文殊师利与神圣菩萨崇拜

Manjusri and the Cult of the Celestial Bodhisattvas[1]
Paul M. Harrison
Associate Professor, University of Canterbury
Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal
No. 13.2 (May 2000)
pp.157-193
Copyright 2000 The Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies

p.157

Summary
　　While it is clear that the bodhisattva ideal lies at the very heart of Mahaayaana Buddhist doctrine and practice, in many respects its historical development remains obscure.　In an attempt to shed some light on this, the following paper examines the notion of the “celestial bodhisattva.” Although this notion enjoys a wide currency in contemporary Buddhist scholarship, it is appropriate to ask whether it is at all useful, or indeed meaningful, and whether it corresponds to any indigenous Buddhist category.　Focusing on the first Mahaayaana suutras translated into Chinese by the Indo-Scythian Lokak.sema in the late 2nd century C.E., the paper explores the details of their portrayal of Ma~nju`srii, who may be regarded as a paradigmatic case of a so-called celestial bodhisattva.　It turns out that in these texts Ma~nju`srii plays a very important part, while Avalokite`svara is a comparative non-entity.　Using Ma~nju`srii as a test case, the paper concludes that the concept of the “celestial bodhisattva” is not a useful one, and has no clear indigenous

p.158

referent.　It also offers some general hypotheses about the early history of the bodhisattva ideal, and about the cult of the great bodhisattvas, which appears on the basis of the evidence reviewed here to have been a later and secondary development.

Key words: 1. Ma~nju`srii 2. Celestial Bodhisattva 3. Mahaayaana 4. Lokak.sema

p.159

　　Even Buddhist Studies, once characterized by Richard Gombrich as an intellectual backwater,[2]　occasionally has its surface ruffled by the winds of academic fashion.　Indeed, looking at recent issues of the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies──in particular Vol. 18, No. 2, 1995──or Donald Lopez’s Curators of the Buddha (1995), we can see that the storm of post-modernism has well and truly broken over it, lashing the established notions and the master narratives of the past with its rhetorical blasts and exposing their structural inadequacies to the elements.　Of course this drama of deconstruction──to switch metaphors midstream──has been staged whenever a new generation of scholars has succeeded the generation who trained it, with the usual predictable Oedipal turns of plot, but nowadays the cast tends to be tricked out in much fancier theoretical costume, and the chorus is French rather than Greek.　Thus Buddhist scholars, like their counterparts in other fields, have been called upon to rethink their perverse attachment to textual sources, their mistaken belief in objectivity, their compromised status as outsiders (or as insiders, when occasion arises), their suspect political motivations, and sundry other factors that supposedly render their enterprise less than straightforward.　Even those unrepentant traditionalists like myself who go on doing what they have always done, do so with more than sideways glance at this feast of self-reflexivity, and they too are caught up in the constant revision of the field and its categories.　After all, it does sometimes happen that the winds of change──to revert to the original metaphor──bring improvement, especially when they blow in less theoretical and more substantive directions.

　　One aspect of Buddhist Studies of which this is demonstrably true is the history──especially the early history──of Mahaayaana Buddhism.　The well-entrenched theories of the great masters like

p.160

Akira Hirakawa and Utienne Lamotte are now being subjected to a searching and extensive critique by contemporary Buddhist scholars, and although one can hardly speak of a new consensus taking shape, it is at least clear that certain features of the old picture are unlikely to form part of the new one.　Among these features we might cite the ideas that Mahaayaana Buddhism was lay-centred, that it was predominantly devotional in orientation, that it sprang from a revolt against monastic privilege and self-absorption, that it was organizationally distinct from the Mainstream Nikaayas, that it was one single movement, and that right from the start in India it carried all before it.　Recent studies by Schopen, Gombrich, Ray, Silk, Sasaki, Williams, myself and others have started to build up a picture which is more nuanced and pluralistic, more historically cautious, and more inclined to emphasize the monastic or──better still──renunciant side of things.[3]　The origins of Mahaayaana Buddhism are thus no longer what they used to be.

　　Part of this process involves rethinking the bodhisattva paradigm.　Whatever else Mahaayaana Buddhism is──or, to be more careful, whatever the various different movements which coalesced into the phenomenon which we now call Mahaayaana Buddhism were──most would still agree that its defining characteristic is the promotion of the ideal of the bodhisattva, i.e., the belief that full Buddhahood or supreme and perfect awakening is the proper goal of human endeavour.　The bodhisattva ideal is such a central feature of Mahaayaana Buddhism that it is now taken for granted.　However, it too may merit critical re-examination, to see whether we are still entertaining ideas about it which have passed their use-by date.

　　The bodhisattva ideal is a big topic, so I propose in this paper to confine myself to one aspect of the conventional wisdom, the notion

p.161

of the “celestial bodhisattva.” The extent to which this idea has become part of the Buddhist Studies canon can be gauged from the article on “Celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas” in the Encyclopaedia of Religion edited by Mircea Eliade.　In this lengthy and informative piece David Snellgrove uses the term “celestial bodhisattva,” and others like “divinity,” “celestial being,” “god” and “goddess,” without ever once problematizing them.　It is to be noted that he also emphasises the bodhisattva’s function as saviour figure, offering compassionate assistance to others.[4] In approaching the bodhi-sattva like this──as a heavenly saviour──Snellgrove is of course simply continuing a long tradition in Western scholarship, which, whenever it began, certainly received its first authoritative articulation in the work of Har Dayal (1932), whose ideas have since been echoed by such writers as Ling (1976), Basham (1981), Robinson and Johnson (1982) and others.[5]

　　To a certain extent the two terms──“heavenly” and “saviour” ──go together, and imply each other.　That is to say, to characterise bodhisattvas as celestial or godlike is to emphasise their otherness and stress their saviourlike role as objects of cult and sources of assistance from on high.　It cannot be denied that the cult of bodhisattvas was eventually an important part of Mahaayaana Buddhism, wherever it was practised, and that the use of the

p.162

language of divinity has a certain functional aptness, but the fact remains that such language also obscures other aspects of the bodhisattva ideal and, when not handled carefully, leads to a considerable misreading of the religion.　What is more, it is ahistorical, and arguably imposes the later situation on the earlier: what the bodhisattva ideal became is taken to be its original impulse.　I have already pointed out (Harrison 1987) what I consider to be a more accurate reading of the bodhisattva ideal, at least in the beginning.[6]　Building on that earlier contribution, I would like in this paper to take another look at the figure of Ma~nju`srii──who, along with Avalokite`svara, is a celestial bodhisattva if ever there was one──using only the evidence of the earliest Chinese translations of Mahaayaana suutras made by Lokak.sema.[7]　This evidence will form the basis for certain general hypotheses about early historical developments in this area.

