Etymologically, the Sanskrit/Pali word Buddha means “one who has awakened"; in the context of Indian religions it is used as an honorific title for an individual who is enlightened. This metaphor indicates the change in consciousness that, according to Buddhism, is always characteristic of enlightenment. It suggests the otherness and splendor associated with those named by this epithet in various Buddhist traditions. Buddha is also related etymologically to the Sanskrit/Pali term buddhi, which signifies “intelligence” and “understanding.” A person who has awakened can thus be said to be “one who knows.”
Within the traditional Buddhist context Buddha is an appellative term or title-that is, a term or title that is inclusive in character. As with all titles of office (e.g., king), the term Buddha denotes not merely the individual incumbent but also a larger conceptual framework. As an appellative, Buddha describes a person by placing him or her within a class, instead of isolating and analyzing individual attributes. It emphasizes the paradigm that is exhibited, rather than distinctive qualities or characteristics.
The designation Buddha has had wide circulation among various religious traditions of India. It has been applied, for example, by Jains to their founder, Mahavira. The definition of the inclusive category has varied, however, and Buddha has been used to describe a broad spectrum of persons, from those who are simply learned to those rare individuals who have had transforming and liberating insight into the nature of reality. Buddhists have, in general, employed the term in this second, stronger sense.
Buddhists adopted the term Buddha from the religious discourse of ancient India and gave it a special imprint, just as they have done with much of their vocabulary. It seems, however, that the early Buddhists may not have immediately applied the term to the person-the historical Gautama-whom they recognized as the founder of their community. In the accounts of the first two Buddhist councils (one held just after Gautama’s death, the other several decades later) Gautama is spoken of as bhagavan (“lord,” a common title of respect) and sastr (“teacher”), not as Buddha. However, once the term Buddha was adopted, it not only became the primary designation for Gautama but also assumed a central role within the basic structure of Buddhist thought and practice.
We will begin our discussion by focusing on the question of the historical Buddha and what-if anything-we know about him and his ministry. This issue has not been of particular importance for traditional Buddhists-at least not in the way that it is formulated here. But it has been of major significance for modern scholars of Buddhism, and it has become of great interest to many contemporary Buddhists and others who have been influenced by modern Western notions of history.
We will then turn to the term Buddha as it has been employed within the various traditions that constitute classical Buddhism. As an appellative term utilized in classical Buddhist contexts, Buddha has had three distinct, yet interwoven, levels of meaning. It has referred, first of all, to what we will call “the Buddha”-otherwise known as the Gautama Buddha or the Buddha Sakyamuni (“sage of the Sakyas”). Most Buddhists recognize Gautama as the Buddha of our own cosmic era and/or cosmic space, and they honor him as the founder of the existing Buddhist community. As a perfectly enlightened being, Gautama is understood to have perfected various virtues (paramitas) over the course of numerous lives. These prodigious efforts prepared Gautama to awake fully to the true nature of reality just as other Buddhas had awakened before him. The preparation also gave him-as it did other Buddhas-the inclination and ability to share with others what he had discovered for himself. Following his Enlightenment, Gautama became a teacher who “set in motion the wheel of Dharma” and oversaw the founding of the Buddhist community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen.
The second level of meaning associated with Buddha as an appellative term has to do with “other Buddhas.” Many Buddhas of different times and places are named in Buddhist literature. Moreover, anyone who attains release (moksa, nirvana) from this world of recurring rebirths (samsara) can be called-in some contexts at least-a Buddha. Buddhas, then, are potentially as “innumerable as the sands of the River Ganges.” But all Buddhas are not equal: they process different capabilities according to their aspirations and accomplishments. The enlightened insight of some is greater than that of others. Some attain enlightenment only for themselves (e.g., pratyekabuddha), others for the benefit and welfare of many (e.g., samyaksambuddha). Some accomplish their mission through earthly careers, others through the creation of celestial Buddha fields into which their devotees seek rebirth.
