Brahmins and Buddhists started to use the same instrument in their political endeavours, the Brahmins continued to have one major skill that was their prerogative: the use of magic formulas and incantations, derived from the Vedic tradition.67 It was therefore only logical that once the Buddhists had gained a position as political advisor similar to the one performed by the Brahmans, the Buddhists, too, enhanced their skills in this respect. They could, for this purpose, build on the existence of the practice in the MahÄyÄna.68 It is especially with the rise of tantric Buddhism starting from the 7th century that the use of rites and spells became prominent and that also Indian Buddhists developed a fourth identity layer of political practice.69 Such practice was also of major importance in Chinese esoteric Buddhism from the 8th century onwards, when such major figures as Amoghavajra (705â774) were active. His address to the Tang Emperor Zhongzong that âYour Majesty has received the mandate of the Buddha to serve as King of the Dharma; it is Your Majesty who satisfies the aspirations of the people and holds the secret seal of Samantabhadra,â70 at once shows the presence of the Dharma-king concept in China and the activities of scholar-monks in the political realm. Judging the activities of Amoghavajra, Raoul Birnbaum (1983: 30) states that â[â¦] it seems clear that a major goal of the public teachings and activities of the last decades of Amoghavajraâs life was the vigorous propagation of the cult of ManÌjuÅrÄ« [â¦] Amoghavajra sought to establish ManÌjuÅrÄ« as the national deity of Tâang China.â Taking into account that ManÌjuÅrÄ« and Samantabhadra had since early times been closely connected, the identification of Samantabhadra with ManÌjuÅrÄ« becomes even more meaningful.71 In 741, Amoghavajra is reported to have presided over the first mass esoteric ordinations in China, and in 746 he is said to have erected an altar for esoteric rites upon which the Xuanzong Emperor çå® (r.713â756) was consecrated (abhiá¹£eka).72 Xuanzong became deeply interested in the use of the magical techniques of esoteric Buddhism to secure and expand his power and that of his state.73 After the death of Xuanzong, Amoghavajra also stayed in official service under Emperors Suzong è
å® (r.756â762) and Daizong ä»£å® (r.763â779). Moreover, Emperor Suzong was consecrated as Universal Monarch.74 In 756, on the occasion of the An Lushan å®ç¥¿å±± rebellion, Emperor Suzong even asked Amoghavajra to pray for victory of the imperial army.75 Amoghavajra ended his career as âLord Specially Advancedâ (Tejin ç¹é²), and âOfficial of Probationary Director of the State Ceremonialâ (Shi hongluqing å²é´»èå¿).76 Not long before his death in 774
4 Conclusion
An investigation into the monastic and philosophical development of the Indian and Chinese Buddhist communities shows that all Buddhist monastics accepted the mythical/historical figure of the Buddha as founder of the doctrine, and, from the outset, portrayed themselves as inheritors and as protectors of a divine tradition. The figure of the Buddha that is an unalienable part of their core identity was, later, textually, laid down in the sūtra literature.
A second layer of monasticsâ Buddhist identity regards their ordination lineage. Adherence to a specific monastic code defined oneâs Buddhist identity vis-à -vis other monastic schools and the surrounding non-Buddhist world. The latter especially gained importance as Buddhists had, from the outset, to define themselves as distinct from other religious groupsâthe Jainas and ÄjÄ«vakas. This perceived difference must have informed the creation of (a) peculiar monastic code(s) that, at some point in time, became canonized in different vinayas.
While adhering to a certain monastic code, Buddhist adherents may, however, have disagreed on doctrinal interpretations. This explains why their âabhidharmicâ identity was the most volatile, why the abhidharma collection of the tripiá¹aka kept on developing and expanding, and why different abhidharmic sub-groupsâalbeit adhering to the same monastic codeâselected a different set of abhidharma texts as âcanonical.â It is also from within the abhidharma that the MahÄyÄna philosophy developed. The importance of the Buddhistsâ identification with the mythical/ historical Buddha figureâtheir core identityâ explains why even abhidharma and MahÄyÄna texts were laid in the mouth of the historical Buddha.
The ascent of the Brahmans in the AÅokan period had major ramifications for the position of the Buddhists in Indian society. After an initial period in which the Buddhists had left state matters to the Brahmins, the development of the MahÄyÄna opened new perspectives for Buddhists to engage in secularâincluding politicalâactivities. A similar development also occurred in China. Buddhist adherents saw themselves legitimized in their new roles as political advisorsâa role which they could take up through, among others, their knowledge of Sanskrit, the language that was used by the Brahmins in state affairsâthrough the birth stories (jÄtaka) of the Buddha according to which also the Buddha, before being reborn as ÅÄkyamuni, went through different âordinaryâ lives. It was from within the âphilosophicalâ abhidharmic layer, i.e., the layer that is, by its very nature, the layer that is most adaptable for political discussion and networking, that the ability to, in the Indian case, take over Brahmanic concepts and political instruments, and, in the Chinese case, to connect with the Confucians, developed. Once the Buddhists had gained a political advisor position similar to the one performed by the Brahmans, theyâas the Brahmins had done before themâalso took over the use of magic formulas and incantations, derived from the Vedic tradition. This practice is evident from the activities of esoteric masters in political networks.