　　As is usually the case, others have traversed this ground before.　Ma~nju`srii has already been the subject of an extended article by Utienne Lamotte in the journal T’oung Pao (1960).　Lamotte contrasts the rather late attestation of this figure in Buddhist iconography[8]　with his early appearance in a host of Mahaayaana

p.163

suutras translated into Chinese──not the only time that a mismatch between the archaeological and literary records has been noted──and then proceeds to furnish us with a plethora of scriptural references and historical accounts──not all of them consistent──relating to Ma~nju`srii and his cult, mostly culled from Chinese sources.[9]　This wealth of detail is effectively summarized in Birnbaum 1986.　A more tightly focussed study is provided by Akira Hirakawa in an article in the Madras Journal of Asian Studies (1983).　At the end of a useful (but not exhaustive) review of the lore relating to Ma~nju`srii in the early Chinese translations, Hirakawa concludes that these texts indicate the importance of this bodhisattva in the rise of Mahaayaana Buddhism, and hypothesizes that descriptions of him may be based on meditative experiences.　Now, one might well think that Lamotte and Hirakawa ought between them to have said the last word on the subject.　However, it may still prove worthwhile to take another look at Lokak.sema’s early Chinese translations, and ask ourselves what part Ma~nju`srii plays in them.

　　Ma~nju`srii appears in 6 of the 9 translations which we can regard as genuine surviving products of Lokak.sema and his school.　These are (in the order in which they will be dealt with in this paper)[10]　the A.s.tasaahasrikaa-praj~naa-paaramitaa-suutra (AsPP; T.224), the Wenshushili wen pusa shu jing《文殊师利问菩萨署经》(WWP; T.458), the Druma-kinnara-raaja-parip.rcchaa-suutra (DKP; T.624), the

p.164

Lokaanuvartanaa-suutra (LAn; T.807), the Dousha jing《兜沙经》(DSJ; T.280), and the Ajaata`satru-kauk.rtya-vinodanaa-suutra (AjKV; T.626).　Ma~nju`srii does not figure in Lokak.sema’s translations of the Pratyutpanna - buddha - sa.mmukhaavasthita - samaadhi - suutra (PraS; T.418), the Ak.sobhya-tathaagatasya-vyuuha (AkTV; T.313), or the Kaasyapa-parivarta (KP; T.350).　However, he does appear in one of the two other texts which we have good reason to suppose were translated by Lokak.sema, even though his versions of them have not survived.　These two are the `Suura.mgama-samaadhi-suutra (`Sgs)[11] and the text known from the single Chinese translation entitled Chengju guangming dingyi jing《成具光明定意经》(CGD; T.630), attributed to Zhi Yao 支曜, a contemporary of Lokak.sema.　Ma~nju`srii features in the former but not the latter.　This means, then, that 7 out of the 11 texts translated or known to have been translated by Lokak.sema make mention of Ma~nju`srii

　　Ma~nju`srii’s appearances in these texts range from walk-on parts in some to starring roles in others.　To the former category belongs Lokak.sema’s translation of the A.s.tasaahasrikaa-praj~naa-paaramitaa-suutra (AsPP), the Daoxing banruo jing《道行般若经》(T.224), the sole version of this work to mention Ma~nju`srii as present during the delivery of the discourse (425c6).[12] Here Ma~nju`srii is, as it were, plugged into the “frame story” (Rahmengeschichte) of the text, in a way which is not matched in any other version of the AsPP, including the Sanskrit text as we now have it.　The AsPP is in fact one of those Mahaayaana suutras which propounds Mahaayaana teachings in a carefully crafted Mainstream setting, putting the new

p.165

dispensation in the mouths of the great representatives of the old.　Whether this scriptural camouflage reflects an earlier textual stratum is a moot point (see below).　In any case, the insertion of Ma~nju`srii’s name into the nidaana of this archaic version has all the appearance of an interpolation made when the text passed through the hands of those who regarded him as an important figure.[13]

　　Despite the promising title of the Wenshushili wen pusa shu jing (WWP), or the Suutra of Ma~nju`srii’s Questions Concerning the Bodhi-sattva Career, Ma~nju`srii is referred to only twice, and plays no active part. Lokak.sema’s translation (T.458) is the only version in existence, and is bedevilled by obscurities, but it is clear enough that it introduces our bodhisattva as a paradigmatic practitioner of the Mahaayaana. Right at the start of the text `Saariputra asks for permission to question the Buddha, to which `Saakyamuni replies: “Well done, `Saariputra, well done! You should ask your question.　If you have only heard the name of the dharma of the causes and conditions of the Tathagata-career from Ma~nju`srii and have not yet fully obtained the thing itself, I shall now expound it to you.　Listen carefully, listen carefully” (435b5-7).　The text here is not entirely unambiguous, but seems to allude to a previous incident in which `Saariputra is supposed to have heard the title of the following suutra──here dasaajie-shu yinyuan fa ming (怛萨阿竭署因缘法名) ──from Ma~nju`srii without having heard the text itself.　In any case Ma~nju`srii is clearly a possible source of such a teaching.　Much later in the text the bhik.su Raa.s.trapaala asks the Buddha whether there is anybody in the assembly who is actually practising the Tathagata-career which is being expounded, and is told that the bodhisattva Ma~nju`srii is doing so (437b10-12), after which the exposition is taken up again.　Thus, although he is only mentioned briefly twice, Ma~nju`srii is implicitly in the assembly, to be held up as an

p.166

exemplary practitioner of the Tathagata-career (i.e., the bodhisattva-caryaa), and as a font of teachings on it.