Finally, the term Buddha as an appellative has a third level of meaning that we will designate as Buddhahood-a level that provides its widest conceptual context. This level is constituted by the recognition that the Buddha and other Buddhas are, in a very profound sense, identical with ultimate reality itself. Consequently, Buddhists have given the more personal and active connotations associated with the Buddha and other Buddhas to their characterizations of absolute reality as dharma (salvific truth), sunyata (“emptiness”), tathata (“suchness”), and the like. At the same time, the term Buddhahood has on occasion given a somewhat depersonalized cast to the notions of the Buddha and other Buddhas. For example, early Buddhists, who were closet to the historical Buddha, were reluctant to depict Gautama in anthropomorphic forms and seem to have intentionally avoided biographical structures and iconic imagery. They used impersonal and symbolic representation to express their perception that the Buddha whose teachings they had preserved was fully homologous with reality itself. In some later traditions the pervading significance of this third level of meaning was expressed through the affirmation that the Buddha’s impersonal and ineffable dharmakaya (“dharma body”) was the source and truth of the other, more personalized manifestations of Buddhahood.
THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
The scholars who inaugurated the critical study of
Buddhism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were deeply
concerned with the question of the “historical Buddha.” But their views on the
subject differed radically. The field was largely divided between a group of
myth-oriented scholars, such as Emile Senart, Heinrich Kern, and Ananda
Coomaraswamy, and a group of more historically oriented philologists, such as
Hermann Oldenberg and T. W. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids. The myth-oriented
interpreters placed emphasis on the study of Sanskrit sources and on the
importance of those elements in the sacred biography that pointed in the
direction of solar mythology; for these scholars, the historical Buddha was, at
most, a reformer who provided an occasion for historicizing a classic solar
myth. In contrast, the historically oriented philologists emphasized the texts
written in Pali, as well as those elements in these texts that they could used
to create (or reconstruct in their view) an acceptable “historical” life of the
Buddha. From the perspective of these scholars, the mythic elements-and other
supposedly irrational elements as well-were later additions to a true
historical memory, additions that brought about the demise of the original
Buddhism of the Buddha. Such pious frauds were to be identified and discounted
by critical scholarship.
More recently, scholars have
recognized the inadequacy of the older mythic and historical approaches. Most
scholars working in the field at present are convinced of the existence of the
historical Gautama. The general consensus was well expressed by the great
Belgian Buddhologist Etienne Lamotte, who noted that “Buddhism would remain
inexplicable if one did not place at its beginning a strong personality who was
its founder” (Lamotte, 1958, p.707). But at the same time scholars are aware
that the available tests provide little information about the details of
Gautama’s life.
The difficulties involved in saying
anything significant about the historical Buddha are illustrated by the lack of
certainty concerning the dates of his birth and death. Since different Buddhist
traditions recognize different dates, and since external evidence is slight and
inconclusive, scholars have ventured diverging opinions.
Two chronologies found in
Buddhist texts are important for any attempt to calculate the date of the
historical Buddha. A “long chronology,” presented in the Sri Lankan chronicles,
the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa, places the birth of the historical Buddha 298
years before the coronation of King Asoka, his death 218 years before that
event. If we accept the date given in the chronicles for the coronation of
Asoka (326 BCE), that would locate the Buddha’s birth date in 624 BCE and his
death in 544. These dates have been traditionally accepted in Sri Lanka and
Southeast Asia and were the basis for the celebration of the 2500th
anniversary of the Buddha’s death, or parinirvana, in 1956. However, most
modern scholars who accept the long chronology believe, on the basis of Greek
evidence, that Asoka’s coronation took place around 268 or 267 BCE and that the
Buddha’s birth and death should therefore be dated circa 566 and circa 486,
respectively. These later dates are favored by the majority of Buddhologists in
Europe, America, and India.
A “short chronology” is attested
to by Indian sources and their Chinese and Tibetan translations. These sources
place the birth of the Buddha 180 years before the coronation of Asoka and his
death 100 years before that event. If the presumably reliable Greek testimony
concerning Asoka coronation is applied, the birth date of the Buddha is 448 and
the date of his death, or parinirvana, is 368. This short chronology is
accepted by many Japanese Buddhologists and was spiritedly defended by the
German scholar Heinz Bechert in 1982.
