Introduction to the Upanishads

 

Introduction to the Upanishads (Upanisadic thought)

Sibaprasad Dutta (sibaprasaddutta44@yahoo.com)

The term Upanishad means knowledge received by a student ‘sitting close to’ the teacher. V. S. Apte comments upon the etymology of the word in the following manner:

01. The knowledge that is learnt by a person about the non-dual Self from the preceptor whom he approaches (with genuine inquisitives), the knowledge that finishes off the ignorance from his mind forever is called Upanishad.                              

02. The knowledge of the highest Self that dispels ignorance, the root of all miseries and ushers in the mind of a learner the sense of oneness is called Upanishad.

03. As the knowledge does away with the desires for sensual pleasures root and branch, the knowledge of the supreme Self is called Upanishad.                              

 04. Qualified persons define Upanishad as the secret knowledge of the supreme Self that a pupil learns from the preceptor being in close contact with him.  

05. The knowledge of Brahman or the Self liberates one from ignorance, and hence, from bondage. The knowledge on Brahman that is obtained in closed contact with the teacher is what is called Upanishad.

The Upanishads are a collection of texts of religious and philosophical nature, written in India probably between c. 800 BCE and c. 500 BCE, during a time when Indian society started to question the traditional Vedic religious order. Some people during this time decided to engage in the pursuit of spiritual progress, living as ascetic hermits, rejecting ordinary material concerns and giving up family life. Some of their speculations and philosophy were compiled into the Upanishads. There is an attempt in these texts to shift the focus of religious life from external rites and sacrifices to internal spiritual quests in the search for answers.

Etymologically, the name Upanishad is composed of the terms upa (near) and shad (to sit), meaning something like “sitting down near”. The name is inspired by the action of sitting at the feet of an illuminated teacher to engage in a session of spiritual instructions, as aspirants still do in India today.

The books, then, contain the thoughts and insights of important spiritual Indian figures. Although we speak of them together as a body of texts, the Upanishads are not parts of a whole, like chapters in a book. Each of them is complete in itself. Therefore, they represent not a consistent philosophy or worldview, but rather the experiences, opinions and lessons of many different men and women.

Although there are over 108 (200) surviving Upanishads, only 14 are considered to be the most important. The names of these Upanishads are: Isa, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brhadaranyaka, Svetasvatara, Kausitaki, Mahanarayana and the Maitri.

These texts provide the basic source for many important topics of Indian philosophy and all major philosophical themes are covered in their pages. In general they remain neutral among competing interpretations and they attempt to integrate most of the opposing views regarding philosophical and spiritual matters.

WHEN A PERSON ACHIEVES MOKSHA  (LIBERATION), THEIR ATMAN (SELF) RETURNS TO BRAHMAN (THE SOURCE), LIKE A DROP OF WATER RETURNING TO THE OCEAN.

The purpose is not so much instruction as inspiration: they are meant to be expounded by an illuminated teacher from the basis of personal experience. In fact, one of the first lessons that we learn in the Upanishads is the inadequacy of the intellect. Human intellect is not an adequate tool to understand the immense complexity of reality. The Upanishads do not claim that our brain is entirely useless; it certainly has its use. However, when it is used to unlock the great mysteries of life, the eternal, the infinite, then it simply is not enough. The highest understanding, according to this view, comes from direct perception and intuition.

Basic Principles

Even though the Upanishads do not offer a single comprehensive system of thought, they do develop some basic general principles. Some of these principles are samsara, karma, dharma and moksha. These principles form a metaphysical scheme which was shared with varying adjustments made by most Indian religions and philosophers.

The concept of Samsara is reincarnation, the idea that after we die our soul will be reborn again in another body. Perhaps in an animal, perhaps as a human, perhaps as a god, but always in a regular cycle of deaths and resurrections.

Another concept is Karma, which literally means “action”, the idea that all actions have consequences, good or bad. Karma determines the conditions of the next life, just like our life is conditioned by our previous karma. There is no judgement or forgiveness, simply an impersonal, natural and eternal law operating in the universe. Those who do good will be reborn in better conditions while those who are evil will be reborn in worse conditions.

Dharma means “right behaviour” or “duty”, the idea that we all have a social obligation. Each member of a specific caste has a particular set of responsibilities, a dharma. For example, among the Kshatriyas (the warrior caste), it was considered a sin to die in bed; dying in the battlefield was the highest honour they could aim for. In other words, dharma encouraged people of different social groups to perform their duties the best they could.

Moksha means “liberation” or release. The eternal cycle of deaths and resurrection can be seen as a pointless repetition with no ultimate goal attached to it. Seeking permanent peace or freedom from suffering seems impossible, for sooner or later we will be reborn in worse circumstances. Moksha is the liberation from this never ending cycle of reincarnation, a way to escape this repetition. But what would it mean to escape from this cycle? What is it that awaits the soul that manages to be released from samsara? To answer this question we need to look into the concept of atman and Brahman.

The Upanishads tell us that the core of our own self is not the body, or the mind, but atman or “Self”. Atman is the core of all creatures, their innermost essence. It can only be perceived by direct experience through meditation. It is when we are at the deepest level of our existence.

Brahman is the one underlying substance of the universe, the unchanging “Absolute Being” the intangible essence of the entire existence. It is the undying and unchanging seed that creates and sustains everything. It is beyond all description and intellectual understanding.

One of the great insights of the Upanishads is that atman and Brahman are made of the same substance. When a person achieves moksha or liberation, atman returns to Brahman, to the source, like a drop of water returning to the ocean. The Upanishads claim that it is an illusion that we are all separate: with this realization we can be freed from ego, from reincarnation and from the suffering we experience during our existence. Moksha, in a sense, means to be reabsorbed into Brahman, into the great World Soul.

The following passage explains in metaphorical terms the idea that atman and Brahman are the same:

As the same fire assumes different shapes

When it consumes objects differing in shape,

So does the one Self take the shape

Of every creature in whom he is present.

(Katha Upanishad II.2.9)

How is moksha achieved? There are many ways according to the Upanishads: Meditation, introspection and also from the knowledge that behind all forms and veils the subjective and objective are one, that we are all part of the Whole. In general, the Upanishads agree on the idea that men are naturally ignorant about the ultimate identity between atman, the self within, and Brahman. One of the goals of meditation is to achieve this identification with Brahman, and abandon the ignorance that arises from the identification with the illusory or quasi-illusory nature of the common sense world.

