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.
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 !