1.
Shâkjamuni—the family name of Buddha, the originator of
Buddhism. It means “Hermit of the tribe of Shâkja,”
the Shâkja being one of the earliest Indian dynasties of
which there are any records. His great-grandfather was Gajasena, whose
son Sinahânu married Kâkkanâ, also of the
Shâkja lineage. Their son Shuddhodana married
Mahâpragâpatî (more commonly called by her
subsequently received name of Mâja = “the creative power of
the godhead”) a daughter of Angana, Kâkkanâ’s
brother, and became the father of Buddha1.
[327]
According to the Mahavansha, Gajasena was descended from
Ixvâku, through the fabulous number of eighty-two thousand
ancestors! He was also wont to call himself Shramana-Gautama, to
mark his alliance with a certain priestly family of Brahmans and
thereby disarm any animosity on their part toward his teaching. He was
also called Shâkjasinha = “Lion of the tribe of
Shâkja,” to show that he belonged to the warrior caste.
He was brought up as heir to the crown, and was trained in the use
of arms and in all matters appertaining to the duties of a ruler. At
the age of sixteen he was married, and we have the names of his three
wives—Utpalavarnâ, Jashodharâ, and
Bhadrakâkkanâ. Up to the age of twenty-eight he lived a
life entirely devoted to the pursuit of pleasure, his time being passed
between the respective attractions of three splendid palaces built for
him by his father. At about this age he appears to have grown weary of
this desultory kind of life, and one day, meeting in his walks with an
old man, a sick man, a corpse, and a priest, he was led to turn his
thoughts upon the evils and the evanescence of life. Rambling on
instead of returning home he sat down to rest under the shade of a
gambu-tree, and here he found fresh food for his melancholy reflections
in the miserable condition of the country people living around. The
legend says the Devatâ, or gods, appeared to him in the
shape of these suffering people in order further to instruct him in his
new views of existence. In all probability his previous mode of life
never having brought him in contact with the actual miseries of the
needy this sight appeared to him in the light of an apparition.
The result of his deliberations was the resolve to withdraw to a
place of solitude, where he might be free to consider by what means
human beings could be relieved from their miseries2.
With this view he forsook his family and his palatial residences,
and having laid aside his rich clothing he wandered forth unknown to
all, begging his food by the way till he found the retirement he sought
in the hermitages of various Brahmans of Gajâshira, a hill in the
neighbourhood of Gaja3, whence he is sometimes called
Gajashiras. [328]
He first placed himself under the teaching of the Brahman
Arâda Kâlâma, afterwards under that of another called
Rudraka, who was so struck with the progress he made in the acquisition
of every kind of knowledge that he soon associated him with himself in
the direction of his disciples. Five of these (four of them belonging
to the royal Shâkja family), Âgnâta, Ashvagit,
Bhadraka, Vashpa, and Mahârâta, grew so much attached to
him and his views that they subsequently became the first followers of
his separate school of teaching.
Having after some years exhausted the satisfaction he found in the
pursuit of study he set out restlessly on a new search after happiness,
followed by the five disciples I have named, and retired with them to a
more exclusive solitude still, where for six years he gave himself up
to unbroken contemplation amid the most rigid austerities. After this
he seems to have somewhat alienated his companions by relaxing his
severe mode of life, for they forsook him about this time and took up
their abode in the neighbourhood of Vârânasî4, where they continued to live as he had shown them
at the first5.
This mode of life even he, however, does not appear to have altered
except in the matter of abridging his fasts, for his habitual
meditations went on as before, and they were believed to have so
illumined his understanding that he finally received the appellation of
Buddha = “the enlightened one,” while from his
favourite habit of making these meditations under the shade of the
ashvattha, the “trembling leaf” fig-tree, that tree,
which has acquired so prominent a place in Buddhist records, legends,
and institutions, came to be called the bodhiruma, literally,
“tree of knowledge,” and it has even been distinguished by
naturalists from the ficus indica, of which it is a variety, by
the title of ficus religiosa. It became so inseparable an
adjunct of Buddhism that wherever the teaching of Shâkjamuni was
spread this tree was transplanted too6.
[329]
The oppression of solitude appears to have overcome Shâkjamuni
at last, and he consequently took the resolution of journeying to
Vâranasî to [330]seek out his former companions. At
their first meeting they were so scandalized to see him look so well
and hearty instead of emaciated by austerities that they refused to pay
him any respect. But when he showed them that he had attained to the
illumination of a Buddha they accepted his teaching and put themselves
entirely under his guidance. The number of his disciples increased
meantime amazingly. As they lived by alms they received the name of
Bhixu as a term of reproach. Ere long we find him sending out
sixty of them, whom he invested with a certain high dignity he called
Arhat7, to spread his teaching wherever they came.
He himself wandered for nineteen years over the central and eastern
districts of the country, teaching,—his agreeable presence and
benevolence of manner, and, the legends say, the wonderful things he
did, winning him numerous converts wherever he went8. Some
gave themselves up to a life of contemplation in the jungle, others
associated themselves with him in his travels. When the rainy season
set in they had to find shelter for the four months in such colleges of
Brahmans or houses of families as they found well inclined towards
them. This Varshavasana, as it was called, afforded them
additional opportunity of making known their ideas.
Shâkjamuni himself seems to have won over several kings to his
way of thinking; one of them, king of Pankâla, he made an
Arhat; another, the king of Koshala, stirred himself very much
to awaken Shuddodana to a sense of the merit of his son, sending to
congratulate him because one of whom he was progenitor had found the
means by which mortals might attain to unending happiness. For once,
making an exception to the proverb that a prophet meets with little
honour in his own country, fortune favoured him in this matter also,
and his father, who violently opposed his withdrawal from his due mode
of life in the first instance, [331]sent eight messengers one
after the other to beg him to come and adorn his court with his wisdom.
Each one of these, however, was so won by his teaching that he never
returned to the king, but remained at the feet of Shâkjamuni.