In the famous Chandogya Upanishad, we find the story of Uddalaka and his son Shvetaketu. At a certain point Shvetaketu went to study the Vedas and returned to his family after twelve years, very proud of what he had learned, maybe even a little arrogant. Uddalaka asks his son if he had gained the wisdom that allows him to hear the unheard, to perceive what is unperceivable, to know the unknown. Shvetaketu has no idea what he is being asked, so his father employs a series of metaphors to enlighten his son:

As the rivers flowing east and west

Merge in the sea and become one with it,

Forgetting they were separate rivers,

So do all creatures lose their separateness?

When they merge at last into pure Being.

There is nothing that does not come from him.

Of everything he is the inmost Self.

He is the truth; he is the Self supreme.

You are that Shvetaketu, you are that.

(Chandogya Upanishad IV.10.1-3)

These metaphysical schemes of Samsara, Karma, Dharma and Moksha presented in the Upanishads are to some degree shared by most Indian religions, including Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. These concepts are part of the cultural makeup of Indian society. This is particularly interesting in the case of Buddhism: despite the fact that the Buddha originally remained indifferent to metaphysical speculations, many Buddhist schools have adopted this scheme as part of their metaphysics.

Unlike the Vedas, which present the rituals relevant to a specific culture, the Upanishads’ message attempts to be universal. In India, these texts are still today as highly regarded as they were in the past and they have played an important role in shaping Indian culture.

Thomas William Rhys Davids (1843-1922)

 

Thomas William Rhys Davids (1843-1922): T. W. Rhys Davids was born at Colchester in Essex, England, on May 12, 1843, the eldest son of a Congregational clergyman from Wales. His mother, who died at the age of 37 following childbirth, had run the Sunday school at his father's church. T. W. Rhys Davids married Caroline Augusta Foley in 1894. They had three children: Vivien Brynhild Caroline Foley Rhys Davids (1895-1978), Arthur Rhys Davids (1897-1917), and Nesta Enid (1900-1973). Deciding on a Civil Service career, Rhys Davids studied Sanskrit under A.F. Stenzler, a distinguished scholar at the University of Breslau (Germany), and achieved the degree of Ph.D. He earned money in Breslau by teaching English. In 1863 Rhys Davids returned to Britain, and on passing his civil service exams was posted to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) in 1864.

When he was Magistrate of Galle in Sri Lanka and a case was brought before him involving questions of ecclesiastical law, about the occupation of a village vihara, he first learned of the Pāli language when a document in that language was brought in as evidence. He received the assistance of Venerable Yātrāmule Unnānse Sri Dhammarama, a Pāli scholar: “I had heard of his learning as a Pāli scholar, and of his illness, and was grateful to him for leaving his home under such circumstances, to teach a stranger. There was a strange light in his sunken eyes, and he was constantly turning away from questions about Pāli to questions about Buddhism. I found him versed in all the poetry and ethics of the Suttas and was glad to hear him talk. There was an indescribable attraction about him, simplicity, a high-mindedness that filled me with reverence.” Venerable Yātrāmule told him: "Go and talk to the yellow robed and tonsured recluse - not of course through an interpreter, or out of a book of phrases: you must know not only his language but something of Buddhist ideas; and you must speak to him as man to man, not as the wise to the barbarian. You will certainly be courteous; for whatever else a Buddhist Bhikkhu may be, he will be sure to give proof of courtesy and a dignified demeanor. And it will be strange if you do not find a new world of thought and of feeling opening out before you."

He started studying the language intensely and was intrigued by the vast and deep wisdom of Buddha’s teachings. As his knowledge and understanding of Buddhism gradually expanded, he was convinced that this teaching was beyond the realm of faith and was indeed the “wisdom-jewel” of humanity. In 1871 he was posted as Assistant Government Agent of Nuwarakalaviya, where Anuradhapura was the administrative center. The governor was Sir Hercules Robinson, who had founded the Archaeological Commission in 1868. Rhys Davids became involved with the excavation of the ancient Sinhalese city of Anuradhapura, which had been abandoned after an invasion in 993 CE. He began to collect inscriptions and manuscripts, and from 1870-1872 wrote a series of articles for the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal about them. He learned the local language and spent time with the people. Rhys Davids' interest was not confined only to antiquities. As Assistant Government Agent of Anuradhapura he tried to improve the economic conditions of the people. Rhys Davids' civil service career and his residence in Sri Lanka ended abruptly because of personal differences with his superior, C. W. Twynham.

Contributions:

In 1875 he wrote papers for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society on “Inscriptions of Parākrama Bāhu,” Sigiri, the Lion Rock,” and “Two Old Sinhalese Inscriptions.” In 1877 he published in the International Numismatic Orientala, an essay on "The Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon". He wrote his first book on Buddhism “The Life and Teachings of the Buddha” for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, in the series on non-Christian religions. In 1877 he also studied law and was called to the bar, but a legal career, though lucrative did not appeal to him. His interests centered on Buddhism and the field of Pali canonical literature. His wife Caroline Rhys Davids said that, "Rhys Davids was haunted and pursued by the spiritual legacy bequeathed to him from Ceylon." He continued to publish articles about Sri Lankan inscriptions and translations, notably in Max Müller's Sacred Books of the East. He translated into English the first volume of Jatakas edited by Fousball in 1880 under the title "Buddhist Birth Stories" and proceeded to translate selected parts of the Sutta Pitaka which formed Vol. II of the Sacred Books of the East Series. In 1881 he was invited to deliver the prestigious Hibbert Lectures. His subject was "The origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by some points in the History of Indian Buddhism".