Although there seems to be little
chance of resolving the long chronology/short chronology question in any kind
of definitive manner, we can say with some certainty that the historical Buddha
lived sometime during the period from the sixth through the fourth centuries
BCE. This was a time of radical thought and speculation, as manifested in the
pre-Socratic philosophical tradition and the mystery cults in Greece, the
prophets and prophetic schools of the Near East, Confucius and Lao-tzu in
China, the Upanisadic sages and the communities of ascetic wanderers (sramanas)
in India, and the emergence of “founded” religions such as Jainism and
Buddhism. These intellectual and religious movements were fostered by the
formation of cosmopolitan empires, such as those associated with Alexander in
the Hellenistic world, with the Ch’in and Han dynasties in China, with Darius
and Cyrus in Persia, and the Maurya dynasty in India. Urban centers were
established and soon became the focal points around which a new kind of life
was organized. A significant number of people, cut off from the old sources of
order and meaning, were open to different ways of expressing their religious
concerns and were quite ready to support those engaged in new forms of
religious and intellectual endeavor.
The historical Buddha responded
to this kind of situation in northeastern India. He was a renouncer and an
ascetic, although the style of renunciation and asceticism he practiced and
recommended was, it seems, mild by Indian standards. He shared with other renunciants an ultimately
somber view of the world and its pleasures, and he practiced and recommended a
mode of religious life in which individual participation in a specifically
religious community was of primary importance. He experimented with the
practices of renunciants-begging, wandering, celibacy, techniques of
self-restraint (yoga), and the like-and he organized a community in which
discipline played a central role. Judging from the movement he inspired, he was
not only an innovator but also a charismatic personality. Through the course of
his ministry he gathered around him a group of wandering mendicants and nuns,
as well as men and women who continued to live the life of householders.
Can we go beyond this very
generalized portrait of the historical Buddha toward a fuller biography?
Lamotte has advised caution, observing in his Histoire that writing the life of
historical Gautama is “a hopeless enterprise.” There are, however, a few
details that, though they do not add up to a biography, do suggest that there
is a historical core to the later biographical traditions. These details are
presented in almost identical form in the literature of diverse Buddhist
schools, a reasonable indication that they date from before the fourth to third
centuries BCE, when independent and separate traditions first began to develop.
Some of these details are so
specific and arbitrary or unexpected that it seems unlikely that they were
fabricated. These included the details that Gautama was of the ksatriya caste,
that he was born in the Sakya clan (a more distinguished pedigree could have
been created), that he was married and had a child, that he entered the ascetic
life without the permission of his father, that his first attempts to share the
insights that he had gained through his Enlightenment met with failure, that
his leadership of the community he had established was seriously challenged by
his more ascetically inclined cousin, and that he died in a remote place after
eating a tainted meal. But these details are so few and disconnected that our
knowledge of the historical Buddha remains shadowy and unsatisfying. In order
to identify a more meaningful image of Gautama and his career we must turn to
the Buddha who is explicitly affirmed in the memory and practice of the
Buddhist community.
The Buddha
The
general history of religions strongly suggests that the death of a
founder results in the loss of a charismatic focus. This loss must be
dealt with if the founded group is to survive. In his classic article
“Master and Disciple: Two Religio-Sociological Studies,” Joachim Wach
suggests that “the image” of the beloved founder could produce a unity
sufficient for the group to continue (Journal of Religion 42, 1962,
p.5).
Each
founded religion has developed original ways of preserving the image of
their master: Christians with the Gospels and later artistic
expressions, Muslims with badith and Miraj stories of Muhammad’s
journeys to heaven, and so on. Buddhists it seems, have addressed this
crisis with the assumption-explicitly stated in the words of a
fifth-century CE
Mahayana text known as the Saptasatika-prajnapara-mita – that “a Buddha
is not easily made known by words” (Rome, 1923, p.126). This
recognition has not proved to be a restraint but has instead inspired
Buddhists to preserve the image of Gautama through the creation and
explication of epithets, through a variety of “biographical” accounts,
and through a tradition of visual representation in monumental
architecture and art. The image of the founder became, in Joachim
Wach’s phrase, “an objective center of crystalization” for a variety of
opinions concerning the nature and significance of his person.
The
creative preservation of the image of the Buddha was closely related to
evolving patterns of worship-including pilgrimage, contemplation, and
ritual-in the Buddhist community. This reminds us that the various ways
of portraying the Buddha are the result of innumerable personal efforts
to discern him with immediacy, as well as the product of the desire to
preserve and share that image.