Last of all the king sent his minister Karka, who, though he also
adopted his views, prevailed on him to let him take back the message
that he would satisfy his father’s requests. The king meantime
built a vihâra for him under a grove of his favourite
Njagrodha, or sacred fig-tree. His return home happened in the
twelfth year after his departure, but when he had made his teaching
known among his kindred he set out on his travels again, only returning
at intervals, as to any other vihâra, for the rainy season. A
great many of his family joined themselves to him, among them his son
Râhula, and his nephew Ânanda, who became one of his most
celebrated followers.
In the twentieth year of his Buddhahood and the fifty-sixth of his
age, he was seized with a serious illness, during which he announced
his conviction that his end, or nirvâna, was at hand, that
is, his entering on that state which was the ultimate object which he
bid his followers strive to attain—the completion of all possible
knowledge and the consequent dissolution of personal
individuality9; further, that it should take place at
Kushinagara, the capital of the Malla people10. Soon
after, he accomplished his prediction by setting out for this place,
visiting by the way many of the spots where he had establishments of
disciples, and arriving there in a state of utter exhaustion and
prostration. On this journey he made more converts, but after his
arrival gave himself up to contemplation which he considered necessary
to perfect his fifth or highest degree of knowledge, until his death.
This took place under a Shala-grove, or grove of sal-trees. His
body was by his own desire treated with the [332]honours only to be paid to a
Kakravartin11, or supreme ruler. After
burning his body the ashes were preserved in an urn of gold. His death
is reckoned to have taken place in the year 543 B.C.12, according to the Buddhists of Ceylon and
Southern India generally. Those of the northern provinces, the Japanese
and Mongolians, have a very different chronology, and place his birth
about the year 950 B.C. The Chinese are divided
among themselves about it and say variously, 688, 1070, and
112213.
A great number of claimants demanded his ashes in memorial of him,
and finally, by the advice of a Brahman named Drona, they were
partitioned among eight cities, in each of which a kaitja, or
shrine14, was erected to receive them. A great gathering
of his followers was held at Kushinagara, of which Kâshjapa was
sanghasthavira, or president, Buddha having himself previously
designated him for his successor. He had been a distinguished Brahman.
It is said by one of the exaggerations common in all Indian records
that there were seven hundred thousand of the new religionists present.
Five hundred were selected from among the most trustworthy to draw up
the Sanghiti, or good laws of Buddha. Then they broke up,
determining to travel over Gambudvîpa, consoling the scattered
Bhixu for the loss of their master, and to meet again at
Râgagriha at the beginning of the month Ashâdha
(answering to the end of our June) for the Varshavasana.
This synod lasted seven months. Its chief work was the compilation
of the Tripitaka—“the three baskets” or
“vessels” supposed to contain all Shâkjamuni’s
teaching: 1. The Sutra-pitaka, containing the conversation of
Shâkjamuni (of these I have had occasion to speak in another
place15); 2. The Vinaja-pitaka, containing maxims
by which the disciple’s [333]life was to be guided; and
the Ahidharma-pitaka, containing an exposition of religious and
philosophical teaching. The first was under the revision of
Ânanda; the second under that of Upâli; and the third under
that of Kâcjapa. The Tripitaka also bears the name of
Sthavira, because only such took part in its compilation; also
“of the five hundred,” because so many were charged with
its compilation.
It is important, however, to bear in mind, because of the monstrous
exaggerations and extravagant incidents subsequently
introduced16 that these were only compilations preserved by
word of mouth; the art of writing was scarcely known in India at this
time. “After the Nirvâna of Buddha, for the space of
450 years, the text and commentaries and all the words of the
Tathâgato were preserved and transmitted by wise priests orally.
But having seen the evils attendant upon this mode of transmission, 550
rahats of great authority, in the cave called Alôka
(Alu) in the province of Malaya, in Lankâ, under the guardianship
of the chief of that province caused the sacred books to be
written17.” As this “text and
commentaries” are reckoned to consist of 6,000,000 words, and the
Bible of about 500,000, we may form some idea of the impossibility of
so vast a body of language being in any way faithfully preserved by so
treacherous a medium as memory.
Megasthenes (Fragm. 27, p. 421, b.) and Nearchos (Fragm. 7, p. 60,
b.) particularly mention that the Indians had no written laws, but
their code was preserved in the memory of their judges; thus testifying
to the practice of trusting to memory in the most important matters.
Schwanbeck (Megast. Ind. p. 51) remarks that the Sanskrit word
for a collection of laws—Smriti—means also memory.
J. Prinsep (in his paper on the Inscriptions of the Rocks of Girnar, in
Journ. of As. Soc. of Beng. vii. 271) is inclined to think some of the
rock-cut inscriptions are as early as 500 B.C.;
which would show they had some knowledge of a written character then;
Lassen, however, is of opinion that this is altogether too early; but
there seems no doubt that there are some both of and [334]anterior to the reign of Ashoka, 246
B.C. Megasthenes indeed mentions that he had
heard they used a kind of indurated cotton for writing on. But the use,
neither of this material nor of a written character, could have been
very common or extended, for Nearchos (Strabo, xvi. § 67) wrote,
“It is said by some, the Indians write on indurated cotton stuff,
but others say they have not even the use of a written
alphabet.”
Though thus disfigured and overlaid as time went by, the great
intention which Shâkjamuni himself seems to have had in view in
the preparation of his doctrine was to destroy the exclusiveness of the
Brahmanical castes, and that most especially in its influence on the
future and final condition of every man, and thus he accepted men of
all castes, even the very lowest18, and the out-caste too,
among not only his disciples but among his priesthood. It was thus in
its origin a system of morals rather than of faith. It was full of
maxims inculcating virtue to be pursued—not indeed out of
obedience to the will of a Divine and all perfect Creator—but
with the object of escaping the necessity of the number of re-births
taught by the Brahmans and of sooner attaining to nirvâna.