With the support of many distinguished scholars from England, France, Holland, Germany and the US who were interested in Oriental Studies, Rhys Davids established the Pali Text Society in 1881on the model of the English Text Society, "to foster and promote the study of Pāli texts". Rhys Davids said: "The sacred books of the early Buddhists have preserved to us the sole record of the only religious movement in the world's history which bears any close resemblance to Christianity; and it is not too much to say that the publication of this unique literature will be no less important for the study of history and specially religious history than the publication of the Vedas has already been". Professor Dr. Hammalava Saddatissa Mahanayaka Thera considered Rhys Davids being the "greatest translator of Pali Texts and founder of Pali Text Society which has edited and translated virtually the whole of the Tripitaka. From 1882 to 1904 Rhys Davids was Professor of Pāli at the University of London, a post which did not provide a fixed salary other than lecture fees. In 1887 Rhys Davids was unanimously elected Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society Council. He promoted Theravada Buddhism and Pāli scholarship in Britain and actively lobbied the government (in co-operation with the Asiatic Society of Great Britain) to expand funding for the study of Indian languages and literature, using numerous arguments over how this might strengthen the British hold on India. As a result of the lobbying of the Royal Asiatic Society and Rhys Davids, the government accepted the proposal for an independent oriental school in 1908 and established London School of Oriental (and later) African studies. In 1905 Rhys Davids resigned from the Royal Asiatic Society to accept the Chair of Comparative Religion in the University of Manchester of which he was the first distinguished incumbent. This new position provided him with a reasonable income. At Manchester, while teaching the history of religions Rhys Davids wrote “Early Buddhism” book (1908) and a chapter for “The Cambridge History of India” on the Early History of Buddhism. His greatest achievement was the Pali English Dictionary on which he labored for 40 years with the collaboration of other renowned scholars.

Unfortunately, he died before he could finish his work, but the task was completed by his student William Stede in 1925. It superseded the first Pāli-English dictionary published in 1874 by Robert Caesar Childers. In 1915 Rhys Davids left Manchester. Many years before the University of Edinburgh conferred on him a LLD and Manchester made him a Doctor of Letters. Rhys Davids died on 27 December 1922 in Chipstead, Surrey. At the time of his death the Pali Text Society had issued 64 separate texts in ninety four volumes extending over 26,000 pages besides many articles and notes by European and Oriental scholars.

 

Works (alphabetical order)

• Asoka and the Buddha-relics, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1901
• Buddhism: being a sketch of the life and teachings of Gautama, the Buddha, London, 1890
• Buddhism: its history and literature, New York, London, 1896
• Buddhist & Christian gospels: now first compared from the originals being gospel parallels from Pāli texts, reprinted with additions, Philadelphia, 1904
• Buddhist Birth Stories, or Jataka Tales: The Oldest Collection of Folk-Lore Extant, 1880, London
• Buddhist India, New York, 1903
• Buddhist suttas, 1881, Oxford
• Cosmic law in ancient thought, London, 1917
• Der Buddhismus. Eine Darstellung von dem Leben und den Lehren Gautamas, des Buddhas, Leipzig, 1899
• Dialogues of the Buddha (The Dīgha Nikāya), London, 1899
• Early Buddhism, London, 1908
• Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by some points in the history of Indian Buddhism, London, New York, 1882, 1891, 1897, 1906
• On the ancient coins and measures of Ceylon: with a discussion of the Ceylon date of the Buddha's death, London, 1877
• On Yuan Chwang's travels in India (A.D. 629-45), London 1904
• Report of the Transliteration committee: Adopted by Council, 8th May 1894, also by Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
• The Pāli Text Society's Pāli–English Dictionary, 1925
• The Pātimokkha (with part of the Mahāvagga), Oxford, 1881
• The Questions of King Milinda, Oxford, 1890
• The Sects of the Buddhists, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1891
• The Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī : Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya, London, 1886
• The Yogāvacara's manual of Indian mysticism as practiced by Buddhists, London, 1896
• Vinaya Texts, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XIII, Mahavagga I-IV, Vol. XVII, Mahavagga V-X, Kullavagga I-III, Vol. XX, Kullavagga IV-XII, Oxford, 1881-85

 

Reference: https://www.tititudorancea.com/z/thomas_william_rhys_davids_biography.htm

 

VAIBHASIKA SCHOOL AND SAUTRANTIKA SCHOOL

MAIN HINAYANA SCHOOLS

The philosophy of Staviras or Elders we can call as Abhidharma. Abhidharma is actually philosophical reflections by realistic and pluralistic philosophers of Buddhism (Theravada or Hinayana) on the basic teachings of Buddha. The literal meaning of the term ‘Abhi’ is ‘further’ or ‘about’. Thus Abhidharma means the higher, further or special Dharma, or ‘the discourse on Dharma’. Dharma here refers to all the elements with which everything is made of. If we analyse everything we can reduce the whole of subject and object (whole reality) into 75 dharmas. These realistic philosophers were known as Sarvastivadins. ‘Sarvam asti’ means 3 ‘everything is’ (these are realistic pluralistic philosophers) but only as elements not having a pudgal or soul. This is in fact the first philosophical development in Buddhism.

VAIBHASIKA SCHOOL

The word Vaibhasika has come from the main text Mahavibhasasastra, which was compiled around 2nd century C.E; its main object was to expose Abhidharma philosophy. Another classical text of this school is Vasabandhu’s (420-500 C.E.) Abhidharma-kosa. Actually Vaibhasika is the later form of Sarvastivada.

These Sarvastivadin philosophers transformed Buddha’s ‘no soul’ into a consistent philosophy of ‘pudgal nairatmaya’ (non-substantiality of everything). Non-substantiality is not only in the case of human beings, but is applied to the whole material world. ‘Things are without essence’. If we say they are unsubstantial, then what are they? This group answers that they are collection of dharmas. In the case of material things, there are four material atoms, and in the case of living beings five skandas. We see exposition of this in both Milinda pancho, a second century C.E. text and Abhidharmakosa of Vasabandhu of 4th century C.E.

Another view that is closely connected with this insubstantiality is the idea of momentariness of all entities. Buddha’s ‘anityam’ (impermanence) had a limited application, in the case of morality, but they applied it consistently on everything. Unlike Samkhya, who thought of a permanent thing behind all change, exposed by the image of lump of clay that turns into pot still doesn’t lose its ‘clayness’, Vaibhasika clung to Buddhist insubstantiality and impermanence and exposed it with the example of wood being consumed. When wood is consumed by fire, only ashes remain and it is completely different from wood. Still they accepted three moments in this change; past, present and future; that which causes that which is destroyed and that which endures.

 They explained the whole of universe with 75 dharmas and enumerated them in detail. We see it in Abhidhammakosa. First they divide dharmas into conditioned (samskrta) and unconditioned (asamskrta). 72 are conditioned and 3 are unconditioned. The conditioned are again divided into four classes:

 I Form (11 dharmas) consisting of the five sense organs, five sense-objects, and form with no manifestations. These are also known as rupa and they form all that we call matter.