　　In the Druma-kinnara-raaja-parip.rcchaa-suutra (DKP) the Buddha is on the G.rdhrakuu.ta with a large assembly of bhik.sus and 72,000[14] bodhisattvas assembled from other worlds.　Lokak.sema’s version (T.624) lists 49 by name, the last being Ma~nju`srii (349b7).[15] But he plays no further part in the suutra, although later in the text, during an exchange between the kinnara king Druma and King Ajaata`satru on the subject of the merit generated by bodhisattvas, Druma says “You, sir, have obtained two kalyaa.na-mitras.　The first is the Buddha.　The second is Ma~nju`srii.　Through their grace the doubt arising from the unrighteous acts you committed was completely dispelled” (364b12-14).[16]　This is a clear allusion to the contents of another scripture, the AjKV (on which see below), and is a rare example of explicit intertextuality in a Mahaayaana suutra (cf. Harrison 1992: xvi).

　　Ma~nju`srii makes a somewhat more significant appearance in the Lokaanuvartanaa-suutra (LAn), in which he plays the part of the Buddha’s interlocutor.　The only named member of the assembly of bhik.sus and bodhisattvas, it is he who asks the Buddha to explain the supramundane or transcendental (lokottara) nature of the Awakened Ones.　In Lokak.sema’s version (T.807) he is referred to at the beginning and at the end (751b and 753c) simply as the bodhisattva Ma~nju`srii (Wenshushili pusa 文殊师利菩萨), in the Tibetan translation in v. 2 as mkhas pa ’Jam dbyangs, i.e., Ma~njugho.sa the Wise, in v. 4 as thugs skyes sras gces ’dzin mchog, i.e., (the

p.167

Buddha’s) beloved (spiritual) son (Skt. aurasa), and in v. 113 again as ’Jam pa’i dbyangs or Ma~njugho.sa, the leader of the Buddha’s sons (sras po).　The rest of this short verse suutra (only 113 stanzas in the Tibetan translation) consists in the Buddha’s reply, so here too, as in the AsPP, Ma~nju`srii plays his part only in the frame story.　What is intriguing, however, is that the parallel verses in the Mahaavastu are spoken not by the Buddha but form part of an extended eulogy delivered by the Venerable (aayu.smant) Vaagiisa (see Jones 1949: 129, n. 5).　The same figure, this time spelled Vaa.ngii`sa, re-appears later (ibid., 222-224) to recall a past life in which he was the disciple of the future `Saakyamuni.　Now, although it is perfectly possible that this is the same person as the Thera Va.ngiisa, reputed author of numerous verses of praise and renowned for his gift for inspired eloquence or pratibhaana (see Malalasekera 1937, s.v.), what is curious is that Vaagii`svara (Lord of Speech) is also one of the names of Ma~nju`srii.　Can this be a mere coincidence?

　　In the `Sgs Ma~nju`srii is one of the great bodhisattvas listed at the beginning of the text (Lamotte 1965: 119),[17]　although the role of chief interlocutor is played by D.r.dhamati.　Later he is given as an example of a bodhisattva who received the prediction to full awakening after having conceived the aspiration to it (ibid., 214), comes to the fore as a seasoned traveller through other worlds (224-226), defines for D.r.dhamati the expressions pu.nya-k.setra (231-235) and bahu-`sruta (236-238), and recalls his own previous fictitious attainment of nirvaa.na many times over as a pratyekabuddha (241-245), his feats in this regard being explained by his mastery of the `suura.mgama-samaadhi.　In the same way his former appearance as the Buddha Naagava.m`saagra is recalled (260-264).　Such manifestations, Ma~nju`srii points out, are an easy matter for those who understand the true nature of reality as he does.　He is thus to the fore as an

p.168

exemplary practitioner of salvific magic and teacher of the bodhisattva path.

　　In the Doushajing (DSJ; T.280), a short text later incorporated in the massive Avata.msaka-suutra, Ma~nju`srii plays the leading role in a grand cosmic epiphany staged by the Buddha for a huge host of bodhisattvas visiting him directly after his awakening.　As the Buddha illuminates distant buddha-k.setras with his light, their bodhisattvas come flocking to him with their retinues.　The first to arrive is Ma~nju`srii,[18] from the world lying to the east named *Hira.nyavar.na, which belongs to the Buddha *Acalaj~naana (445b16-19).[19] When all the bodhisattvas are assembled it is Ma~nju`srii who actually gives the sermon which is the centre-piece of the text, expounding the inconceivable variety of appearances and names assumed by the Buddhas in general and by `Saakyamuni in particular in response to the different capacities of the sentient beings to be saved (445c26-446a16).　Here in the DSJ Ma~nju`srii is located in a specific Buddha-field, lying far to the east of Sahaa.　In fact, the traditions assembled by Lamotte are by no means consistent in this regard, although the east comes up most frequently (see Lamotte 1960: 18-31).　But in any case the DSJ is somewhat more specific than the DKP, which has Ma~nju`srii among the many bodhisattvas assembled from other buddha-k.setras in the ten directions, but gives no details.　On the other hand the AsPP, the WWP, the `Sgs

p.169

and the LAn do not make it clear at all that Ma~nju`srii is a visitor from another world.

　　Finally, the most striking text in our small group of suutras is undoubtedly the Ajaata`satru - kauk.rtya - vinodanaa - suutra (AjKV).　Ma~nju`srii’s importance and superior understanding of the Dharma is established right at the beginning of this text, when, in a separate location on the G.rdhrakuu.ta from where the Buddha is holding court, he outdoes his 29 companions in a kind of competitive discussion of omniscient cognition and its preconditions.　His powers as a teacher are further illustrated by his conjuring up of a phantom Buddha to reveal the nature of phenomena to his audience.　Joining the Buddha and his disciples, he continues to teach, with the Buddha’s approval.　Then comes a long narrative sequence which is little more than a panegyric to Ma~nju`srii, and has in fact has survived as a separate suutra.[20] Having accused the Buddha of ingratitude if he does not share his almsfood with him──at first blush a shocking breach of etiquette──Ma~nju`srii then outdoes the great `sraavakas in a display of magical power, after which he has his primacy vis-a-vis not only them but also the Buddha himself established by `Saakyamuni on the basis of an avadaana in which a bhik.su called j~naanaraaja inducts a boy by the name of Vimalabaahu into the Mahaayaana.　The concluding passage is worth quoting in full here (for convenience the Tibetan version is cited, although the Chinese is quite similar):