It set up, therefore, no mythology of its own19, nor put
forward any statement of what gods were to be honoured. Nevertheless it
was grafted on to the mythology prevailing at the time, and many of the
gods then honoured are incidentally mentioned in the Sutra as
accepted objects of veneration. The Vęda, or sacred teaching of
the Brahmans, is quoted in almost every page20. The gods
who thus come in for mention in the simple Sutra are the
following21:—The three gods of the later mythology bear
here the names of (1) Brahmâ and Pelâmaha; (2) Hari,
Ganârdana, Nârâjana, and Upęndra (it is
important to note that the name of Krishna does not appear at this
period at all); (3) Shiva and Shankara. Indra was now placed at the
head of gods of the second rank. We have also Shakra, Vâsava, and
Shakipati, called the husband of Shaki. Of the other
Lôkapâla, Kuvera and Varunna are named. It is doubtless
only by accident that more do not find mention. Of the demigods
Visvakarman, the Gandharba, Kinnara, Garuda, Jaxa the Serpent-god,
Asura, and Danava, along with other evil genii and serpent-gods. The
most often named—particularly in the colloquies between Buddha
and his disciples[335]—is Indra with the adjunctive
appellation of Kaushika. Indra was at the time of
Shâkjamuni himself the favourite god; the other great gods had
not yet received the importance they afterwards acquired, nor had any
thing like the idea of a trine unity or equality been broached22 as we shall presently see; even these allusions
were but scanty23. It was long before the whole Brahmanical
system of divinities came to form an integral part of the Buddhist
theosophy24.
Hence Shâkjamuni, as well as his
contemporary and earliest succeeding disciples, lived for the most
part25 on good terms with the Brahmans, some of whom
were among the most zealous in securing the custody of some part of his
ashes. But they were not long ere they perceived that as this new
teaching developed itself its tendency was to supersede their order.
Then, a life and death struggle for the upper-hand ensued which lasted
for centuries, for while the Buddhists were on the one side fighting
against the attempted extermination, on the other side they were
spreading their doctrines over an ever-fresh field by the journeyings
of their missionaries, a proceeding the more exclusive Brahmans had
never adopted. This went on till by the one means and the other
Buddhism had been almost entirely banished from Central India, where it
took its rise, but had established itself on an enduring basis as
remote from its original centre as Ceylon, Mongolia, China, Japan, the
Indian Archipelago, and perhaps even Mexico26. This state
of things was hardly established before the 14th century27. But from information on the condition of
religion in India preserved by the Chinese pilgrim Fahien, who
traversed a great part of Asia, A.D.
399–414, Buddhism had already at that time suffered great losses,
for at Gaja itself the temple of Buddha was a deserted ruin. From the
writings of another Chinese pilgrim, Hiuen Thsang, whose travels took
place in the 7th century, it would seem that the greatest Brahmanical
persecution of the Buddhists did not take place before 67028. That it had cleared them out of Central India by
the [336]date I have named above is further confirmed by
Mâdhava, a writer of the 14th century, quoted by Professor
Wilson, who “declares that at his date not a follower of Buddha
was to be found in all Hindustan, and he had only met some few old men
of that faith in Kashmir.” “At the present day,” adds
Wilson, “I never met with a person who had met with natives of
India Proper of that faith, and it appears that an utter extirpation of
the Buddha religion in India Proper was effected between the 12th and
16th centuries.” Nevertheless it is the system of religion which
next after the Catholic Church counts the greatest number of
followers.
Dr. Gützlaff (in his “Remarks on the Present State of
Buddhism,” in “Journ. of R. As. Soc.” xvi. 73.) tells
us two-thirds of the population of China is Buddhist. In
Ungewitter’s Neueste Erdebeschreibung, the whole
population is stated from native official statistics at 360,000,000;
whence it would follow that there are 240,000,000 Buddhists in China
alone; probably, however, the Chinese figures are to some extent an
exaggeration.
Before concluding this brief notice of Buddhism it remains to say a
few words on the later developments of the system which have too often
been identified with its original utterances.
It does not appear to have been before the 10th century that
Shâkjamuni was reckoned to be an incarnation of a heavenly being;
at least the earliest record of such an idea is found in an inscription
at Gaya, ascribed to the year 94829, while much of his own
teaching bears traces of a lingering belief in a great primeval
tradition of the unity of the Godhead and the promise of
redemption30, as well as the great primary laws of obedience
and sacrifice more perfectly preserved to us in the inspired writings
committed to the Hebrews. The history of the deluge, as given by Weber
from the Mahâ Bhârata, is almost identical in its leading
features with the account in Genesis, bearing of course some additions.
A great ship was laden with pairs of beasts, and seeds of every kind of
plants, and was steered safely through the floods by Vishnu under the
form of a great fish, who ultimately moored it on the mountain
Naubandhana, one of the Himâlajas in Eastern Kashmere. The early
Vęda hymns, too, had thus spoken of the Creation, “At that
time there was neither being nor no being; no world, no air, nor any
[337]thing beyond it. Death was not, neither
immortality; nor distinction of day and night. But It (tad)
respired alone, and without breathing; alone in Its self-consciousness
(Svadha, which hence came to be used for ‘Heaven’).
Besides It was nothing, only darkness. All was wrapt in darkness, and
undistinguishable fluid. But the bulk thus enveloped was brought forth
by the power of contemplation. Love (Kama) was first formed in
Its mind, and this was the original creative germ31.” And
the Vęda was, we have seen, adopted in the main by
Shâkjamuni; but the development of his views came to imply that
there was no Creator at all, existences being only a series of
necessary evolutions32. And when later a Creator came
again to be spoken of, the term was involved in the most inconceivable
contradictions33. A distinguished Roman Orientalist also
writes:—“The Vęda, and principally the
Jazur-Vęda and the Isa-Upanishad, contain not only many golden
maxims, but distinct traces of the primitive Monotheism. But these
books exercise little influence on the religion of the people, which is
a mass of idolatry and superstition; moreover, they are themselves
filled with the most absurd stories and fables. The Jazur-Vęda,
which is the freest from these defects, is a comparatively recent
production, and the author has manifestly drawn upon not only both Old
and New Testament, but also the Koran34.”