 II Consciousness (1 Dharma) sometimes divided into five dharmas corresponding to the sense-organs. This is also known as citta.

III The concomitant mental functions (46 dharmas). They are also known as caitasika. They are subdivided into four groups.

 1) The general mental elements are 10 universals (sarva-Dharma-sadharana). They are contact, attention, sensation, ideation, will, desire to do, conviction, recollection, concentration and insight.

2) The general good functions are 10 moral universals (kusala-mahabhumika). They are faith, shame, the root of good, absence of greed, absence of hatred, absence of delusion, diligence, harmoniousness, attentiveness, equanimity and non-violence.

3) The general foul functions are 6 defilements of mind that hinders one from following the path. They are passion, hate, pride, ignorance, erroneous view and doubt.

4) Minor foul functions are altogether 20 mental functions that are minor defilements for the practice of eight fold path. They are anger, resentment, hypocrisy, spitefulness, envy, miserliness, deceitfulness, dissimulation, wantonness, malevolence, unrestraint, shamelessness, rigidity, agitation, lack of faith, laziness, negligence, forgetfulness, distractedness and thoughtlessness.

IV 14 dharmas that have no connection with form or mind (citta-viprayuktasanskara) They are like acquisition, non-acquisition, communionship, effects of meditation, power of longevity (vital power), the waves of becoming, words and sentences related to speech.

The remaining three are unconditioned elements. They are Space (akasa), extinction (nirvana) caused by absence of productive cause (apratisamkhyanirodha) and extinction caused by knowledge (pratisamkhyanirodha). That which provides ground to matter is space. In itself it has no defilement and it is not caused. Again apratisamkhyanirodha is that Dharma, where no type of defilement is present. In pratisamkyanirodha Dharma there is right view that occasions nirvana. If we look into the above list, we see the importance they give to mental activities. In fact they make a psychological analysis of everything. Their naive realism forced them to dogmatically emphasise everything that are exposed above as existing independent of the subject. The next school that we are going to speak of comes up in the context of logical and rational questioning of above enumeration of dharmas as independently existing.[i]

SAUTRANTIKA SCHOOL

The word sautrantika comes from ‘sutranta’ (scripture). They base themselves on ‘Sukta pitaka’ of the canon. This group came up against the naive realism and pluralism of Vaibhasikas. Main teachers of this school are Kumaralat, a contemporary of Nagarjuna. Srilabha or Srilata was his disciple. Then comes Yasomitra and Harivarman who wrote the book Tattvasiddhi (Proof of the Truth). Another name notable is Vasubandhu (some say this is the same Vasubandu who wrote Abhidharmakosa and some others say it is another one by the same name). It is a logicoepistemological school. (there is a later logico-epistemological school having characteristics of both Sautrantika and Yogacara. The main personalities are Dignaga and Dharmakirti (5th & 7th century C.E.). The reason for this is universities like Nalanda and Takshashila where issues are followed, not the sectarianism of schools, one becomes acharya, when he is proficient in teachings of all schools, and it was very easy for them to form their own philosophy by taking the logically fitting teachings). They said Abhidharma scholasticism is a deviation from the actual intent of the Master. They rejected independent existence of some of the dharmas and reduced their number into 45 (43 Conditioned and 2 unconditioned). If we ask the question what is it that forced them to reduce the number of dharmas, we must say it has both metaphysical and epistemological reasons.

 The realism of Vaibhasika forced them to treat Nirvana too as some ‘thing’. Sautrantika said this is against the mind of the master. So they clung to ‘Sukta Pitaka’ and based their interpretation on that and reason (for Buddha said ‘atta dipo bhava’). Logically, they said, the Vaibhasika clinging to three moments is not possible, for if anything changing, it must happen at all moments and one thing will last only a moment, where birth and death happens; so no past, present and future, only present is existing. Past and future are imagination (sankalpas).

 Epistemology (Pramanas) and Acceptance of external objects and mind

Sautrantika developed logic and defended itself against both Buddhistic and non-Buddhistic criticisms. This logic was later developed and crystallized by the Yogacara (vijnanavada) teachers. Dignaga and Dharmakirti are the two towering personalities. First they were Sautrantika (both mind and external objects exist), later they were lenient to Yogacara (mind only exists). Dignaga in his famous work Pramana Samuchaya speak of two valid means of knowledge. They are Perception (pratyaksa) and Inference (anumana). Perception deals with svalaksanas, (that which characterises itself, a unique particular singular and momentary). This is ultimately real (paramarta sat) and inexpressible. To experience them means to experience reality as it is. Inference, the other pramana consists of conceptualizations, verbalizations, reflections and other products of mental constructions. (kalpana, vikalpa) Dignaga calls it Samanyalaksana (a general characteristic applicable to many objects or distributed over many instances). They are endurable and not subject to change, thus they are true only in relational level (asamvrti sat).

Epistemologically Sautrantika goes a step further from Vaibhasika to answer the question, what we really know. They say it is not objects that come into our consciousness (naive realism) but an after-image of an object. Thus our knowledge is not through perception, but through inference. Therefore there will be always some mental construction. Thus we call them representative realists or critical realists.

Theory of Momentariness

Vaibhasika developed Buddha’s notion of ‘anitya’ into universal law of impermanence of everything, but they accepted three moments as “a thing arises, remains constant and ceases to exist”. But being logically minded, Sautrantika raised the question, if changing, how can there be three moments, there can be only one moment. As it arises it must vanish. Thus things never remain constant. What is there is an uninterrupted flow of causally connected momentary entities of the same kind. The cessation takes place without cause. They call it Santana. If it were not so, then the dharmas would remain constant and changeless. They define moment (ksana) as the smallest indivisible unit of time. This is 1/75th of a second. All aggregates of being are repeatedly produced and destroyed in every moment. Since these elements succeed upon each other so fast, as in cinematography were distinct pictures in a rapid projection, evokes illusion of continuous action on the screen, we see them as continuous. Again earlier and later ones within one Santana are almost alike we normally fail to discern the arising and destruction and perceive them like flowing river or flame of a lamp. According to this doctrine, all objects of the world - our bodies, ideas, emotions and all the external objects around us – are destroyed every moment and are replaced by similar things generated at the succeeding moment, which again are replaced by other similar things at the next moment and so on.