`Saariputra, if you should be doubtful, puzzled or uncertain as to the identity of the monk and preacher of Dharma called j~naanaraaja on that occasion and at that time, then, `Saariputra, you should not be that way.　Why is that? Because on that occasion and at that time Ma~nju`srii here was the monk and preacher of Dharma called j~naanaraaja. `Saariputra, if you should be doubtful, puzzled or uncertain

p.170

as to the identity of the merchant’s son called Vimalabaahu on that occasion and at that time, then, `Saariputra, you should not be that way.　Why is that? Because on that occasion and at that time I was the merchant’s son called Vimalabaahu.　`Saariputra, Prince Ma~nju`srii caused me to conceive the aspiration for awakening after giving me the almsfood, which was my first aspiration to awakening, and that is the way, `Saariputra, in which this is to be known.　One should see that the greatness of a Buddha, the ten powers, the (four types of) assurance, the unhindered cognition and anything else belonging to the Realized One have all come from the instigation of Prince Ma~nju`srii.　Why is that? Because omniscience has been attained on the basis of that moment of aspiration.　`Saariputra, I see in the ten directions innumerable and incalculable Realized Ones who have been established in awakening by Prince Ma~nju`srii and who are called `Saakyamuni, just like me, as well as those who are called Tisya, Pusya, `Sikhin and Diiamkara, and I could go on reciting for an aeon or more than an aeon the names of all those Realized Ones who, after being established in awakening by Prince Ma~nju`srii, are now turning the Wheel of the Dharma, and still not come to the end of them──to say nothing of those who are pursuing the course of a bodhisattva, residing in the Tu.sita Realm, taking rebirth, going forth from the household life, practising austerities, or sitting on the Terrace of Awakening! That is the way, `Saariputra, in which this is to be known, that it is about Prince Ma~nju`srii himself that they speak and teach who rightly say and teach that he is the mother of the bodhisattvas, their father, the one who shows compassion to them, and their instigator.　And that, `Saariputra, is the reason and the cause, why, on account of a former favour, Prince Ma~nju`srii charged me with ingratitude.

The insistence that Ma~nju`srii takes ritual precedence here in the matter of the almsfood is of course symbolic of the fact that the spiritual achievements of the Buddha, on which the attainments of

p.171

the `sraavaka or arhat depend, are themselves premised on the existence of the bodhisattva.[21] Throughout the rest of the AjKV as well, Ma~nju`srii plays a leading role as a preacher of the message, being appointed by the Buddha as the only person able to relieve the spiritual anguish of King Ajaata`satru, as a result, indeed, of a karmic connection through countless lifetimes (see 404a-b).　In helping Ajaata`satru come to terms with the evil he has wrought, Ma~nju`srii has ample opportunity to deliver many teachings on Mahaayaana themes.　But as well as that, he uses his magical powers to summon bodhisattvas from another buddha-k.setra to whom he then gives lengthy discourses on dhaara.niis, on the bodhisattva-pi.taka, and on the avaivartika-cakra (the wheel that does not turn back).　He also performs great miracles of transformation when proceeding triumphally to Ajaata`satru’s palace.　Thus not only is he an important character in the AjKV, he is at stage centre throughout most of the suutra, his status as a virtual Buddha being established explicitly (see 405a).　Thus the AjKV is really Ma~nju`srii’s suutra, a fact which is reflected by the title of Dharmarak.sa’s version of it (T.627).

　　We can see from this brief review that Ma~nju`srii looms very large in the Lokak.sema corpus, slightly more in fact than Lamotte suggests, since he omits the DSJ from his discussion, and deals with the AsPP and the `Sgs at other points in his paper.　But Lamotte’s observation that Ma~nju`srii’s name is to be found frequently in the earliest Mahaayaana texts available to us, despite his comparatively late appearance in artistic remains, is amply confirmed by our review, as indeed it was by Hirakawa’s earlier study.[22] Of course there are problems with using a number of texts

p.172

to build up a single composite picture of Ma~nju`srii’s personality, since these texts may have been composed at different times and in different places, and may therefore reflect a variety of traditions rather than just one.　But this methodological caveat hardly affects our conclusion: that the texts translated by Lokak.sema reflect the emergence of Ma~nju`srii as an important archetypal bodhisattva figure by the middle of the second century C.E., be it in one milieu or in many.

　　The same cannot be said──at least on the basis of these materials──for Avalokite`svara.　The translation of the Sukhaavatii-vyuuhaa attributed to Lokak.sema (T.361) and cited by some as the first historical evidence for the cult of Avalokite`svara[23] is not a genuine work of his.　However, it may well be that the version commonly attributed to Zhi Qian (支谦), T.362, could have been done by Lokak.sema, even though certain sections of it are unlikely to have come from his hand.[24] This leaves us with a single clear citation: the name Guanyin (观音) appears in the list of bodhisattvas

p.173

at the beginning of Zhi Yao’s (支曜) translation of the Chengju guangming dingyi jing (CGD), made in 185 C.E.[25] However, Avalokite`svara plays no further part in that text.　And while his name is listed at the beginning of Kumaarajiiva’s version (T.625) of the DKP, as bodhisattva No. 37 (368a15), and in the Tibetan version (as No. 11, see Harrison 1992: 10), it is not given, as far as I can see, in Lokak.sema’s earlier translation.[26] Furthermore, its appearance at different points in the list in the two later versions is decidedly suspicious.　Avalokite`svara does not appear in any of the other texts we have reviewed, not even in the PraS, where we might have expected him to be mentioned, since this text provides explicit evidence of the cult of Amitaabha.　On this basis we could say that Avalokite`svara was virtually unknown to the people who produced the Mahaayaana suutras translated by Lokak.sema, or was not regarded as important by them.　One can only speculate as to the reasons for this.　It is possible, for instance, that stories about Avalokite`svara arose in a different geographical area from that in which the texts under review were put together.