An infusion of the revealed doctrines taught by Christianity was
also received into it from the teaching of the missionaries of the
first ages after the birth of Christ, though similarly disfigured and
overwrought. To distinguish the influence of the one and the other
would be a fascinating study, but one too vast for the limits of the
present pages. When we come presently to the history of
Vikramâditja we shall find it presents us with a striking idea of
the facility with which various ideals can be heaped upon one
personality; this will serve as a key to the mode in which an
unenlightened admiration for the story of our Divine Redeemer’s
life on earth may be supposed to have induced the ascribing of His
supernatural manifestations to another being, already accepted as
Divine. It is true that certain appearances of Vishnu and Shiva on
earth would seem to have been believed before the Christian era; and
[338]apart from the Indian writings, the dates of
which are so difficult to fix, the testimony of Megasthenes (the
Historian of Seleucus Nicanor, who wrote B.C.
300) is quoted in proof that at his time such incarnations were already
held. But the passages in Megasthenes, by the very fact that he
identifies Vishnu with Hercules, tend only to demonstrate a belief in a
different kind of manifestation of Divine power. Those who labour most
to prove that the Brahmanical idea of incarnation preceded the
Christian have to allow that it was only subsequently to the spread of
Christian teaching that it was fully developed. Thus Lassen writes,
“I have, therefore (i. e. in consequence of the allusions in
Megasthenes), no hesitation in maintaining that the dogma of
Vishnu’s incarnations was in existence 300 years before the birth
of Christ; still, however, it only received its full development at a
subsequent period35.” And in another place, speaking of
the Avatâra (incarnations) of Vishnu, in the persons of
the heroes of the epic poems, he adds, “this dogma is unknown
(fremd) to the Vęda, and the few allusions to
such an idea existing in some of its myths, and which were later
reckoned among the incarnations of Vishnu, show that in the earliest
ages the recurring appearance in man’s nature of ‘the
preserving god’ for the destruction of evil was not yet
invented.36” And even of the early epic poems he
writes, that though such ideas are introduced, yet the heroes still
maintain their individuality. They are actuated and indwelt by Vishnu,
but they are not he. This, it will be seen, is very different from the
Christian dogma of the Incarnation.
Whether the extremely interesting and ancient tradition be genuine
(as maintained by Tillemont) or not, that Abgarus, king of Edessa, sent
messengers to our Lord in Judća, begging Him to come and visit
him and heal him of his sickness, and that our Lord in reply sent him
word that He must do the work of Him Who sent Him and then return to
Him above, but that after His Ascension He would send an Apostle to
him, and that in consequence of this promise St. Thomas received the
far East for the field of his labours—and, however much be
chronologically correct of the mass of records and traditions which
tell that this Apostle travelled over the whole Asian continent, from
Edessa to Tibet, and perhaps China—it would appear to be
intrinsically probable and as well attested as most facts of equally
remote date, that both this Apostle and Thaddćus, one of the
seventy-two disciples, preached the Gospel in countries east of Syria,
and that his successors, more or less immediate, extended their travels
farther and farther east. It is mentioned in [339]Eusebius (Book v. c. 10), that S. Pantćus,
going to India to preach the Gospel early in the 3rd century (Eusebius
himself wrote at the end of the same century), met with Brahmans who
showed him a copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, which they
said had been given to their forerunners by St. Bartholomew37. Lassen himself allows, that in all probability
certain Brahmans, at a very early date, fell in with Christian
teachers, and brought them back home with them. Further, that the idea
of there being any merit in bhakti, or pious faith, and a
development in the teaching concerning the duty of prayer may be traced
to this circumstance. Nor does he deny that when in 435, Eustathius,
Bp. of Antioch, with the help of Thomas Kama, a rich local merchant,
went to found a mission at Mahâdevapatma (Cranganore), he found
Christians who dated their conversion from St. Thomas living there. His
further efforts to disprove that St. Thomas himself penetrated very far
east, and that the early Christian establishments at Taprobane and
Ceylon were founded by Persian Christians, though far from conclusive,
tend as far as they go but to support all the more the theory of an
admixture of Christian with Brahmanical and Buddhist teaching; because,
the less pure the source of teaching the more likely it was to have
resulted in producing such an admixture in place of actual conversion.
Nor does the circumstance on which he lays much weight, that the
Brahmans resented the inroads of Christian teaching on their domain,
even with severe persecutions, at all afford any proof that there were
not Brahmanical teachers, who either through sincere admiration (for
which they were prepared by their early monotheistic tradition), or
from a conviction of the advantage to be derived in increase of
influence by its means, or other cause, may have thought fit, or been
even unconsciously led to incorporate certain ideas of the new school
with their own.
I have only space left to touch upon two of the most important of
these identifications. And first the imitation of the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity. Lassen (i. 784 and iv. 570) fixes as late a date as
1420–1445 for the introduction of the Trimurti worship,
or, as he expresses it, the bootless attempt to unite various schools
by propounding the [340]equality and unity of the three great rival
gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, who were the chief gods favoured by
each respectively. Devarâja of Vigajanagara erected the first
temple to the Trimurti about this date. Ganesha, the god of
wisdom and knowledge, appeared to his minister Laxmana and bid him
build a temple on the banks of the Penar to the Hiranjagarbha,
called Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; this is the first example of any
inscription of honour paid to the Trimurti38.