Epithets
Certainly one of the earliest and most ubiquitous forms in which Buddhist have expressed and generated their image of Gautama Buddha was through the medium of epithets. For example, in the Majjhima Nikaya (London, 1948, vol. 1, p.386), a householder named Upali, after becoming the Buddha’s follower, acclaims him with one hundred epithets. The Sanskrit version of this text adds that Upali spoke these epithets spontaneously, as an expression of his faith and respect. Over the centuries the enumerations of these and other epithets focused on the extraordinary aspects of the Buddha’s person, on his marvelous nature. In so doing they became a foundation for Buddhist devotional literature, their enunciation a support of devotional and contemplative practice.
Countless epithets have been applied to the Buddha over the centuries, but Buddha itself has been a particular favorite for explanation. Even hearing the word Buddha can cause people to rejoice because, as the Theravada commentary on the Samyutta Nikaya says, “It is very rare indeed to hear the word Buddha in this world” (London, 1929, vol. 1, p.312). The Patisambhida, a late addition to the Theravada canon, explored the significance of the word Buddha by saying that “it is a name derived from the final liberation of the Enlightened Ones, the Blessed Ones, together with the omniscient knowledge at the root of the Enlightenment Tree; this name “Buddha” is a designation based on realization” (The Path of Purification, translated by Nyanamoli, Colombo, 1964, p.213). Sun Ch’o, a fourth-century Chinese writer, explicated the Buddha epithet in a rather different mode, reminiscent of a Taoist sage: “’Buddha’ means ‘one who embodies the Way’…It is the one who reacts to the stimuli (of the world) in all pervading accordance (with the needs of all beings); the one who abstains from activity and who is yet universally active” (quoted in Erik Zurcher’s The Buddhist Conquest of China, Leiden, 1959, p. 133).
Particular epithets accentuate specific qualities of the Buddha that might otherwise remain unemphasized or ambiguous. Thus the epithet “teacher of gods and men” (satthar devamanussanam) is used in the Mahaniddesa, another late canonical text in the Theravada tradition, to display the Buddha as one who helps other escape from suffering. The techniques used-exploiting ordinary polysemy and puns and deriving elaborate etymologies-are favorites of Buddhist commentators for exposing the significance of an epithet.
He teaches by means of the here and now, of the life to come, and of the ultimate goal, according as befits the case, thus he is Teacher (satthar).
“Teacher (satthar)”: the Blessed One is a caravan leader (satthar) since he brings home caravans. Just as one who brings a caravan home gets caravans across a wilderness….gets them to reach a land of safety, so too the Blessed One is a caravan leader, one who brings home the caravans; he gets them across….the wilderness of birth. (Nyanamoli, p. 223).
Some of the epithets of the Buddha refer to his lineage and name: for example, Sakyamuni; “sage of the Sakya tribe,” and his personal name, Siddhartha, “he whose aims are fulfilled.” Some refer to religio-mythic paradigms with which he was identified: mahapurusa means “great cosmic person”; cakravartin refers to the “universal monarch.” The possessor of the seven jewels of sovereignty who sets in motion the wheel of righteous rule, some-such as bhagavan-convey a sense of beneficent lordship. Others-such as tathagata (“thus come,” or “thus gone”)-retain, at least in retrospect, an aura of august ambiguity and mystery.
Various epithets define the Buddha as having attained perfection in all domains. His wisdom is perfect, as are his physical form and manner. In some cases the epithets indicate that the Buddha is without equal, that he has attained “the summit of the world.” Andre Bareau concluded his study “The Superhuman Personality of the Buddha and its Symbolism in the Mahaparinirvanasutra,” which is largely an examination of the epithets in his important text, by stating that through these epithets the authors “began to conceive the transcendence of the Buddha….Perfect in all points, superior through distance from all beings, unique, the Beatific had evidently taken, in the thought of his followers, the place which the devotees of the great religions attributed to the great God whom they adored” (Myths and Symbols, edited by Charles H. Long and Joseph M. Kitagawa, Chicago, 1969, pp. 19-20).