 One important logical consequence of this theory is the rejection of past and future. Everything is happening at the present time, past has ceased and future hasn’t arisen. Past is memory and future is imagination. There is only just origination and cessation. This is the real truth (paramarta sat). The other two are relative truths (samvrti sat). One question that naturally arises is, how we explain ‘the knowing process’ then? They explain it with the theory of svasamvedana (self-apperception). This theory says consciousness is able to be conscious of itself and of other phenomena, just like a lamp is able to illumine clearly both itself as well as other external objects.

Sautrantika classification of Dharma

They have a different classification of Dharma from that of Vaibhasika. While Vaibhasika accepts 75 dharmas, Sautrantika reduces that number into 45. This includes 43 samkrta and 2 asmskrta. 43 samskrtas they divide into five skandas.

 i) Form (rupa): consists of matter in its 4 primary forms (upadana) and 4 derived (upadaya) forms. 4 primary forms are earth, water, fire and air. 4 derived forms are solidity, humidity, heat and motion.

ii) Feeling (vedana): consists of 3 types of emotions- pleasure, pain and neutral.

 iii) Perception (samjna): consists of grasping by 6 senses – five senses and mind. It consists of colours etc by eyes, agreeable, disagreeable, friend, enemy, male female etc.

iv) Consciousness (vijnana): consists of 6 sense consciousness. It is “row grasping of visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, touch and mental consciousness.

v) Mental formation (samskara): consists of volitional factors that create and determine the five skandas of future existence. Sautrantika speaks of 10 virtuous and 10 nonvirtuous dharmas.

vi) Unconditioned (asamskrta): consists of 2 uncaused dharmas - Nirvana and space.

Sautrantika is a transition thought on the way to full-fledged Mahayana. Later schools of Madhyamaka and Yogacara develop in their own way the ‘Sautrantika germs’. Madhyamika continues the logical pruning of dharmas that was started by Sautrantika and reduces them all into samvrti satya. Yogacara cling to Svasamvedana and give reason for it with their Vijnaptimatrata.

---

[i]  http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/34656/1/Unit-3.pdf

  

Exposition of Pratyaksa and Anumana according to the Dignāga and Dharmakīrti

 

Exposition of Pratyaksa and Anumāna according to the Dignāga and Dharmakīrti

 Dignāga’s definition of Pratyakṣa:

Pratyaksha (प्रत्यक्ष/ perception)  literally means that which is perceptible to the eye or visible, in general usage it refers to being present, present before the eye i.e. within the range of sight, cognizable by any sense organ, distinct, evident, clear, direct, immediate, explicit, express, corporeal; it is a Pramana, mode of proof.

The master logician Dignāga in his Pramāṇasamuccaya presents the definition of pratyakṣa as thus: “pratyakṣam kalpanāpoḍham nāmajātyādyasaṁyutam” i.e. pratyakṣa is that cognition which is free from conceptual construction (kalpanā) that is from the association of name, class character, genus etc. The term ‘kalpanāpoḍha’ means free from conceptual construction which is definitely indicates the nirvikalpaka form of pratyakṣa; which is considered by the Buddhist logicians as the only form of pratyakṣa. According to them, it is only nirvikalpaka pratyakṣa which is real and unerring. The pure particular is the 60 object (ālambana) of nirvikalpaka pratyakṣa. The pure particular is called svalakṣaṇa that is grasped by us in nirvikalpaka pratyakṣa.

 Dharmakīrti’s definition of Pratyakṣa:

Dharmakīrti accepts Dignāga’s definition of pratyakṣa, but adds another epithet ‘abhrānta’ (non erroneous) to it. So his definition becomes: “tatra kalpanāpoḍhamabhrāntaṁ pratyakṣam” i.e. pratyakṣa is that cognition which is free from conceptual construction and which is non-erroneous. The word ‘tatra’ indicates localization (saptamī-arthe), but it is (moreover) used to indicate a selection. Thus the meaning of the sentence is the following one. ‘Tatra’ here means among pratyakṣa and anumāna. Pratyakṣa is here taken as subject and the characteristics of non-constructive and non-erroneous are predicated to it. It is non- constructive and containing no error. Dharmakīrti says, pratyakṣa as a presentation determined exclusively by the object and free from all conceptual constructions (kalpanā). Obviously it is nirvikalpaka knowledge, since savikalpaka knowledge involves the conceptual activity of the mind. Dharmakīrti is of opinion that names and relations are imposed by the mind, while the senses reveal the objects accurately unless they are themselves perverted by organic or extraneous causes. This pure pratyakṣa, free from all traces of conceptual activity, is said to give us the object in its own nature (svalakṣaṇam).

            Dharmaki̅rti recognizes sense perception or sensation as the source of right knowledge. In the third chapter of the Pramānavārtika and first chapter of Nyāya-bindu,  he discusses perception as a source of efficient knowledge which is without imagination and illusion. For him sensation or sense perception arises out of the object of perception. It is an effect of the object of perception. For him, there can be no perception without object of perception and vice -versa. As mentioned above for Dharmaki̅rti perception is described as a causal outcome. The presence of (all) the conditions of cognitions of consists in the presence of an individual entity and the totality of all other conditions of cognition. In his philosophy real cognition is a self complete process which produces self-consciousness in the mind of that individual. So, in his philosophy there are some significant characteristics of perception,

1) Perception according to Dharmaki̅rti is direct sense perception, which possesses efficiency.

2) Perception is the totally. It is different from productive imagination and can be justified by introspection.

3) Direct knowledge means here neither construction (judgement) nor illusion.

4) Perception in Dharmaki̅rti‟s philosophy is has characteristic of conciliation of the object of indirect knowledge.

5) Dharmaki̅rti does not exclude consciousness while explaining direct cognition or perception.

 

Dignāga’s definition of Anumāna:

 Anumāna (अनुमान) means inference. It is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths by applying reason. Observing smoke and inferring fire is an example of Anumāna. Anumāna (inference or reasoning) for Dignāga is a type of cognition which is only aware of general attributes, and is constructed out of simpler sensations. Inference can also be communicated through linguistic conventions.