Secondly, the worship of the god Crishna, whose name and attributes
as well as his substitution for Vishnu, the second god of the
Trimurti, present so many analogies with the teaching concerning
our Divine Lord39. Whatever difficulty there may be in fixing
the date of the origin of the great Pânkarâtra sect, there
appears none in affirming that the full development of its teaching in
the direction of these analogies was subsequent to the establishment of
Christianity. This is how A. Weber speaks of it40. Brahmans,
who had travelled to Alexandria, and perhaps Asia Minor, at a time when
Christianity was in its first bloom, brought back its teaching
respecting a Supreme God and a Christ whom they identified with and
fastened upon their sage or hero, who had already in some measure
received Divine honours—Crishna Devakiputra (Son of the
divine woman). He also dwells on the influence exercised by the
teaching of Christian missionaries. The importance given to
Devaki would point to an incorporation of Christian teaching
concerning the Virgin Mary. Weber, in a paper entitled “Einige Data auf das Geburtsfest Krishna’s,”
instances many passages in the Bavrishjottara-Purana (one of the latest
Puranas), which it is impossible to read without being reminded of the
place of “the Virgin and Child” in Christian tradition, and
which find no counterpart in earlier Indian writings. Similarly it was
the later schools which dwelt on the fact of his having Nanda the
herdsman for his father, seemingly suggested by our Lord’s
character of “the good Shepherd,” because in the earlier
Crishna [341]Legends41 this fact is sunk in the
view that (though sprung from the herdsmen) he was a warrior and a
hero. Nor was the teaching concerning this character of Crishna at all
rapid in its extension. Its chief seat, according to Lassen42, in what he expresses as “the earliest
times,” was Madura; but the first date he mentions in connexion
with it is 1017, when a Crishna temple was destroyed by Mahműd of
Ghazna, Lalitâditja, king of Cashmere, built him a temple
containing a statue of solid silver, and he reigned from 695 to 732;
but the gold armour the image bore would point to his warrior character
still prevailing down to this time. Lassen even finds43 the
introduction of the worship of Crishna44 a subject
of opposition by certain Brahmans as late as the tenth century. The
great epic poem concerning him, the Gitagovinda, by Gajadeva
(still sung at the present day at the Resa festival), was not written
till the end of the 12th century45. In an inscription at
Gajanagara, not very far from Madura, Crishna is mentioned as an
incarnation of Vishnu, but the date of this is 1288; and the idea does
not seem to have reached Orissa till the end of the 15th
century46.
2. From this exordium we must
plainly gather that the original collector of these Tales was himself a
Madhjamika, since he begins his work with an invocation of
Nâgârg′una, founder of that school. He calls him
“second teacher” because his undertaking was, not to
supersede, but to develope and perfect the teaching of
Shâkjamuni, whom he himself reverenced as first teacher47. [342]
Nâgârg′una was the 15th Patriarch in the Buddhist
succession, born in South India, and educated a Brahman; he wrote a
Treatise, in 100 chapters, on the Wisdom of the Buddhist Theology, and
died B.C. 212 (Lassen, “Indische Alterthumskunde,” ii., Appendix, p. vi.); but
at p. 887 of the same volume, and again at p. 1072, he tells us he
lived in the reign of Abhimanju, king of Cashmere, and that it was by
the assistance of his sage advice that the Buddhists were enabled for a
while successfully to withstand opposition dictated by the Brahmanical
proclivities of this king, whose date he fixes at 45–65
A.C. The difference between the two dates
arises out of that existing between the computations of the northern
and southern Buddhists48. In the Raga-Tarangini,
ii. v. 172–177 (a chronicle of Cashmere, written not later than
A.D. 1148) Nâgârg′una is
thus alluded to: “When 150 years had passed by, since sacred
Shâkjamuni had completed his time in this world of sufferers,
there was a Bodhisattva49, who was supreme head of all
the earth. This was Nâgârg′una, who possessed in
himself the power of six Archats50.... Protected by
Nâgârg′una the Buddhists obtained the chief influence
in the country.”
Among the Chinese Buddhists he is called Lung-shu, which name Abel
Rémusat tells us was given him because after death he was taken
up into the serpent-Paradise51.
The following legend has been told concerning the manner of his
conversion from Brahmanism; but it is probable that what is
historically true in it belongs to the life of another and much later
Buddhist patriarch.
A Samanaer52 came wandering by his residence. Seeing it
to be nobly built, and pleasantly situated amid trees and fountains,
and provided with all that was needful and desirable for the life of
man, made up his mind to obtain admission to it.
Nâgârg′una, before admitting him, required to know
whence, and what manner of man he was. On his declaring himself a
teacher of Buddhism the door was immediately closed against him.
Determined not to be so easily repulsed the Samanaer knocked again and
again, till Nâgârg′una, provoked by his pertinacity,
appeared on the terrace above, and cried out to him, “It is
useless for you to go on knocking. In this house is nothing.”
[343]
“Nothing!” retorted the Samanaer; “what sort of a
thing is that, pray?”
Nâgârg′una saw by this answer the man must be of a
philosophical turn of mind, and was thus induced to break his rule,
which forbid him intercourse with Buddhists, and let him in that he
might have more discourse with him. The Samanaer by degrees fascinated
his mind with the whole Buddhist doctrine, and ultimately told him that
Buddha had left a prophecy, saying, that long years after he had
departed this life there should arise a great teacher out of Southern
India, who by the wisdom of his teaching should renew the face of the
earth; that this prophecy he was destined to accomplish.
Nâgârg′una believed his words, and subsequently
fulfilled them.
His peculiar school received the name of Mâdhjamika, because
of three prevailing interpretations of the earlier Buddhist teaching he
chose the one which steered its course midway (madhjana) between
two extremes, one of which held that the Buddhist nirvâna,
implied the return and absorption of the soul at death into the
creative essence whence it had emanated; and the other, its total
annihilation.
He left his ideas to posterity in a treatise, bearing the name of
Kârikâ, denoting an exposition of a theory in
verse53. Some idea of its intricacy may be formed from
the fact that the shortest edition of it contains eight thousand
sections; while the most complete has a hundred thousand. His teaching
was followed up by two chief disciples, Ârjadeva, a Cingalese,
and Buddhapâlita, and still holds sway in the higher schools of
Tibet, which accounts for the homage of the editor of these Mongolian
tales. He is honoured almost everywhere where Buddhism is honoured;
near Gajâ is a kaitja, or rock-cut temple, called
Nâgârgunî, probably commemorating some visit of his
to the shrine of Shâkjamuni.
3. The whole of Buddhist
literature is spoken of by its followers as contained in three
“vessels,” or
“baskets”—tripîtaka (Wassiljew, p. 118,
quoted by Jülg); in Tibetian called samatog (Köppen,
Die Lamaische Hierarchie, p. 57).
4. Madhjamika. See
above, Note 2.
