An Introduction To The Standards of Scriptural Authenticity in Indian Buddhism - Davidson
An Introduction To The Standards of Scriptural Authenticity in Indian Buddhism - Davidson
R O NALD M . DAVID S O N
292
Ronald M. Davidson
Early Saxpgha
Like all such societies of individuals, the early Buddhist brotherhood
developed and was subject to certain kinds of dynamics that became
representative of the manner in which the SaIp.gha addressed itself to
the problem of scriptural transmittal , a concern central to its survival
and expansion . Two modes of these complex dynamics concern us the
most : (1) the formal ways in which scriptural transmission was effected
within communities and between communities, and (2) the attitudes
that evolved in the larger Indian Buddhist community toward the
sources and goals of that transmission .
(1) From the beginning, there were formal factors in the transmission
of the Buddhist dispensation which virtually assured that the early
SaIp.gha would modify the literal content of the sayings of the Buddha. I
will consider two of the most significant : the early denial of a standard
linguistic basis for the recitation of the sayings of the Buddha, and the
ease of scriptural cross-pollination.
That the early SaIp.gha accepted different dialects in the recitation of
the Sutra and the Vinaya is virtually assured . A now very familiar story
tells of two monks requesting the Buddha to allow them to render his
sermons into some formal language (chandas). 1 They were disturbed
that the other members of the community were corrupting the Buddha's
words by rendering them into their own dialects (sakiiya niruttiyii) . The
Buddha forbade the two from doing so , saying that anyone who did
would be committing an infraction and that it was correct for the com
munity to learn his words in their own dialects . The Pali tradition, fol
lowing the opinion of their most respected commentator, Buddhaghosa,
has unilaterally maintained that the Bhagavan was indicating that his
sermons should not be translated into some formal language but
retained in his own dialect, pali. 2 However, the most persuasive posi
tion, set forth with such eloquence by Franklin Edgerton, is that the
Buddha did not speak in one but in many dialects. 3 He undoubtedly tai
lored his language to the area in which he was teaching, and this cir
cumstance may be a basis for the myth that the Buddha was understood
by each listener in his own language . 4 C onversely, the prohibition,
ascribed to the Buddha, against formalizing the dialect of his doctrine
provided the medium for its elaboration in other phonemic and idio
matic constructions , including the eventual " transposition " of the doc
trine into Sanskrit . 5
Over and above this linguistic latitude, the circumstances of the Bud
dha's teaching and the condition of the SaIp.gha during the Buddha's
life must be the focal point for understanding the later elaboration of the
"word of the Buddha. " It seems clear that, as soon as they became
"worthy men" (arhats) , the Buddha sent his disciples out to propagate
293
294
Ronald M. Davidson
factors effecting access to that truth . These two values were probably
the deciding elements in the continuing development of Buddhism in all
its stages, right through that of Vajrayana.
With the parameters of the " doctrine of the teacher" amorphous and
ill-defined, the church elders (sthavira) were compelled to address the
problem of the relationship between the Buddha and the dharma
preached by him. Characteristically, the dharma was defined as that
which was discovered by the Buddha, but it was neither invented by
him, nor indeed was he the first of the buddhas . 8 Therefore , the speech
of the Buddha embodied the dharma, yet the dharma went beyond the
speech of the Buddha. Thus words other than those of the Buddha him
self may accurately represent the dharma. This worked in three ways . 9
First, the dharma could be learned from a disciple's preaching o f the
word of the Buddha. The characteristic introduction to this teaching
would most typically be the phrase (nidiina) that starts the sutras : " Thus
have I heard at one time . . . " (eva1J1 mayii srutam ekasmin samaye), appar
ently intended to reflect the idea that this discourse came from one who
had heard (sravaka) it from the Buddha himself. Second, a person in the
presence of the Buddha could be inspired (pratibhiiti) by the power of the
presence of the Buddha (buddhiinubhiivena) to speak the dharma in his
own words . Usually a sutra spoken thus by a third party concludes with
phrases of approval by the Tathagata. As we shall see , this variety of
sutra was recognized by many of the traditions and was to play a great
part in the development of Indian Buddhism. Finally, the rubric of
dharma was very early extended to the teaching of the immediate disci
ples of the Buddha, the Arya S ravakas , whether or not the presence of
the Buddha inspired their preaching. From them it was extended to oth
ers, and both the Dharmaguptaka and Theravada Vinayas broadened
the list considerably:
That which is called dharma is that spoken by the Buddha, spoken by the
sravakas, spoken by the sages (rei), or spoken by divinities , when significant
(atthiipasa7flhita) and when endowed with doctrinal principle (dhammupa
samhito). lO
295
While the dharma, or more precisely the dharma spoken by the Bud
dha, could define the enlightenment of the Buddha, its primary goal
was to develop the same quality of realization in others . In the Pilii
Nikayas this characteristic of the dharma is called its ability to generate
the fruit of mendicancy (siimaiiiiaphala) and is considered to be unique to
the buddhadharma. 1 2 This characteristic is concomitant with the
unique value of the buddhadharma-the single flavor of liberation :
In that same manner, Pahiiriida, as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of
salt, even thus, Pahiiriida, this Dhammavinaya has one taste, the taste of
final release . 1 3
This unique ability of the dharma was both its ultimate benefit and its
final touchstone . That which does not confer liberation could not be
considered dharma. Therefore the teaching of the Buddha had to be
tested for this unique flavor, a regular theme in Indian Buddhism . Pri
macy is given those who have not merely accepted what the teacher has
said (fraddhiinusiirin) but have explored and continually reexamined the
dharma until they have arrived at certainty of its meaning (dharmiinu
siirin). 1 4 Thus we see that the dharma, as instruction, depends both on
the Buddha for the revelation of its words and phrases as well as on the
bhiku for the testing of its potency. Likewise, when the dharma is
preached by a third person, that person must conform to the dharma if
he is really to be considered a " teacher of dharma." 1 5 In the Mahiivagga,
too, the requisites for one to become an upiidhyiiya, a preceptor, are that
he be possessed of the five aggregates of the dharma: moral conduct ,
concentration, insight, liberation, and the vision of the gnosis of libera
tion . The correct conditions for teaching the dharma must therefore be
met with in the individual bhiku , and this requirement was to be main
tained throughout the course of Buddhism in India. 1 6
The circular dependence o f the dharma a s instruction and the monk
as instructor is ultimately grounded in the nature of reality (dharmatii)
toward which both are oriented, and which in turn is not even depen
dent on the Buddha:
Whether there is the arising of tathiigatas or there is the nonarising of tathii
gatas, this mode (dharmatii) of the elements of existence remains fixed Y
296
Ronald M . Davidson
through time, not only circularity but also a sense of increasing permea
bility between the four conceptual structures mentioned above: the real
ity discovered by the Buddha (dharmatii), his insight into that reality
(praJiiii or Jiiiina) , the words of the Buddha as a expression of that insight
(buddhavacana), and the significant message of the Buddha (dharma) .