A central issue which concerned Dignāga was the interpretation of signs (linga) or the evidence (hetu) which led one to an inference (anumana) about states of affairs; such as how smoke can lead one to infer that there is a fire. This topic of svārthānumāna (reasoning, literally "inference for oneself") is the subject of chapter two of the Pramāṇa-samuccaya while the topic of the third chapter is about demonstration (parārthānumāna, literally "inference for others"), that is, how one communicates one's inferences through proper argument.

According to Richard Hayes, in Dignāga's system, to obtain knowledge that a property (the "inferable property", sadhya) is inherent in a "subject of inference" (paksa) it must be derived through an inferential sign (linga). For this to occur, the following must be true:

1. The inferential sign must be a property of the subject of the inference. That is, there exists in the subject of inference a property, which is different from the inferable property and which is furthermore evident to the person drawing the inference; this second property may serve as an inferential sign in case it has two further characteristics.
2. The inferential sign must be known to occur in at least one locus, other than the subject of inference, in which the inferable property occurs.
3. The inferential sign must not be known to occur in any other loci in which the inferable property is absent.

 Dharmaki̅rti’s definition of Anumāna

In the philosophy of Dharmaki̅rti, inference is twofold. They are inference for oneself (svārthnūmāna) and inference for others (parārthanūmāna). The first type of inference is internal and the later is verbal. In both of the cases the three aspects of logical marks are to be fulfilled. They are correspondence to the minor premise (pakṣadharmatva), to the major premise (anvaya) and to the contraposition of the major premise. In other words, firstly in order to be a valid inference the object cognized by inference must be present. Secondly it also must be present in all similar instances. Thirdly there must be an absolute absence of the object inferred in all dissimilar or negative cases. He discusses these two types of inference separately in detail in his philosophical works. The distinction between a source of cognition and its result is here just the same as in the case of perception. The usually cited example of direct knowledge in the philosophy of Dharmaki̅rti is of cognition of blue colour. Again, in case of inference the usually cited example is, wherever there is smoke there is also fire. There is smoke in that place. Therefore, there is fire. Here, in the case of perception an individual at first senses or cognizes the object immediately. Following by this sense-cognition, a mental sensation arises out of the same cause. In the third phase cooperation of the object of cognition and the immediately followed proper object of cognition is taken place. Dharmaki̅rti states about three phases in case of inference also. A cognition which is produced (indirectly) through a mark that has a threefold aspect, and which refers to an object, (not perceived, but) inferred – is internal inference. Inference taken place here regarding the object or the predicate can be either negation or identity or causation.

 

Iconographical study of Avalokitesvara, Tara and Maitreya

 Bodhisattvas

Bodhisattvas are beings who have progressed along the path to perfect enlightenment and salvation because they are spiritually advanced. As part of their spiritual work, they choose to convey religious assistance to devout but ordinary mortals. They are sort of like the equivalent of Buddhist "saints" and are especially important in Mahayana Buddhism. To Mahayana Buddhists they are "near Buddha" or “enlightened persons” on the verge of nirvana who purposely stopped short of attaining it, so, like Buddha, they could teach their method to others and help humanity move towards enlightenment. Bodhi means “enlightenment” and sattva means “being." Bodhisattvas remain in close contact with imperfect humans and retain many of their human qualities. The difference between them and mere mortals is that they don't let these qualities pollute their spiritual essence. Bodhisattvas are ranked above gods in some cosmological schemes. According to the (सुखावतिवुहा) Sukhavativyuha, "Bodhisattvas are ten times more beautiful than devas, who are ten times more beautiful than humans". Bodhisattvas are especially important to Mahayana Buddhists. Mahayana temples often feature images of the Bodhisattvas Avalokitesvara, Tara, Maitreya, Amitabha and so on.

Avalokiteśvara

Avalokiteśvara is one of the most popular bodhisattvas in Buddhism. The literal meaning of the bodhisattvas is taken as the potential Buddha. The status of the Bodhisattvas is subordinate got the head position of the Buddha. In the tantric Buddhist pantheon, the bodhisattvas are regarded as ‘g’ whereas Gautam Buddha is regarded as capital ‘G’. The word Avalokiteśvara is made of ava (“down”) +lokita (“to notice”) +īśvara (“lord”) which means “the lord who gazes down at the world. It has been suggested that its original form was Avalokitaśvara with the ending a-śvara (“sound, noise”), which means “sound perceiver”, literally “he who looks down upon sound”. The original meaning of the name fits the Buddhist understanding of the role of a bodhisattva. Now the name Avalokiteśvara is variously interpreted as “the lord who descends,” “he who is enabled to reach the highest understanding,” “master of (inner) light i.e., enlightenment,” “the lord who looks in every direction,” “the lord of what we see” (i.e. the actual, created world), “With a Pitying Look,” “Lord of the World,” and “He Who Looks with the Eyes.”

Avalokiteśvara is depicted and portrayed in different cultures as either male or female. In Tibet, he is known as Chenrezig/ Jänräsig which means “the one who always looks upon all beings (with the eye of compassion)”. As Chenrezig, he is the Four-Armed male Avalokiteśvara, with two hands in the praying gesture while the other two hands hold his symbols, the Crystal Rosary and the Lotus Flower. His female consort is the goddess Dolma (Tārā). In China, he has been transformed into the female deity Guanyin. In Japan and Korea, he is known as Kannon and Gwaneum (or Gwanseeum-bosal) respectively. He is the only Mahāyāna Buddhist deity commonly worshipped in Theravāda. Avalokiteśvara is popularly worshipped in Thailand, where he is called Lokeśvara and in Myanmar, where he is called Lokanāt. Sri Lankans worship him as Nāthadeva (often mistakenly confusing with the future Buddha Maitreya).

Avalokiteśvara is a personification of infinite compassion and mercy, key virtues of Buddhism. Avalokiteśvara’s skilful means are never-ending and he has the ability to assume any form to relieve the suffering of the sentient beings. He quintessentially epitomizes the bodhisattva’s resolution to postpone his own Buddhahood until he has facilitated the liberation of each and every being in any form in any of the six realms of existence (hell-beings, pretas, animals, humans, asuras, and devas). Consequently, he descends to each of these realms to help those who suffer there. Chapter 25 of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra often circulates separately as an independent sūtra, called the Avalokiteśvara Sūtra, is generally accepted to be the earliest literature describing the virtues and doctrines of Avalokiteśvara. The Avalokiteśvara Sūtra was amalgamated into the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus Sutra) around the third century of the Common Era.