The epithets of the Buddha, in addition to having a central place in Buddhist devotion are featured in the buddhanusmrti meditation-the “recollection of the Buddha.” This form of meditation, like all Buddhist meditational practices, had as its aim the discipline and purification of the mind; but, in addition, it was a technique of visualization, a way of recovering the image of the founder. This practice of visualization by contemplation on the epithets is important in the Theravada tradition, both monastic and lay, and it was also very popular in the Sarvastivada communities in northwestern India and influential in various Mahayana traditions in China. It was instrumental in the development of the Mahayana notion of the “three bodies” (trikaya) of the Buddha, particularly the second, or visualized, body that was known as his Sambhogakya (“body of enjoyment”).
Buddhas of the Past and Future
Quite early, Gautama is perceived as one of several Buddhas in a series that began in the distant past. In the early canonical literature, the series of previous Buddhas sometimes appears as a practically anonymous group, deriving probably from the recognition that Gautama could not have been alone in achieving enlightenment. It is thus not surprising that in texts such as the Samyutta Nikaya the interest in these previous Buddhas focuses on their thoughts at the time of enlightenment, thoughts that are identical with those attributed to Gautama when he achieved the same experience.
The most important early text on previous Buddhas is the Mahavadana Sutta, which refers to six Buddhas who had appeared prior to Gautama. This text implicitly contains the earliest coordinated biography of the Buddha, for it describes the pattern to which the lives of all Buddhas conform. Thus, describing the life of a Buddha named Vipasyin, Gautama narrates that he was born into a royal family, that he was raised in luxury, that he was later confronted with the realities of sickness, aging, and death while visiting a park, and that he subsequently took up the life of a wandering mendicant. After Vipasyin realized the truth for himself, he established a monastic order and taught what he had discovered to others. In the narratives of the other Buddhas, some details vary; but in every instance they are said to have discovered and taught the same eternal truth.
There is clear evidence that Buddhas who were thought to have lived prior to Gautama were worshiped in India at least from the time of Asoka through the period of Buddhist decline. In the inscription, Asoka states that he had doubled the size of the stupa associated with the Buddha konakamana, who had lived earlier than Gautama and was his immediate predecessor. During the first millennium of the common era, successive Chinese pilgrims recorded visits to Indian monuments dedicated to former Buddhas, many of them attributed to the pious construction activities of Asoka.
The Buddhavamsa (Lineage of the Buddhas), which is a late text within the Pali canon, narrates the lives of twenty-four previous Buddhas in almost identical terms. It may be that the number twenty-four was borrowed from Jainism which has a lineage of twenty-four tirthamkaras that culminates in the figure of the founder, Mahavira. The Buddhavamsa also embellished the idea of a connection between Gautama Buddha and the lineage of previous Buddhas. It contains the story that later came to provide the starting point for the classic Theravada biography of Gautama-the story in which the future Gautama Buddha, in his earlier birth as Sumedha, meets the previous Buddha Dipamkara and vows to undertake the great exertions necessary to attain Buddhahood for himself.
According to conceptions that are closely interwoven with notions concerning previous Buddhas, the appearance of a Buddha in this world is determined not only by his own spiritual efforts but also by other circumstances. There can only be one Buddha in a particular world at a given time, and no Buddha can arise until the teachings of the previous Buddha have completely disappeared. There are also cosmological considerations. A Buddha is not born in the beginning of a cosmic aeon (kalpa) when human beings are so well off and live so long that they do not fear sickness, aging, and death; such people, like the gods and other superhuman beings, would be incapable of insight into the pervasiveness of suffering and the impermanence of all things and therefore would not be prepared to receive a Buddha’s message. Furthermore, Buddhas are born only in the continent of Jambudvipa (roughly equivalent to India) and only to priestly (brahmana) or noble (ksatriya) families.
The idea of a chronological series of previous Buddhas, which was prominent primarily in the Hinayana traditions, accentuates the significance of Gautama by designating him as the teacher for our age and by providing him with a spiritual lineage that authenticates his message. This idea also provides a basis for hope because it suggests that even if the force of Gautama’s person and message has begun to fade, there remains the possibility that other Buddhas are yet to come.
The belief in a future Buddha also originated in the Hinayana tradition and has played an important role in various Hinayana schools, including the Theravada. The name of this next Buddha is Maitreya (“the friendly one”), and he seems to have come into prominence in the period after the reign of King Asoka. (Technically, of course, Maitreya is a Bodhisattva-one who is on the path to Buddhahood-rather than a Buddha in the full sense. However, the degree to which the attention of Buddhists has been focused on the role that he will play when he becomes a Buddha justifies consideration of him in the present context).