On the latter, see Ross Reat 1996: 12.
For scriptural references with respect to the life of the Buddha, see Harvey 2013: 14â25. For an overview of works devoted to the biography of the historical Buddha, see Lamotte 1958: 16, note 14.
According to the PÄli Vinaya (PÄcittiya IV) and to the Sifen lü (Dharmaguptakavinaya), T.22.1428: 639a16â17, the word of the Buddha was also spoken, apart from by the Buddha himself, by gods, by disciples, and by á¹á¹£is. For the PÄli Vinaya, see Oldenberg 1964a: 15. According to the Shisong lü (SarvÄstivÄdavinaya), T.23.1435: 71b1â2, it was also spoken, apart from by the Buddha, by gods, and by disciples, by á¹á¹£is and by apparitional beings (upapÄduka). See also Davidson 1990: 300.
T.27.1545: 918c14â21.
See Lamotte 1958: 218â220.
See Kinnvall 2004: 747â748.
Kinnvall 2004: 756.
Ross Reat 1996: 7.
For some reflections on the Buddhist-Jain encounter, see Bronkhorst 2011: 130â142. For the different religious groups who were active contemporaneous with the Buddha, see Hirakawa 1990: 16â18.
According to Ross Reat (1996: 6), the fact that â[h]istory records two apparently indigenous religious traditions in India which claim to predate and to be independent of the á¹g Veda, namely the Jainas and the ÄjÄ«vakas,â implies that most of classical Hinduism has to be the result of a gradual merging of Vedic and yogic elements that started in the first millennium
Quoted from Ross Reat (1996: 7), who refers to the activities of the historical Buddha in this respect.
See Bronkhorst 2011: 2â4 and 8â11.
For the process of such an identity construction, see Hall 1992: 227.
Writing was most probably used starting from the 4th century
See von Simson 1965: 139â141 and Dessein 2012: 121â122. This trait is reflected in the explanatory character of the Buddhist texts.
On the historicity of the first synod, see Bareau 1955: 4 and Prebish 1974a: 245â246. For accounts of the first synod, see de La Vallée Poussin 1908: 2â6; Przyluski 1926: 133â235; Lamotte 1958: 136â138. For a study of the first synod, see Nattier and Prebish 1976/1977.
Schopen 1997c: 579 further remarks that âThe shape of all our collections would, moreover, seem to suggest that redactional rules very similar to those in the Ksudrakavastu operated in all traditions or monastic groups, even if the Mulasarvastivadin version is the only one so far discovered.â
T.23.1440: 503c22â504a1.
See Schopen 1994: 74 and 2000: 1â2. See also Clarke 2014: 20â21.
See Clarke 2014: 21, who also suggests that the Dharmaguptaka, MahÄ«ÅÄsaka, MahÄsÄá¹ghika, and SarvÄstivÄda vinayas may have been composed shortly before their translation into Chinese in the early 5th century. For the specific case of the MÅ«lasarvÄstivÄdavinaya, see Heirman 1999 and Schopen 2004b: 20.
The four Ägamas are not all from the same Buddhist school: the DÄ«rghÄgama, Chang ahan jing (T.1.1) is of the Dharmaguptaka school; the MadhyamÄgama, Zhong ahan jing (T.1.26) and the Saá¹yuktÄgama, Za ahan jing (T.2.99) are of the (MÅ«la)sarvÄstivÄda school; and the EkottarÄgama, Zengyi ahan jing (T.2.125) is of the MahÄsÄá¹ghika school. See Waldschmidt 1980: 136; Mayeda 1985: 97â103.
According to Schopen (1997b: 30), nothing definite can be known about the actual doctrinal content of the NikÄya/Ägama literature much before the fourth century
Davidson 1990: 299. De La Vallée Poussin 1908: 18: âThe account of the First Synod has a double historical value: as containing an ancient nucleus of authentic tradition, that is, discussions on points of discipline; and as resuming, under the symbolical aspect of a âsynod,â the compilation and arrangement of the canon, work which much have occupied the first centuries of Buddhist history and of which Rajagrha forms the starting pointâ.