One prominent Buddhist legend tells that once one finds out that the number of suffering beings yet to be saved is overwhelmingly enormous, his head split into eleven pieces. Amitābha Buddha, seeing his plight, caused each piece to become a whole head with which to hear the cries of the suffering. Upon hearing these cries and comprehending them, Avalokiteśvara attempts to reach out to all those who need aid but finds that his two arms are shattered into pieces. Once more, Amitābha Buddha comes to his aid and invests him with a thousand arms with eyes on the palms of each hand (Thousand-Armed Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva). Consequently, the thousand eyes allowed him to see the sufferings of sentient beings, and the thousand hands allowed him to reach out to help the suffering multitudes. He is also known as the spiritual son of Bodhisattva Amitābha. In this way, the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara has occupied a prominent place in Tantric Buddhism.

Tārā

Tārā, Ārya Tārā, or Shayama Tara, also known as Jetsun Dölma  in Tibetan Buddhism, is an important figure in Buddhism. She appears as a female bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism and as a female Buddha in Vajrayana Buddhism. She is known as the "mother of liberation", and represents the virtues of success in work and achievements.

Tārā is a meditation deity revered by practitioners of the Tibetan branch of Vajrayana Buddhism to develop certain inner qualities and to understand outer, inner and secret teachings such as karuṇā (compassion), mettā (loving-kindness), and shunyata (emptiness). Tārā may more properly be understood as different aspects of the same quality, as bodhisattvas are often considered personifications of Buddhist methods. Tara, Tibetan Sgrol-ma, a Buddhist saviour-goddess with numerous forms, is widely popular in Nepal, Tibet, and Mongolia. She is the feminine counterpart of the bodhisattva (“buddha-to-be”) Avalokiteshvara. According to popular belief, she came into existence from a tear of Avalokiteshvara, which fell to the ground and formed a lake. Out of its waters rose up a lotus, which, on opening, revealed the goddess. Like Avalokiteshvara, she is a compassionate, succouring deity who helps men “cross to the other shore.” She is the protectress of navigation and earthly travel, as well as of spiritual travel along the path to enlightenment.

In Tibet, she is believed to be incarnate in every pious woman, and the two wives—a Chinese princess and a Nepali princess—of the first Buddhist king of Tibet, Srong-brtsan-sgam-po, were identified with the two major forms of Tara. The White Tara (Sanskrit: Sitatara; Tibetan: Sgrol-dkar) was incarnated as the Chinese princess. She symbolizes purity and is often represented standing at the right hand of her consort, Avalokiteshvara, or seated with legs crossed, holding a full-blown lotus. She is generally shown with a third eye. Tara is also sometimes shown with eyes on the soles of her feet and the palms of her hands (then she is called “Tara of the Seven Eyes,” a form of the goddess popular in Mongolia). The Green Tara (Sanskrit: Shyamatara; Tibetan: Sgrol-lang) was believed to be incarnated as the Nepali princess. She is considered by some to be the original Tara and is the female consort of Amoghasiddhi, one of the “self-born” Buddhas. She is generally shown seated on a lotus throne with her right leg hanging down, wearing the ornaments of a bodhisattva and holding the closed blue lotus (utpala). The White and Green Taras, with their contrasting symbols of the full-blown and closed lotus, are said to symbolize between them the unending compassion of the deity who labours both day and night to relieve suffering. Under the influence of Tibetan Buddhism, the different forms of Tara multiplied to a traditional 108. Tibetan temple banners frequently show 21 different Taras, coloured white, red, and yellow, grouped around a central Green Tara. The figure of the “self-born” Amitabha Buddha is often shown in her headdress, as she, like Avalokiteshvara, is considered to be an emanation of Amitabha.

Maitreya

Maitreya, in Buddhist tradition, the future Buddha, presently a bodhisattva residing in the Tushita heaven, who will descend to earth to preach anew the dharma (“law”) when the teachings of Gautama Buddha have completely decayed. Maitreya is the earliest bodhisattva around whom a cult developed and is mentioned in scriptures from the 3rd century CE. He was accepted by all schools of Buddhism and is still the only bodhisattva generally honoured by the Theravada tradition. The name Maitreya is derived from the Sanskrit maitrī (“friendliness”). In Pali, the name becomes Metteyya, in Chinese Milefo, in Japanese Miroku, and in Mongolian Maidari; in Tibetan, the bodhisattva is known as Byams-pa (“Kind,” or “Loving”). His worship was especially popular from the 4th to the 7th century, and his images are found throughout the Buddhist world; many of them beautifully convey his characteristic air of expectancy and promise. He is represented in painting and sculpture both as a bodhisattva and as a Buddha, and he is frequently depicted seated in European fashion or with his ankles loosely crossed.

Maitreya is typically known as pictured seated, with either both feet on the ground or crossed at the ankles, on a throne, waiting for his time. Maitreya is dressed in the clothes of either a Bhiksu or Indian royalty. As a bodhisattva, Maitreya would usually be standing and dressed in jewels. Usually, Maitreya wears a small stupa in his headdress which represents the stupa of the Buddha Sakyamuni’s relics to help him identify it when his turn comes to lay claim to his succession, and can be holding a Dharmachakra resting on a lotus. A Khata is always tied around his waist as a girdle. He is flanked by his two acolytes, the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu. The future Buddha Maitreya is also known as Gandhara in the 3rd century CE. Maitreya currently resides in the Tuṣita Heaven said to be reachable through meditation. Sakyamuni Buddha also lived here before he was born into the world as all bodhisattvas live in the Tuṣita Heaven before they descend to the human realm to become Buddhas. Although all bodhisattvas are destined to become Buddhas, the concept of a bodhisattva differs slightly in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. In Theravada Buddhism, a bodhisattva is one who is only destined to one day become a Buddha, whereas in Mahayana Buddhism. The bodhisattva is one who has already reached a very advanced state of grace or enlightenment but holds back from entering nirvana so that he may help others. 