For example , the Siilistamba-siitra equates insight toward one of these
with insight toward others :
Whoever, 0 monks , perceives dependent ongmation, he perceives the
dharma. Whoever sees the dharma, sees the Buddha. 1 8
These various factors were therefore seen to overlap one another. Gno
sis or insight developed by a monk through the teaching provided access
both to reality and the Buddha on one hand, and to a position as teacher
on the other.
So far, the extension of authority has been from the word of the mas
ter toward the words of his representatives by means of the dharma.
The Arya S ravakas could speak for the Buddha, either in his own
words , in his presence, or through their own insight . This extended
authority, however, came to work in the reverse direction as well : the
teaching of the sravakas , because it was dharma, could conceivably be
considered the word of the Buddha. This appears to have been a pri
mary mechanism of scriptural and doctrinal elaboration-truth, appli
cable universally and cognizable by the Buddha's lineal successors, may
be assigned to him, though spoken by them, in much the same way that
the truth initially spoken by him was eventually internalized and passed
on by them. Likewise, that which assists in the attainment of the " fruit
of mendicancy" (friima!lyaphala) must, by nature, be dharma. Since he
was omniscient, the Buddha must have had this or that particular doc
trine (method, statement, etc . ) in mind. Elaborating what must have
been the Buddha's idea is merely liberating his intention from the bonds
of extreme literalism (sa'f{ldhinirmocana). 19
In my opinion, these were the maj or attitudinal factors governing the
development of the Indian Buddhist elaboration of the word of the mas
ter. These attitudes served to augment and elaborate the Buddhist oral
tradition in striking contrast with one other major Indian oral lineage
the Vedic. The Vedic sayings , so well preserved for us, were the focus of
almost precisely the opposite orientation toward their preservation .
They enj oyed a very effective series of checks and balances in the man
ner of their several recitations , which ensured little textual variation. It
was the duty of the briihma!las to recite the text exactly as received, and
this precision was ensured by a series of accents and the memorization
of the same text in different sequences. 20 Furthermore, the linguistic
model, as opposed to the content model, was the basis for Vedic recita
tion: as long as correct recitation of the phonemes was maintained, con-
297
2g8
Ronald M. Davidson
299
following the passing of the Buddha, which was later recorded as " the
C ouncil of Rajag:rha. " Now we are on solid ground, since the word for
" council" was sar(lgzti, which indicates recitation, even if Tibetan trans
lators have rendered the term as " collection" (bsdus-pa) in their histories
and translation of the Miilasarviistiviida-vinaya. 2 7
Perhaps the following scenario could be considered the most likely
course of events . After the parinirviirta of the Buddha, the elders of the
Sarpgha found themselves for the first time without the fully awakened
one . During the first rains retreat, the younger monks , many of whom
may never have heard the Buddha preach, wanted further information
about the teaching of the master. The elders , too, doubtless wished to
increase their understanding of the fine points of specific doctrines, and
certainly there would have been a movement to establish the Priitimok!a
so that a uniform recitation of the rules of order could be performed. 28
Thus the first rains retreat became a forum for the discussion and elabo
ration of the legend and doctrine of the Tathagata. Perhaps some rules
of order were brought toward codification , some of the teachings of the
master were recited, and some verses were standardized, but it is highly
unlikely that there was any formal collection or literary distinction of
the various types of the master's teachings .
During the hundred years following that first rains retreat, this same
process must have taken place all over Buddhist India, particularly in
the area of Magadha-the discussion, acceptance, and rejection of
teachings as the word of the Buddha, or perhaps we should say as the
teachings of the teacher, since the terms "word of the Buddha" (bud
dhavacana) and " spoken by the Buddha" (buddhabhii!ita), both indicating
the speech of the Buddha, appear to be later than the terms buddhiinufii
sanam and fiistub fiisanam, meaning the dispensation of the Buddha or the
doctrine of the teacher. 29 Finally, when the legend of the C ouncil of
Rajag:rha became established-perhaps toward the end of the first cen
tury following the parinirviirta-along with it became codified a ritual
exclamation of authenticity by which a teacher or local Sarpgha
declared a certain body of material to be valid: " This is the dharma,
this is the Vinaya, this is the teaching of the teacher" (e!a dharma e!a
vinaya idar(l fiistub fiisanam). C ertain standards of authenticity, however,
had to accompany this phrase , since the natural reaction of one not
accepting this declaration is: how has it been ascertained?
Within the Bhikkhunzkkhandakam of the Cullavagga, a discourse occurs
that appears to show a subsequent phase in the elaboration of this initial
exclamation . 30 Mahapajapati Gotami is depicted as asking the Buddha
to expound a teaching (dhamma) by which she might remain in solitude,
practicing with vigor. The Bhagavan answers that whatever teachings
she might know which lead to dispassion, dissociation from the pas
sions , lack of further accumulation, contentment, satisfaction, seclu-
300
Ronald M. Davidson
sion, the application of effort, and ease of development, but not their
opposites-all those teachings she should unequivocally bear in mind
for " that is the dharma, that is the Vinaya, that is the teaching of the
teacher." 3 1
Such a loose formulation, however, could not satisfy those attempting
to establish critical guIdelines for authenticity within the broad milieu of
the early Buddhist Sarpgha. The guidelines that came to be established
were set in the context of the means by which a monk might receive a
text that others in a tradition claimed to be the teaching of the Buddha.