Cullavagga of the PÄli Vinaya: Oldenberg 1964a: 294â308; T.22.1421: 192a27â194b20; T.22.1428: 968c19971c2; T.23.1435: 450a28â456b8; T.24.1451: 411c4â412a12.
See also Bechert 1982: 65.
The twelve parts are sÅ«tra, geya, vyÄkaraá¹a, gÄthÄ, udÄna, itivá¹taka, jÄtaka, vaipulya, adbhÅ«tadharma, nidÄna, avadÄna, and upadeÅa. For the development of the formalisation of the teachings of the Buddha in nine and, later, in twelve categories, see Nakamura 1980: 28.
T.13.397: 159a29âb3.
Sengyou: T.55.2145: 20c23â21a10; Huijiao: T.50.2059: 403a3âb1; Fayun: T.54.2131: 1113a22âc6. See also Lamotte 1958: 193.
See Bechert 1961.
The MajjhimanikÄya contains an interesting passage in this respect. In Chalmers (1960, vol. III: 9â12) we read that when VassakÄra asked Änanda to explain the cause for continued unity (samaggiyÄ) among the members of the Order, the latter replied that the basis for this unity is the fact that all take refuge in Dhamma (dhammappaá¹isaraá¹a). Asked to elaborate, Änanda then identified this as the maintenance of the rules or order, the PrÄtimoká¹£a.
T.70.2300: 459b9â22. See also Dessein 2009: 30â31; Davidson 1990: 300; de La Vallée Poussin 1938; Lamotte 1947: 218â222.
In the Da Tang xiyu ji 大å西åè¨, the co-habitation of monastics who adhere to the ÅrÄvakayÄna with monks who adhere to the MahÄyÄna is mentioned with respect to UdyÄna (T.51.2087: 882b18â21), JÄlaá¹ dhara (T.889c17, 890a3), KulÅ«ta (T.51.2087: 890b4), MathurÄ (T.51.2087: 890b17), KanyÄkubja (T.51.2087: 893c17), AyodhyÄ (T.51.287: 896b7), Vá¹ji (T.51.2087: 910a5), NepÄl (T.51.2087: 910b19), Magadha (T.51.2087: 910c13, 913b25), Puá¹á¸ravarddhana (T.51.2087: 927a22), Koá¹ kanÄpura (T.51.2087: 934c15), MahÄrÄá¹£á¹ra (T.51.2087: 935a28â29), Kaccha (T.51.2087: 936b13), UjjayanÄ« (T.51.2087: 937a4), Parvata (T.51.2087: 937c8), Laá¹ gala (T.51.2087: 938a6), and Kunduz (T.51.2087: 940a16â17). See also Beal 1884, vol.1: 120â121, 176, 177, 180â181, 207, 225; vol.2: 78, 81, 82, 103, 195, 254, 257, 266, 270, 275, 277, 288, resp. Xuanzang also mentions Sthavira monks who study the MahÄyÄna in Magadha (T.51.2087: 918b14â15), Kalinga (T.51.2087: 929a4), Siá¹hala (T51.2087: 934a15), Bharukachha (T.51.2087: 935c2), and Suraá¹£á¹ra (T.51.2087: 936c16). See also Beal 1884, vol.2: 133, 208, 247, 260, 269 resp. When mentioning Sthavira monks who study the MahÄyÄna in Magadha, Xuanzang even mentions that they observe the vinaya carefully (T.51.2087: 918b15).
T.27.1545: 918b27âc13. See also Lamotte 1958: 218â220.
See Prebish 1974b: 170 and note # 22.
See Takao 1937: 12â16; Lewis 1990: 211â212.
Dessein 2013: 29â30; see also Gombrich 1990: 21â24; von Hinüber 1989: 68; Freiberger 2000: 20.
T.22.1425: 334c20â22. Other references to this oral origin are in Saá¹ gitisutta 3, DÄ«ghanikÄya 33 (Estlin Carpenter 1970: 207 ff.) = T.1.1, no.1: 49b27 ff. See also Hoernle [1916] 1970: 16â24 and Waldschmidt [1955] 1967: 258â278.
See also Schopen 1997b: 23â30.
See Dessein 2013.
See Freiberger 2000: 24. For the PÄli canon, this would refer to the word pÄli as opposed to aá¹á¹hakathÄ (see Collins 1990: 91â94). It is illustrative for this that, according to later texts, one is to have recourse (1) to dharma but not to the individual, (2) to the meaning but not to the letter, (3) to the sÅ«tras of definitive meaning (nÄ«tÄrtha) but not to those of provisional meaning (neyÄrtha), and (4) to gnosis (jnÌÄna) but not to perceptual consciousness (vijnÌÄna). See Lamotte 1949; Davidson 1990: 301â302.