　　Let us return now to Ma~nju`srii.　Having established his importance, what can we say of his status as a “celestial bodhisattva”? Is the concept of the celestial bodhisattva actually attested in our sources, or is it an analytical category devised by Western scholarship? To answer this question we must first of all ask if there is any indigenous Sanskrit term corresponding to this expression.　According to some scholars such a term does indeed exist.　It is the word mahaasattva, usually translated as “great

p.174

being” (see, e.g., Robinson and Johnson 1982: 78; Nakamura 1986: 267; Harvey 1990: 124).　However, this is a mistake.　It is abundantly clear in many passages in our texts that mahaasattva is simply an alternative designation or stock epithet for bodhisattva, as Edgerton maintained (see BHSD, s.v.), and thus while it is certainly applied to highly advanced beings like Ma~nju`srii, it is also applied to ordinary people pursuing the bodhisattva path who may be a very long way indeed from reaching their goal, or even from reaching the much vaunted stage of non-regression.　In this respect the evidence of later versions of the texts with their fuller wording is unequivocal,[27]　but we must look for proof in Lokak.sema’s translations themselves.　Here we find that there is often no Chinese equivalent where the Sanskrit has mahaasattva or the Tibetan reads sems dpa’ chen po, a probable sign that the semantic weight of the term was light enough for Lokak.sema, working in his usual elliptical style, to omit it.　In other places, however, we find the expression “bodhisattva and mahaasattva” (Chin. pusa mohesa 菩萨摩诃萨) used quite frequently, in contexts which make it clear that being a mahaasattva is of no great moment.　One may cite, for instance, PraS §3C (905a23-24), which mentions bodhisattvas and mahaasattvas who do not possess the abhij~naas.　The AkTV, which uses the term with unusual frequency, awards the title even to someone who has only just conceived the aspiration to awakening (752a29-b6), alludes to Vinaya regulations in describing lay bodhisattvas and mahaasattvas of Abhirati who may not hear the Dharma directly from the Buddha, unlike their renunciant counterparts (758c2-9), and urges bodhisattvas and mahaasattvas in this world who are renunciants (pravrajita) to proclaim the teaching to householder practitioners or to secure copies of it from them at

p.175

all costs (763c24-764a10).　In the AsPP the term is occasionally used interchangeably with kula-putra and kula-duhit.r. (e.g., 444b25-c8),[28]　and even applied to people whose teaching, copying or reception of the Perfection of Insight is deficient in various respects, due to the influence of Maara (446c22-447a5).[29]　Further examples could no doubt be hunted down, but the point is sufficiently established.　As for the meaning of the term mahaasattva itself, it is hard to improve on the extensive discussion by Kajiyama (1982), who inter alia draws attention to its interpretation as a bahuvriihi (in line with a similar construe of the term bodhisattva): the mahaasattva, then, is not necessarily a “great being” at all.

　　Having seen this candidate for the position thus disposed of, one might contend with greater force that the 10th-stage bodhisattva or the bodhisattva who has one more rebirth to go (eka-jaati-pratibaddha) may legitimately be regarded as “celestial,” especially if they remain in a heavenly realm like Tu.sita and merely send emanations to do their work below, as those on the verge of Buddhahood are commonly held to do.　Indeed, the AkTV makes explicit mention of the link between the attainment of eka-jaati-pratibaddha status (yi sheng bu chu 一生补处) and rebirth in Tu.sita (754c14ff.; cf. also 763c).　In a similar vein the DKP reinterprets the practice of devataanusm.rti in a Mahaayaanist way in Section 4I (353c9-10): “Their minds think always of heaven, and then enter

p.176

[the state of] one rebirth remaining (yi sheng bu chu).　This is then a jewel.” The implication seems to be that focussing on the deities helps one to become a bodhisattva among them.[30] In the AsPP where the Sanskrit text refers to eka-jaati-pratibaddha (Vaidya’s ed., p. 215), Lokak.sema (465c21) has the term aweiyan (阿惟颜), which corresponds to the Sanskrit abhi.seka.[31] In the AjKV eka-jaati-pratibaddha appears several times with specific reference to Maitreya at 393a18-21, and is once again translated yi sheng bu chu.　In the `Sgs too the connection between eka-jaati-pratibaddha, the tenth stage and abhi.seka is established, with Maitreya again presented as the paradigm case (Lamotte 1965: 258).　The link between abhi.seka and the tenth bhuumi is also mentioned elsewhere in the text (166, 265); but it is not entirely clear, as Lamotte claims (280), that the tenth bhuumi is called tathagata-bhuumi (see p. 137).　Although the evidential value of the `Sgs is reduced for us by the lapse of time between Lokak.sema’s lost translation of 186 C.E. and Kumaarajiiva’s extant version made sometime in the first decade of the 5th century, we know from the AsPP passage cited above that Lokak.sema was familiar with the concept of abhi.seka.　The term eka-jaati-pratibaddha is also attested in the DSJ, where it is applied to the audience of bodhisattvas foregathering from other Buddha-fields at the beginning of the text (zhu pusa si (or ci) yi sheng bu chu 诸菩萨赐一生补处, 445a14), and the ten stages are mentioned too

p.177

(pusa shi daodi 菩萨十地道 at 445a28, cf. also 445b1).[32] On the basis of these references we can say that this set of concepts had been developed by the middle of the 2nd century, although the precise extent to which the da`sa-bhuumi scheme had evolved by this time is not clear.[33] However, these concepts seem rather more precise and limited in scope than the term “celestial bodhisattva,” and what is more, none of them is explicitly applied to Ma~nju`srii.[34] But even were they so applied, I think it is fair to say that the notion of the celestial bodhisattva as a distinct type is not strongly supported by the use of these terms, in our texts at least.　That Buddhists believed in the existence of great bodhisattvas is another matter, and so is their obvious belief in a continuum or differential scale of spiritual attainments.　But such beliefs reflect purely quantitative distinctions, of degree rather than kind, and not a qualitative distinction between two discrete categories of bodhisattva, the mundane and the celestial, between which a clear line can be drawn.