5. Paramârtha
(true, exact, perfect understanding), and sanvrti (imperfect,
dubious understanding), were party words, arising out of the
philosophical disputes of the Madhjamika and
Jogâtschârja schools. Wassiljew, pp. 321–367.
[344]
6. Magadha. The legend
is in this instance more precise than often falls to the lot of works
of this nature. Instead of transferring the scene of action to a
locality within the limits of the country of the narrator however, he
makes Nâgârg′una to have lived on the borders of
Magadha54. Lassen, speaking in allusion to the
kaitja named after him, mentioned above, says there is no
allusion in any authentic account of him to his ever being in this part
of the country; this Mongolian tradition however corroborates the local
tradition of the kaitja. I have already had occasion to mention
how Magadha came to receive its modern name of Behar55.
The word Magadha is also used to designate a bard; as this meaning
rests on no etymological foundation, it is natural to suppose that it
arises from the fact of the country being rich in sagas, and
that successful bards sprang from its people. The office of the
Magadha, also called Vandin, the Speaker of praises, consisted
chiefly in singing before the king the deeds of his ancestors. In
several places the Magadha is named along with the
Sűta56. It is quite in accordance with this view
that Vjâsa’s57 mother was reckoned a daughter
of a king of Magadha.
It is curious that the poetical occupation of bard came to be
combined with the sordid occupation of pedlar, or travelling trader,
who is also called a Magadha in Manu x. 47, and other
places.
7. Krijâvidja.
Writings concerning the study of magic.—Jülg.
8. Bede = Bhota, or Bothanga,
the Indian name of Tibet. See Schmidt’s translation of the
“History of the Mongols,” by the native historian, sSanang
sSetsen.
Before proceeding farther it is necessary to say a few words
concerning the history, religions, and customs of Tibet and Mongolia,
to illustrate the local colouring the following Tales have received by
passing into Mongolia.
Buddhism nowhere took so firm a grasp of the popular mind as in
Tibet, where it was established as early as the 7th century by its
greatest king, Ssrong-Tsan-Gampo. No where, except in China, was
its influence on literature so powerful and so useful, for not only
have we [345]thus preserved to us very early translations
from the Sanskrit of most of the sacred writings, but also original
treatises of history, geography, and philosophy. Nowhere, either, did
it possess so many colleges and teachers; it was by means of these that
it was spread over Mongolia in the 13th century; the very indistinct
notions of religion there prevailing previously, with no hierarchy to
maintain them, readily yielding at its approach. Mang-ku, grandson of
Ginghis Khan58, added to the immense sovereignty his
warlike ancestor had left him, the whole of Tibet about the year 1248.
His brother and successor, Kublai Khan, who reigned from 1259 to
1290, occupied himself with the internal development of his empire. He
appears to have regarded Christ, Moses, Muhammed, and Buddha as
prophets of equal authority, and to have finally adopted the religion
of the last-named, because he discerned the advantages to be derived in
the consolidation of his power from the assistance of the Buddhist
priests already possessing so great influence in Tibet. He was seconded
in his design by the eager assistance of a young Lama, named sSkja
Pandita, and surnamed Matidhvaga = “the ensign of
penetration,” whom he not only set over the whole priesthood of
the Mongolian empire, but made him also tributary ruler of Tibet, with
the grandiloquent titles of “King of the great and precious
teaching; the most excellent Lama; King of teaching in the three
countries of the Rhaghân (empire).” Among other rich
insignia of his dignity which he conferred on him was a precious jasper
seal. He is most commonly mentioned by the appellation,
Phagss-pa = “the most excellent,” which has hence
often been taken erroneously for his name; his chief office was the
coronation of the Emperor. The title, Dalai Lama59, the head
of Tibetian Buddhism, is half Mongolian, and half Tibetian.
Dalai is Mongolian for “ocean,” and Lama Tibetian
for “priest;” making, “a priest whose rule is vast as
the ocean.”
Of the four Khânats or kingdoms into which the Mongolian
Empire was divided, that called Juan bordered on Tibet, and to its
Khâns consequently was committed the government of that country;
but they interfered very little with it, so that the power of the
people was left to strengthen itself. The last of them, Shan-ti,
or Tokatmar-Khân, was turned out in 1368 by
Hong-vu, the founder of the Ming dynasty, who sought to extend
his power by weakening that of the Lamas. In order to this he set up
four chief ones in place of one. Jong-lo who reigned
[346]from 1403 to 1425, further divided the power
among eight; but this very subdivision tended to a return to the
original supremacy of one; for, while all bore the similar title of
Vang = “little king,” or “sub-king,” it became
gradually necessary that among so many one should take the lead, and
for this one the title of Garma or patriarch was coined ere
long.
The Tibetians and Mongolians receiving thus late the doctrines of
Shâkjamuni received a version of it very different from his
original teaching. The meditations and mystifications of his followers
had invested him with ever new prerogatives, and step by step he had
come to be considered no longer in the light of an extraordinary
teacher, or even a heaven-sent founder of religion, but as himself the
essence of truth and the object of supreme adoration. Out of this
theory again ramified developments so complicated as almost to defy
condensation. Thus Addi-Buddha, as he was now called, it was taught was
possessed of five kinds of gnâna or knowledge; and by five
operations of his dhjâna or contemplative power he was
supposed to have produced five Dhjâni-Buddhas, each of
which received a special name, and in process of time became
personified and deified too, and each by virtue of an emanation of the
supreme power indwelling him had brought forth a
Dhjâni-Bodhisattva. The fourth of these, distinguished as
Dhjâni-Bodhisattva-Padmapâni, was the Creator, not
only of the universe, but also of Brahma and other gods whom
Shâkjamuni or his earlier followers had acknowledged as more or
less supreme. And as if this strange theogony was not perplexing
enough, there had come to be added to the cycle of objects of worship a
multitude of other deifications too numerous even to name here in
detail.
Among all these, Dhjâni-Bodhisattva-Padmapâni is
reckoned the chief god by the Mongolians. The principal tribute of
worship paid him is the endless repetition of the ejaculation,
“Om Manipadmi hum” = “Hail Manipadmi O!”