These circumstances are the well-known four references to authority
(caturmahiipadesa), which have received much attention . 3 2 Four specific
situations were designated as normative in the transmission of the
dharma. A bhiku might claim that certain teachings were the dharma,
the Vinaya, the teaching of the teacher, as they were heard from :
1 . the mouth o f the Buddha,
2 . a Sarpgha of elders ,
3 . a group of bhikus who were
-specialists in the dharma (dharmadhara),
-specialists in the Vinaya (vinayadhara), or
-specialists in the proto- abhidharma lists (miitrkiidhara), or,
4 . a single bhiku who was such a specialist .
The response prescribed for the other monks to these claims is instruc
tive of what must have been going on during the first centuries follow
ing the demise of the Buddha. The following is the manner of approval
for the first of the circumstances j ust listed, as demonstrated in the
Miilasarviistiviida-vinaya:
(24 . 24. 52) Therefore, 0 Ananda, bhikus are to follow the transmitted
discourses (siitriinta) and not to follow individuals .
(27) Moreover, 0 Ananda, a bhiku might come and say,
(28) "Directly from the Bhagavan, this dharma, this Vinaya, this
teaching of the teacher was heard and grasped by me . "
(29) Now, 0 bhikus , that doctrine of his should not be praised o r dis
paraged, but, having heard and grasped its statements and sounds ,
one should see if it conforms to the Siitra and compare it with the
Vinaya. If in doing so,
a. it conforms to the Siitra, and
b. is reflected in the Vinaya, and
c. does not contradict reality (dharmatii),
then let this be said [ to that bhiku ] :
(30) "Truly, 0 Noble One , these dharmas have been spoken by the
Bhagavan . 0 Noble One , these dharmas have been well grasped by
3 01
you . Put against the Sutra and compared with the Vinaya, these
dharmas conform to the Sutra and are reflected in the Vinaya and do
not contradict reality (dharmatii) .
(31) " Therefore, this is dharma; this is Vinaya; this is the teaching of
the teacher. Having comprehended it , let it be carried aloft in the
mind ."33
Much is worthy of note in these " references to authority. " As both
Lamotte and Jaini have observed, the third (c) of the threefold criteria
in (29)-that the teachings not contradict reality (dharmatiiii ca na viloma
yanti)-is absent in the versions found in the Dzgha-nikiiya and the Angut
tara-nikiiya but is found in the extracanonical Nettipakararza of the
Theravadas . 34 Apparently the older form of the criteria stressed the pre
cise textual environment, whereas the MUlasarvastivadas were addi
tionally concerned that nothing pass under the rubric of the " teaching
of the teacher" that contradicted apparent reality. C ertainly the mean
ing of dharmatii in this context does not have the ontological overtones
that its translation by some scholars as " the nature of dharmas" sug
gest. Rather, as Wapola Rahula has shown in his classic article on dhar
matii, the term indicates the "way of things ," the natural progress of the
elements of reality, identified in many contexts as the general formula
tion of dependent origination: this being, that occurs , etc . 35 Its presence
as one of the three criteria of acceptance in the Mulasarviistiviida-vinaya
and other texts indicates both the developing fascination with depen
dent origination and he desire that the Buddha's teaching remain
acceptable to the perceptive observer. Its presence also indicates the
intrusion, for the first time, of a philosophical argument into the criteria
-the other two criteria (a and b in 29) being almost critical in their phi
lological concern for conformity to what we might call " style . " 3 6 Virtu
ally all later textual justifications, particularly those of the Mahayana,
would be conducted on the basis of philosophical argument.
Although these four circumstances-from 1 . the mouth of the Bud
dha, etc . -are known as such in other Sanskrit texts, the Mulasarviis
tiviida-vinaya does not refer to them as the mahiipadefa, the four " refer
ences to authority. " Instead , this Vinaya focuses on the three criteria (a,
b, and c in 29) as demonstrating the way in which the bhiku is to follow
the transmitted discourses (siitriinta) rather than individuals. The Miila
sarvastivada reference here seems to allude to an early development of a
doctrinal structure missing in Theravada texts : the four bases-or " ref
uges" -of comprehension (catu/:tpratisararza). The standard form of
these, as given in other, much later texts, is that one is to have recourse :
i . t o dharma but not t o individuals ,
ii. to the meaning but not to the letter,
3 02
Ronald M. Davidson
iii. to the sutras of definitive meaning (ni:tiirtha) but not to those of provi
sional meaning (neyiirtha), and
iv. to gnosis (Jiiiina) but not to perceptual consciousness (vijiiiina). 3 7
I t appears t o me most likely that the first o f the four rules o f interpreta
tion-i. following dharma and not individuals-came directly out of the
circumstance depicted here : the early Sarpgha's decision to take the
rules of behavior as its primary focus in lieu of any individual . The
Gopakamoggalliina-sutta relates a conversation between Ananda and Vas
sakara, a minister for Ajatasattu, set shortly after the passing of the
Buddha. 38 Vassakara asks Ananda if the Buddha has nominated any
bhikkhu as his successor or if the Sarpgha has appointed any bhikkhu as
its leader in his place . Upon receiving a negative reply to both ques
tions , Vassakara then asks Ananda to explain the cause for the contin
ued unity (samaggiyii) among the members of the Order. Ananda replies
that the basis for this unity is the fact that all take refuge in Dhamma
(dhammappa.tisararta). Asked to elaborate , Ananda identifies this as the
maintenance of the rules of order, the Priitimoka.