　　This is, of course, to approach the problem on the level of terminology.　There are other ways of coming at it.　We have established Ma~nju`srii’s presence in these early texts, but can we

p.178

speak of a cult of Ma~nju`srii in them? After all, the celestial bodhisattvas are commonly held to have been developed as objects of cult.　But there is no evidence for it here.　Should one ask what evidence of cult would look like, the answer would surely be that it would consist in explicit injunctions to worship Ma~nju`srii or his image, to bring him to mind or engage in visualization practice directed towards him, or to call on his name for help and assistance, as, for example, in the Sad-dharma-pu.n.dariika (SP), one is instructed to call on the name of Avalokite`svara.[35] In fact Lamotte deals with a number of texts in which this kind of practice with respect to Ma~nju`srii is recommended, one of the earliest of which appears to have been the so-called Ma~nju`srii parinirvaa.na-suutra (T.463, Wenshushili banniepan jing《文殊师利般涅槃经》), first translated into Chinese by Nie Daozhen towards the end of the 3rd century (Lamotte 1960: 32-39; see esp. p.38).　However, there are no instructions of the type sketched above in the Lokak.sema corpus.　There is, on the other hand, plenty of such evidence for the cult of the Buddha and of various Buddhas of the present (especially in the PraS and the AkTV, but also in the AsPP ), for the cult of the stupa and, most notably, the cult of the book as investigated by Schopen, and there are scattered but intriguing allusions to other aspects of Mahaayaana Buddhist cult practice, but nowhere is the cult of bodhisattvas recommended.　Nor is there any mention of these figures being available to the inhabitants of this world or ready to provide them with protection, with the exception of the bodhisattva Maitreya, who as the future Buddha of this world clearly falls into a special category (see esp. AsPP,[36] AjKV,[37] DKP[38]).

p.179

Indeed, since he is held to be resident in the Tu.sita heaven awaiting his eventual promotion he might indeed merit the title of celestial bodhisattva, as we saw above.[39] Other bodhisattvas like Ma~nju`srii are in fact residents of other buddha-k.setras.　While it is a terminological quibble to say that these Buddha-fields are not strictly speaking “heavens” in terms of Buddhist cosmology, what is really important for our purposes is whether these bodhisattvas too are available as objects of supplication and sources of help and inspiration, in the same way that Maitreya is.　Although in other, later texts that is the case, it is not so in these earlier translations, where the emphasis is decidedly on the bodhisattva as saving subject, whatever his or her rank.[40] Although there are always problems with an argument from silence, our contention is supported by the fact that a number of Lokak.sema’s translations do advise believers that general protection will be forthcoming from various supernatural agencies (i.e., devas, etc.), but the salvific

p.180

intervention of bodhisattvas is not promised at such points (where it would be natural to expect it).[41] The silence in this regard is deafening, especially when one considers that these works are far from backward in promising supernatural protection and worldly benefits of all kinds to their devotees.　However, in later versions of the same texts the situation changes.　A good example is provided by §§14E-14H of the PraS, where the Sui Chinese (T.416) and Tibetan versions promise the help and assistance of bodhisattvas to those bodhisattvas and mahaasattvas (sic!) who take up the teaching, while Lokak.sema’s translation and the Sanskrit text do not (see Harrison 1990: 116-117, 280-282, 300).　A similar case is found in AsPP 431b24-26 (cf. Vaidya ed., pp. 26-27).　These instances are prima facie evidence of the influence of the bodhisattva cult in its developed form on later recensions of the suutras.

　　With respect to Ma~nju`srii, then, and as far as these sources are concerned, the appellation of “celestial bodhisattva” is warranted neither terminologically nor functionally, and what applies to him──at least on the level of function──applies a fortiori to the other bodhisattvas who make an appearance, with the exception of Maitreya.　That said, another question presents itself.　If Ma~nju`srii and the others are not functioning in these early translations as cult objects, then what are they doing? How are we to explain their role in the texts, or indeed account for their existence in the first place? To come up with an answer I think we have to take a

p.181

different approach, one which avoids the euhemeristic dead-end rightly rejected by Lamotte (1960: 8-9) but also skirts the banal recourse to `Suunyavaada rhetoric which leads us nowhere either (cf. Lamotte 1960: 9-10, 96).　The tentative solution which I propose involves considering the situation from the point of view of the people who produced the Mahaayaana suutras, and approaching the great bodhisattvas who appear in these texts as literary rather than cultic creations.

　　When one starts to think about it, one sees that from the outset the writers of Mahaayaana suutras were put in a difficult position by their Mainstream predecessors.　In attempting to redefine the goal of Buddhist practice and legitimate it scripturally their dilemma was as follows.　Mainstream Buddhist canonical literature is not just a matter of dry doctrinal exposition, but uses narrative to convey meaning.　The truths of Mainstream Buddhism, in all the canonical literature which has come down to us in the Nikaayas or Aagamas and in the Vinayas in their various translations, are illustrated and reinforced with copious references to historical persons, or persons whom we are led to believe were historical.　Given the standard personality ideal of Mainstream Buddhism (arhatship and nirvaa.na), an ideal which does not involve personal survival in the normal sense, this kind of historical anchoring produced no problems for the authors and transmitters of Mainstream Buddhist scripture.　But in the process of elaborating their traditions they used up the available stock of personalities, nearly all of whom were held to have attained some grade of awakening or liberation during or soon after the Buddha’s own lifetime.　In fact the sheer pressure of piety would have necessitated this outcome: the Buddha was naturally such a powerful and effective teacher that he brought virtually everyone he was in contact with, except the irremediably stupid and wicked, to liberation, not only his ordained disciples──out of 500 leading bhik.sus only Aananda hadn’t attained perfection by the time

p.182

Gautama died──but also most of his lay followers.　As a result of this exemplary hagiographical thoroughness on the part of their forerunners, the Mahaayaanists found themselves in a difficult position, since by the logic of their new teaching they could not claim that anybody who had obtained even stream-entry had been in reality a bodhisattva.　None of these figures could be cited as role models.　And yet the inclusivistic approach typical of Indian religion would necessitate that the old picture (and thus the old literature) must somehow be harmonised or squared with the new, not simply erased and painted over.　At the same time, the use of the pre-awakened Gautama as a model bodhisattva would probably have been of limited efficacy, because the Jaatakas were shared with Mainstream Buddhists as a whole, and might give an undesirable impression of rarity and difficulty, as well as being unsuitable as vehicles of doctrinal innovation.　To glorify and exemplify the new ideal something rather different was required.