Origin and development of images of Buddha and Bodhisattvas

The origin of the image of the Buddha dates back to the Kushana period. As a matter of fact Gautam Buddha rejected the practice of image worship. He propounded the theory of ‘No soul and No God’.  As a result the practice of idolatry god was prohibited by the Buddha for his followers. However, it is an established fact that man is a worshiper by nature. Man worships someone or something out of the respect, regard and reverence. So the followers of the Buddha started worshiping the Buddha first in the form of symbolism. With the passage of time new ideas, innovations and assimilation of culture gave rise to the image making in Buddhism.   

When Buddha died, his body was cremated and divided into several relic caskets that were interred within large hemispherical mounds known as stūpas. The relic of Buddha and other holy figures were the first known examples of Buddhist art. These sacred relics are divided into three categories: Saririka – the physical relics of Buddha; Uddesika – the religious symbols that include the image of Buddha, stupas, Dharmacakra (Wheel of the Dharma); Paribhogika – the articles used by the Buddha. Such stūpas constitute the central monument of Buddhist monastic complexes. Stūpas are enclosed by a railing that provides a path for ritual circumambulation. The sacred area is entered through gateways at the four cardinal points.

These early examples belong to the category of the Pre-iconic phase of Buddhist art that lasted from the 5th to the 1st century BC. In the earliest Buddhist art of India, the Buddha was not represented in human form, he was represented through the aniconic symbols such as the Bodhi tree, an empty throne, the deer, the elephant, the lotus, the lion, the horse with no rider, Buddha’s footprints, the bowl, and the Wheel of Dharma. According to Alfred A. Foucher, these anthropomorphic images of the Buddha are considered a result of a Greco-Buddhist interaction. 

In the first century BC, India’s artists, who had worked in the perishable media of brick, wood, thatch, and bamboo, adopted stone on a very wide scale. Stone railings and gateways, covered with relief sculptures, were added to stūpas. Favorite themes were events from the historic life of the Buddha, as well as from his previous lives, which were believed to number 550. The latter tales are called jatakas and often include popular legends adapted to Buddhist teachings.

The process of image making was state by the invasion by the Alexander of Macedonia. The Greek rule was established in the north-west region of India before the christen era. As a result of that intermingling of the Indian culture with the Greek culture. It is important to note that the image making and image worship was too much prevalent among the Greeks. This sort of dispensation cleared the way for image making and image worship in Buddhism. Thereafter Gautan Buddha sculptured in a human form during the reign of the King Kanishka of the Kushana Empire. In the first century CE brought something completely new to the Buddhist art, the artist started to depict Buddha in human form, and one of the first examples of this was found in the North-West India in the area known as Gandhara, the ancient name for Pakistan. The Gandhara artists combined the Buddhist symbolism with the elements from the Hellenistic world and created a unique style. They created young Buddha with curly hair that resembled the Roman statues of Apollo; they dressed him in the robe that covered both shoulders with heavy folds that reminded of the toga. There are also many representations of Siddhartha as a princely bejeweled figure prior to his renunciation of palace life.

·         Gandharan artists made use of both stone and stucco to produce such images, which were placed in niche like shrines around the stūpa of a monastery.

·         Contemporaneously, the Kushan-period artists in Mathura, produced a different image of the Buddha. His body was expanded by sacred breath (prana), and his clinging monastic robe was draped to leave the right shoulder bare.

·         A third influential Buddha type evolved in Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda), in southern India, where images of substantial proportions, with serious, unsmiling faces, were clad in robes that created a heavy swag at the hem and revealed the left shoulder. These southern sites provided artistic inspiration for the Buddhist land of Sri Lanka, off the southern tip of India, and Sri Lankan monks regularly visited the area. A number of statues in this style have been found as well throughout Southeast Asia.

·         The succeeding Gupta period, from the fourth to the sixth century CE, in northern India, sometimes referred to as a Golden Age, witnessed the creation of an “ideal image” of the Buddha. This was achieved by combining selected traits from the Gandharan region with the sensuous form created by Mathura artists. Gupta Buddhas have their hair arranged in tiny individual curls, and the robes have a network of strings to suggest drapery folds (as at Mathura) or are transparent sheaths (as at Sarnath). With their downward glance and spiritual aura, Gupta Buddhas became the model for future generations of artists, whether in post-Gupta and Pala India or in Nepal, Thailand, and Indonesia. Gupta metal images of the Buddha were also taken by pilgrims along the Silk Road to China.

The history of the origin and development of image of Buddha has been divided into three periods by the great archeologist John Marshal by the following way:-

1.      Early Buddhist Art: - the early Buddhist art is explained by the symbolical form of Buddhist art.

2.      Middle Buddhist Art: - the middle Buddhist art is known as the fusion of Indian art with the Greek art. In this period the image of the Buddha was sculptured and a new school of Buddhist art such as Gandhara school of Buddhist art sprang into existence.

3.      Later Buddhist Art: - the later Buddhist art witness the different school of Buddhist art such as Mathura, Amaravati and so on. The development of the Buddha images is very important a large number of images of the Buddha were produced in stones, wood, marbles, metals and so on.

In Tantrik Buddhism several Buddhist god and goddess came into existence. It has a well defined Buddhist pantheon. There are numbers of Bodhisattva namely Amitabha, Amitayush, Tara, Matriya, Avalokiteśvara and so on depicted in the manifest of the Buddhist paintings called Tankha. Over the following centuries there emerged a new form of Buddhism that involved an expanding pantheon and more elaborate rituals. This later Buddhism introduced the concept of heavenly bodhisattvas as well as goddesses like Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, of whom the most popular was Tara. Buddhism evolved the concept of a Buddha of the Future, Maitreya, depicted in art both as a Buddha clad in a monastic robe and as a princely bodhisattva before enlightenment. In Nepal and Tibet, where exquisite metal images and paintings were produced, new divinities were created and portrayed in both sculpture and painted scrolls. Ferocious deities were introduced in the role of protectors of Buddhism and its believers. Images of a more esoteric nature, depicting god and goddess in embrace, were produced to demonstrate the metaphysical concept that salvation resulted from the union of wisdom (female) and compassion (male). Buddhism had traveled a long way from its simple beginnings. Finally, the origin and development of the images of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas is very important development in the history of Buddhist art.

References

1.      https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/budd/hd_budd.htm

2.      http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub355/item1328.html

   3. https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/history-of-buddhist-art