Given the orientation toward content and personal validation, it
might be seen as quite remarkable that the thrust of Buddhist monastic
life did not exhibit more vicissitudes than it did. This stability can be
attributed to the continuing concern for the basic rules of order. In a
society like India, where the proclivity of the group is to surround an
individual assuming a position of authority, the cult of personality can
quickly displace all other standards . When the early tradition isolated
the rules of behavior as the center of gravity, it selected group conduct
over individual leadership . All the other criteria reinforce the individu
al's position as a functioning member of a subculture, rather than as a
leader or follower. The model of authority is not the strictly vertical
teacher-disciple relationship so built into the Vedic system of recitation,
however. Instead , the empowerment for decisions was toward a broad
spectrum of the community and was grounded in monastic decorum .
This decorum was to be the backbone of the Buddhist tradition, right
through the period of Vajrayana monasticism .
According to Bareau, the development of the separate canons of the
various sects began immediately following the first council of Patalipu
tra, in the first half of the second century following the Buddha's nir
va.Q.a. 3 9 That canons began to be formed at this time, however, does not
indicate that they were completed or even titled as such . 40 Whenever
the initial formation of the canon, be it only under the general title of
" teaching of the teacher" (fiistu fiisanam), we must concur with Etienne
Lamotte 's assessment that no Buddhist sect, as long as it remained vital
and alive with the inspiration of the teaching, completely closed its
canon . 41 For the duration of a sect' s appearance in Buddhist India, it
3 03
Despite the initial division of the Order following the incident at Patali
putra, the actual differences between the Mahasarpghikas and the
Sthaviravadas were quite negligible . A much more far-reaching change
was quietly taking place among the masters of the miitrkii, the numbered
lists of elements of reality that were initially abstracted from the sutras .
In the oldest forms available to us now-such as the binary (duka) and
ternary (tika) lists at the beginning of the Dhammasatiganz-the lists are
themselves quite innocuous , being little more than mnemonic devices
facilitating the memorization of certain groups of psycho-physical ele
ments . 42 In this capacity, they appear to be developments of an older
form of mnemonic device (uddiina), a list summarizing the content of
this or that section of the Siitra or the Vinaya. The miitrkiis, however,
became the focus of an intense scholastic movement that aspired to
remove any doubt about the functional relation of any element of reality
to any other element, the sutras being neither exhaustive on all points of
doctrine nor written with a clear structural layout . With this in mind,
the Abhidharmika masters wished to construct a " definitive" (liika(lika)
statement about which no doubt could be harbored, since they main
tained that the sutras were " intentional" (iibhipriiyika) in their content,
being spoken by the Buddha for a certain audience in a specific frame of
mind. 43
Having thus exhaustively constructed these pithy phrases, these scho
liasts must certainly have wished to endow the miitrkiis with authority
equal to that of the Siitra and Vinaya, so that the specialists in these
would enjoy the same doctrinal, monastic, and social privilege as the
specialists in the other two literary genres . 44 We have seen, in the con
text of the Miilasarviistiviida-vinaya passage cited above, that the third and
fourth members of the lines of authority ( 3 and 4 ) included those who
were specialists in the numbered lists (miitrkiidhara), but the criteria of
authenticity in (29) only included the Siitra and the Vinaya. For the then
emerging Abhidharma to obtain the same gravity as these two, it had to
be classed as the word of the Buddha. To establish this desideratum, the
differing Abhidharma schools went about the process in their several
ways . We will examine the methods of the two dominant Abhidharma
traditions , those of the Sarvastivadas and of the Theravadas .
It seems that the Sarvastivadas wished to pursue the already well
defined channels of authenticity to legitimatize the seven works of their
Abhidharma-pz:taka as S akyamuni's own statements . To do this they had
to determine that the Buddha preached the system, that it was collected
3 04
Ronald M . Davidson
by someone, and that it was recited at the First C ouncil. To establish the
first two items , they relied on two other circumstances . 45 First, they uti
lized the doctrine that whatever discourse or treatise was approved by
the Buddha became the " doctrine of the teacher" and, by extension, the
word of the Buddha. Second, they used the similarity of names between
Katyayaniputra-the putative author of the Jiiiinaprasthiina, the core of
the Sarviistiviida-abhidharma, composed perhaps in the second century
B . c . E . -and [ Maha] Katyayana, one of the disciples of the Buddha who
was considered to have been present at the First C ouncil . 4 6 Evidently
developing associations already current among his ( or their) predeces
sors, the author( s ) of the Vibhii.sa, a commentary on the Jiiiinaprasthiina,
maintained that Katyayaniputra collected various sayings of the Bud
dha into a volume of Abhidharma that constituted the Jiiiinaprasthiina. 47
This text was then approved by the Tathagata as buddhavacana. The
other six works of the Sarviistiviida-abhidharma-considered by the Sar
vastivadas to be the six limbs (pada) of the Jiiiinaprasthiina-were likewise
collections of the word of the Buddha, arranged systematically. 4 8
Taking another tack, the Theravadas attempted to establish an elabo
rate mythology surrounding the discovery, propagation, and dissemina
tion of their Abhidhamma-pi.taka. First, they tried to show that the Bud
dha' s attainment of awakening (mahiibodhi) involved the realization of
the Abhidhamma. To this end, Buddhaghosa elaborates a scenario in
which the Buddha contemplates the literal contents of the seven works
of the Theraviida-abhidhamma, one book after another. 49 The next diffi
culty was showing that the Buddha had personally preached this mate
rial . Not resorting to the expedient of collection by a disciple , as had the
Sarvastivadas , the Theravadas adapted an old story about the Tatha
gata traveling to the Trayatrirp.sa heaven during a rains retreat to
preach the dharma to his mother, Mahamaya, who had passed away
shortly after the bodhisattva's birth. The story is mentioned in the
Divyiivadiina, without elucidation of the contents of the lecture tour
except to say that he taught dharma. 50 The Theravadas utilized this
popular filial legend as a basis for identifying the first teaching of their
Abhidhamma-pi.taka. There was still the problem of the manner of its
transmission to one of the sravakas, since Mahamaya had remained in
heaven. The story goes that the Buddha, having completed his teaching
in heaven, returned by way of Anavatapta Lake, sometimes located in
the Himalayas , where he taught the entire Abhidhamma to S ariputta, the
most insightful of his disciples . 5 1 During the First C ouncil, the Abhi
dhamma-pitaka was recited by Ananda, and an extemporaneous com
mentary on all seven books was given by Mahakassapa at that time .
