Pure Land Buddhism as Vaishnavism
Part Four:  What is the Evidence of its Krishna Centrism ?

by Bhakti Ananda Goswami

"Many have said that Mahayana Buddhism is related to Hinduism, why do you claim it is specifically Krishna-centric Vaishnavism that it is most closely connected to ?"

I have made an interdisciplinary study of Mahayana Buddhism, specifically focusing on its core, which is historically and theologically the Pure Land Tradition.   In this study, I have sought the oldest sources in each region, comparing texts and inscriptions with icons and symbols, related architecture, rites and prayers etc.   While the scriptures of  Theravadin Buddhism (TB) are in Pali, the Mahayana Buddhist (MB) Scriptures, Litanies of HRIH-Lokeshvara and Tara / Kuan Yin, rituals and prayers are in Sanskrit.  Because of my Vaishnava studies, I have been able to recognize the Vaishnava Names of God (Adi Purusha, Bhagavan, Chakravartin, HRIH, etc.) and Shakti, and specific Vaishnava related terms throughout the MB Sanskrit sources. Despite the corruption of MB theism with TB esoteric atheism / voidism, it is still very easy to recognize the Vaishnava basis of MB. Any Krishna-centric Vaishnava with a rudimentary familiarity with Sanskrit would recognize connections to their own tradition in the scriptural Sanskrit Pure Land sources like the Saddharma Pundarika or the Sukhavati Vyuha. Throughout MB, Sanskrit has been retained in much prayer and ritual. For instance, in Nepalese and Tibetan PL Buddhist Ritual, the original Sanskrit forms have been preserved, and these retain their Vaishnava content, including some names of Vishnu, like Bhagavan. "The Cult Of Tara" by Stephen Beyer (1978, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles California USA and London England), is the definitive English presentation of Tara-Lokeshvara's Tibetan Ritual, which gives the original Sanskrit in English transliteration. This text states up-front that the Cult of Tara originated in India. However, it doesn't delve into Tara ('star') as one of the main Shaktis of Vishnu (Lokeshvara). Nor does it follow the Star-Shakti tradition in the worship of ASTRAYA in India, ASTARA in the Middle East, RHODA-ASTERIA as the Feminine Beloved of Helios Kouros on Rhodes, or to the Catholic MARY as STELLA MARIS.

Sanskrit narratives from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, like the rites and thangkas, etc. of Nepalese and Tibetan Buddhism, all contain Vaishnava Deity Names and Forms. Although there are differences in emphasis between the various Northern MB schools in ancient India, Afghanistan, Tibet, China, Korea and Japan, there is also a fundamental consistency in the core of the MB Pure Land teachings, iconography and rites, etc. For over 100 years, Western scholars have commented on the apparent connections between MB and Vaishnavism, but Vaishnavas have not been studying the historical and theological core / heart, the Pure Land Tradition in relationship to Krishna-centric Vaishnavism. At present, the general 'Hindu' perception of 'Buddhism' is that it is all voidist (I will have to address this in another paper.) This perception has biased especially Vaishnava scholars against studying Buddhism. The Western scholars have lacked the necessary familiarity with Krishna-centric Vaishnavism to recognize the detailed MB correspondences on every level. Their observation that Sakyamuni in the Saddharma Pundarika is probably Vishnu is superficial and not pursued to its historical or theological conclusion. This is why it is essential for some Krishna Vaishnava scholars to take up the study of Pure Land Buddhism and explore these obvious historical and theological connections to their limits. The following are some of these connections. Since we are on the topic of Tibetan Buddhism , I will begin with MB in Nepal and Tibet.  

Forms of Lokeshvara as Forms of Vishnu (later I plan to cite the Saddharma Pundarika parallel verses to Bhagavad-Gita on the salvific descent of the Forms of God / Lokeshvara)

Although Buddhism is considered to have arrived rather late in Tibet, it certainly existed at an early time in Nepal and Afghanistan, etc. Tibetan Buddhism is identical to Nepalese Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhists fleeing the Chinese easily integrated into the MB worship communities of Nepal. Despite 'mother tongue' language differences, the Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhist priests shared the same doctrines, icons, symbols, rites, and Sanskrit as an ancient liturgical language. In fact, Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhism are so similar to, and compatible with Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism in Nepal, that I frequently saw the same devotees worshiping at Vishnu, Shiva, Devi and Buddhist temples and/or shrines, sometimes all in the same day. The devotees clearly grasped that these were versions of the same tradition, but the Buddhist priests I interviewed invariably insisted that Vishnu was NOT Lokeshvara, Mahadeva was NOT Shiva, and Tara was NOT Tara the consort of Vishnu !  Like the Theravadin priests in Sri Lanka, they were heavily invested in denying the quite obvious !  Again as in Sri Lanka, the common Buddhist practitioners carried-on with their theistic devotions despite the protestations of their own atheistic priesthood.   When I interviewed these Buddha bhaktas at their Buddhist places of worship, Shiva and Vishnu temples, they readily admitted that their Buddhist Lokeshvara was Vishnu, and that His wrathful form as Mahadeva, Mahakalah or Kala Bairab was Shiva.    This was confirmed repeatedly to me when I went to the hereditary guild Buddhist murti (icon) makers, and asked for specific forms of Vishnu.  Every time they unhesitatingly showed me the corresponding Sacred Forms of the Buddhist Lokeshvara !    

Lokeshvara as Mahadeva = Vishnu as Shiva
Lokeshvara as horse-headed  Hayagriva = Vishnu as Hayagriva

Lokeshvara as boar-headed Baraha = Vishnu as Varaha

Lokeshvara as lion-headed Nrsingha = Vishnu as Nrsimha,
etc.  

When asking for Icons of Sri Krishna I was even repeatedly shown Forms of Chen Rei Zei / Lokeshvara in His beautiful three-fold bending graceful blue, two-armed Form, standing on His Lotus-Shakti, surrounded by His garland of ray-hands / Harini / Coronis, in His Pure Land of Chintamani Dhama with a kalpa-vriksha tree.  He often even had a peacock feather in His hair !    

WHEN I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR FORMS OF VISHNU I WAS SHOWN THE CORRESPONDING FORMS OF LOKESHVARA.  Then I would say (in deference to the exclusivistic sectarian insistence of the Buddhist priests) "No. I don't want Buddha-Lokeshvara, I want VISHNU"   At this insistence, the icon or murti makers  would usually get perturbed with me and explain that 'everyone knows there is no difference...we only make one form of these murtis, and they are used by both the Buddhists and the Vaishnavas. We do not have separate forms of Vishnu to sell to you'.   I visited over a hundred murti makers, dealers, collections and places of worship in Nepal, viewing approximately 5000 murtis...all with the same result. The 'canon' of Nepalese Buddhist iconography is fundamentally Vaishnava.   Studying the sacred art of the rest of Mahayana Buddhism,  it is clear that the basic canon of this Northern Buddhism remains the same all the way through China into Korea and Japan.  It is found in Southeast Asia as well.  The most striking example of this Vaishnava iconography at a 'Buddhist' Temple complex is of course at Angkor Wat.  Later in this series (God willing)  I will explain how Western art historians have associated this phenomenon of related Vaishnava and Mahayana Buddhist iconography with the diffusion of certain sacred art and stone sculpture techniques from the Vrindavan-Mathura and Gandharan areas of India.  

May Lokeshvara / Vishnu Bless Us All, And Bring Us All Home To The Supreme Pure Land He Has Prepared For Us !  

Amen Aum and Hare Krishna !