Every one has heard of the prayer-machine, the revolutions of whose
wheel set going by the worshipper count as so many exclamations to his
account. “The instrument is called Tchu-Kor (turning
prayer),” writes Abbé Huc. “You see a number of them
in every brook” (in the neighbourhood of a Lamaseri)
“turned by the current.... The Tartars suspend them also over the
fireplace to send up prayer for the peace and prosperity of the
household;” he mentions also many most curious incidents in
connexion with this practice. Another similar institution is printing
the formulary an immense number of times on numbers of sheets of paper,
and fixing them in a barrel similarly turned by running water. Baron
Schilling de Kanstadt has given us (in [347]“Bulletin Hist. Phil. de l’Ac. des Sciences de S.
Petersburg,” iv. No. 22) an interesting account of the
bargain he struck with certain Mongolian priests at Kiakhtu, on the
Russo-Chinese frontier. It was their great aim to multiply this
ejaculation a hundred million times, a feat they had never been able to
accomplish. They showed him a sheet which was the utmost reach of their
efforts, but the sum total of which was only 250. The Baron sent to St.
Petersburg and had a sheet printed, in which the words were repeated
seventy times one way and forty-one times the other, giving 2870 times,
but being printed in red they counted for 25 times as many, or 71,750;
then he had twenty-four such sheets rolled together, making 1,793,750,
so that about seventy revolutions of the barrel would give the required
number. In return for this help the Mongolian Lama gave him a complete
collection of the sacred writings in the Tibetian language; Tibetian
being the educated, or at least the sacred, language of Mongolia.
Concerning the meaning of this ejaculation, Abbé Huc has the
following:—“According to the opinion of the celebrated
Orientalist Klaproth, the ‘Om mani padme houm’ is
merely the Tibetian transcription of a Sanskrit formula brought from
India to Tibet with the introduction of Buddhism and letters.... This
formula has in the Sanskrit a distinct and complete meaning which
cannot be traced in the Tibetian idiom. Om is among the Hindoos,
the mystic name of the Divinity, and all their prayers begin with it.
It is composed of A, standing for Vishnu, O, for Siva, and M, for
Brahma. This mystic particle is also equivalent to the interjection O!
It expresses a profound religious conviction, and is a sort of act of
faith; mani signifies a gem, a precious thing; padma, the
lotus, padme, vocative case. Lastly, houm is a particle
expressing a wish, and is equivalent to the use of the word Amen. The
literal sense then of this phrase is
“Om mani padme houm.”
O the gem in the lotus. Amen.
In the Ramajana, where Vasichta destroys the
sons of Visvamitra60 he is said to do so by his
hungkara, his breathing forth of his desire of vengeance, but
literally by his breathing the interjection
‘hum.’
“The Buddhists of Tibet and Mongolia, however, have tortured
their imagination to find a mystic interpretation of each of these six
syllables. They say the doctrine contained in them is so immense that a
life is [348]insufficient to measure it. Among other things,
they say the six classes of living beings61 correspond
to these six syllables.... By continual transmigrations according to
merit, living beings pass through these six classes till they have
attained the height of perfection, absorbed into the essence of
Buddha.... Those who repeat the formula very frequently escape passing
after death into these six classes.... The gem being the emblem of
perfection, and the lotus of Buddha, it may perhaps be considered that
these words express desire to acquire perfection in order to be united
with Buddha—absorbed in the one universal soul: “Oh, the
gem of the lotus, Amen,” might then be paraphrased
thus:—“O may I obtain perfection, and be absorbed in
Buddha, Amen!” making it a summary of a vast system of
Pantheism.
Buddhism, however, received its greatest and most remarkable
modification in this part of the world from the teaching of an
extraordinary Lama, named bThong-kha-pa, who rose to eminence in
the reign of Jong-lo, and is regarded with greatest veneration
among not only the Tibetians and Mongolians, including the remotest
tribes of the Khalmouks, but also by the more polished Chinese, and
more or less wherever Buddhism prevails.
Though subsequently pronounced to be an incarnation of Shiva he was
born in the year 1357, in the Lamaseri of ssKu-bun = “a
hundred thousand images,” on the Kuku-noor, or Blue Lake, in the
south-west part of the Amdo country, several days’ journey from
the city of Sining-fu. In his youth he travelled to gTsang-lschhn, or
Lhassa, in order to gain the most perfect knowledge of Buddhist
teaching, and during his studies there determined on effecting various
reforms in the prevailing ideas. He met with many partisans, who
adopted a yellow cap as their badge, in contradistinction from the red
cap heretofore worn, and styled themselves the dGe-luges-pa =
“the Virtuous.” Besides introducing a stricter discipline
his chief development of the Buddhist doctrines consisted in teaching
distinctly that Buddha was possessed of a threefold nature, which was
to be recognized, the first in his laws, the second in his perfections,
the third in his incarnations.
The supreme rule of the Buddhist religion in Tibet also received its
present form under the impulse of his labours. His nephew,
dGe-dun-grub-pa (born circa 1390, died 1475), was the
first Dalai Lama. He built the celebrated Lama Palace of
bKra-schiss-Lhun-po, thirty miles N. of Lhassa, in 1445. Under
him, too, was established the institution [349]of the
Pan-tschhen-Rin-po-tsche (the great venerable jewel of
teaching), or Contemplative Lama. Tsching-Hva, the eighth
Emperor of the Ming Dynasty, established their joint authority as
superior to all the eight princely Lamas set up by
Jo-long62.