This commentary was said to serve as the basis of the orthodox
( Mahavihara) understanding of the Theraviida-abhidhamma. 5 2
The Abhidhamma became so important for the Theravada tradition
3 05
that they based the transmission of their system on those upholding its
study. Buddhaghosa singles out for special mention the obscure passage
in the Mahiivagga where the ability to impart the Abhidhamma-whatever
it means in this early context-is identified as one element in several
lists of requisites to be possessed before a bhikkhu can take part in the
ordination of a new disciple. 53 In the A.t.thasiilini, he further declares that
one preaching the dharma (dhammakathika) is not a true preacher unless
he has intimate knowledge of the Abhidhamma. Otherwise he will confuse
the various kinds of ethical action and their maturation, and will be un
able to discuss correctly the differences between those elements of real
ity which are material (rupa) and those which are not (arupa). 54 Thus
knowledge of the Abhidhamma supplanted a more specifically meditative
orientation, seen in the earlier literature, as the criterion for validation
as a " preacher of Dhamma." To be fair, the Theravadas in all honesty
considered the Abhidhamma to be the supreme statement of all Buddhist
values and the unique means of obtaining stainless insight. Bud
dhaghosa even goes so far as to maintain that one rejecting the
Abhidhamma is guilty of striking a blow against the wheel of the Victor's
doctrine and is culpable of dividing the Sarpgha, one of the sins requir
ing expulsion . 55
Internal inconsistencies in their mythologies did not give either the
Sarvastivadas or the Theravadas pause, for both of them had Ananda
recite their Abhidharmas at the First Council, while neither made much
provision for Ananda to learn the Abhidharma from either Mahakatya
yana or Sariputta. Ananda's name , for example, does not occur in the
formal lineage list given in the A.t.thasiilinz. 56 Nonetheless , in both cases
the apologists were relatively efficient in obtaining their goal: the gen
eral acceptance of Abhidharma as a scriptural member and as the sole
intellectual standard to be met by succeeding developments . Abhidharma
was the first wholly new form of literature to arise in Buddhist India
claiming status as scripture . Its methodologies , both intellectual and
apologetic, were to set much of the stage for the Mahayana.
Mahayana
With the rise of the Mahayana, the field of polemics expanded greatly.
Again, the circumstances governing authenticity were different both
from the early sectarian sutras of the various Nikayas and from the
Abhidharma. Most of the Mahiiyiina-sutras were authored much later than
the previous literature and, particularly as time went on, their content
was decidedly different . The milieu from which they arose has not yet
been defined with sufficient accuracy, and certain theories place exces
sive importance both on the theme of faith and on the laity. These were
important factors , of course, but hardly the exclusive property and pri-
3 06
Ronald M. Davidson
3 07
3 08
Ronald M. Davidson
Dharma. " 7o According to this doctrine, the Buddha first elaborated the
sutras of the S ravakayana at VaraI).asi, in Mrgadava. Elsewhere , he
later taught the doctrine of the lack of intrinsic nature in all elements of
existence (sarvadharmanisvabhiivata) and their emptiness. Finally, he
taught the well-discriminating sutras of definitive significance (nztartha),
which maintain the doctrines espoused by the Yogacara masters . The
Saddharma-pu(l(iarzka, in contrast, could not admit that the Buddha
preached any doctrine at all and declared that all the dharma was spo
ken by means of just a single sound (ekasvara). 7 1 Surpassing even this
point of view, the Tathagataguhyaka-sutra-in its elaboration of the
mythology of the acts of the Buddha-maintained that, from the time of
his enlightenment until his final nirvaI).a, the Tathagata does not preach
even a single word. 72 All the doctrines and all the scriptures simply arise
in the hearing of those around the Buddha, each according to his own
proclivities .
Allied to the mythology of the preaching of the dharma is the problem
of the recitation of the Mahayana scriptures immediately after the
demise of the Buddha. Bhavaviveka, in his Tarkajvala, merely main
tained that the various bodhisattvas severally collected the Mahayana
scriptures . 73 A more pervasive tradition is found in sutra commentaries
ascribed to Vasubandhu and in the Abhisamayalarrzkaraloka of H aribha
dra: VajrapaI).i (Mahavajradhara) recited the Prajnaparamita when the
other bodhisattvas , with M aitreya at their head, inquired about the
sutra. 74 For the A.tasahasrika-Prajnaparamita-sutra, Haribhadra seems to
prefer another view based on the entrusting chapter (parzndana), in
which Ananda is entrusted with the spread of the sutra. 75 He therefore
spoke the " Thus have I heard at one time" formula at the beginning of
the sutra, and it must have been Ananda who collected the sutra. An
objection is raised that Ananda, being a sravaka, could not possibly
have comprehended the deep significance of the sutra, so how could he
have recollected and recited it? In response Haribhadra declares that as
long as the sutra has been accurately heard directly from the Lord just
as he spoke it, there is no fault if it is recited by one who has not totally
realized its contents . Thus it is correct that Ananda and the other srava
kas have recited the Mahayana-sutras, permitted, as they were, by the
Tathagata in the Dharmasarrzgzti-sutra. Finally, it appears that the later
Mahayana tradition took the convenient step of inventing another
council ostensibly coincident with that held at Rajagrha. According to
the Tibetan historians bSod-nams rtse-mo and Bu-ston, some acaryas
claim that, while the sravakas were reciting the Tripztaka at Raj agrha,
one (or goo) million bodhisattvas assembled in the cave Vimala
svabhava (variant : Vimalasarphhava) in the south of India. There,
Maiijusri recited the Mahayana-abhidharma, Maitreya the Mahayana
vinaya, and Vaj rapaI).i the Mahayana-sutras. 7 6
309
310
Ronald M . Davidson
3II
3 12
Ronald M . Davidson
Vajrayana
Very little of the genesis of the elements later known as Mantrayana or
Vajrayana has been adequately explained. Moreover, the extremely
close relationship that this tradition in its maturity had with normative
Mahayana in the monastic setting has been largely ignored . Fortu
nately, David Snellgrove's recent Indo- Tibetan Buddhism has done much
to redress the problem, being the most balanced assessment of the sys
tem in light of the available evidence . 94
Space prevents me from attempting to impart anything more than a
flavor of the Mantrayana legends surrounding the discovery, propaga
tion, and collection of the dharma. This tradition appears to have pur
sued this class of myths almost for its own sake , much as the earlier tra
ditions did with the Jataka and Avadana literature, but for very different
reasons . Still, the legend of the Buddha's enlighteriment most often rec-
3I3
ognized in the literature of the Vajrayana was the story found in the first
chapter of the Sarvatathiigata-tattvasaTflgraha-kalpa. 95 In this text, the
Bodhisattva Sarvarthasiddhi, while attempting to obtain enlighten
ment, was instructed by all the tathagatas and led through the five
stages of realization (pancabhisambodhi), after which he emerged as a fully
enlightened buddha. It is clear from the context and the exegetical
material relating to it that, unlike the discussions addressed above, this
delineation of the process of enlightenment was not intended as a justifi
cation of a certain class of literature, but rather as a model for medita
tion . 96 Thus the stages of his visualization were described in detail, but
the philosophical (darfana) content of his realization has been largely
ignored in the TattvasaTflgraha. This was in effective contrast to the
A,t,thasalin!, where Buddhaghosa had S akyamuni review the contents of
the seven books of the Abhidhamma-pi,taka.