　　There were, as far as I can see, three possible solutions to the impasse.　The first──and arguably the earliest──was to subvert the historical record and use arhats as proponents of the new teaching, thus `sraavakas with appropriate leanings were pressed into service, the most significant cases being Mahaakaa`syapa and Subhuuti.[42] We find this approach employed in several of Lokak.sema’s texts, most notably the AsPP and the KP. But this method has obvious limitations: no matter how eloquently they may expound the new dispensation, these well-known arhats can hardly embody it, since they are famed for the successful consummation of the spiritual orientation which the followers of the Mahaayaana would condemn as the inferior way, the Hiinayaana.

　　The second solution is to hold up as bodhisattvas real persons whose attainments were either unknown or not widely known.　The

p.183

householder bodhisattva Ugra perhaps falls into this second category.　He is the chief protagonist of the Ugra-parip.rcchaa-suutra (UgP), also translated into Chinese in the late 2nd century.　An Ugra or Ugga appears in the Pali canon, where we find two householders of this name, Ugga of Hatthigaama and Ugga of Vesaalii (see Malalasekera 1937: s.v.), about whom the traditions seem inevitably to have become interwoven and confused.　Whether the householder bodhisattva is the same as one or both of these characters is a moot point, since the UgP is set in `Sraavastii, and both Uggas are held in any case to have attained the state of an anaagaamin.　It is to be hoped that Jan Nattier’s forthcoming study of this text will clarify the matter.　Another less problematic case is the parricide king Ajaata`satru, to whom Theravaadin canonical literature, at least, imputes no spiritual attainment.　There is thus no traditional impediment to the prediction in the AjKV of his eventual attainment of Buddhahood.　His character is saved for the writers of that text by the fact that his celebrated crimes precluded any previous rise to sanctity.　If this is not scraping the bottom of the historical barrel, then what is? But in any case, there is no doubt that the supply of figures like this with no known record of spiritual attainment was extremely limited.　And if historical personages had failed to achieve anything under the direct influence of the Lord Buddha there were no doubt good reasons for it, which would hardly make them credible representatives of the Mahaayaana.

　　The third solution was simply to make it up, to invent fictitious, non-historical figures and work them into the pseudo-historical framework, which, along with a host of other devices, was designed to impart the traditional look to the new texts, to dress them in scriptural camouflage.　And this eventually became the preferred solution, with new characters cut out of whole cloth, ranging from the rather more mundane types like the householder bodhisattvas Bhadrapala and his friends (PraS) to the more magnificent figures like Ma~nju`srii, who has been the subject of this paper.　But despite

p.184

the staggering array of names, one can hardly speak of differences of personality where these bodhisattvas are concerned, any more than one can in the case of Buddhas.　They are little more than cardboard figures, cut from the same template.　Where did this template come from? This is perhaps an unanswerable question, but I would suggest that one need not look outside the Buddhist tradition to find the answers.　The models are there in the Mainstream canons, in the Aagamas, the Vinayas and the Jaatakas, which frequently celebrate the pedagogical skills, the magical powers and the self-sacrificial zeal of the Buddha and his disciples.　A change of name here, an adjustment in status there, and what was, say, a story about an arhat becomes the tale of a bodhisattva, to which a slightly different moral could be attached.　That there may have been external influences from such diverse sources as Iranian religion, Greek sculpture, Indian theism and so on, as has been postulated, cannot be denied, but it cannot be proved either.　Indeed, given the direction in which our evidence points, such influences may well have been more literary than cultic.　That is to say, Mahaayaana suutras may owe more to the literary conventions of the Puranas than they do to the ritual cult and iconography of the Hindu gods (which seems to me to invoke euhemerism once removed).　But all such debts may have been incurred later in the piece.

　　To opt for an internal “organic” model of development largely in terms of the Buddhist tradition itself is, of course, to state a methodological preference rather than a historical fact, since the model is little more than a hypothesis in any case.　Although there are some indications of a gradual introduction of bodhisattva figures into the texts (which I take as supporting the internal model), we are hampered by what I believe is the relatively late transmission of Mahaayaana suutras to China, and the loss of evidence relating to earlier stages of development.　That is to say, by the time Lokak.sema was at work, the Mahaayaana was in full swing, and

p.185

far from being in all cases its first literary products, many of his translations represent its middle period.　We can never be entirely certain about what is early and what is late, which makes it harder to be sure about the original impulses behind the appearance of the great bodhisattvas.　However, the important thing to see here is that in this material Ma~nju`srii and the other bodhisattva figures function as part of a web of what we might call literary strategies of legitimisation.[43] But the challenge of achieving an authentic traditional look was also to be balanced by the inspirational agenda of the literature, an agenda which eventually came to dominate, as increasing success no doubt led to greater boldness.　One notes therefore that the Lokak.sema corpus appears to reflect a variety of approaches and thus, perhaps, strata in the historical development of Mahaayaana literature, from the relatively sober promulgation of the new teachings by the old guard in the AsPP, the KP, and the WWP to the full-blown magical cosmological son et lumiere of the DSJ, the DKP and the Ajkv.[44] These last two texts are especially noteworthy for their complex and sophisticated structure and their handling of philosophical issues.　But we should guard too against over-interpreting the appearance of a bodhisattva in a text, especially an early one.　We quite naturally read such occurrences in the light of

p.186

the later tradition, in which the term bodhisattva summons up an image which is iconographically and mythologically loaded, to say the least.　Were we to translate the relevant passages a little differently, so that they read “at that point a person aspiring courageously to awakening got up from his seat . . .” then they might not appear quite so different from Mainstream suutras.