Abbé Huc, in the course of his enterprising missionary
travels, visited all the places I have had occasion to mention,
spending a considerable time at some of them. By local traditions,
collected by word of mouth and from Lamaistic records, he gives us a
most fantastic and entertaining narrative of Tsong-Kaba, as he calls
the Buddhist reformer: of the fables concerning his birth; of the
marvellous tree that grew from his hair when his mother cut it; of his
mature intelligence in his tenderest years; his supernatural call to
Lha-sa (Land of Spirits); and of the very peculiar mode of argument by
which he converted Buddha Chakdja, the Lama of the Red Cap. More
important than all this, however, is the light he throws on the mode in
which the great incorporation of Christian ideas and ceremonial into
Buddhist teaching came about. During his years of retirement Tsong-Kaba
became acquainted with a mysterious teacher “from the far
West,” almost beyond question “one of those Catholic
missionaries who at this precise period penetrated in such numbers into
Upper Asia.” The very description preserved of his face and
person is that of a European. This strange teacher died, we know not by
what means, while Tsong-kaba was yet in the desert; and he appears to
have accepted as much of his doctrine as either he had only time to
learn or as suited his purpose, and this in the main had reference
“to the introduction of a new Liturgy. The feeble opposition
which he encountered in his reformation would seem to indicate that
already the progress of Christian ideas in these countries had
materially shaken the faith in Buddha.... The tribe of Amdo, previously
altogether obscure, has since this reformation acquired a prodigious
celebrity.... The mountain at the foot of which Tsong-Kaba was born
became a famous place of pilgrimage; Lamas assembled there from all
parts to build their cells63; and thus by degrees was formed
that flourishing Lamasery, the fame of which extends to the remotest
confines of Tartary. It is called Komboun, from two Tibetian words,
signifying ten thousand images. He died at the Lamasery of Khaldan
(’celestial beatitude’), situated on the top of a
[350]mountain about four leagues east of Lha-Ssa,
said to have been founded by him in 1409. The Tibetians pretend that
they still see his marvellous body there fresh and incorruptible,
sometimes speaking, and by a permanent prodigy always holding itself in
the air without any support.
“Mongolia is at present divided into several sovereignties,
whose chiefs are subject to the Emperor of China, himself a Tartar, but
of the Mantchu race. These chiefs bear titles corresponding to those of
kings, dukes, earls, barons, &c. They govern their states according
to their own pleasure. They acknowledge as sovereign only the Emperor
of China. Whenever any difference arises between them they appeal to
Pekin and submit to its decisions implicitly. Though the Mongol
sovereigns consider it their duty to prostrate themselves once a year
before the ‘Sun of Heaven,’ they nevertheless do not
concede to him the right of dethroning their reigning families. He may,
they say, cashier a king for gross misconduct, but he is bound to fill
up the vacant place with one of the superseded prince’s sons....
Nothing can be more vague and indefinite than these relations.... In
practice the will of the Emperor is never disputed.... All families
related to any reigning family form a patrician caste and are
proprietors of the soil.... They are called Taitsi, and are
distinguished by a blue button surmounting their cap. It is from these
that the sovereigns of the different states select their ministers, who
are distinguished by a red button.... In the country of the Khalkhas,
to the north of the desert of Gobi, there is a district entirely
occupied by Taitsi, said to be descendants of Tchen-kis-Khan.... They
live in the greatest independence, recognizing no sovereign. Their
wealth consists in tents and cattle. Of all the Mongolian regions it is
this district in which are to be found most accurately preserved
patriarchal manners, just as the Bible describes them, though every
where also more or less prevailing.... The Tartars who are not Taitsi
are slaves, bound to keep their master’s herds, but not forbidden
to herd cattle of their own. The noble families differ little from the
slave families ... both live in tents and both occupy themselves with
pasturing their flocks. When the slave enters the master’s tent
he never fails to offer him tea and milk; they smoke together and
exchange pipes. Round the tents young slaves and young noblemen romp
and wrestle together without distinction. We met with many slaves who
were richer than their masters.... Lamas born of slave families become
free in some degree as soon as they enter the sacerdotal life; they are
no longer liable to enforced labour, and can travel without
interference.” He further describes the Mongols in general as a
[351]hardy, laborious, peace-loving people, usually
simple and upright in their dealings, devout and punctual in such
religious faith and observances as they have been taught, caring,
however, little for mental studies, occupied only with their flocks and
herds, and continually overreached by the Chinese in all their dealings
with them.
9. Cîtavana, a
burying-place.—Jülg.
10.
Siddhî-kür, a dead body endowed with supernatural or
magic powers (Siddhi, Sanskr., perfection of power).
11. Mango-tree,
Mangifera indica. Lassen (Indische
Alterthumskunde, i. 276) calls it “the Indians’
favourite tree; their household companion; rejoicing their existence;
the cool and cheerful shade of whose groves embowers their villages,
surrounds their fountains and pools with freshness, and affords
delicious coolness to the Karavan-halt: one of the mightiest of their
kings (Ashôka, 246 B.C.) makes it his
boast (in an Inscription given in “Journal of Asiatic Soc. of
Bengal,” vi. 595) that besides the wide-spreading shade of the
fig-tree he had also planted the leafy mango.” In Sanskrit,
âmra, kűta, rasâla (rich in juice). Crawford
(Ind. Arch. i. 424) says the fruit is called in Sanskrit
mahâphala, “the great fruit,” whence the
Telingu word Mahampala and the Malay Mamplans and
Manga, whence the European Mango. It grows more or less
all over India from Ceylon to the Himâlajas, except perhaps in
the arid north-east highland of the Dekhan, but it reaches its most
luxuriant development in Malabar and over the whole west coast. Besides
its luxuriant shade its blossoms bear the most delicious scent, and its
glorious gold-coloured fruit often attains a pound in weight, though
its quality is much acted upon by site and climate. In Malabar it
ripens in April; in Bengal, in May; in Bhotan, not till August. There
are also many kinds—some affording nourishment to the poorest,
and some appearing only on the tables of the opulent. Bp. Heber
(“Journey,” i. 522) pronounces it the largest of all
fruit-bearing trees. To the high regard in which this tree was held it
is to be ascribed that the story makes the Siddhî-kür prefer
giving himself up to the Khan rather than let it be felled.
12. Gambudvîpa,
native name for India. See infra, Note 6, Tale
XXII., and Note 6 to
“Vikramâditja’s Birth.”
13. Only magic words of no
meaning.
14. The “white
moon,” designated the moon in the waxing quarter; meaning that
the axe had the form of a sickle.—Jülg. [352]