According to the TattvasaTflgraha, Sarviirthasiddhi was given the name
Vajradhatu upon his enlightenment, but many commentators assumed
that this bodhisattva was identical with S akyamuni. S akyamitra, basing
himself on a line occurring toward the end of the TattvasaTflgraha,
assumed that this buddha went through the acts of the Tathagata as the
Buddha S akyamuni shortly after obtaining enlightenment in this man
ner. 97 Others , however, referred to the time period delineated in the
Saddharma-pu'[l(iarzka-sutra and maintained that S akyamuni had been
Sarvarthasiddhi long before . Both factions agreed, though, that be
tween the time of obtaining enlightenment and the demonstration of the
acts of the Buddha under the name of S iikyamuni, this buddha
preached the tantras from the top of Mt . Sumeru . 98 In terms of time,
this means that the tantras were not initially preached by the Buddha
during his lifetime, and there arose discussions as to just when the dif
ferent tantras were initially spoken, and whether or not they passed out
of existence during the interim. For example, the Vajrapa'(lyabhieka-tantra
was putatively spoken first by Mahavairocana in A<;lakavati and later,
after an interval, repeated by S akyamuni, who some considered to be
identical with Mahavairocana. 99 Yet the claim that a specific tantra was
initially spoken by S akyamuni in a prior time did not ensure that he
repeated it later, and *Bhavyakirti was known for maintaining that the
LaghucakrasaTflvara-tantra was never lost after its initial exposition, since it
continued to be utilized by male and female divine meditators (vira/vira)
even during the destruction of the universe between the aeons . 1 00 The
GuhyasamoJa-tantra maintained a different scenario, claiming that it was
always spoken by buddhas but was not preached during the period
between Diparpkara and Kasyapa, since there were no worthy individ
uals living then to receive the tantra. 1 0l This entire line of thought was
really an extension of the doctrine found in some Mahayana-sutras that
the buddhas of the three times always preach this or that individual
3 14
Ronald M . Davidson
sutra. I02 Ultimately, it appears that such discussions relied on the model
of the definition of truth or reality (dharmatii) as existing whether or not
tathagatas arise to discover it. We have seen in the quote from the
Abhidharmadzpa, given in the section on the early Sarpgha above, that the
later Vaibhaikas considered the Tathagata to have discovered state
ments (dharma) which were not of human origin (apaurueya). Here,
too , the Mantrayana must have been making some effort at claiming
that the Buddhist scriptures were as permanent as the Vedas , which
purportedly remain when the world is destroyed.
The story associated with the Tattvasarrtgraha of the tantric preaching
at the peak of Mt . Sumeru was by no means the only legend about the
propagation of Vajrayana circulating in India. One other maj or tradi
tion concerned the mythical sojourn of the Buddha to the land of
U <;l<;liyana at the request of the King Indrabhuti. l o3 According to this
legend, Indrabhuti, upon seeing a group of bhikus flying through
space , inquired of the U<;l<;liyana citizens about the nature of these indi
viduals . Upon learning that they were members of the Buddha's
Sarpgha, he offered a flower in the direction of S ravasti and obtained a
vision of the Buddha and his retinue . Beseeched by Indrabhuti, the
Buddha and his attendants paid a visit to U<;l<;liyana the following day.
The king then requested that the Buddha explain the method for libera
tion from sarpsara, and the Buddha replied that it was necessary to
abandon family life first. Indrabhuti , however, asked the Buddha to
develop a method whereby those addicted to the five sense obj ects might
yet obtain liberation. The Buddha, having taken up residence in the
bhagas-normally meaning " vagina," but made problematic by the plu
ral-of the adamantine women, bestowed on Indrabhuti the proper
consecration (abhieka) and preached to him the tantras . I 04 From
Indrabhuti, the tantras spread through India.