　　The fact remains that even in those Lokak.sema texts (arguably the later ones) in which Ma~nju`srii and other bodhisattvas take the leading roles, the cult of the great bodhisattvas──if we can dispense now with calling them celestial──is completely unattested.　It is therefore quite likely that this cult represents an even later development, built on top of the aforementioned literary strategies and not underlying them or preceding them.　This would explain──or reduce──the apparent gap between the textual and archaeological records to which we alluded above.　While the great bodhisattvas are indeed to be found in the late 2nd-century translations of Lokak.sema, as we have seen, explicit evidence of the bodhisattva cult as such does not start to appear in the Chinese translations until the second half of the 3rd century.[45] It is the gap between these later sources and the first images of bodhisattvas (other than the one who became `Saakyamuni) which is significant, and this appears to be not so great.　If there is any general conclusion we could draw from this, it would be to make the unremarkable observation that whenever there is a discrepancy between textual

p.187

and archaeological sources, we should ask ourselves if we are interpreting one of the sources (or both of them) correctly.　As to the specific question of the process whereby the bodhisattva cults evolved, we might remember that even in our own time fictional characters have shown themselves quite capable of becoming the objects of cult with religious or moral overtones──one thinks of Leonard Nimoy’s Spock intoning the Desiderata──but when we speak of cults in this connection we are only speaking metaphorically, and such cases are trivial by comparison.　The great bodhisattvas of the Mahaayaana suutras, who eventually became the objects of real cults, were from the outset figures of high moral and religious significance, conjured up by their authors and set to work in the world, just like the nirmaa.nas or emanations they themselves were described as creating within the texts.　Their subsequent transmutation into saviours and guides, called upon by real people in real need, is eloquent testimony to the power of life to imitate art, and of visionary imagination to become reality.

List of Works Consulted

Basham, A.L.

1981. “The Evolution of the Concept of the Bodhisattva,” in Leslie Kawamura, ed., The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press), pp. 19-59.

Birnbaum, Raoul

1986. “Ma~nju`srii,” in Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan), Vol. 9, pp. 174-175.

Dayal, Har

1932. The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; reprint edition Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970).

Gail, Adalbert

1995. “Ma~nju`srii and His Sword,” in K.r. van Kooij & H. van der Veere, eds., Function and Meaning in Buddhist Art: Proceedings of a Seminar held at Leiden University 21-24 October 1991 (Groningen), pp. 135-138.

Gombrich, Richard

1990. “Recovering the Buddha’s Message,” in Tadeusz Skorupski, ed., The Buddhist Forum, Vol. I (London: School of Oriental and African Studies), pp. 5-20.

1998. “Organised Bodhisattvas: A Blind Alley in Buddhist Historiography,” in Paul Harrison and Gregory Schopen, eds., Suuryacandraaya: Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag), pp. 43-56.

p.189

Harrison, Paul

1982. “Sanskrit Fragments of a Lokottaravaadin Tradition,” in L.A. Hercus, et al., eds., Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies), pp. 211-234.

1987. “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-image and Identity among the Followers of the Early Mahaayaana,” JIABS, Vol. X, No. 1, pp. 67-89.

1990. The Samaadhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies).

1992. Druma-kinnara-raaja-parip.rcchaa-suutra: A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Text (Recension A) (Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series, VII) (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies).

1993. “The Earliest Chinese Translations of Mahaayaana Buddhist Sutras: Some Notes on the Works of Lokak.sema,” Buddhist Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 135-177.

1995a. “Searching for the origins of the Mahaayaana: What are we looking for?” The Eastern Buddhist, New Series Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 48-69.

1995b. “Some Reflections on the Personality of the Buddha,” Otani gakuho, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 1-29.

1998. “Women in the Pure Land: Some Reflections on the Textual Sources,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 553-572.

Harvey, Peter

1990. An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

p.190

Hirakawa Akira

1983. “Ma~nju`srii and the Rise of Mahaayaana Buddhism,” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 12-33.

Jan Yyn-hua

1981. “The Bodhisattva Idea in Chinese Literature: Typology and Significance,” in Leslie Kawamura, ed., The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press), pp. 125-152.

Jones, J.J.

1949. The Mahaavastu, Vol. I (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Kajiyama Yuichi

1982. “On the Meanings of the Words Bodhisattva and Mahaasattva in Praj~naapaaramitaa Literature,” in L.A. Hercus, et al., eds., Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J.W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies), pp. 253-270.

Lamotte, Utienne

1960. “Ma~nju`srii,” T’oung Pao, Vol. XLVIII, pp. 1-96.

1965. La concentration de la marche heroique (`Suura.mgamasamaadhi-suutra) (Brussels: Institut Belge des hautes etudes chinoises).

De La Vallue Poussin, Louis

1915a. “Bodhisattva,” in James Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), Vol. 2, pp. 739-753.

1915b. “Ma~nju`srii,” in James Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), Vol. 8, pp. 405-406.

p.191

Ling, Trevor

1976. The Buddha (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976).

Malalasekera, G.P.

1937. Dictionary of Paali Proper Names, 2 vols. (London: Pali Text Society).

De Mallmann, Marie-Thurise

1948. Introduction à l’étude d’Avalokitesvara (Paris: Civilisations du Sud).

Nakamura Hajime

1986. “Bodhisattva Path,” in Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan), Vol. 2, pp. 265-269.

Quagliotti, Anna Maria

1990. “Ma~nju`srii in Gandharan Art: A New Interpretation of a Relief in the Victoria and Albert Museum,” East and West, Vol. 40, pp. 99-113.

Ray, Reginald

1994. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations (New York: Oxford University Press).

Robinson, Richard H. & Willard L. Johnson

1982. The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction (3rd ed., Belmont: Wadsworth).

Sasaki Shizuka

1997. “A Study on the Origin of Mahaayaana Buddhism,” The Eastern Buddhist, New Series Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 79-113.

p.192

Schopen, Gregory

1979. “The Mahaayaana in Indian Inscriptions,” Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 1-19.

Silk, Jonathan

1994. The Origins and Early History of the Mahaaratnakuu.ta Tradition of Mahaayaana Buddhism with a Study of the Ratnaraa`sisuutra and Related Materials, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

Snellgrove, David

1986. “Celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas,” in Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan), Vol. 3, pp. 134-143.

Williams, Paul

1989. Mahaayaana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (London: Routledge).