According to the Maitreyan mythology that has
been diffused throughout the entire Buddhist world, the future Buddha, who was
one of Gautama Buddha’s disciples, now dwells in Tusita Heaven, awaiting the
appropriate moment to be reborn on earth, where he will inaugurate an era of
peace, prosperity, and salvation. As the Buddha of the future, Maitreya assumed
many diverse roles. Among other things he became an object of worship, a focus
of aspiration, and a center of religio-political interest both as a legitimator
of royalty and as a rallying point for rebellion.
The wish to be reborn in the presence of Maitreya, whether in Tusita Heaven or when he is reborn among humans, has been a sustaining hope of many Buddhists in the past, and it persists among Theravadins even today. The comtemplation and recitation of the name Maitreya inspired devotional cults in north western India, Central Asia, and China, especially between the fourth and seventh centuries CE. But in East Asia his devotional cult was superseded by that dedicated to Amitabha, a Buddha now existing in another cosmic world.
Living Buddhas
In addition to the Buddha, pratyekabuddhas, previous Buddhas, the future Buddha, celestial Buddhas, and cosmic Buddhas, still another kind of Buddha was recognized by some Buddhists-what we shall call a “living Buddha”. Living Buddhas are persons in this world who have, in one way or another, achieved the status of a fully enlightened and compassionate being. In some cases these living Buddhas have attained Buddhahood through various, usually Esoteric, forms of practice; in others they are incarnations of a Buddha, ordinarily a celestial Buddha, already included in the established pantheon. The presence of living Buddhas tends, of course, to diminish to a new degree the significance of Gautama Buddha (except in rare cases where it is he who reappears). However, their presence also reiterates with new force two characteristic Mahayana-Vajrayana emphases: that the message of the Buddhas continues to be efficaciously available in the world and that the community still has direct access to the kind of assistance that only a Buddha can provide.
Like the notions of previous Buddhas and the Buddhas of other worlds, the concept of living Buddhas began to be elaborated in a context in which a new kind of teaching and practice was being introduced. In this case the new teaching and practice was Esoteric in character and was focused on ritual activities that promised to provide a “fast path” to Buddhahood. Thus the new kind of Buddha - the living Buddha – was both a product of the new movement and a mode of authenticating it. The analogy between the earlier development of the notion of celestial Buddhas and the later development of the notion of living Buddhas can be carried further. Just as only a few celestial Buddhas received their own individual mythology, iconography, and devotional attention, so too a limited number of living Buddhas were similarly singled out. It is not surprising that many of these especially recognized and venerated living Buddhas were figures who initiated new strands of tradition by introducing practices, revealing hidden texts, converting new peoples, and the like. A classic example of a living Buddha in the Tibetan tradition is Padmasambhava, the famous missionary from India who is credited with subduing the demons in Tibet, converting the people to the Buddhist cause, and founding the Rnin-ma-pa order. An example of the same type of figure in Japan is Kukai, the founder of the Esoteric Shingon tradition, who has traditionally been venerated both as master and as savior.
The notion of living Buddhas as incarnations of celestial Buddhas also came to the fore with the rise of Esoteric Buddhism. In this case there seems to have been as especially close connection with Buddhist conceptions of kingship and rule. In both the Hinayana and Mahayana contexts, the notion of the king as a bodhisattva, or future Buddha, was ancient, in the case of the rather common royal identifications with Maitreya, the distinction between the king as an incarnation of the celestial bodhisattva and the king as a living Buddha had been very fluid. With the rise of the Esoteric Buddhist traditions a further step was taken. Thus, after the Esoteric tradition had been firmly established in the Khmer (Cambodian) capital of Angkor, the king came to be explicitly recognized and venerated as Bhaisajyaguru, Master of Medicine. Somewhat later in Tibet, the Panchen Lamas, who have traditionally had both royal and monastic functions, were identified as successive incarnations of the Buddha Amitabha.
Source : Buddhism and Asian History by Joseph M. Kitagawa and Mark D. Cummings
Recent Comments