This story was evidently developed by the tradition to unify a number
of dissociated elements : the early presence of dharaI)i practices in
U<;l<;liyana, attested by Hsiian-tsang in the seventh century; the local
traditions concerning the visit of the Buddha to U<;l<;liyana and else
where in the upper Indus drainage; the continued fascination of Indian
storytellers with the figure of Indrabhuti, there being three separate
Indrabhutis by the twelfth century; and the need to incorporate the
erotic imagery of the most commonly found introductory lines (nidiina)
of the tantras into a format to account for the preaching of the tan
tras . I05
The pursuit of legendary embellishment was perhaps done at the
expense of polemics , for I have found no significant polemical argu
ments developed in defense of the Mantrayana in India. This may be
contrasted to Tibet, where the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries saw
both bSod-nams rtse-mo and Bu-ston defending the system with argu-
315
Concluding Remarks
In the above discussion, I have tried to introduce the most pervasive
attitudes and concerns , the dominant standards , and the normative
mythologies of Indian Buddhism toward the development of its scrip
tures . It is clear that, for the majority of Buddhist traditions , scriptural
authenticity was minimally defined as the claim that their materials had
been cognized by the (or a) Buddha, recited or approved by him,
preached to his disciples , and recited by them in a convocation called for
that purpose. The values accepted in the validating process include the
following:
3 16
Ronald M. Davidson
317
NOTES
Due to limitations of space, I have omitted some of the material presented in
the original version of this essay, including several essential proofs , for which I
beg the reader's indulgence .
1. Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar (Delhi : Motilal Banar
sidass, 1972) , 1; Etienne Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, Bibliotheque du
Museon, vol . 43 (Louvain : Universite de Louvain Institut Orientaliste, 1958) ,
610-614; Herman Oldenberg, Vinaya Ptakam (London: Williams and Norgate,
1879) , 2 : 139; Heinz Bechert, ed. , Die Sprache der iiltesten buddhistischen Uberliejerung,
Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, vol. 2 (Gottingen : Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1980), passim.
2. Lamotte, Histoire, pp . 614-617; K. R. Norman, " The Dialects in Which
the Buddha Preached," in Bechert, ed. , Sprache, pp . 75-77; Wilhelm Geiger,
Piili Literatur und Sprache (Strassburg, 1916) , 3-4.
3 Edgerton, Grammar, pp . 2-3
4 . Lamotte, Histoire, pp . 607-610 ; Edgerton, Grammar, p. 3 n . 8 ; Jiryo
Masuda, Origin and Doctrines ofEarly Indian Buddhist Schools (Leipzig: Asia Major
Verlag, 1925) , 19 ; H. Kern and B. Nanjio, eds . , Saddharmapu[t(iartka-sutra, Bib
liotheca Buddhica, vol. 10 (St. Petersburg, 194) , vv. V.17-22 .
3 IB
Ronald M. Davidson
319
3 20
Ronald M . Davidson
321
Buddhist Studies Series, no. 1 (Berkeley : University of C alifornia and the Insti
tute of Buddhist Studies, 1977) , 3-34; Bechert, " Notes on the Formation," pp.
n-I8 ; Paul M. Harrison, " Buddhanusmrti in the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Sarp
mukhavasthita-Samadhi-siitra," Journal of Indian Philosophy 6 (1978) : 35-57;
Fujita Kotatsu, " One Vehicle or Three? " Leon Hurvitz, trans . , Journal of
Indian Philosophy 3 (1975) : 79-166; Luis O . Gomez, " Proto-Madhyamika in the
PaIi C anon, " Philosophy East and West 26 (1976) : 137-165; Gregory Schopen, " The
Phrase 'sa prthivtpradefas caityabhuto bhavet ' in the Vajracchedikii: Notes on the Cult
of the Book in Mahayana," Indo-Iranian Journal 17 (1975) : 147-181; idem,
" Sukhavatl as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahayana Siitra Liter
ature," Indo-IranianJournal 19 (1977) : 177-210 .
58 . Kern and Nanjio, Saddharmapu'(l.{iarlka, pp . 323-326 .
59 . Rhys Davids and Carpenter, Dfghanikiiya, 2 :1-54; E. Waldschmidt,
Mahiivadiina-sutra, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin, 1952 Nr. 8, 1954 Nr. 3 (Berlin : Akademie Verlag, 1953-1956), 2 vols . ;
Arya-Bhadrakalpika-niima-Mahiiyiina-sutra, To . 94, mdo-sde, vol. ka, especially fols .
102a7-287b5. See Yamada, Karu'(l.iipu'(l.{iarlka, 1 : 136-139, 154-159 .
6o . Ryuko Kondo, Dasabhumlsvaro niima Mahiiyiinasutra, Rinsen Buddhist Text
Series II (Kyoto : Ronsen Book C o . , 1983), 178 . 10-189 . 2 ; followed closely by
C andraki'rti in Louis de la Vallee Poussin, ed . , Madhyamakiivatiira par Candraklrti,
Bibliotheca Buddhica, vol. 9 (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences ,
1912) , 349-350 .
61. Etienne Lamotte, La Concentration de La Marche Heroi'que, MCB vol . 12
(Brussels : Institut Belge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1965) , 158 n. 6, 166 n. 125,
258, 265. N alinaksa Dutt, ed. , Paiicavir!datisiihasrikii-Prajiiiipiiramitii, Calcutta
Oriental Series , vol . 28 (Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & C o . , 1934) , 225; Edward
C onze, The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom (London: Luzac & C o . Ltd. , 1961) , 163 .
I assume that the nonrevised version of the PaiicaviT!dati also does not mention
directly the abhieka on the tenth bhumi.
62 . Kondo, Dasabhumlsvaro, pp . 183 . 12-184 . 6 ; Senart, Mahiivastu, 1 : 76 , 124 . Cf.
J . C . Heesterman, The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration (The Hague : Mouton,
1957)
63 . Vaidya, ed . , Ga'(l.{iavyuha, Buddhist Sanskrit Texts , no. 5 (Darbhanga:
Mithila Institute, 1960) , 372, and cf. pp . 74, 409 ; I have found, however, no evi
dence of this in the Mahiivastu or other early works .
64. Gadjin M . Nagao, ed. , Madhyiintavibhiiga-Bhiifya (Tokyo : Suzuki Re
search Foundation, 1964) , 56 (1V. 14 and Bhiifya) ; R. C . Pandeya, ed. , Madhy
iinta- Vibhiiga-Siistra (Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass , 1971) , 140-144; La Vallee Pous
sin, Madhyamakiivatiira, 349 .