SÅ«tra, as explained by Sir Monier Monier-Williams (1956: 1241) is âa short sentence or aphoristic rule, and any work or manual consisting of strings of such rules hanging together like threadsâ (Emphasis mine
It may here be remarked that the English word âcanonâ is derived from the Latin adjective âcanonicusâ: living according to the rules of a religious order.
See also Aleida and Jan Assmann 1987: 26, note 11, in which censorship in order to preserve power against what is subversive and censorship in order to preserve what is meaningful against what is heretical are also differentiated.
Noting the overwhelming preponderance of ÅrÄvastÄ« as the setting of the Buddhaâs sermons, Rhys Davids (1925, vol. IV: vi) suggests that rather than referring to the actual place the Buddha delivered his sermons, ÅrÄvastÄ« may well be the place of the earliest emporium for the collection and preservation of them (see also note # 17).
Canonisation of the abhidharma, with sets of texts that are recognized by one group of Buddhist followers as against another group thus rather conforms to what Aleida and Jan Assmann defined as âcensorship in order to preserve what is meaningful against what is hereticalâ. See note # 43.
Collins (1990: 98) attributes the beginning of a written tradition of Buddhism to the rivalry between the AbhayagirivihÄrins and the MahÄvihÄrins and the attempt of the MahÄvihÄrins to dissociate themselves from the AbhayagirivihÄrins, who would have accepted MahÄyÄna texts. Norman (1993: 280) suggests the 2nd century
See McMahan 1998: 251.
Kinnvall 2004: 744.
Freiberger 2000: 25â26.
Kieffer-Pülz 2000: 283.
For the creation and significance of state monasteries, see Forte 1983.
Kinnvall (2004: 759) noted that: âNoninstitutionalized religion may be a matter of personal faith, piety, and inner experience, but once institutionalized it becomes interested in maintaining its hold on the populace and social institutions.â
Such a concept of âDharma-kingâ is referred to in, e.g., NÄgÄrjunaâs Precious Garland (RatnÄvalÄ«); see Hopkins 1998: 118. See also Bronkhorst 2011: 99â104, 230, 236.
See Bronkhorst 2011: 155. See also Joshi 1977: 21; Sanderson 2009: 115 f.
It should, for the Indian case, be remarked that while Buddhists could never become Brahmins, the reverse was perfectly possible: being a Brahmin was considered compatible with being a Buddhist. For some examples of Brahmins who became Buddhists, see Bronkhorst 2011: 174.
See Zürcher 1982: 163â164; Lewis 1990: 207.
Note that the word jing ç¶, which has âsilkâ as radical, stands close to the original meaning of the word sÅ«tra (see note # 41). For some reflections on the ramifications of the word jing, see Lewis 1990: 208. See also note # 43.
My translation from the German. See also Buswell 1990: 7; Forte 1990: 239â240.
See Wright 1973: 241â242.
See Weinstein 1973: 302.
See Forte 2000: 9â10, 51. For the role of Bodhiruci at the court of Wu Zetian, see Forte 1990.
See Lewis 1990: 207, 210. This also explains why a new imperial canon which appeared in 730
Other translators such as the Yuezhi Lokaká¹£ema (2nd century
Mair, 2012: 37 remarks that shishu may be equated with fashu âwhich is linked to the Sanskrit dharmaparyÄya: âdiscourse on dharmaâ; or with mingshu: ânumerical groups of related items.â He thus suggests (2012: 40) that the term âshishuâ designates âenumerative categories (or categorized enumeration) of things/items, i.e., (technical) terms.â
See Dessein 2016.
See Bronkhorst 2011: 122â128.
See Bronkhorst 2011: 108, 182, 237. For an example from KumÄralÄtaâs KalpanÄmaá¹á¸itikÄ Dá¹á¹£á¹Äntapaá¹ kti, see Huber 1908: 6f.
See Bronkhorst 2011: 238 with reference to von Hinüber 1981 and Schopen 2009 for the early dhÄraá¹Ä«s.
See Bronkhorst 2011: 239, 242â243.
T.52.2120: 840b26. See also Weinstein 1987: 82.
For the importance of this identification in its relation to the *Samanta-bhadrÄcÄryapraá¹idhÄnarÄja (Puxian Pusa xing yuan zan) (T.10.297), see Dessein 2003: 330â332.
T.50.2061: 712c12â13. See also Weinstein 1987: 57.
See Lewis 1990: 231.
T.50.2061: 713a2â3. See also Weinstein 1987: 57â58.
See Birnbaum 1983: 37. Bronkhorst 2011: 242 remarks that âBuddhist monks in China were exempted from military service, but were expected to execute tantric Buddhist rites that would provide protection against natural and other disasters.â
T.50.2061: 713a10â11.
T.50.2061: 713b21.
T.50.2061.713b21â22.