65 . Vaidya, ed . , Saddharmalankiivatiira, Buddhist Sanskrit Texts , no . 3 (Dhar
bhanga: Mithila Institute, 1963), 13 , 16, 23, 25, 87, 109 ; Daisetz T. Suzuki, Studies
in the Lankiivatiira Sutra (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd . , 1968) , 375-376 .
66 . To . no , Peking 778 ; Suzuki, ed. , Peking Tibetan Tripi,taka, 29 : 132-157.
67 . Suzuki, ed. , Peking Tibetan TripZiaka, 2 9 : 133 . 2 . 5-6, 135+ 6f. I have not seen
this extraordinary term elsewhere in Mahayana literature .
68 . Lamotte, Le Traite, 1:4, 2 : 940 n. 1. A similar note is struct by Bhavaviveka
in his Tarkajviilii, To . 3856 , sDe-dge bsTan- ' gyur, db U-ma, vol . dza, fol . 166a5-6 ,
but with respect t o the actual collection and recitation .
3 22
Ronald M. Davidson
3 23
3 24
Ronald M . Davidson
Tibetan Successors (Boston : Shambhala, I987) , 2 vols . ; idem, The Hevajra Tantra,
London Oriental Series , vol . 6 (London: Oxford University Press, I976) ,
2 parts.
95. For an introduction into the confusing mass of legendary material sur
rounding the Buddha and his preaching of the tantras according to the standard
divisions of kriya, carya, yoga, and anuttarayoga, see Bu-ston's rGyud sde spyi rnam
rgyas pa rGyud sde rin po che 'i mdzes rgyan, in Chandra, ed. , Collected Works of Bu
ston, vol . I5, pp . I28ff. The most useful text of the TattvasaTfigraha is that prepared
by Isshi Yamada, Sarva-tathiigata-tattva-saTfigraha niima Mahiiyiina-sutra, S ata
pijaka Series, vol. 262 (New Delhi : Sharada Rani, I98I) . Complementary are
Snellgrove's very informative " Introduction" and the facsimile reproduction of
the ms. in Lokesh Chandra and David L. Snellgrove , Sarva-tathiigata-tattva-sari
graha-Facsimile Reproduction of a Tenth Century Sanskrit Manuscript from Nepal,
S ata-pijaka Series , vol . 269 (New Delhi : Sharada Rani, I98I) .
96 . See Ronald M . Davidson, " The Litany of Names of Maiijufrz-Text and
Translation of the MaiijufrzniimasaTflgzti, " Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 20
(Melanges Rolf Stein) (I982) : I-69, esp . 2-4 ; Yamada, Tattva-saTfigraha, pp . 7-IO ;
Chandra and Snellgrove, Sarva-tathiigata, pp . I5-I6; Ferdinand D . Lessing and
Alex Waymen, Mkhas Grub Rje 's Fundamentals of the Buddhist Tantras, Indo
Iranian Monographs, vol . S (The Hague : Mouton, I968) , 24-35.
97 . Quoted in bSod-nams rtse-mo's rGyud sde spyi 'i rnam par gzhag pa, in Bsod
Nams Rgya Mtsho , ed. , Complete Works of the Great Masters, 2 : 20 . 4 . 6-21 . 1 . 1 . See
Yamada, TattvasaTfigraha, p. 556 .
9 8 . Yamada, TattvasaTfigraha, p . 556 ; bSod-nams rtse-mo, rGyud sde spyi'i rnam
par gzhag pa, p. 23 . 3 . I-2. Note that bSod-nams rtse-mo only agrees that this is
true for the yoga-tantras, of which the TattvasaTfigraha is one of the chief represen
tatives .
99. bSod-nams rtse-mo, rGyud sde spyi 'i rnam par gzhag pa, pp . 26 . 2 . 6-28 1 . 3 .
IOO . Ibid . , p . 26 .4 .1.
IOI. Yukei Matsunaga, The Guhyasami{ja Tantra (Osaka: Toho Shuppan, Inc . ,
I978) , I09 3-7
I02 . See, e . g. , Kern and Nanjio, Saddharma-pu,(!(iarZka, pp . I7-22 . C f. David
son, "Litany ofNames, " p. I4 [NiimasaTflgzti I4] .
I03 . bSod-nams rtse-mo lists the gSang ba 'i sgron ma zhes bya ba rnal 'byor ma 'i
rgyud as his canonical source, in rGyud sde spyi 'i rnam par gzhag pa, pp. 27.1. 2-2 . 3 ,
28 . 3 . 6-29 . 3 . 3 .
I04 . Chintaharan Chakravarti, ed. , Guhyasamajatantra-Pradzpodyotana.tzkii-$a.t
ko.tivyiikhyii (Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, I984) , I2-I6; Snellgrove ,
Hevajra Tantra, pt. 2 , p . I03 .
I05 . Beal , Records of the Western Countries, I : II9-I24; three Indrabhutis are men
tioned in the sLob dpon mtsho skyes kyi 10 rgyus of Sa-chen Kun-dga' snying-po,
found in Bsod Nams Rgya Mtsho, ed . , Complete Works of the Great Masters, I :
381 . 1 . 4 .
I06 . Chandra, ed. , Collected Works of Bu-ston, I5= I06.5-I27- 7 ; Bsod Nams Rgya
Mtsho, ed. , Complete Works of the Great Masters, 2 : 9 . I . 2-I4 . I . I .
I07 To . 370S ; Peking 453I, vol . 8 I , pp . II9 . 3 . 6-I25 . 2 . I .
IOS . Tarkajviilii, To . 3856 , fols . I83aff. ; I wish t o thank Matthew Kapstein for
drawing my attention to this section .
325
109 . A verse ascribed to the Vajrafekhara (To . 480) is quoted in 'Jam dbyang
bLo-gter dbang-po's gSung ngag rin po che lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa ngor lugs thun
min slob bshad dang/ thun mong tshogs bshad tha dad kyi smin grolyan lag dang bcas pa 'i
brgyudyig gser gyi phreng ba byin zab 'od brgya 'bar ba, fo1. 3gar :
s o SOT thar dang byang chub sems
rig 'dzin sngags kyi sdom pa '0 II